I see. Now I understand that when earlier you were adding the "in and of itself" qualifier to "exists", you meant the same thing by what I would call "exists at

I see. Now I understand that when earlier you were adding the "in and of itself" qualifier to "exists", you meant the same thing by what I would call "exists at an ontologically fundamental level". I agree with that. However, note that in my original post I didn't claim that physical laws describe what exists at an ontologically fundamental level, just what exists in reality. And by that I mean "exists" in the non-subjective way that, say, hydrogen atoms exist. I wouldn't mean to imply that hydrogen atoms are irreducible. Does Deutsch and his research group make claims to know what is ontologically irreducible? Not as far as I know, but I am open to correction!