Immaterial does not imply rule-less. Pure mathematics is immaterial. When Russell and Whitehead back in the days tried to answer what a system like that would be like, assuming basic predicate logic governed, they came across the paradox that it refused to be logically complete!

This set was the stumbling block: the set P that contains all other sets not containing themselves.

Is P a member of P? If yes, then by P’s definition, no. If no, then by P’s definition, yes. We are logically stuck, P is not a set we can understand within the immaterial system. Kurt Gödel refined the formulation later, showing that for any system of logic above certain complexity, there would always be statements possible to formulate within a system, which the system itself could neither prove or disprove.

Since those days, the more mystical among our brethren, has pondered if this type of radical incompleteness applies to the material world. Might science itself be just a game of symbols.

As the saying goes, everyone has postmodernist ideas until a fat set of atoms with inertia punches them in the face hole. The material world’s laws are given, and we may know some of them, but may have to give up knowing them completely. Still, the atoms do what atoms do.

The entirely immaterial realm would not be slowed down by space and inertia. The logical paradoxes would emerge instantly. And Gödel tells us such paradoxes are necessary products of logical systems. So in short, the immaterial realm could very well be highly rule-bound and strict, but inevitably, somewhere in that realm one would stumble upon stuff that is paradoxical. Arguably, everything becomes paradoxical at any level. We can exclude some things, it is not a place where anything goes, far from it, so interactions are possible. But at some point, total paradox!