thanks for the reply.
With H2o you use all those expressions the millenia-long reductionist
development came up with and modified them according to newer learned
details. (Bond?) You asked "What do these terms mean?" Chmistry is NOT part
of physics, especially not the polymer branch in which I worked and produced
characteristics unheard of by changing conditions/additives. Physicists try
to occupy all science with their math - which is an applied one. String?
wave function? you may add spin and 25 more words. Not Alice's, but
Quark is an honest addition: they chose it as a meaningless word. There is a
lot of "It Must Be Like That" becaus at the time of identification nobody
knew better. "No other way!" - only the Flat Earth.
So careful with the chemical expressions: most date back to the 18th c. -
yet if you have a head-ache, you take one of those 'compounds' - and not the
Schroedinger equation. To be able to talk about 'everything' I ask for some
more time, maybe 3-800 years and let us talk then.
On 9/19/10, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
> I am not sure if I have a particular position. I am a chemist by
> background, well I was doing all the life simulation only.
> Actually I am comfortable with reductionism ideas, as many scientist are.
> Yet, I do not understand something.
> Say chemistry starts that H2 has a single bond, 02 has a double bond, both
> being covalent. In H20 we have already partially ionic bonds and so on. What
> do these terms mean? Hard to define precisely. On the other hand it is
> possible to say that chemistry is a part of physics, one needs just to solve
> the Schrödinger equation and that's it, in this case one does not need
> ambiguous chemical terms. However the latter does not work in practice. Only
> chemists talking some strange ambiguous language can create new molecules,
> substances and materials. Why? I do not know.
> Then recently I have read The Elegant Universe about the superstring
> theory. The book is written very nicely, I envy the author's ability to
> write in such simple language. Yet, I do not like the idea of Equation of
> Everything and my feeling is that the superstring theory is just a dead end:
> However I cannot explain fully my feeling. So basically I just follow what
> other people say and try to think it over.
> on 19.09.2010 21:13 John Mikes said the following:
>> Evgeniy, I may be the one agreeing with your sentence 1Z did not hear
>> so far. Maybe he is right. Let me try to explain why I am congruent
>> with your suggestion: *Reductionism *(as I identify it, - not
>> congruent with the classical definitions - is the process in which
>> the ongoing conventional sciences consider "ALL" - i.e. the
>> wholeness, the totality, - as the compendium of our yesterday's
>> knowledge: the content of our so far accepted epistemic enrichment in
>> the sciences (and the world in general). This is how conventional
>> sciences draw conclusions further reaching than our present knowledge
>> (in most cases not knowing about "the rest of the world" not yet
>> provided by our epistemic enrichment). Think of the Flat Earth, of
>> the 'veins' circulating air, the uncuttable 'atoms', the
>> DNA-genetics, etc. etc., examples that changed the prior (scientific)
>> knowledge by new leanings. You may think of neurology as well,
>> explaining all mental effects upon the brain's so far learned
>> characteristics as measured by the instruments of 2010 - which is
>> more than how it was 25 years ago. It is still reductionist.
>> Engineering has to solve practical tasks in quantitative solutions
>> and cannot resort to include 'maybe'-s for possible extensions of our
>> scientific knowledge. So it takes the reductionist inventory and
>> constructs brilliant contraptions upon 'yesterday's (reductionistic)
>> knowledge that are *ALMOST*good. Almost? well, some airplanes fall
>> off the skyies, some diseases strike, some wars break out, etc. etc.,
>> in spite of our incrredible technology we acieved by the results of
>> engineering. The 'still?' unknown "rest of the world" has its
>> influence in the overall complexity of the world upon those partially
>> solved problems as well, and of course, nobody can include unknowable
>> factors into any consideraton. We use what we know = reduced.
>> *Brent* had a short remark recently to the H2O discussion: "2H2O =
>> 2H2 + O2 - no problem". He stopped short at the reductionist formula
>> and the conventional physical views of water, not extending the
>> complexity of such situations into the 'potentials that are'. -
>> formation of halos of diffusely disappearing hydration and similar
>> hydrated/not hydrated (hydrophil/hydrophob) situations as result of
>> the surrounding chemical(?) environment (unlimited???) - all not
>> expressed in the conventional chemical formulae - or their physical
>> calculations (so far).
>> It is hard to transfer from the 'conventional' to the 'unlimited'
>> because we have no knowledge about the 'rest of the world'. I claim
>> my (scientific) agnosticism and say "I dunno". We use the
>> 'reductionist' *MODELs* of the so far known in our calculations and
>> work in equations (maybe not true ones). The 'engineering' style.
>> John M
>> On 9/19/10, 1Z<peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 19 Sep, 07:30, Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
>>> Well, I thought that reductionism could help an engineer.
>>> I don't think anyone said that
>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send
>>> email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this
>>> group, send email to
>> For more options, visit this group at
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at