Before approaching 'absolutes', here are some of my concerns: If you don't mind, I would rather go with scientific gradation. Law is usually a special case of something more general. For example, if you read the article on principle of least action (POLA) that I have linked above, Newton's Second Law of Dynamics is less general than principle of least action. And POLA itself is a background for more general theories, in this case it would be path integration. Basically laws can't be contradicted only under their own paradigm. Which means that in general they absolutely can be contradicted. In case of physical theories however, theories can be subsets of more general ones. Newton's theory of gravity is a subset of general relativity, which is 'simply' a broader description and can be applied for more cases than the former. It does not mean that one contradicts another or makes it invalid, but one operates under many restrictions (i.e. no time-space as you need separate time and space, space can't be any other than Euclidean. Different cases to both, and many others, are absolutely valid under GR). Here's a thought: are you familiar with Euclid's Axioms? The idea is, in the simplest form, that these are the 'building blocks' for any theorem or proof and only they (or in more complex cases, only axioms along with lemmas which are smaller theorems that result from axioms and are pretty much just shortcuts for more complex reasonings) can be used to formulate them (theorems/proofs). Axioms can't be strictly contradicted, but operating without one or more can be absolutely valid to see for different pictures. In this case non-Euclidean geometries are just as valid for any case where you would use Euclidean geometry, provided that constructions or theorems you want to use don't follow in any way from Euclid's 5th Axiom, the Parallel Postulate. Now the absolutes part. Excuse me if it would seem like I'm making fun of you, because I don't but it might sound like that. That said, I can now also say: "An absolute law is an existence of exactly one absolute law, and it cannot be contradicted or changed". Kind of a bummer, even assuming that I agree with propositions from which this question follows. ___________________________________________ While the first part of my post was largely about semantics, I would strongly recommend going for axioms approach as it seems to be the one that would suit your needs the best. On a side-note, I can wholeheartedly recommend reading Euclid's Elements. I'm on same bandwagon as Abraham Lincoln when it comes to understanding what it means to demonstrate. ;)How about what constitutes a Law? Do you agree that a Law is a principle that cannot be contradicted?
If so isn't it logically evident that there can only be one and must be one absolute Law?