Originally posted by Palynka
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png
Which notion? Because I do think that way (I'm no physicist, so one point for you!), my only critique is when that is taken to imply a hierarchy of sorts in different sciences. Macroscopic events are collections of microscopic (quantum) ones, no?
Edit - Ok, I see your point. I was imprecise when I say "explain eve ils down to physics at the quantum level. Could gravity be an example that proves me wrong?
I don't know the answer for that and I think that I can very safely say that no one knows the answer to that.
But here are some comments on what you said:
"Macroscopic events are collections of microscopic (quantum) ones, no?"
I would very certainly answer yes to that question. But there is one point to be made. That doesn't mean anything. Because you don't know how to take into account the interactions between those Quantum micro-systems (micro is really a bad word since Quantum Mechanics also have macro behavior and manifestations ). It's kind like the theory of differential equations. If they are linear all you have to do is break them up, find the solution to every part and add them up to have the full general solution. But if they are non-linear you can still break them up and find the individual solutions. The trouble is that the full general solution isn't just the sum of those particular ones.
Yes QM is a linear theory but is only so if you don't take the interactions between two (or more) systems into account.
One other thing is the concepts of complexity and emergence are undermining that simple determinism and reductionism. We now know that some properties that some systems exibit can never be explained if we break things apart and some the various solutions.
Last but not least: I don't believe this is the final version of QM.
Ps: Take my words with large doses of salt, since my views on science in general and physics in particular are highly deviant.