You do not need to. Let's assume that the universe operates on one to an infinite number of rules. Could be one, could be 137, could be a Googleplex. Let us

You do not need to. Let's assume that the universe operates on one to an infinite number of rules. Could be one, could be 137, could be a Googleplex. Let us imagine that the number of rules when "rolling" a universe is equally distributed. The question I pose to you is ... where on the that list do you think it would be more fruitful to start? You could throw your hands up and say "Could be anywhere!" but that isn't a great use of your time. Instead, you posit a single rule, you try it out, and then there's an exception. This rule worked half the time! That is excellent. This is more likely to occur at the lower end of the rules-scale than the upper end of the scale, after all, simply because you have more things to try the more rules you have. Could be that only a single rule exists, but it is not likely out of infinity, and so you start there because you can find out the exceptions faster than anywhere else. Then you move on to two rules. Two rules seems to explain quite a lot! But not everything ... You can witness this in how classical electromagnetism was constructed from first one rule with some exceptions, and then extended. In a similar manner, you can see how we need more sensitive and complex equipment to test for the existence of exceptions, like that muon magnetic moment requiring rather a lot to pick up. Following this process will lead you to a lower bound on the number of rules, but never an upper bound, because eventually you are deconstructing galaxies to build particle accelerators and experiments take a billion years to run. We'll eventually say "Good enough for 99.9999999999999% of the cases" and leave it at that.