GET RID OF BIOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY

explain everything with physics.
scientists should strive to explain everything as accurately as reasonably possible and as simplified as possible without oversimplifying. Physics is the best field we have available for such a task.
everything else is just remnants of ancient systems of trying to explain the nature of reality, and quantum physics is not well understood yet.

what about maths.
it's even more fundamental.
and then what about the philosophy of logic. even more fundamental than math.

>>2
though all those fields may be taught differently, in reality, the differences are superficial and they are fundamentally the same.
math and logic applied to reality is the same as physics.
in application to reality, they are the same.

>>1
In what ways would the actual explanations of e.g. the phenomenons of electronegativity or dominant and recessive genes differ?
Biology also has to cover the result of quite a lot of historical random occurances.

ehh, let's just fuck school right off

I got an Idea-Let's have something like 'foundations of science and logic',and then have it branch out to more concrete subjects,so as to make it easier to understand them.

Chemistry and biology, at their base, essentially do describe everything with physics. It's just that they are subjects inside of the vast field of physics that are significant enough to be studied in their own light. By focusing on the most important factors of these subjects, we are able to increase our understanding of them. Completely abandoning the more applied versions of physics would be like doing all math with only addition and subtraction. It would still be doable in a sense, but much less inefficient.

>>7
Ahem, much less *effecient*. Sorry about that.

Does anyone know of a math or scientific means to accurately derive the choice of an action based on a reaction in such a way that we can accurately derive a recovery process? That's the math I'm working on right now. It's very difficult, but it is possible. Unfortunately, I've got to use a lot of algebra...way too much algebra just to facilitate variables. There is one equation to it, I'm still working on virtues and vices to derive an appropriate response. It is difficult, but I believe it can be done.
Who's with me?

>>7
its like programming in brainfuck. its more pure, but yes, its useless. There would be no point in calculating the angular velocity of a dna strand, because thats like zooming into a picture too deeply and all u get is pixels.

>>9
Find an action that works.
Try random canonical transformations.
... Assuming you're thinking of the same action I am.

You might be able to explain a lot with physics, but acctually researching and understanding what happens requires approching the problems from a different angle.

Physicists don't know when and why to use 2-D agarose gel electophoreisis in relation to genomics. Physicists won't know the wider implications of discoveries as they don't have the wider knowledge to put it into context.

No subject is better or worse, they just have different skills that are all needed to progress science in a practical and empirical manner. Sure, physics gives us the final reason why our experiments are worthwhile for our purposes, but that does not mean is encompasses everything to do with Biology or Chemistry. What it does mean is that all branches of science need to have amicable relationships with each other and to work together to solve problems and make new discoveries. If not, then we are only hurting science and the human race.

>>12

>but that does not mean is encompasses everything to do with Biology or Chemistry.

i would have to disagree. everything in biology and chemistry can be broken down into physical reactions.

>>13
But it would take fuckloads of time to study everything from a purely physical sense.What's so bad about abstraction?

>>14
Obfuscation and constriction? Think of it as a trade-off. An abstraction will save you time and brain-power when you're operating within a limited field of knowledge but it will break down when you hit something new. When you hit something you can't explain within the boundaries of your abstraction you'll need to leave your comfy abstraction and get to the nitty-gritty details.

>>15
It may not be computationally feasable to explain emergent macro-behaviour from first principles, though, even as a formal verification, so what hope would we have using it as a working representation?
You can't say chemistry has 'broken down' any either, process engineering today is much like it was 20 years ago, better mainly due to research on the chemistry level and improved tool engineering. It's not an abstraction, it's an empirically verified model, and it won't stop working no matter how many Higgs bosoms you collide with your hardons.

Robert B. Laughlin had some interesting things to say about micro- and macroscale behaviour on a presentation I attended once. You may want to check him out.

>>15

I think the main indicator that you're wrong is that science is progressing well regardless of what you think.

Chemistry is applies Physics, Biology is applied Chemistry, gtfo.

It is good to have multiple perspectives on the same scientific problems.

>>17
it can always do better

Does it really matter what they are called? When we implement Chemistry and Biology into Physics it will be sort of like: Biological Physics, which will be the exact same thing as Biology. To understand the deeper levels of complexity in Physics it is sometimes useful to learn the overall properties of things. (Like we do with nature - we just know if something works or not, the how or why is theoretical until proven, and even then it is questionable to many of us.)

There are already a million branches in Physics itself, now add the other million branches from Biology and Chemistry to them and for some reason you will get 4 million branches, because you'll get things like Biological Physics and Physical Biology.

Physics may be the purest of natural sciences, but it can't do everything. Explaining all the shit that happens in simple chemical reactions, let alone biological systems, with only physics, is fucking retarded. Nothing would ever get done, because the systems involved are just too complex to adequately and coherently describe in terms of physics alone. We group together these complex pieces of information to make them understandable, and shoving them all into one bin makes everything a bitch to wrap one's head around.

>>22
Nevertheless, physics still is fundamental.
Simulate 10²³ particle Hamiltonian, FUCK YAR
It... only takes until the end of the universe to simulate, but still.

>>23
I'm not advocating getting rid of bio/chem, I'm just saying they're craptastic approximations of something we can't compute in a human lifetime.

>>24

Oh, we thought you might have a point. Sorry for the confusion.

You can't get rid of chemistry.  Chemists are the coolest people in the Faculty of science.  everyone else is nerds or hippies.

Niggers need to read More is Different

BIOPHYSICS
PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY
EVER HAVE HEARD OF IT?