Hacker News Reader

Saying "quantum rules aren't important for most objects" just isn't true. I understand what you're trying to say -- that we mostly use imprecise metaphors in place of what's really going on -- but that's a statement about our understanding, not reality.

View on HN

How about "the higher-level abstractions of biochemistry encapsulate quantum-mechanical effects pretty well, and rarely leak"?

That's hitting the nail on the head that is - right there. But telling a pedant what they do or don't need to be pedantic about is a losing game

Per a comment down thread that without quantum effects we'd all fall through the floor. Yes. But I don't need to solve Shroedinger's equation every time I go for a walk. In the same way, Biologists don't always have to take into account quantum mechanical effects, but the times that they do are very interesting and worth hearing about.

For example, solids are "solid" largely because of the Pauli exclusion principle, which says that two fermions (such as electronics) can't occupy the same state at the same time. These effects are so familiar, and we explain them with simple words like "solid," that we forget that quantum mechanics makes it work. Without quantum mechanics, we'd fall through the floor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com