xkcd: Periodic Table Changes
https://xkcd.com/2639/

Yup, that is what happens when you put a physicist in charge of chemical
stuff.

Just kidding.

Explained at:
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2639:_Periodic_Table_Changes

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
> xkcd: Periodic Table Changes
> https://xkcd.com/2639/
>
> Yup, that is what happens when you put a physicist in charge of chemical
> stuff.

Chemistry is just applied physics of the electron shell.

Physicists still cannot figure that out, so we still need chemists.

On Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 6:13:07 AM UTC-6, Thomas Koenig wrote:

> Chemistry is just applied physics of the electron shell.
>
> Physicists still cannot figure that out, so we still need chemists.

Hey. Just as we need physicists in addition to mathematicians, we also
need engineers, chemists, and medical doctors in addition to physicists,
just as we need computer programmers in addition to electronics
engineers, or psychologists in addition to brain surgeons.

Understanding a system at a higher level, without troubling oneself
overmuch about how its innards work is often a discipline in itself.
Basically, this has to do with the limited capacity of the human brain.

John Savard

On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 2:35:54 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 6:13:07 AM UTC-6, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> > Chemistry is just applied physics of the electron shell.
> >
> > Physicists still cannot figure that out, so we still need chemists.
> Hey. Just as we need physicists in addition to mathematicians, we also
> need engineers, chemists, and medical doctors in addition to physicists,
> just as we need computer programmers in addition to electronics
> engineers, or psychologists in addition to brain surgeons.
>
> Understanding a system at a higher level, without troubling oneself
> overmuch about how its innards work is often a discipline in itself.
> Basically, this has to do with the limited capacity of the human brain.

In theory, you could study sociology at the quark interaction level, but
you'd have trouble getting peer reviewed.

pt

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 23:35:51 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 6:13:07 AM UTC-6, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
>> Chemistry is just applied physics of the electron shell.
>>
>> Physicists still cannot figure that out, so we still need chemists.
>
>Hey. Just as we need physicists in addition to mathematicians, we also
>need engineers, chemists, and medical doctors in addition to physicists,
>just as we need computer programmers in addition to electronics
>engineers, or psychologists in addition to brain surgeons.
>
>Understanding a system at a higher level, without troubling oneself
>overmuch about how its innards work is often a discipline in itself.
>Basically, this has to do with the limited capacity of the human brain.

This is entirely true, even if it does lead to claims of "emergence"
as something other than merely "the next-lowest-level hasn't reached
the point where it can explain the behavior on this level". That is,
where it pretends that something new is actually emerging rather than
accepting that it is emergent because we can't explain it -- yet.

--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 8:48:26 AM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> In theory, you could study sociology at the quark interaction level, but
> you'd have trouble getting peer reviewed.

You could do it in theory but nowhere else.

On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 3:29:28 PM UTC-4, artyw2@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 8:48:26 AM UTC-5, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > In theory, you could study sociology at the quark interaction level, but
> > you'd have trouble getting peer reviewed.
> You could do it in theory but nowhere else.

"In theory, theory and practice should be the same.
In practice, they never are."

pt

On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 10:28:44 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> This is entirely true, even if it does lead to claims of "emergence"
> as something other than merely "the next-lowest-level hasn't reached
> the point where it can explain the behavior on this level". That is,
> where it pretends that something new is actually emerging rather than
> accepting that it is emergent because we can't explain it -- yet.

Normally, I have no problem with calling something an "emergent
property" of a system... but, yes, I have occasionally encountered
uses of the concept that are deep into woo-woo, attempting to refute
reductionism in favor of holism and so on.

Analyzing things in a reductionistic fashion isn't always helpful,
when the connection between levels is too complicated - often far too
complicated - for us to understand. But that _causality_ flows from the
inner structure to the larger consequence - and not from the overall
purpose to the elements that make it up - is necessary to acknowledge.

Of course, though, there _is_ one category of exception to this. Or perhaps
*two* categories.

An intelligently designed mechanism... might have a microprocessor the
tiny transistors of which were laid out in order that it might fulfill the purpose
of the machine it controls.

And a living organism may have, embedded in its DNA, codes which reflect
the selective pressures that organism's ancestors have faced.

But in both cases, there is a clear physical pathway that allows the whole to
affect the elements. Not some mystical striving of nature towards a goal.

John Savard

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 06:48:24 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 2:35:54 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 6:13:07 AM UTC-6, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>
>> > Chemistry is just applied physics of the electron shell.
>> >
>> > Physicists still cannot figure that out, so we still need chemists.
>> Hey. Just as we need physicists in addition to mathematicians, we also
>> need engineers, chemists, and medical doctors in addition to physicists,
>> just as we need computer programmers in addition to electronics
>> engineers, or psychologists in addition to brain surgeons.
>>
>> Understanding a system at a higher level, without troubling oneself
>> overmuch about how its innards work is often a discipline in itself.
>> Basically, this has to do with the limited capacity of the human brain.
>
>In theory, you could study sociology at the quark interaction level, but
>you'd have trouble getting peer reviewed.

I think using "principle" instead of "theory" would be more clear.

The difficuly with studying sociology at the quark interaction level
is computational intractability--we just plain don't have the power to
do that kind of calculation.