Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Quite a strong belief you have within you, young padawan.

On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 23:11:10 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I bet that biology is reducible to physics and the belief, since that is 
> what it is, a belief, is one reason we have missed the boat on the life 
> sciences apparently. We still can' (won't) bring basic physical elements 
> and from this create organisms. My suspicion that since the days or Urey, 
> scientists have backed off why this is not so. Unless we invoke the elan 
> vitale? :-D 
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/42ddba7d-d7f1-4ec5-bccb-cd9848c34792%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 7:01:50 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> A bacteria is just far beyond current days technology. Even a complex 
> protein is beyond our technology.
>
> Bruno
>

Bacterial synthetic biology

"Bacterial synthetic biology is a scientific discipline that deals with the 
synthesis of part, or the whole, of bacteria that do not exist in nature in 
this form. It uses engineering and molecular biology tools."

Latest Research and Reviews

https://www.nature.com/subjects/bacterial-synthetic-biology 

@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/75af6d01-0bca-486c-a602-48883c0faf77%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 Jul 2019, at 22:11, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> I bet that biology is reducible to physics

OK. Reasonable bet in the absence of string evidence to the contrary.


> and the belief, since that is what it is, a belief, is one reason we have 
> missed the boat on the life sciences apparently. We still can' (won't) bring 
> basic physical elements and from this create organisms. My suspicion that 
> since the days or Urey, scientists have backed off why this is not so. Unless 
> we invoke the elan vitale? :-D 

The élan vitale, of course, does not add anything to “we are ignorant”, and is 
the usual reification of ignorance done when theology felt in the trap, and is 
used to prevent research.

What people seems to miss is that Mechanism explains consciousness, entirely, 
in the sense that it explains the discourse by the machine on “consciousness” 
(that only thing that they know for sure), and it explains why consciousness is 
mysterious, and has to felt that way (and why consciousness existence is 
incompatible with mechanism+materialism, even in their weakest forms).

I think scientist have been able to build a virus from scratch, some years ago.

A bacteria is just far beyond current days technology. Even a complex protein 
is beyond our technology.

Bruno



> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Wed, Jul 24, 2019 5:59 am
> Subject: Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism
> 
> 
>> On 22 Jul 2019, at 22:33, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> I would say that physics is diff from inorganic chemistry and biological 
>> science, in the sense that how academics observe and measure phenomena. Its 
>> a Venn diagram in which the circles or ovals align one on top of the other, 
>> maybe off-center here and there, but the same thing. 
> 
> Biology is certainly different from physics, but that does not mean that 
> terrestrial biology is not conceptually reducible to physics.
> 
> Like with mechanism, physics remains different from arithmetic and computer 
> science, but is conceptually reducible to or explained by, arithmetic.
> 
> It is important to distinguish the ontology (what we assume at the start, and 
> which is eventually shown *necessary* to assume), and the phenomenologies 
> derived in the ontology, which does not introduce any new assumptions (only 
> definitions).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>> To: everything-list > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>>
>> Sent: Mon, Jul 22, 2019 9:31 am
>> Subject: Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism
>> 
>> 
>>> On 22 Jul 2019, at 11:44, Philip Thrift >> <mailto:cloudver...@gmail.com>> 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
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> @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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>>> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ff0a

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 Jul 2019, at 12:17, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 4:59:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> Biology is certainly different from physics, but that does not mean that 
> terrestrial biology is not conceptually reducible to physics.
> 
> Like with mechanism, physics remains different from arithmetic and computer 
> science, but is conceptually reducible to or explained by, arithmetic.
> 
> It is important to distinguish the ontology (what we assume at the start, and 
> which is eventually shown *necessary* to assume), and the phenomenologies 
> derived in the ontology, which does not introduce any new assumptions (only 
> definitions).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> Does "conceptually reducible" mean anything? It means nothing to me.

A theory T1, which intended domain discourse D1 is reduced to a theory T2, with 
domain D2, if T2 interpret D1 in D2, and proves the corresponding theorem of T1.

