Much like a knowledge of physics is insufficient to draw conclusions about biochemistry, knowledge of basic physical laws tells you very little about the fundamentals of a practical engineering field. The theory and laws of e.g. civil engineering are typically traceable back to abstract physical principles, but are not strictly derivable from them.
As to the article's content, it's philosophy without supporting evidence (meaning it's philosophy), and its conclusions are regularly refuted by the many examples that connect physical fundamentals with everyday reality. Example? Quantum theory and computers -- as separate as the two may seem, we can't have the second without a detailed knowledge of the first.
> Much like a knowledge of physics is insufficient to draw conclusions about biochemistry ...
In the final analysis, all of biochemistry derives from biology and chemistry, each of which derives from physics. Relevant in that regard is the fact that chemistry turns out to be applied quantum physics, to a shocking number of decimal places.
> The theory and laws of e.g. civil engineering are typically traceable back to abstract physical principles, but are not strictly derivable from them.
Not true. Either civil engineering is "strictly derivable" from physics, or it's not part of reality. The behavior of concrete over time, as just one example -- we know what will become of it in the long term, and modern quantum theory tells us why.
Philosophical articles like "More Is Different" represent nothing more or less than physics envy. They're interesting and deserve to be heard, but in the reality footrace, events annoy the authors by reliably overtaking their philosophical positions.
There is a difference between reality and academic physics. It is trivial to say engineering knowledge is derived from reality, and it's wrong to say it's derived/derivable from purely theoretical/academic knowledge of physics -- especially because good engineering requires knowledge of man-made safety standards and such.
Engineering is a corpus of knowledge that has been slowly and with great difficulty hewed from the raw rock of real experience over hundreds of years. It is not just a branch of math derivable from axioms. Show some respect.
Quote: "A physical theory is a model of physical events. It is judged by the extent to which its predictions agree with empirical observations."
Read the above carefully. What it says in essence is that a physical theory is judged by the degree to which it agrees with reality. Our best physical theories agree with reality to ten decimal places.
Physical theory is a statement about reality. If reality disagrees, the theory is thrown out and replaced by a better one.
> It is trivial to say engineering knowledge is derived from reality, and it's wrong to say it's derived/derivable from purely theoretical/academic knowledge of physics ...
Engineering is applied science. Any engineering field for which this is not true has no right to exist, and doesn't deserve the public's trust.
Quote: "Applied science is typically engineering, which develops technology, although there might be feedback between basic science and applied science: research and development (R&D)."
> Engineering is a corpus of knowledge that has been slowly and with great difficulty hewed from the raw rock of real experience over hundreds of years. It is not just a branch of math derivable from axioms.
False, and you need to learn this topic. I hope you're not an engineer.
> Show some respect.
By correctly identifying engineering as applied science, I did. There is no higher praise than to say -- correctly -- that engineering is derived from scientific principles, from physics.
More is different (PDF link: http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72mo... ).
Much like a knowledge of physics is insufficient to draw conclusions about biochemistry, knowledge of basic physical laws tells you very little about the fundamentals of a practical engineering field. The theory and laws of e.g. civil engineering are typically traceable back to abstract physical principles, but are not strictly derivable from them.