logoalt Hacker News

chanakyatoday at 3:10 AM3 repliesview on HN

As you move up levels starting from physics (eg. physics-> chemistry-> biochemistry-> biology), each layer has several "laws" which are generally pretty established, but a causal connection between the layers is hard to provide satisfactorily. And that is how I think it'll always be, else we'll be expecting to explain Shakespeare's plays using physics.

Also, this is where Rutherford's "all science is either physics or stamp collecting" holds a lot of water. As you move up the science layers, the laws themselves become less mathematically rigid until by the time you get to the social sciences, explanations are all hand-waving, and all "laws" are statistical at best and empirical.


Replies

ohhnoodonttoday at 8:58 AM

> else we'll be expecting to explain Shakespeare's plays using physics.

This is just a data problem though. From the perspective of a deterministic universe, creative works theoretically can be explained as a physics outcome (ignoring the impact of potential quantum randomness).

show 1 reply
pestatijetoday at 7:06 AM

doesn't that also apply for the maths-> physics layer? id say maths is the bottom layer

show 2 replies