Defunct theory of life debate

From Hmolpedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The 16 Mar 2009 JHT publication of the Libb Thims and Georgi Gladyshev correspondence on the question of the "origin of life" in the context of thermodynamics, wherein Thims expressed his view that the concept of "life" had become a "defunct scientific theory", which resulted in a heated debate over the course of the following three years.[1]

In debates, defunct theory of life debate refers to a 2007 to 2013 debate on the question of the presumed existence of “life”, with specific focus on the purported-to-exist life start point, and the defunctness of these two premises, in respect to chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics; debate on the proposition that life is a defunct theory, aka "defunct theory of life" (Thims, 2009)


In 2007, Libb Thims, in his "Molecular Evolution" chapter, classified the premise of defining four-element molecules, such as aspartic acid () as being "not alive", but five-element molecules, such as RNA (), as being "alive", and six-element molecules, such as coenzyme A (), as being "more alive", as "clearly ridiculous backwards logic".

In 2008, Michael Brooks, in his 13 Things that Don't Make Sense, classified "life" as the fifth-biggest thing in modern science that does not make sense.

In 2009, Thims began to press on Georgi Gladyshev, author of Thermodynamic Theory of the Evolution of Living Beings (1997), to explain, in his view, how, when, and by what mechanism, the so-called "life start point" actuated, chemically and thermodynamically, i.e. the specifics of how atoms and molecules became a "living being" on a specific day in the past? This was the starting point of the debate.

The debated engaged Ted Erickson, a physicist and chemical engineer, who theorized about consciousness at the Planck scale; DMR Sekhar, a chemical engineer, who penned several articles and books against the theory; Jeffrey Tuhtan, a civil and ecological engineer, who penned his PhD dissertation on the "thermodynamics of Alpine river fish" (2012) amid the heat of the debate; philosopher David Bossens, who penned the followup booklet Debates of the Hmolpedians (2013); among numerous others.

In the debate, “life” was re-classified as a “defunct” scientific theory (2009); various "life terminology upgrades" (2012) were developed, to usurp and replace all defunct anthropism-based terms (e.g. bio, alive, die, etc); lastly, "abioism" (2015) was coined, as the new view that "life does not exist", as opposed to "emergent bioism", which is what the common person presently believes (i.e. is taught), or "panbioism", which is what some great philosophers, historically, have attempted to adhered to.

Early views

An artistic reconstruction of Darwin’s 1871 “warm pond” letter description of the possible origin of the life.[2]

From 1548, beginning with Jean Fernel, and his On the Hidden Causes of Things, wherein he questioned things such as Aristotle’s idea that “heat is the condition of life” and whether magnetic stones are alive or dead, to 1966, wherein Francis Crick, in his Of Molecules and Man, in the wake of his neo-vitalism debates, declared “we should abandon the word alive”, there has been a 400-year period of controversial debate on the question of the life vs non-life divide and the origin of life. Three of these, namely: Darwin's warm pond (1871), Miller's experiment (1952), and Woese's RNA world theory (1968), summarized below, are to be noted.

In 1871, Charles Darwin posited, in a letter to Joseph Hooker, that “life” was sparked into existence, millions of years ago, in a warmed chemical pond:

“I return the pamphlets, which I have been very glad to read.— It will be a curious discovery if Benjamin Lowne’s observation that boiling does not kill certain molds is proved true; but then how on earth is the absence of all living things in Pasteur’s experiment to be accounted for? I am always delighted to see a word in favor of ‘pangenesis’, which some day, I believe, will have a resurrection. William Dyer’s paper: ‘On Spontaneous Generation and Evolution’ (1870), strikes me as a very able Spencerian production. It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.— But if, and oh what a ‘big if’, we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.”
— Charles Darwin (1871), “Letter to Joseph Hooker”, Feb 1 [3]

In 1952, Stanley Miller, under the guidance of planetary chemist Harold Urey, conducted their famous Miller-Urey experiment, wherein the continuously sparked a mixture of methane , ammonia , water , and hydrogen , and thereby synthesized organic compounds, namely the amino acids: glycine, α-alanine, β-alanine, and possibly aspartic acid (), and α-amino-n¬-butyric acid.[4]

In 1968, Carl Woese, in his The Genetic Code, posited the so-called “RNA world hypothesis”, according to which RNA, with the approximate molecular formula: , where Z is the number of nucleotides in the chain, was the first form of “life”.


