We had some discussion on Penrose last November, so maybe this is
becoming an annual event.
I don't want to repeat too much of the previous discussion, but I
would like to repeat the point that materialism is less of an issue
than mechanism. I continue to predict that physics will one day
develop theories which encompass many of the things we now perceive
as supernatural (telekinetics, spiritual beings, disembodied souls,
miraculous physical phenomena such as healing).
However it will still be Science, because it will still be explaining
the mechanisms whereby these things come about. Science Fiction has no
trouble postulating way beyond any phenomena that Science currently
accepts. What distinguishes Science Fiction from pure fantasy
is the focus on mechanisms. On Star Trek they invent some new stream
of particles to explain every fantastic phenomena. In the Hobbit things
just are the way they are because some being said so.
The mystery of magic is the failure to see a mechanism. Science is
bent on demystifying the `magic' of the universe by identifying the
mechanisms. In the church we pursue the same program sometimes under
the cloak of reinforcing faith (e.g. suggesting volcanic activity was
responsible for the demise of Sodom and Gomorrah).
Naturalism, as I recently suggested while commenting on Crichton's new
book, is the belief that the cosmos is ruled by mechanism rather than by God.
Thus I don't see any gap in Penrose's viewpoint. He is convinced that
the universe is ruled by mechanism, he just doesn't agree that the
current limits on mechanism are correct.
--Dave