Emergency

It's common for scientists especially physicists to describe a law of nature, and proclaim everything is subject to that law, and the law is capable of explaining everything. They also often add a curious disclaimer, saying that although that is theoretically possible, nobody actually derives (for example) the ideal gas law from the Schrödinger equation, or derive organic chemistry from atomic physics, because it is too complicated to do so.

Despite the fact that nobody actually did it, people still *believe* that those handful of equations are all there is to the laws of nature.

But we really don't know whether that's the case.  Until we have actually derived all physical phenomena from such first principles, we cannot really say with confidence that we know what we think we know. It's more of an assumption as opposed to a well established fact backed by evidence.

What if those laws don't scale like we thought they would? What works for 10 particles might not work for 100 particles, and what works for 100 particles might not work for 1 000 000 000. Why are we so sure that complex organic chemistry only depends on the known atomic physics, and not something new that happens when interactions become much more complex?

This is perhaps the classical argument against reductionism, and it is more of a philosophical objection than a real suggestion that scientists have got it all wrong. But modern physics is indeed oblivious to its over-reliance on reductionistic approaches, to everyone's detriment.

Given my hypothesis that magic could hide and manifest in complexity (so that the smoking gun could not be found, at least not easily), it seems to me that if scientists are really serious, they should actually spend more effort in excising these magical dwellings from the theory, instead of leaving it to assumptions.