What came first: physics or the world? It’s obviously the world, whereas physics (as a branch of science) offered ways to acquire information about the world and organise it. To not understand something in this paradigm, then, is to not understand the world in terms of physics. While this is straightforward, some narratives lead to confusion.
For example, consider the statement “animals use physics” (these animals exclude humans). Do they? Fundamentally, animals can’t use physics because their brains aren’t equipped to. They also don’t use physics because they’re only navigating the world, they’re not navigating physics and its impositions on the human perception of the world.
On July 10, Knowable published an article describing just such a scenario. The article actually uses both narratives — of humans using physics and animals using physics — and they’re often hard to pry apart, but sometimes the latter makes its presence felt. Example:
“Evolution has provided animals with movement skills adapted to the existing environment without any need for an instruction manual. But altering the environment to an animal’s benefit requires more sophisticated physics savvy. From ants and wasps to badgers and beavers, various animals have learned how to construct nests, shelters and other structures for protection from environmental threats.”
An illustration follows of a prairie dog burrow that accelerates the flow of wind and enhance ventilation; its caption reads: “Prairie dogs dig burrows with multiple entrances at different elevations, an architecture that relies on the laws of physics to create airflow through the chamber and provide proper ventilation.”
Their architecture doesn’t rely on the laws of physics. It’s that we’ve physics-fied the prairie dogs’ empirical senses and lessons they learnt in their communities to see physics in the world when in fact it’s not there. Instead, what’s there is evidence of the prairie dogs ability to build these tunnels and exploit certain facts of nature, knowledge of which they’re acquired with experience.
The rest of the article is actually pretty good, exploring animal behaviour that “depends in some way on the restrictions imposed, and opportunities permitted, by physics”. Also, what’s the harm, you ask, in saying “animals use physics”? I’ve no idea. But rather than as they could be, I think it should matter to describe things as they are.