Basically, this means that T2 is not needed to be assumed, as T1 do the right 
task. Then if T1 is simpler than T2, there is again, especially if T2 looks 
like contradicting T1.



> 
> Start with the Standard Model in Lagrangian language:
> 
>
> https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png 
> 
> 
> Can one compile or translate the theories of biology into this? If so, it 
> could be made explicit.

You need only the part on the electromagnetic interaction 
(photon/electron/nucleus). Chemistry is *the* big success of quantum physics. 
Quantum filed theory go beyond, as it explains also the internal structure of 
the nuclei, which does not pay a big role in biochemistry, except for the mass 
and gravitation which is still unsolved. 

To use Alain Connes explicit Lagrangian here, would like trying to do a coffee 
using string theory. Possible in theory; but not in practice.

Similarly, Mechanism explains (up to now, and until refutation) why there is 
consciousness and where the apparence of a physical reality comes from, in a 
constructive way (leading to difficult problem in pure arithmetic/mathematical 
logic).

Bruno



> 
> @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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f78cadda-1afc-4c42-bde7-f75697f6c668%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CF7F9543-BCBB-4E35-B90C-E3287FC35035%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

I bet that biology is reducible to physics and the belief, since that is what 
it is, a belief, is one reason we have missed the boat on the life sciences 
apparently. We still can' (won't) bring basic physical elements and from this 
create organisms. My suspicion that since the days or Urey, scientists have 
backed off why this is not so. Unless we invoke the elan vitale? :-D 


-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Jul 24, 2019 5:59 am
Subject: Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism



On 22 Jul 2019, at 22:33, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:
I would say that physics is diff from inorganic chemistry and biological 
science, in the sense that how academics observe and measure phenomena. Its a 
Venn diagram in which the circles or ovals align one on top of the other, maybe 
off-center here and there, but the same thing. 


Biology is certainly different from physics, but that does not mean that 
terrestrial biology is not conceptually reducible to physics.
Like with mechanism, physics remains different from arithmetic and computer 
science, but is conceptually reducible to or explained by, arithmetic.
It is important to distinguish the ontology (what we assume at the start, and 
which is eventually shown *necessary* to assume), and the phenomenologies 
derived in the ontology, which does not introduce any new assumptions (only 
definitions).
Bruno





-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Jul 22, 2019 9:31 am
Subject: Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism



On 22 Jul 2019, at 11:44, Philip Thrift  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/

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



@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ff0ad61c-1be0-4932-8e16-ccce4b709ff7%40googlegroups.com.


-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5F43B183-2405-42A2-B979-BCA8B737DF03%40ulb.ac.be.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1752692774.5124225.1563827609817%40mail.yahoo.com.


-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/BE30DEB9-79C9-4A31-A94F-ED21C34A5A6E%40ulb.ac.be.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1876891389.6264953.1563999064905%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

"Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. If your question is "Can anything 
be known without a consciousness knowing it?", then again, consciousness 
can only know itself.

On Monday, 22 July 2019 16:26:17 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 5:46:25 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>>
>> I think you make the old age confusion between epistemology and ontology.
>>
>
> Can anything be known without a brain knowing it?
>
> @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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/78acc545-8b49-4e06-bf51-5cec79e14bba%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 4:59:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Biology is certainly different from physics, but that does not mean that 
> terrestrial biology is not conceptually reducible to physics.
>
> Like with mechanism, physics remains different from arithmetic and 
> computer science, but is conceptually reducible to or explained by, 
> arithmetic.
>
> It is important to distinguish the ontology (what we assume at the start, 
> and which is eventually shown *necessary* to assume), and the 
> phenomenologies derived in the ontology, which does not introduce any new 
> assumptions (only definitions).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
Does "conceptually reducible" mean anything? It means nothing to me.

Start with the Standard Model in Lagrangian language:

   
https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png

Can one compile or translate the theories of biology into this? If so, it 
could be made explicit.

