Re: a must read
There is no evidence that physical constants differ anywhere in space time and Occom's razor suggests that until a theory that assumes such can also provide a better match to measurements of the observable universe that the constants are ... constant.
I'm aware of the talk about constants like e- charge possibly changing over time but this seems like an exercise given to physics grad students because no one has a proof or compelling theory that they can't change. My point was simply that if they do change then "science" suggests that it is ordered and comprehensible. QM includes "randomness" but it is part of an overall theory that is well ordered. It also does not really say that any physical process (except the BB perhaps) is random it just demands that what we can KNOW about reality is limited and knowledge about position and momentum are interdependent in VERY predictable ways.
So my objection is to assuming such a thing would be random or inscrutable. If e- actually drifts over time then there is a force that mediates the change and even if it is quantized, it is orderly. (No, Fermats theorem is no relief) The BB is only thing we must shrug our shoulders on. And we have theories now that explain the evolution of the universe from about a billionth of a second after the BB. As they say, that is definitely "good enough for gov't work".
[let's not bring up Dark Matter and Dark Energy. There are still some things we don't have complete explanations for in the observable universe, these are two biggies in that bucket.]