• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Reductionism: Physics-Chemistry-Biology

TheChadd

Critical Thinker
TheChadd
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
414
Hey guys,

Well I'm having this argument with a close friend of mine who's about to begin her 2nd year of undergraduate science. The argument is essentially about the most basic form of reductionism: I explained that physics 'comes' from mathematics, chemistry comes from physics and biology comes from chemistry.

She's someone who loves chemistry and seemed angry at the suggestion that it is reducible down to physics... I gave some examples of the way chemistry is working off the foundation of physics but they didn't seem to satisfy. I'm wonder if anyone could offer up a simple way to show her exactly what I mean - Or if there really is strong argument out there about whether chemistry is reducible to physics (I'm doubting it).

Thanks.
 
I like to say that math is to physics what letters are to words. Words are to a sentence what physics is to chemistry and a sentence is to a paragraph as chemistry is to biology. Understanding grammar does not mean you will be able to grasp literature, but it is a foundational component. Grammar being essential to literature does not mean it is “better”, they are two different beasts in many ways.

And I suppose language is to a letter as philosophy is to math, eh? :)

(p.s. this is a website on the “power of ten”:
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/
I always found it a nice illustration, though it may or may not be helpful)
 
Hmm yea that analogy may help because she seems to feel (she did highschool chemistry, biology, physics) that because knowledge of chemistry helped her more in those subjects than knowledge of physics helped her in chemistry that it's not a foundation.
 
TheChadd said:
She's someone who loves chemistry and seemed angry at the suggestion that it is reducible down to physics... I gave some examples of the way chemistry is working off the foundation of physics but they didn't seem to satisfy. I'm wonder if anyone could offer up a simple way to show her exactly what I mean - Or if there really is strong argument out there about whether chemistry is reducible to physics (I'm doubting it).
Click to expand...

Can you prove that the Schrödinger equation is solvable for all systems?


To a large extent you claim balances on what you think the role of the experiment in science is. If you think it is central then large areas of physics come from chemistry.

If you think that the role of the experiment is to try and disprove a theory then again much of phyics is derived from chemistry.

Alternately if we go for Kuhn's approach then we can say that under the current Paradigm it could be argued that chemistry comes from physics although since it is trivial to show that organic chemists do not spend a vast amount of time calculateing waveforms this is somewhat open to question.

If we go for Feyerabend's aproach (which does have the benifit of fitting historical trends rather well) then the question is meaningless.
 
Just to muddy the waters:

What about physical chemistry?

or

"All science is either physics or stamp collecting."
- E. Rutherford

how about our entire life sciences building thinking theoretcal physicists practice 'voodoo science' at best, because it is math-based and not observation based?

And is all chemistry based on physics because chemical bonds are electronic interactions?

When you get into academic labels and compartments you're messing around with the dark forces by making statements with too much certainty ;).
 
TheChadd said:
Well I'm having this argument with a close friend of mine who's about to begin her 2nd year of undergraduate science.
Click to expand...

It's nice to be involved in a debate that is, by its very definition, sophomoric.
 
The sciences complement each other. I could not say that one wholly derives from another as, others have already pointed out, one can do any one without really touching upon the other two primaries. Then there are the derived sciences that really are so specialized that they really should be considered sciences on their own.

And, let's not forget geology. I have a very good geologist friend who would argue vehemently that his is a science in its own right.

It's all a study of nature, after all, using a logical and rigorous method so my advice is not to get too stuck on labels and turf.
 
Molecules are made of atoms. Atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons and neutrons are made of quarks.

Show me a chemist who cares about quarks.
 
The science of chemistry may not have derived itself from physics, but everything that is happening chemically (and that chemisty describes) is due to the interplay of forces that physics describes.
The problem is that when there are too many particles involved the problem becomes so complex that we need to view it from a new level of analysis.
 
Roboramma said:
The science of chemistry may not have derived itself from physics, but everything that is happening chemically (and that chemisty describes) is due to the interplay of forces that physics describes.
The problem is that when there are too many particles involved the problem becomes so complex that we need to view it from a new level of analysis.
Click to expand...

I generally agree with this incase this person or others have mistaken my position on the matter. I don't think one is 'better' or 'more important' by any stretch.
 
Roboramma said:
The science of chemistry may not have derived itself from physics, but everything that is happening chemically (and that chemisty describes) is due to the interplay of forces that physics describes.
The problem is that when there are too many particles involved the problem becomes so complex that we need to view it from a new level of analysis.
Click to expand...

Slimething: See above - this also applies very much to geology, and the other natural (as in nature study) sciences.
 
Physics deals with EVERYTHING physical.