@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f78cadda-1afc-4c42-bde7-f75697f6c668%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Jul 2019, at 22:33, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> I would say that physics is diff from inorganic chemistry and biological 
> science, in the sense that how academics observe and measure phenomena. Its a 
> Venn diagram in which the circles or ovals align one on top of the other, 
> maybe off-center here and there, but the same thing. 

Biology is certainly different from physics, but that does not mean that 
terrestrial biology is not conceptually reducible to physics.

Like with mechanism, physics remains different from arithmetic and computer 
science, but is conceptually reducible to or explained by, arithmetic.

It is important to distinguish the ontology (what we assume at the start, and 
which is eventually shown *necessary* to assume), and the phenomenologies 
derived in the ontology, which does not introduce any new assumptions (only 
definitions).

Bruno



> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Mon, Jul 22, 2019 9:31 am
> Subject: Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism
> 
> 
>> On 22 Jul 2019, at 11:44, Philip Thrift > <mailto:cloudver...@gmail.com>> 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
> 
> 
>> 
>> @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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ff0ad61c-1be0-4932-8e16-ccce4b709ff7%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ff0ad61c-1be0-4932-8e16-ccce4b709ff7%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5F43B183-2405-42A2-B979-BCA8B737DF03%40ulb.ac.be
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5F43B183-2405-42A2-B979-BCA8B737DF03%40ulb.ac.be?utm_medium=email_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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1752692774.5124225.1563827609817%40mail.yahoo.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1752692774.5124225.1563827609817%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email_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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/BE30DEB9-79C9-4A31-A94F-ED21C34A5A6E%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Jul 2019, at 19:36, Philip Thrift  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 > 
>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> 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_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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/688DF03C-9337-4B6E-B8ED-BCAF55C9474C%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

I would say that physics is diff from inorganic chemistry and biological 
science, in the sense that how academics observe and measure phenomena. Its a 
Venn diagram in which the circles or ovals align one on top of the other, maybe 
off-center here and there, but the same thing. 


-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Jul 22, 2019 9:31 am
Subject: Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism



On 22 Jul 2019, at 11:44, Philip Thrift  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/

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



@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ff0ad61c-1be0-4932-8e16-ccce4b709ff7%40googlegroups.com.


-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5F43B183-2405-42A2-B979-BCA8B737DF03%40ulb.ac.be.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1752692774.5124225.1563827609817%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 8:31:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Jul 2019, at 11:44, Philip Thrift > 
> 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/
>
>
> 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 

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.

@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/524075a3-8230-4872-8d5c-89c7f794860a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Jul 2019, at 15:26, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 5:46:25 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
> I think you make the old age confusion between epistemology and ontology.
> 
> Can anything be known without a brain knowing it?

A brain cannot know anything, I would say.

Only a (first) person can know, and a brain can make a person manifesting 
itself, and its knowledge, relatively to you, but eventually, the brains that 
we can observe, like any piece of matter,  is better described as a map of the 
local histories you can access with great probabilities relative probabilities. 
Indeed, that is similar to the electronic orbitals, which describes the map of 
where the electron(s) can be found if you decide to measure their positions.

Bruno

> 
> @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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/672b7c38-c830-4e21-a54a-923d359529e1%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/AB4C4E48-ADF9-48FC-8761-B023C4339495%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Jul 2019, at 11:44, Philip Thrift  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


> 
> @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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ff0ad61c-1be0-4932-8e16-ccce4b709ff7%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ff0ad61c-1be0-4932-8e16-ccce4b709ff7%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5F43B183-2405-42A2-B979-BCA8B737DF03%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 5:46:25 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> I think you make the old age confusion between epistemology and ontology.
>

Can anything be known without a brain knowing it?

@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/672b7c38-c830-4e21-a54a-923d359529e1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I think you make the old age confusion between epistemology and ontology.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d41262f3-5ecf-4561-934e-e6924d16765f%40googlegroups.com.

Historical contingency and the futility of reductionism

[Philip Thrift]

*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 (?).

@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ff0ad61c-1be0-4932-8e16-ccce4b709ff7%40googlegroups.com.