Emergence seems to be ubiquitously-accepted nowadays, but I was wondering whether chemistry can be considered reducible to physics. That is, are there any properties of chemistry that can't be explained by the underlying laws of physics? This is assuming the model of the sciences depicting layers of abstraction:
Physics -> chemistry -> biology -> neuroscience -> psychology, for instance.
This topic is also open for debate on reductionism/emergence.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-07 4:20
Everything is reducible to physics. That doesn't mean the laws of chemistry aren't emergent. False dichotomy.
But apart from the speculative bullshit that passes for psychology, it can produce falsifiable theories to model and predict its area of interest, human thought and behaviour. Therefore it is a science.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-13 10:39
To quote Lord Rutherford:
"That which is not measurable is not science. That which is not PHYSICS is stamp collecting.".
He's got the right idea.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-13 12:51
>>5
Consdescending, very condescending. Just because a statement is witty doesn't mean it's particularly insightful.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-13 13:46
The Biologist thinks he's a biological Chemist.
The biological Chemist thinks he's a Materials Chemist.
The Materials Chemist thinks he's a Physicist.
The Physicist thinks he's God.
Not psychology, this comes to show that maths can explain everything. In my opinion, BS.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-13 17:20
A true science is something that has actual laws. Laws certainly exist for the brain, but they'll too retarded to take the right approach and actually build a mathematically rigorous brain.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-13 18:23
nah, you don't need laws. modern science doesn't aim to get "laws" anyway because it sounds too faith-based.
I don't see why a Physicist would think he's "god". After all, there's PROOF that the Physicist exists ... which is wholly unlike that other thing.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-13 23:29
>>11
Homosexual baiting will get you nowhere, sir. Faith is inherent in the name "law". It implies not mere confidence, but certain truth, and therefore end to inquiry concerning it. Despite the term, science presses on. Newton's laws of motion were not the last word on their respective topics, having been found inadequate for instance at very high speed where Einstein becomes helpful. Do not be mislead by the historical habit of naming robust and useful statements as "laws".
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-13 23:44
>>1
Chemistry is the science of matter. it follows both newtonian physics for things like electromagnatism, thermodynamics, etc; as well as the quantum physics of the electrons and other components of the atom. btw, I would say that the quantum world is more a world of chemistry than physics.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-14 1:56
>>14
You can say that if you want, but it sounds awfully stupid.