If the argument were
The laws of physics give rise to conscious beings.
The laws of physics are mathematical objects.
So,
Then that would make sense as an argument, and people could focus their energy on debating the truth of (2).
However, your argument is different in two respects. Instead of saying (3) mathematical objects give rise to conscious beings, you say (3) mathematical objects *are (or could be) conscious beings. Those are very different statements. For example, it's one thing to say that so-and-so's trade policy is going to give rise to mass unemployment; it's a different thing to say that a trade policy is unemployment, which doesn't make any sense.
(3*) only follows from (1) and (2) if you amend (1) to something like:
(1) The laws of physics *are conscious beings.
(2) The laws of physics are mathematical objects.
(3) Mathematical objects are conscious beings.
But now (1*) looks a lot more controversial than it did before.
Of course, this all ignores the fact that your argument doesn't actually say (2) the laws of physics are mathematical objects. Instead, you said that the laws of physics can be encoded mathematically. Soooo...what is that supposed to show? My love of pizza can be 'encoded' by scribbles on a piece of paper. That doesn't show that my love of pizza has anything to do with scribbles or paper. So what does the fact that laws of physics can be encoded mathematically show about their relationship to mathematical objects?