This is the core of his argument, and it is entirely unfounded.
It’s not founded, but neither is it explicitly contradicted.
While nothing in chemistry is known to contradict the laws of physics, we have yet to conclusively show that chemistry can indeed be entirely explained by the laws of physics. It is still possible that there are laws of chemistry that cannot be derived from a complete set of laws of physics correctly and fully applied.
Occam’s razor favors the idea that behaviors in chemistry we cannot currently predict directly from physics are results of our not-yet-complete understanding of physics and/or our lack of sufficient computational resources applied to the question. Postulating an additional “level” of rules that can’t be derived from physics is not currently necessary to explain features of chemistry tat are not yet reduced to physics. But that’s not the same as saying another level is ruled out.
Postulating an additional “level” of rules that can’t be derived from physics is not currently necessary to explain features of chemistry tat are not yet reduced to physics. But that’s not the same as saying another level is ruled out.
Physics is better than that. Lets say that there is another level of rules required to reduce chemistry. Then these rules are about physical systems in general, and lower-level than chemistry. We have found new laws of physics!
If they can’t be derived from physics now then that doesn’t mean physics won’t figure them out in the future.
If you define all laws of reality as physics, then sure, there’s nothing physics can’t explain. But that’s, well . . . here, let me tell a fable to explain.
The year 152,036 AD
“Hey, we just got the third-check output from the LMC computer array.”
“Yeah? What did it say?”
“The previous two sets were right. We input the known masses of the fundamental particles to five hundred thousand digits, and the known strengths of all seven fundamental forces to the same, arrange them in the form of a vertebrate animal, and run the sim, we do get an almost-perfect simulation. Minus the Lacuna. In fact, we can now say the evidence for the Lacuna has hit fifty-three sigma.”
“Damn. Any good news on the eighth force candidates?”
“All of them still cause the Sun to fail to fuse, if we allow them to have any measurable effect on covalently-bonded masses smaller than 0.997312121 milligrams.”
“And the collider results completely rule out any of the gauge bosons that fit any of the fifteen proposed models of an eighth force compatible with no effect under a milligram of mass. In fact, they don’t show any evidence of any gauge bosons associated with an eighth force, anywhere short of ten quadrillion yottavolts.”
“They’ve said that for the last hundred thousand years, why would you expect a change now?”
“Look, this is nuts. There is no way that physics has a special force just to explain the Lacuna, and has no affect on anything else, and no other way to detect it than the existence of the Lacuna.”
“Fifty-three sigma. The universe doesn’t care about your incredulity.”
“Yeah, but it’s stupid. How the hell did we wind up in a universe that requires a special law of physics to explain the Lacuna?”
“Because the Creators chose to add it when they were creating the Universe Simulation.”
“Dammit. I still don’t believe it. What kind of genius develops a perfectly good set of fundamental laws, implicit in a single equation you can fit on a T-shirt, that creates all the beauty and wonder of the universe, and then sticks on a pointless extraneous natural law to do absolutely nothing but make a handful of vertebrates, of all things, yawn?”
It’s not founded, but neither is it explicitly contradicted.
While nothing in chemistry is known to contradict the laws of physics, we have yet to conclusively show that chemistry can indeed be entirely explained by the laws of physics. It is still possible that there are laws of chemistry that cannot be derived from a complete set of laws of physics correctly and fully applied.
Occam’s razor favors the idea that behaviors in chemistry we cannot currently predict directly from physics are results of our not-yet-complete understanding of physics and/or our lack of sufficient computational resources applied to the question. Postulating an additional “level” of rules that can’t be derived from physics is not currently necessary to explain features of chemistry tat are not yet reduced to physics. But that’s not the same as saying another level is ruled out.
Physics is better than that. Lets say that there is another level of rules required to reduce chemistry. Then these rules are about physical systems in general, and lower-level than chemistry. We have found new laws of physics!
If they can’t be derived from physics now then that doesn’t mean physics won’t figure them out in the future.
If you define all laws of reality as physics, then sure, there’s nothing physics can’t explain. But that’s, well . . . here, let me tell a fable to explain.
The year 152,036 AD
“Hey, we just got the third-check output from the LMC computer array.”
“Yeah? What did it say?”
“The previous two sets were right. We input the known masses of the fundamental particles to five hundred thousand digits, and the known strengths of all seven fundamental forces to the same, arrange them in the form of a vertebrate animal, and run the sim, we do get an almost-perfect simulation. Minus the Lacuna. In fact, we can now say the evidence for the Lacuna has hit fifty-three sigma.”
“Damn. Any good news on the eighth force candidates?”
“All of them still cause the Sun to fail to fuse, if we allow them to have any measurable effect on covalently-bonded masses smaller than 0.997312121 milligrams.”
“And the collider results completely rule out any of the gauge bosons that fit any of the fifteen proposed models of an eighth force compatible with no effect under a milligram of mass. In fact, they don’t show any evidence of any gauge bosons associated with an eighth force, anywhere short of ten quadrillion yottavolts.”
“They’ve said that for the last hundred thousand years, why would you expect a change now?”
“Look, this is nuts. There is no way that physics has a special force just to explain the Lacuna, and has no affect on anything else, and no other way to detect it than the existence of the Lacuna.”
“Fifty-three sigma. The universe doesn’t care about your incredulity.”
“Yeah, but it’s stupid. How the hell did we wind up in a universe that requires a special law of physics to explain the Lacuna?”
“Because the Creators chose to add it when they were creating the Universe Simulation.”
“Dammit. I still don’t believe it. What kind of genius develops a perfectly good set of fundamental laws, implicit in a single equation you can fit on a T-shirt, that creates all the beauty and wonder of the universe, and then sticks on a pointless extraneous natural law to do absolutely nothing but make a handful of vertebrates, of all things, yawn?”
“You have met software engineers, haven’t you?”
“I’m going to go get drunk.”
I don’t understand your point. If there is a separate law required for yawns then that’s still a physical law that describes physical systems.