In 2005, Michael Brooks, an English quantum physicists, in New Scientist, penned the provocative article “13 Things That Don’t Make Sense”, #6 of which was on the prolonged debate about whether or not carbon 14 emissions from soil on Mars, found during the Viking Mission (1976), indicate that "life" on Mars exists or has existed?[5]

In 2008, Brooks, in his 13 Things That Don’t Make Sense: the Most Baffling Mysteries of Our Time, a book-length expansion of his former article, defined “life” as the 5th biggest thing in modern science that doesn’t make sense.[6]

Molecular evolution | Table

Thims' 2005 poster-sized "molecular evolution table", which he began to use in lecture and discussion, wherein the question of "which row", i.e. element count row, is to be assigned as being the "first life" row, begins to come to the fore, as a salient question?

In 2005, Libb Thims made the “molecular evolution table”, shown adjacent, showing the molecular development of humans from hydrogen and subatomic particles in about 30-steps, the question of which element "rows" in this table, one is to assign as being "alive" becomes problematic?

Clearly ridiculous

In 2007, Thims, in his chapter “Molecular Evolution”, of his Human Chemistry, Volume One, after citing Woese’s “RNA molecule = first life” theory, stated the following:[7]

“As such, if we are to naively believe that the 5-element RNA was the ‘first form of life’, then we would also have to believe the following backwards logic”
(aspartic acid) = not alive [?]
(ribonucleic acid) = alive!
(coenzyme A) = more alive [?]
This type of reasoning, in which small 4-element molecules, such as aspartic acid, a crystalline amino acid found especially in plants, are ‘not alive’, whereas 5-element molecules, such as RNA, are ‘alive’, is clearly ridiculous. The hypothesis put forward herein, to reconcile these areas of theoretical inconsistency, is that the human organism is a 26-element molecule and that it as well as all other large-element molecules are dynamic atomic structures found within a 92-element, heat-fluxed, environment, which together react, form, and break bonds, evolve, and reproduce according to the four laws of thermodynamics. Moreover, there is no such reality as there being a specific energy-filled ‘spark day’ in the earth’s past in which molecules suddenly became lifelike, alive, or imbued with life, etc., as is currently believed.”

Thims, at this point, although he could not yet "see" the solution, had, nevertheless drawn a "line in the sand" of absurdity, in that, after explaining, in his "Molecular Evolution" chapter, how humans, which are told ARE alive, by de-facto definition, had "evolved" over time, or rather correctly been "synthesized" over time, from hydrogen, which by definition is NOT alive, he had gleaned that there was something funny or "ridiculous" going on in the search for the one magically-mechanistic day, in the past, wherein, supposedly, atoms join to form a molecular structure that is alive?


Being ALIVE is absurd

On 2 Jan 2009, Libb Thims wrote the following to Georgi Gladyshev:

