[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Looks to me that Kahre — though he acknowledges a potential "either/or" situation — has decidedly come down on only one side. And it is definitely not on the side of abiogenesis as an explanation of the emergence of life.

The paper I quoted is not by Kahre, it's by a Hungarian scientist with the charming name of Attile Grandpierre. It refers to his (and Ashby's) law several times in describing the information paradox, but he is proposing a way out of the paradox--without resorting to an external agent.

Also, he does not dismiss abiogenesis but it looking for an explanation beyond that. He writes

Within the present state of biology, it seems that there are only two ways out of the informational paradox of biology. The established way is that of the abiogenesis. They realised a foundational work concerning the details of the chemical evolutionary process. The chemoton theory has the ambitious aim to follow chemical evolution until life’s development.

I am not finding any results for "chemoton theory disproved," so I guess it's still a line of research.

Finally, a law isn't really stronger than a theory. A law is merely an observation--"when we do this, that happens." It's a law because it happens every time we test it. A theory is a proposed explanation for why it happens. To use your terminology once again, that makes it higher quality than a law. (Also, of course, laws are only laws until an observation conflicts. Usually that just means their domain has to be restricted. For example, Newton's laws were laws until relativity--and they still are, so long as you leave out certain extreme states of matter. Similarly, Kahre's law may have to be restricted to nonbiological systems, if Grandpierre's theory stands up.)

[betty boop]

The paper I quoted is not by Kahre, it's by a Hungarian scientist with the charming name of Attil[a] Grandpierre. It refers to his (and Ashby's) law several times in describing the information paradox, but he is proposing a way out of the paradox--without resorting to an external agent.

Why did you rest on the "Hungarian scientist with the charming name," and not google Jan Kahre himself?

Of course, this "Hungarian scientist with the charming name" is "my friend the astrophysicist." I have been collaborating with him over the past decade as his English-language copy editor. And I can assure you that he rejects abiogenesis theory out of hand, while at the same time seeking a "B_N" explanation for the rise of life.

In retrospect, your quote sounded a whole lot like my friend. I should have picked up on that....

He and I have been having conversations for a long time now re: "B_I" vs. "B_N." He has told me that he has found such conversations "stimulating" and "valuable."

Over time, he has come to see that the "eternal universe" cosmological model (his preference) really doesn't work. And now accepts that the universe had an origin.

And that changes everything.

So, what was the date of the paper you are quoting here? If he has recently gone into "chemoton mode," it would be news to me.