The brief answer has two parts:

• To the extent that we have successfully verbalized basic laws, they apply to all systems;
• There are many “basic laws” yet to be discovered and verbalized, and we have only just begun to understand how complex systems work.

The longer answer has many parts:

Another way to say that is this: Our understanding of “basic laws” is still being developed, and there are no basic laws (none) that have been totally settled. Reality is VERY complex. Our models of reality are NOT very complex. In fact, in the past we have striven to make our models as simple as possible — I think to good effect. But, our apparent understanding and control of reality is only apparent. Our technology is an effect of an evolving complex system - a stage prop of sorts - and it is not evidence that we understand the plot of the play, or the role of ourselves or our technology in that plot.

I would say that complex systems cannot be explained by basic laws yet, but a lot of people are working on it. Complex systems seem to be driven by higher kinds of dynamics that are not totally explainable, YET, by what we might call “basic laws”. These dynamics are ubiquitous, relentless, remorseless, and largely irreversible. They can enable the emergence of highly complex features of dynamic systems, and they can enable the destruction of those complex features. It seems that we, humanity, are largely impotent in controlling either emergence or destruction. We are just spectators. This has to change.

One common phrase, nowadays, for such systems is complex adaptive systems ( Complex adaptive system - Wikipedia ). The acronym for such systems is CAS (plural CASs). These are a subset of a larger class of systems called non-linear dynamical systems, which are then part of the major grouping called dynamical systems ( Dynamical system - Wikipedia ). Much work has been done to better understand such systems since the invention of the computer enabled humankind to do massive numbers of computations. Such computer software allows us to build CASs within the computer to study their peculiar behaviour, and to take that improved understanding and apply it to the CASs outside of the computers.

Examples of CASs are physical systems (such as solar systems), biological systems (such as ecosystems), social systems (such as towns, cities, countries, corporations) and economic systems (such as capitalistic systems, socialist systems, business models). If you think this list covers just about everything that we might care about, you are right. If you ask yourself, “What have scientists been studying for the past 500 years, if not just these systems?”, the answer is that they HAVE been studying these systems - but they are very complex, and the progress has been slow.

The scientists have, first, been learning about the basic laws (mentioned in the question) that are true under all circumstances. They started by building simplified models, and seeking to describe the “basic laws” that were common behaviours in many otherwise complex systems. That has NOT been an easy task.

For example, consider the history of the “first law of thermodynamics” — the “law of conservation of energy”. I would hazard a guess that very few of us actually understand this basic law. If you think you understand it, try reading this ( Conservation of energy - Wikipedia ) and go to “Noether’s theorem” part-way through the article. I know that I used it to solve some problems when I studied physics oh-so-long ago. But I never really understood it. It required the attention of some of the most brilliant minds over several centuries, and still we are faced with anomalies that are unresolved - anomalies such as dark matter ( Dark matter - Wikipedia ) and dark energy ( Dark energy - Wikipedia ). These anomalous results put this one, first, most basic of all laws, in question. We can use dismissive language such as “basic laws” as if these laws are easy to verbalize and easy to understand. They are neither. When all of reality is changing as time passes, the basic laws are those behaviours that do not change.

The most frustrating and dangerous characteristic of a CAS is its adaptability. For every change we try to make, the system adapts in a way that the effects of the change is partially or totally neutralized. This teleonomic quality makes it appear to be goal-oriented - the goal being the prevention or neutralization of all that humankind finds it necessary to do for our survival. Every time we participate in the activities of a CAS we change it. Every time we try to alter the behaviour of a CAS in some way, it responds in some other way, possibly an unpredicted way, and possibly an unpredictable way. There are always side effects. There are always unexpected consequences. For every economic action, there are always unintended “externalities” ( Externality - Wikipedia ).

For example, when we try to control inflation in an economic system using interest rates, there are side-effects that render our tools ineffective (e.g. interest rates are dropped so close to zero that they become impotent). Or when some humans (we call them activists) try to preserve the environment that gave rise to us, massive counter-effective human organizations and movements emerge with the intent to belittle the activists and prevent that goal. The way I see it, such side effects of conservation movements are not the result of conspiracies or base motives such as greed (although those do play their part). Such side effects are the reaction of the physical-ecological-social-economic CAS to changes that we are trying to make to it. The movements to preserve the world, and the countering movements to prevent those actions - these are all props on the stage as the plot of the play unfolds. We are not directors, nor actors, nor even stage hands, in this play of reality. We are all merely confused stage props.

This slide is from a presentation I made in Beijing when I was there last time.

Our economies are embedded in our societies. Our societies are embedded in the ecosystems and the biosphere from which we arose, and on which we are completely dependent. We are in the process of using our economic systems to foul our own nests, and our global nest. There is only one Earth. We cannot seem to change our ways. Why not?

I am not an academic, not a scientist, and not an economist. I am a retired computer geek. I have been building computer models of dynamic systems for over 50 years, as a hobby, for my own amusement. My hobby for the past ten years (or so) has been focused on trying to understand the “basic laws” of economics. How can a modern society become sustainable? I build computer models to expand my understanding of this question. Some of my models can be found here. ( CoMSES Net )

Just an opinion.