From https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2155755
he limited himself to second-order differential equations.
Our experience in elementary-particle physics has taught us that any term in the field equations of physics that is allowed by fundamental principles is likely to be there in the equations
I guess the author means from the effective field theory point of view. Namely, effective actions include non-renormalizable terms, which can lead to higher derivatives. I try to see an example beyond second-order differential equations.
Let me start from $\phi^4$. The effective Lagrangian is, e.g., Peskin & Schroeder eq. (12.23) $$ \int d^d x \mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{eff}} = \int d^d x' \left[ \frac{1}{2} \left( \partial'_{\mu} \phi' \right)^2 + \frac{1}{2} m'^2 \phi'^2 + \frac{1}{4} \left( \lambda' \phi'^4 + C \left( \partial'_{\mu} \phi' \right)^4 + D' \phi'^6 +\cdots \right) \right] \tag{1} $$
I suppose $$ \mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{eff}} = \frac{1}{2} \left( \partial'_{\mu} \phi' \right)^2 + \frac{1}{2} m'^2 \phi'^2 + \frac{1}{4} \left( \lambda' \phi'^4 + C \left( \partial'_{\mu} \phi' \right)^4 + D' \phi'^6 +\cdots \right) \tag{2} $$
Try to cook a classical equation of motion. From the Euler-Lagrangian equation, $$ \frac{ \partial \mathcal{L} }{ \partial \phi} - \partial_{\mu} \frac{ \partial \mathcal{L} }{ \partial \left( \partial_{\mu} \phi \right) } = 0\tag{3} $$ plug in the effective lagrangian, we should get some extra terms than the Klein-Gordon equation $$ \square \phi' - m^2 \phi' + C \partial'_{\mu} \left[ \left( \partial'^{\mu} \phi' \right) \left( \partial'_{\mu} \phi' \right)^2 \right] +\cdots = 0.\tag{4} $$
So far the extra term with prefactor $C$ still looks like a second-order differential equation, as one first-order derivative outside the square bracket, $\partial'_{\mu}$, acting on one first-order derivative term $\left( \partial'^{\mu} \phi' \right) $ times the other first-order derivative term (a first-order derivative times itself) $\left( \partial'_{\mu} \phi' \right)^2$, i.e., $(fg)' = f'g + fg'$. If I further organize the inside square bracket part of the extra term by $f' g = (fg)' - f g' $,
$$ C \partial'_{\mu} \left[ \left( \partial'^{\mu} \phi' \right) \left( \partial'_{\mu} \phi' \right)^2 \right] \\ \equiv C \partial'_{\mu} \left\{ \left( \partial'^{\mu} \phi' \right) \left( \partial'_{\mu} \phi' \right)^2 \right\} \\ = C \partial'_{\mu} \left\{ \partial'^{\mu} \left[ \phi' \left( \partial'_{\mu} \phi' \right)^2 \right] - \phi' \partial'^{\mu}\left[ \left( \partial'_{\mu} \phi' \right)^2 \right] \right\} \\ = C \underline{\partial'_{\mu}} \left\{ \partial'^{\mu} \left[ \phi' \left( \partial'_{\mu} \phi' \right)^2 \right] - 2 \phi' \left[ \left( \partial'^{\mu} \phi' \right) \left( \underline{ \partial'^{\mu} \partial'_{\mu}} \phi' \right) \right] \right\}.\tag{5} $$
It seems I get a third-order differential equation from the underline part of the above equation. Is my reasoning right?
I think I did not impose any quantization in getting the equation of motion (except effective action from path integrals), since I think the view in the physics today essay is not much about quantization. Or I am not even wrong?
Or a second-order differential equation should be counted as the total number of the derivatives terms than taking a second-order differentiation on a single term?