If you are going to have the basic building block of the universe, then that means it can build the _entire_ universe, including Chemistry and Biology.
imo, we cannot derive either of those from physics so there is a limit to what physics can build of the universe.
That statement would raise a lot of eyebrows among the materialists. The whole point of computer simulations of chemical molecules is that the behaviour of substances can be derived from physics.
But interestingly, I was startled to find that even something as fairly basic as the chemical properties of atoms isn't actually derived from the lower-level quantum-mechanical equations for those atoms, the way I thought it worked in high school. Although theoretically science is a layered model, with physics at the bottom, then chemistry, then biology, then psychology/sociology at the top - it actually wasn't constructed like that and hasn't really been fully validated all the way down. In chemistry, we have a big lookup table of empirically-derived constants that we're pretty sure could be computed from the lower levels, but actually aren't. In fact, it's considered something of a very hard computational problem to run the actual QM equations of even a couple of atoms, so everything is done with approximations. And when there's a workable theory at a higher level that approximates its own domain reasonably well, and fits with a lower theory at at least a couple of points, that's usually considered good enough.
It is a bit of an illusion, the claim that all of science is fully derivable from maths plus physics. It's really a set of linked abstractions and approximations, and like most abstractions, the interfaces between them tend to hide a lot of subtle complexity that each abstraction itself might not include in its own model.