Where did physical laws and process come from?

Humans make these laws and thus they originate in human minds.It seems many creationists are under the impression that reality must be bound by scientific laws, and that these also require some sort of "law-giver," as though elementary particles would go teleporting about willy-nilly without some cosmic policeman to keep them in line. In fact, our scientific laws are subject to falsification at any time with a new contradictory observation of reality. Newton's laws of motion are a prime example. What's more, it is only through assuming the absence of intermeddling supernatural beings that we can rely on our observations at all.

This is actually not too crazy of an idea, IMHO. It resembles a personal theory of mine that interprets evolutionary theory in context of the Many Worlds hypothesis. In such a scenario, the laws of nature appear to us as they are for the simple fact that our observational pathways developed along the only set of rules that could produce them. That set of rules is then observed by us and defined as natural law somewhat circularly.It might have been equally probable that different observational pathways developed along completely different sets of rules, resulting in some sorts of structure entirely alien to our regular selves. Even in those instances it would seem sensible that conscious observers would be able to sort out the regularities in the universe that led to the development of their structure and declare those natural law.A scenario like that would also render arguments against abiogenesis rather meaningless since "life" would then be somewhat arbitrarily defined as "that which we happen to observe in this line of development as maintaining borders, consuming, excreting, reproducing, etc..." In parallel developments there may be conscious observers who yet exhibit none of these "life-signs" since none of the physical mechanisms which define those traits would be necessarily present. The origin of life then becomes merely the point in the past where developing forms of matter and energy finally began to meet our arbitrary defintion of what "life" is, and in retrospect such a probability would be inevitable given a Many-Worlds universe.

It seems to me that you've fallen into the same confusion I spoke about in my first post. Don't take that too personally, it's a common misunderstanding. Scientific laws are descriptions of the regularities in our observations of reality's behavior, they are not the behavior itself. The descriptions are based on human observations, proceed a posteriori from human minds, and are thus human creations. The laws do not determine what reality can or cannot do, instead they describe what reality does or does not do according to our observations. Any extrapolations beyond that are baseless.Perhaps the actual question this topic's originator meant to ask is: What is the source/cause of reality's behavior? My response to that is that reality's behavior simply is.