Even if that is what he meant, I still don't think it's correct.
To speak of a "mechanism of action" is necessarily to speak about a model of Nature that you, an observer, have created.
Natural phenomena exist empirically and logically prior to any such model, thus is is metaphysically redundant to say that Nature as such requires a mechanism of action.
To speak of a "mechanism of action" is necessarily to speak about a model of Nature that you, an observer, have created.
Natural phenomena exist empirically and logically prior to any such model, thus is is metaphysically redundant to say that Nature as such requires a mechanism of action.