<i>Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics and Reductionism: Perspectives in Theoretical Chemistry</i>

Primas, Hans; Shimony, Abner

doi:10.1119/1.13329

Cited by 45 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The non-reduction of molecular chemistry has often been argued for by pointing out that quantum chemistry borrows the notion of molecular structure from classical chemistry, following influential publications of Woolley (1978) and Primas (1983). In quantum theory an atom or molecule has no extension in space or time 17 ; neither electrons nor nuclei exist as individual objects; electrons in a molecule are indistinguishable, not identifiable entities.…”

Section: Can Chemistry Be Reduced To Physics?-quantum Mechanicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemistry and physics: no need for metaphysical glue

Brakel

2010

Found Chem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using the notorious bridge law ''water is H 2 O'' and the relation between molecular structure and quantum mechanics as examples, I argue that it doesn't make sense to aim for specific definition(s) of intertheoretical or interdiscourse relation(s) between chemistry and physics (reduction, supervenience, what have you). Proposed definitions of interdiscourse and part-whole relations are interesting only if they provide insight in the variegated interconnected patchwork of theories and beliefs. There is ''automatically'' some sort of interdiscourse relation if different discourses claim to have something to say about the same situation (event, system), which is the basis of (contingent) local supervenience relations, which, proper empirically support being provided, can be upgraded to ceteris paribus bridge laws. Because of the ceteris paribus feature, and the discourse dependence of event identification, there is at best only global supervenience of the ''special sciences'' on the physical (and of parts of physics on other parts of physics). Events and discoursesConsider four discourses for speaking about water.1. The human-centred (non-scientific) discourse concerning manifest features of the world, what Putnam (1975) called the stereotypical features of water. This discourse on the ''stuff'' water is not restricted to common sense. It may include sophisticated (Husserlian or Wittgensteinian) phenomenology. 2. Scientific discourse concerning macroscopic bodies of water, emerging from the manifest discourse; for example the event of boiling water. Here we encounter macroscopic (scientific) theories such as thermodynamics and hydrodynamics.

show abstract

Section: Can Chemistry Be Reduced To Physics?-quantum Mechanicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemistry and physics: no need for metaphysical glue

Brakel

2010

Found Chem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Primas [10], if we allow for interactions with the outside world, then the lack of structure evaporates. But Hendry is not impressed with either of these solutions.…”

Section: Top-down Causation Chemistry -Physics E R Scerri 23mentioning

confidence: 99%

Top-down causation regarding the chemistry–physics interface: a sceptical view

Scerri

2011

Interface Focus.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines two influential authors who have addressed the interface between the fields of chemistry and physics and have reached opposite conclusions about whether or not emergence and downward causation represent genuine phenomena. While McLaughlin concludes that emergence is impossible in the light of quantum mechanics, Hendry regards issues connected with the status of molecular structure as supporting emergence. The present author suggests that one should not be persuaded by either of these arguments and pleads for a form of agnosticism over the reality of emergence and downward causation until further studies might be carried out.

show abstract

“…Primas [43] in his thought provoking evaluation of the myth of universal laws brings up numerous profound problems connected with the ineptness of traditional quantum chemistry to take the necessary step from calculation to concept. Although many of the puzzles have a distinct metaphysical flavour, they aim at the deeper meaning of chemistry and a worldview, unus mundus, which integrates also the dimensions of semiotics.…”

Section: Non-hermitian Quantum Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore the current formulation faces the incidence of well-known inconsistencies and conundrums, plaguing physicalism, transcending from the microscopic-to the macroscopic level, see e.g. Primas [43]. NeoDarwinistic principles, i.e.…”

Section: Regulation By An Evolved Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Origin and Evolution of Complex Enough Systems in Biology

Brändas

2017

Quantum Systems in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent criticisms of Neo-Darwinism are considered and disputed within the setting of recent advances in chemical physics. A related query, viz., the ontological thesis, that everything is physical, confronts a crucial test on the validity of reductionism as a fundamental approach to science. While traditional 'physicalism' interprets evolution as a sequence of physical accidents governed by the second law of thermodynamics, the concepts of biology concern processes that owe their goal-directedness to the influence of an evolved program. This disagreement is met by unifying basic aspects of chemistry and physics, formulating the Correlated Dissipative Ensemble, CDE, as a characterization of a 'complex enough systems', CES, in biology. The latter entreats dissipative dynamics; non-Hermitian quantum mechanics together with modern quantum statistics thereby establish a precise spatio-temporal order of significance for living systems. The CDE grants a unitary transformation structure that comprises communication protocols of embedded Poisson statistics for molecular recognition and cellular differentiation, providing cell-hierarchies in the organism. The present conception of evolution, founded on communication with a built-in self-referential order, offers a valid argument in favour of Neo-Darwinism, providing an altogether solid response and answer to the criticisms voiced above. Introductory Remarks Reductionism in Natural ScienceA frequent understanding of natural sciences contends that biology reduces to chemistry and chemistry to physics. Even if the traditional analytic interpretation of mathematics as a language or tool to convert knowledge about nature, i.e. a formal science not being incorporated amongst the branches of physical or life sciences, some recent propositions impart that also physics can be reduced to mathematics [1]. Within such views, based on strict reductionnism, see more below, one argues that the present laws of physics are not only commensurate to biology, but also contain the necessary natural laws for expressing all the known biological facts.There are numerous differences of opinion regarding the scheme outlined above, e.g. the impossibility to derive the Coulomb Hamiltonian corresponding to a molecule from first principles and the general problem of quantum chemistry to treat nuclei and electrons on a more or less equivalent basis, see Löwdin [2]. Other arguments concern the concepts of biology as the laws of physics, at present, exclude a fundamental understanding of biological processes governed by an evolved program [3,4].Observation and deliberate experiments instigate rational, deductive theory, formulated in the language of mathematics, with the so accumulated knowledge discussed and contained by the methods of philosophy in general and the concepts of biology in particular. Recognizing the acquired demarcation between the philosophy of science, including biology, and the enactment of reductionism as embodied in the laws of physics, the endwise connections between them ...

show abstract

Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics and Reductionism: Perspectives in Theoretical Chemistry

Cited by 45 publications

References 0 publications

Chemistry and physics: no need for metaphysical glue

Chemistry and physics: no need for metaphysical glue

Top-down causation regarding the chemistry–physics interface: a sceptical view

The Origin and Evolution of Complex Enough Systems in Biology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About