[Wittrs] Re: philosophy, physics, chemistry, and Justintruth's argument
- From: Justintruth <truth.justin@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 16:03:07 -0800 (PST)
Thanks for the references. They sound great! Now how can I get the
time to read them! ;)
Cutting to the chase is it just an ability to predict or calculate the
right orbitals? If chemistry is not explained by physics then that
means there is a problem with the physics as it is supposed to be able
to predict the evolution of matter (within uncertainty). Is it that
physics predicts one thing and chemistry has found another or that the
orbitals are just too hard to calculate?
>Physics also does not predict the development of organic compounds chemistry
>does that) or the evolution of life. But are you therefore a vitalist?
I guess I am a mechanist because I believe that physics does predict
the development of organic compounds (or we need a new version of it)
and that the interaction of those compounds is life. If however I
thought that organic chemistry did not predict evolution I guess I
would be a vitalist.
>... there's an awful lot else that physics doesn't describe that we would
>still call parts of the physical world.
I know that for example the three body problem was not solvable in
classical mechanics but that is different than saying a new principle
was needed. There are also some negative results now I think. Isn't
the universe accelerating outward? I guess the physical theorists have
a headache. But I think these problems are different in kind from the
consciousness question. It is not just the extension of the theory in
a way that involves the position and velocity of particles or the
probability of appearing of particles. etc. A whole new type of
physics would be implied with different ways of observing etc.
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
