"John Wilkins"  wrote in message
news:c7rcpi$kgc$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> What I am asking here is this: If liquidity exists (and I assume it
> does) is there any aspect of it that remains uncaptured by a model
> composed solely of [representations of] water molecules, and the
> attendent atomic and subatomic particles?

John,

Throw in the four forces of nature.  You can't limit
your reduction to just the components - you must also
take the interactions between components into account.
Change the word "uncaptured" to "uncapturable",
since we are not sure the right model is present.
No additional changes required.

I assent.  There is no aspect that remains uncapturable.
I am a reductionist in that sense.  (So, I suspect, is almost
every other poster to this group.)

John, I'm sure you have heard the old proverb saying that
"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
It is frequently cited in engineering circles as a warning
to specialists in some technology who seek to utilize their
expertise on inappropriate problems.

You sir, wield the philosopher's hammer.  As part of your
training, you have learned to use this hammer against some
Very Bad Ideas that have been suggested by some fairly
intelligent people in the past.  These exemplary historical
Very Bad Ideas are the nails that you were trained to attack
with your hammer.

While I very much admire your precision and your reverence
for the history of words and ideas, I do occasionally
think that you sometimes suspect the existence of nails
where none exist.  Just an observation.

Thanks,

    Jim  ;-)
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 5/13/04 1:39:41 PM