I would agree that trying to use fundamental physics to describe complex systems and emergent behavior within those systems is completely infeasible. However, when you're implicating metaphysics and making claims about moral truths around say, natural rights, the nature of property, the categorical distinction between social and economic, it's worth asking pretty deep questions around where people think the limits of those categories actually *are*. For instance, if you're going to say that an Individual's "economic decision" has a particular moral purchase, it's worth getting to the bottom of why one would insist that's true. I think people implicate metaphysics implicitly in a lot of these sorts of conversations without even realizing they're doing it. Therefore, my purchase in invoking fundamental physics, is not to suggest that F=ma or Schrödinger's equation is an appropriate level of description to talk about human social society or human economic affairs -- because they're really not, and you need to speak in the language of emergent systems to comprehend emergent systems -- my purpose is to argue that there is nothing metaphysically going on between the most fundamental description and the emergent description. There's no real metaphysical boundary. It's just beyond our capacity to measure, and beyond our capacity to comprehend the complexity within higher order systems. That doesn't make them any less completely consistent -- even in higher-order complexity -- with fundamental physics. To wit, if you're saying otherwise in the context of this discussion, you're arguing that human choices are of supernatural origin, ipso facto.