I am a physicist by training and I was a hard core reductionist. But then, reduction to physics is just another philosophical stance and not an inductively gene

I am a physicist by training and I was a hard core reductionist. But then, reduction to physics is just another philosophical stance and not an inductively generated statement like the laws of physics. Also, induction (empirical not mathematical) is not fool proof like deduction. Even if we arrive at a TOE, how do we justify that the universe will always obey those laws in the future? Physical reductionism is easy to understand but upon closer inspection seems to lack a strong foundation. Also, the laws of physics have zero consequence on logic and mathematics upon which the enterprise of physics rests on along with empirical data.