A response to Paul Davies’ sloppy NYT op-ed.
I am a physicist, and I don’t take it on faith that “nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way.” It is manifestly otherwise.
The relevant definition of rational here is consistent with or based on reason; logical. If only it were! Ever heard of quantum mechanics? It’s clear by now that nature does not conform itself to our feeble mental capabilities. We are forced to invent new, counterintuitive logics at every turn.
Rather than intelligible, I’ll consider the stronger statement that nature is lawful. It can’t be intelligible if there isn’t a structure to understand, but assuming there is a lawful structure doesn’t mean we’re capable of understanding it. I take lawful to mean that there exist some local physical invariants, which can be expressed in terms of equations of motion, continuity, or extremum conditions. This does not preclude there being unlawful, or random processes as well.
Do we physicists take lawfulness on faith? Some might, but I don’t. It can be considered a hypothesis, just like any other statement. It just happens to receive overwhelming support from experiment. It is difficult to conceive what it would mean for there to be no lawfulness, or how life or cognition would be possible in such a universe, but that doesn’t matter. If you want to ponder necessary conditions for reason and disappear into a solipsistic hole of Kantian metaphysics be my guest. Davies appears to be blind to the difference between a belief, or a working hypothesis, and faith. But he has bigger issues.
One of our two pillars of theoretical physics, quantum field theory, is non-deterministic and unlawful (the part Von Neumann called the R-process). We don’t like it, but have been, for now, forced to accept it. One would think Davies would be aware of this fact, but it contradicts his assertion about the nature of science. So is he stupid, dishonest, ignorant, or some combination of the three? Can we design an experiment to find out?
More importantly, can the press stop paying attention to that embarrassment?
Later: I was too hard on Davies. I’ve been asking myself why, why would Davies send such a silly, sloppy piece to be published by the NYT. What purpose does it serve? It undermines science, by telling faith-heads like ID proponents that science is just another religion. He may have more subtle points (not very), but that’s the message most people will take away from the piece and he knows it. Then it occurred to me: he did it to sell his book. That’s tapping into a huge market. Perhaps he’ll cash in on the church lecture circuit like the Discovery Institute hacks? Brilliant, nicely done!