Book Reviews : Have the Laws of Nature Been Repealed?

The World Within the World by John Barrow (Oxford: $24.95; 398 pages)

In the 20th Century, not only has physics been turned on its head, so has our understanding of science itself. The twin revolutions of physics--relativity and quantum mechanics--have spawned questions about the foundations of thought, about the world we perceive and about the relationship between scientific theories and objective reality, whatever that is. In short, after classical physics was thrown into a cocked hat, the philosophy of science was thrown in along with it.

Now, that’s a pretty heady first paragraph, and some readers may have stopped reading already, while others may want to go back and take that in again. Those who feel tantalized so far will probably enjoy “The World Within the World” by John D. Barrow, a book that starts out by asking:

“Are there really laws of nature that exist ‘out there,’ independent of our way of thinking, waiting to be discovered; or are they just the most convenient way of describing things that we have seen? How did such a notion as the ‘laws of nature’ arise? Are these laws the ultimate reality or merely pieces of administrative legislation enacted by ourselves to help us organize our knowledge of the world; are they just the signposts we erect behind us as we crash through the jungle of experience? Is it possible that there are no laws of nature at all? Maybe they and the universe they appear to govern are entirely creations of our minds: an illusion that goes away when we don’t think about it. And what would happen if there were no observers of the universe?”

The Process and the Answers

Still with me? Having asked these questions, Barrow, an astronomer and philosopher of science at the University of Sussex in England, then goes on for nearly 400 fascinating pages trying to make sense of them and many, many others of similar ilk. Though he never quite succeeds, the process of thinking about these questions is at least as interesting as any answers he might come up with, even though Barrow does concede that most scientists are about as interested in the philosophy of science as birds are interested in ornithology.

To be a working scientist, you’ve got to be what Barrow calls “a realist.” That is, you’ve got to believe that there is an external world that is the source of our sensations; that this external world is rational; that we can put it at arm’s length in order to study it; that nature is regular and that its regularities are predictable, and, finally, that “these presuppositions hold in an identical fashion everywhere and everywhen.”

Science is founded on these beliefs, which seem common-sensical to us, though they haven’t always to all people. Barrow notes that cultures that did not share these ideas did not develop any science. Western thought does believe these axioms, and in the West, science has flourished and given us mastery over our environment.

‘Fantastic’ Laws

But the result of our investigations is that we are not so sure about the premises any more. “The laws that have been found to describe the quantum world are fantastic in many senses of that word,” Barrow writes. “They are the most accurate and precise tools we have ever found for the successful description and prediction of the workings of nature. . . . Yet when those laws are explored down to their foundations they force us towards possible views of reality that are totally at variance with all our intuitions and common-sense notions about reality.”

Quantum mechanics implies that the world-out-there is a fiction, a delusion, that it does not exist without observers to observe it. Perhaps it is best not to think about these things, except to note in passing that the very foundations of thought and experience are in question.

Then again, Barrow wants to know, can we ever be sure that our much-vaunted laws of nature are not just matters of chance that might just as well be different? Can we distinguish what is idiosyncratic from what is fundamental?

Occam’s Razor

Scientists believe that Nature is basically simple. Occam’s Razor, a principle of science for nearly six centuries, says that if there are competing explanations for the same phenomena, you should choose the simpler one. But how can we be sure?

“Our confidence in the charming ‘simplicity’ of nature may be misplaced,” Barrow writes. “Nature may only look simple because we have unlocked so few of its secrets. As we dig deeper into the microscopic structure of matter and space-time, we may strike a seam of great complexity created by the simultaneous interplay of an enormous number of factors. Such a situation might appear as lawless as pure chaos.”

Barrow deftly shows how science itself undermines the scientific world view. In his hands, science and thought come full circle. Be warned: this is not an easy book. Some of it demands advanced knowledge. But the overall argument is clear, and it will leave you scratching your head for days. Maybe much longer.