Stamp Collecting

I was reminded recently of the Ernest Rutherford phrase about all real science just being physics, and everything else being equivalent to stamp collecting. I've always found this to be such a self important and arrogant approach to science, as well as a misguided one (it seems to imply that physics is wholly objective, or pure ontology - ignoring that all science including physics is subject to fashion, and ultimately grounded in human consciousness).

So, I thought I'd make a list of non-trivial things that physics either could not deal with, or would be completely ridiculous to even try (mostly in defense of other sciences, but maybe some things outside the realm of science in general). [By non-trivial, I mean that it's pointless to say that physics could never produce an equation that would tell me George Washington's middle name, because George Washington's middle name in this case is a trivial kind of fact about George Washington - I'm talking about the kinds of things that have internally consistent structure.] But of course, my list will not be extensive. So maybe anyone who reads this can add things via comments.

List of things non-derivable from any physics equation:

1) How to determine the major 5th of a particular key (or some other music theory computation).

2) The optimal method of creating a difficult maze.

3) How SHH and BMP affect the cells of a human developing in the womb (or any other mammal).

4) The structure and interactions of the pathway from the retinal cells in the eye (through the LGN) to the primary visual cortex, and back out to the temporal and dorsal regions of the brain, etc.

5) The underlying differences between Indo-european languages and Altaic ones.

6) How a democratic republic functions differently from pure democracy (the non-trivial version of this problem).

7) The fastest way to solve a Rubix cube.

8) The most efficient solution to the traveling salesman problem.

...

n-2) Human consciousness.

n-1) What happens to our consciousness when we die.

n) Most likely, the universe itself. Turns out, there's never going to be a physics theory of everything (you could have asked Godel about that - no formal axiomatic system can be complete AND consistent - and Gregory Chaitin showed that there are infinite fundamental and irreducible 'axioms' in any formal system). But then, that's kind of the point of my post here.

I'm not actually trying to 'physics-bash' - after all, I was spellbound reading Einsteins 1905 paper on special relativity when I was sixteen. I don't want to crush anyone's enthusiasm for learning, I just find it odd when amateur-physicists are so enamored with being able to explain photons that they think everything in the universe breaks down to a couple of equations. What do you think?