Full Idea
My own view is simple: the laws of nature ought to be accepted as ontologically primitive. …They are preferable in point of familiarity to such necessitation relations between universals.
Gist of Idea
Rather than take necessitation between universals as primitive, just make laws primitive
Source
comment on David M. Armstrong (What is a Law of Nature? [1983]) by Tim Maudlin - The Metaphysics within Physics 1.4
Book Reference
Maudlin,Tim: 'The Metaphysics within Physics' [OUP 2007], p.15
A Reaction
I think you make natures of things primitive, and reduce laws to regularities and universals to resemblances. Job done. Natures are even more 'familiar' as primitives than laws are.
Related Ideas
Idea 9411 There are no laws of nature in Aristotle; they became standard with Descartes and Newton [Mumford]
Idea 16247 Laws are primitive, so two indiscernible worlds could have the same laws [Maudlin]