[Koshkin]

It must be noted though that life is an emergent phenomenon, therefore the idea that it requires physics to explain it is clearly reductionist. For instance, if you were to simulate chemical (let alone higher-level) processes characteristic to life using a computer, you would definitely not need to start with Schrödinger's equation. Even organic chemistry can be modeled based on high-level "axioms" of its own, and those axioms, or principles, do not even have to be the same as those used in modeling general chemical phenomena.

[proteinbased]

I did not indent to convey that the empirical findings in biology/chemistry are not important. I agree that you do not necessarily need a quantum description to understand biological phenomena, but sometimes (eg single electrons in photosynthesis , bond breaking/formation) you do. Molecular simulations however were not what I was picturing when I wrote my comment. If I understand you correctly, you think because of the emergent character of biological systems, the physical approach is too reductionist. But the emergence we observe is due to (non equilibrium) thermodynamics, which is studied primarily in statistical physics. I guess what I want to say is that we should be aware that many interesting problems are found at the borders of disciplines which were shaped by historical happenstance. Example: there is immense overlap between chemistry and solid state physics, still they are considered as distinct disciplines.