As I said to you back in #39,
we observe consistencies of behavior in aspects of the material universe and by observation we express those consistencies as well-founded formulae of general application, called 'laws'. [...]
As for the particular instances [in this case those relevant to biochemistry], I leave you to list them for yourself.
You attribute knowledge to a law of nature? In what sense do you say gravity knows that things fall downwards?
Obviously I did not "attribute knowledge to a law of nature".
I asked you, "What law of nature explains the ability of humans to, first, say that they will pay their landlord a certain amount of money by a certain date of each month for the next year, then actually do exact what they said they would do?"
It is you whose metaphysics, unconnected to any fact, implies that some unnamed law of nature accounts for the commonplace ability to choose what acts one will perform or not perform, including those commonplace acts that we promise to perform far into the future.
Why don't you begin with facts rather than with your beliefs, then make deductions from the facts? Beginning with beliefs rather than facts is precisely how people conclude that the earth is 6000 years old. You demonstrate exactly the same method.
Have you done any reading on "laws of nature"? There are a lot of scholarly works on the topic. Some theses distinguish between "laws of nature" and "laws of science" (E=mc^2 would be a law of science). Among the things you won't find in the scholarly literature is the claim that some "law of nature" accounts for our ability to choose between available options, or accounts for the existence of consciousness. I am unaware that any philosopher or scientist has posited the infinite regress that you have suggested, where there are infinite other laws of nature needed to account for the known laws of nature.
All of them are about how energy is transferred, or held in statis, in particular circumstances. Those transfers of energy are from regions of higher energy to regions of lower energy (except particular cases in QM where the transfer of energy is initiated without a causal movement of energy, giving randomness within parameters). One way to think of them is as natural selection of the most efficient energy transfer.)
So in chemistry, for example, free oxygen atoms will in general bond in pairs, because when they interact with each other, that's generally the most efficient resolution of the energy states brought to that interaction. (Not always, of course. Up there in the ozone layer where eg UV is ambient, the most efficient resolution of the energy states involved is often O3 ... and so on.)
And as it is with the formation of O2 molecules, so it is when RNA reproduces DNA and so on.
One example is with the oxygen above. Or take a game of billiards: we have generalized formulae (laws) for the collision of the balls (spheres of equal radius and mass on a horizontal plane), and the transfers of energy and angles of deflection that result, so that ─ and this is how we say the laws apply ─ if we feed accurate data into that formula we'll get accurate results.
It means that energy acts differently under different circumstances: is, in my hypothesis, like Anaximander's apeiron, the universal substance, what matter, and each of the particles and sub-particles of matter, consist of, and what gives rise to the forces (strong weak EM gravity and whatever else may be out there); may be the enabling force of the dimensions (and the energy of the vacuum may suggest this); and so on. Hence all the regularities we observe in nature which we express as 'laws of nature' are, in this hypothesis, properties of energy.
I asked, "And how do these laws of nature exercise their power? How do they cause things to happen? (Where are the laws?)" It seems that you are proposing that energy is causal. Is that what your saying?
Did you read the lecture I linked to by Richard Feynman? We know that energy is a quantity (if it weren't, then Noether's Theorem wouldn't make sense). Are quantities causal? How does a quantity produce effects? As Feynman explains:
There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law—it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in the manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.
The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. I Ch. 4: Conservation of Energy
Anyway, according to your scenario, not just the existence of the law of conservation of energy would be "supernatural", but the existence of energy would be "supernatural". We know without a doubt that the existence of the energy of the universe is not a product of something happening within the closed system of the universe. The law of conservation of energy tell us this.
