In this paper 1 written by Joseph Polchinski, he seems to indicate that all symmetries of nature may not be fundamental:
From more theoretical points of view, string theory appears to allow no exact global symmetries, and in any theory of quantum gravity virtual black holes might be expected to violate all global symmetries
Moreover, as we have already discussed in §2, local (gauge) symmetries have been demoted as well, with the discovery of many and varied systems in which they emerge essentially from nowhere. It seems that local symmetry is common, not because it is a basic principle, but because when it does emerge it is rather robust: small perturbations generally do not destroy it. Indeed, it has long been realized that local symmetry it is ‘not really a symmetry,’ in that it acts trivially on all physical states. The latest nail in this coffin is gauge/gravity duality, in which general coordinate invariance emerges as well.
This leaves us in the rather disturbing position that no symmetry, global or local, should be fundamental (and we might include here even Poincaré invariance and supersymmetry). Susskind has made a distinction between the mathematics needed to write down the equations describing nature, and the mathematics needed to solve those equations. Perhaps symmetry belongs only to the later.
I have a few questions about these claims:
Polchinski mostly worked in string theory and ideas related to it. Is it there any model in string theory or any related theory which proposes that symmetries may not be fundamental at all?
If no symmetries are fundamental, would this mean that there are no fundamental laws of physics? Would this mean that all symmetries (and all laws associated with them) would be rather emergent?