> On 22 Jul 2019, at 19:36, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 8:31:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 22 Jul 2019, at 11:44, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Why chemistry (and biology) is not physics >> >> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/historical-contingency-and-the-futility-of-reductionism-why-chemistry-and-biology-is-not-physics/ >> >> <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/historical-contingency-and-the-futility-of-reductionism-why-chemistry-and-biology-is-not-physics/> >> >> >> Partly why I'm a materialist, not a physicalist. >> >> But this has implications for arithmetical reality (?). > > If Chemistry is not physics, it would mean that ours substitution level would > be in between QM and chemistry (something slightly more complex to be sure, > but it is a reasonable approximation). > > Now, I am not convinced by the paper above that chemistry is not reducible to > quantum mechanics, especially that chemistry count the most successful > application of quantum mechanics. > > I have no definite ideas on all this. The paper might confuse []p and []p & > p, like 99,9998% of materialist thinkers here. > > Bruno > > > > It is a kind of a faith some have that chemistry from atoms to big organic > molecules (if that is the right "spectrum" of chemical materials) can be > reduced to physics. There is certainly a camp in the theoretical chemistry > community that don't think it can. > > > There is also the list of unsolved problems in chemistry: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_chemistry > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_chemistry> > > And then one gets to even "higher" chemistry like RNA and DNA at the > "boundary" with biology. > > The demarcations of physics, chemistry, biology are human made fictions of > course.
The demarcation between oneself and (Löbian) number in general is a universal machine common fiction, yes. To invoke unsolved problem to make the metaphysics more complex is not valid. It is the obscurantist move, or the filling-holes with God strategy (the “bouche-trou” conception of God). Bruno > > @philipthrift > > @philipthrift > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/524075a3-8230-4872-8d5c-89c7f794860a%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/524075a3-8230-4872-8d5c-89c7f794860a%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/688DF03C-9337-4B6E-B8ED-BCAF55C9474C%40ulb.ac.be.
