After reading the op-ed piece I must admit that his interview on NPR was more impressive than this piece. Either I'm missing his point or his point is rather banal. He seems to need to take a good philosophy of science course. To me he appears to be reifying the "laws of physics". That is he's separating the physical universe from the laws that describe these relationships. The "laws of physics" are not things, they are higher-order explanations of ontological facts. Since we never have all the facts, the "laws" evolve over time as more and more facts are discovered. Judy, or anyone, what's your take on this? Am I, or Judy, missing something here? I just don't get his point. --- hugheshugo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > From an op-ed by Paul Davies in the NY Times: > > > > > > > > >>The idea that the laws [of physics] exist > reasonlessly is deeply > anti-rational.>>> > > What physicists mean is that there is no "reason" > the laws of physics > are any particular way other than that if they were > different the > universe as we know it wouldn't exist and we > wouldn't be able to > ascribe reason to them. It's no absurdity, they > simply are as they > are, if that level didn't exist as it does our level > wouldn't exist > as it does and we wouldn't be around to say so. > > That's all that happens, we try to understand and > explain by using > reason, if a "law" fits for a while it is called a > scientific truth, > meaning that it's the most likely explanation for > the observable > facts, if new facts comes to light the "laws" > change. Nothing anti- > reason about it. The process is no mockery of > itself, we're still > learning. > > > > > After > > all, the very essence of a scientific explanation > of some > phenomenon > > is that the world is ordered logically and that > there are reasons > > things are as they are. If one traces these > reasons all the way > down > > to the bedrock of reality the laws of physics > only to find that > > reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of > science. > > Can the mighty edifice of physical order we > perceive in the world > > about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless > absurdity? If so, then > > nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: > meaninglessness and > > absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order > and rationality. > > > > Read the whole essay: > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?ref=opinion > > http://tinyurl.com/2o9fc7 > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
