But I do think we need to say nature is restricted somehow so it behaves as we expect.
Otherwise it just wouldn't do it.

Don't you see that there is quite a anthropomorphism in this? Nature is a wild animal that would do all kind of unexpected things, were there not, luckily enough, the laws of nature.
I said it already several times, but I'll say it again: there is no reason to say that gravity

*forces* the stone to fall down; with the same right I can say that the stone

*wants* to fall down. Both descriptions are anthropomorphic, and therefore meaningless.
I can give you an example: in classical physics there are several mathematical methods to calculate how a particle moves in a gravitational field. Newton's F=ma and F=GMm/r² is not always the easiest one, and depending on the knowledge you have there are different methods:
a. Use simple Newton: calculate for a very small time interval what the gravitation does and how the particle moves, to what point, calculate the force there, then take again a very small time interval, do the calculation again, etc. In easy situations, it is even possible to calculate a function for how the particle moves.
b. You know the beginning point where the particle is, and you know the endpoint: the question is what trajectory the particle took. There is then a mathematical method where you calculate a certain quantity for every possible path, and then the correct path is the path where this quantity is the smallest of all those paths. (See

**Lagrangian]** for this method)
Now does method b. means that the particle does all this calculations and

*chooses* its best path? Of course not! In the same way we must refrain from the idea that the particle is

*forced* in a trajectory, or that it

*wants* to follow a certain trajectory.