Chemistry deals with a subset of the physical - namely the way atoms share electrons.

Biology deals with a subset of the physical - namely carbon machine constructs.

You may not have to know the ins and outs of physics to do chemistry or biology but a 'total' knowledge of physics implicitly leads to 'total' knowledge of the other two.
 
cyborg said:
Physics deals with EVERYTHING physical.

Chemistry deals with a subset of the physical - namely the way atoms share electrons.

Biology deals with a subset of the physical - namely carbon machine constructs.

You may not have to know the ins and outs of physics to do chemistry or biology but a 'total' knowledge of physics implicitly leads to 'total' knowledge of the other two.
Click to expand...

Fortunately for chemists and biologists, a total knowledge of physics is effectively impossible.
 
cyborg said:
You may not have to know the ins and outs of physics to do chemistry or biology but a 'total' knowledge of physics implicitly leads to 'total' knowledge of the other two.
Click to expand...

Can you prove that the Schrödinger equation is solvable for all systems?
 
geni said:
Can you prove that the Schrödinger equation is solvable for all systems?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by solvable? An analytic solution isn't even possible for helium. Even Newtonian gravitation can't be solved for the solar system, but that never seemed to be a reason to think it was wrong. I'd expect that approximations to the Schrödinger equation would allow you to derive any chemical principles, although it might be practically impossible for large enough systems, like trying to predict enzyme activity. I suppose if you must satisfy the philosophy of science types it might be better to say "in principle any theory of chemistry or biology can be derived from the theories of physics".
 
geni said:
Can you prove that the Schrödinger equation is solvable for all systems?
Click to expand...

Poorly framed question. Do you mean analytically solvable? Do you mean numerically solvable? Do you mean does a solution exist? Your question is ambiguous.

Better question: Can the Schrödinger equation describe the time evolution of any input wave function? The answer is, yes.

There are no known phenomena in chemistry or biology which do not operate according to the laws of physics. In an abstract sense, these sciences can indeed be reduced to physics. But as a practical matter, they are well served by treating them as different sciences. With chemistry, the distinction isn't always even clear to begin with (quantum chemistry, for example, pretty much IS physics), but it's generally the case with biology. Secondly, there are a lot of systems (including even systems within physics) where we either aren't interested in trying to solve problems from first principles or where (because of the complexity of the system) we cannot do so for practical reasons. Many such systems are ammenable to treatment with emmergent principles (such as natural selection in biology) much more easily than with first principles (good luck trying to construct the quantum mechanical wave function of a fruit fly). But that doesn't mean that the first principles aren't still operative, and don't underly the emmergent principles. So yes, all chemistry is physics, but that statement doesn't mean much on a practical level.
 
Ziggurat said:
Poorly framed question. Do you mean analytically solvable? Do you mean numerically solvable? Do you mean does a solution exist? Your question is ambiguous.

Better question: Can the Schrödinger equation describe the time evolution of any input wave function? The answer is, yes.

There are no known phenomena in chemistry or biology which do not operate according to the laws of physics. In an abstract sense, these sciences can indeed be reduced to physics. But as a practical matter, they are well served by treating them as different sciences. With chemistry, the distinction isn't always even clear to begin with (quantum chemistry, for example, pretty much IS physics), but it's generally the case with biology. Secondly, there are a lot of systems (including even systems within physics) where we either aren't interested in trying to solve problems from first principles or where (because of the complexity of the system) we cannot do so for practical reasons. Many such systems are ammenable to treatment with emmergent principles (such as natural selection in biology) much more easily than with first principles (good luck trying to construct the quantum mechanical wave function of a fruit fly). But that doesn't mean that the first principles aren't still operative, and don't underly the emmergent principles. So yes, all chemistry is physics, but that statement doesn't mean much on a practical level.
Click to expand...


Yep and this is what I've been taught/agree with. I don't think many accept 'greedy reductionism' as Dennet called it.
 
fishbob said:
Slimething: See above - this also applies very much to geology, and the other natural (as in nature study) sciences.
Click to expand...

You'll get no argument from me there, fishbob. However, if one is going to get down to the very rudiments of "why everything is", mathematics trumps physics. So, let's hear it for the mathematicians. But that isn't even recognized as a science.

Frankly, this topic is what I characterize as scientific bar-talk. It's as relevant and important as who was the best actor ever, the best athlete ever, the best sports team ever, etc. Issues like this are never resolved to anyone's satisfaction but I sure like to drink beer while I'm listening!

So, let's hear it for Nature, yes? That's what we're all studying, no matter what we call it or how humble anyone else considers our passtime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom