[abdullahkhalids]

Scientists don't really ask the question that where nature stores the laws it operates under. This is because the laws of nature (such as general relativity) are human conceptions - we don't think these laws are true laws of nature, only approximations to them. If the actual laws of nature are different from the ones found in science textbooks, they probably they have different storage requirements. For instance, right now physics theories use a number of different constants, such as the masses of all the massive particles (electrons, quarks, neutrinos). But we think the true laws of nature will require a fewer number of constants to define, or better still no constants at all - the numbers will emerge automatically from some consistency requirements. It seems pointless to go looking for places where nature is storing the electron mass when there might be no such place. In other words, don't confuse your map of reality with reality itself.

[chatmasta]

Along these lines, also see the Anthropic Principle [0] which states that "observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it."

[0] [RABBIT HOLE WARNING] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[AstralStorm]

Also silly unfalsifiable argument without any external reference frame. It might well be that the universe is ultimately incompatible with sentient life, just incidentally appears as such in the current timeframe.

The simpler version of it is "God's will".