“You agree with me that the single atom is not alive. What about two atoms? What about three? Does a bound state of atoms have to have a certain movement to be considered alive? What if we heat a system of four atoms, do they suddenly become alive? What if we subject a system of atoms to both gravitational and electromagnetic forces, does that suddenly make them alive? What if the two forces act to move smaller atoms through the cavities of larger atomic [structures] [molecules] on a cyclical basis, thus activating reactions [metabolism] in the process, does that make them alive? What if the two forces begin to arrange the atoms into hierarchies, and that smaller atoms and bundles of atoms begin to move between the hierarchies, does that make them alive? What if a structure of atoms, begin to turnover their internal atoms, with those of the surrounding space, on a cyclical basis, does that make it alive? It should be very obvious that no matter how many atoms one adds to the argument that an atom or a structure made of two or more atoms cannot be alive. It is my view that one cannot define an atom or two or more atoms structured as a bound state to be alive. The word itself and baggage of theory surrounding the word is meaningless. It is akin to the words: vitalism, élan vital, hylozoism, panpsychism, etc. From the point of view of the molecular evolution table, according to current views, rows 1-10 are considered to be not alive, rows 11-28 are considered to be alive, and rows 30 and above are not alive. Because of our anthropocentric biases, we continue to believe that we are unique among molecular structures, in that those much smaller or much bigger than us are not alive, whereas we are. It is a grave mistake to believe in this fallacy. I am not quite sure what the alternative theory is; but from the point of view of atoms, molecules, and the logic of the chemistry textbook, the theory of the conception an atom, or two or more attached atoms, being alive is absurd. This is my view.”
—Libb Thims (2009), “Letter to Georgi Gladyshev”, Jan 2; cited by: DMR Sekhar (Ѻ), 7, 20 Aug 2010 and 2014 (Ѻ); Vangelis Stamatopoulos (Ѻ), 15 Nov 2010; David Bossens (Ѻ), 19 Jun 2012 and 3 Jan 2013; David Busse (Ѻ), 10 Dec 2013; YouTube forums (Ѻ), 2014; Georgi Gladyshev (Ѻ), 2014; among others (Ѻ) [8]

Molecular evolution | Timeline

On 15 Jun 2009, Libb Thims began to make the online sideways scroll-able “evolution timeline”, and expanded version of the molecular evolution table, showing the formation of humans, starting the big bang, in about 75-steps.[9] Thims also made a YouTube video entitled: "Human Evolution: Big Bang to Present".[10]

On 1 Apr 2010, Libb Thims, following a talk on "Panpsychism and Thermodynamics" given by Ted Erikson, at the Illinois Institute of Technology, taped up a paper scroll version of the evolution timeline, and asked Erikson point out where he things "life" started, which you see him pointing to below.[11]

Evolution timeline (Erickson, 2010).png

Erikson went on to argue with Thims and physicist David Gore, that Planck length particles have consciousness:

“Consciousness, a function derived from photons, gets a bit ‘murky’, but therein lies the source.”
— Ted Erikson (2010), “Dialogue with Libb Thims and David Gore”, Apr 1

meaning that for Erikson, life starts at the point of “awareness” begins, in the sub-atomic range of interactions, or something along these lines.

Gladyshev-Thims | Origin of Life?

On 16 Dec 2007, Libb Thims met up with Georgi Gladyshev, while he was presenting at some anti-aging medical conference in Chicago, and while, over dinner, Thims was trying to explain, to a Russian-American female physician, one of Gladyshev's associates, who presented at the conference, the "gist" of his new Human Chemistry book, one of the core points of which being the new view that a person is a "molecule", gleaned the idea that a short introductory booklet, being summation of chapters 2 "The Human Molecule" and 5 "Molecular Evolution", of his Human Chemistry, Volume One (2007), on this topic might be helpful.[12]

On 4 Dec 2010, Georgi Gladyshev posted the following note, in the threads of the Hmolpedia “origin of life” article:

“I have written in Knol two notes on the origin of life in Russian. I think that you can translate them through an interpreter.”
— Georgi Gladyshev (2010), “Origin of Life”, Threads (post #0), Dec 4

To which Thims responded as follows:

“Knols don't seem to be working for me lately? I'll I get is a blank white page to the link. Quick question: what day exactly did the first life in the universe begin?
— Libb Thims (2010), “Origin of Life”, Threads (post #1), Dec 4

Gladyshev, being the author of the 1997 book Thermodynamic Theory of the Evolution of Living Beings, naturally enough, should have been able to give a quick answer to this seemingly-simple query?

Debate threads

The engagement into this question of "what day did life begin" and "unbridgeable gaps", erupted into a intensely-heated "debate" that amassed into 100s of forum posts, over the three years following; the main debate threads are shown below:

Other similar posts, began to grow in the period to follow:

In 2021, Thims combined all these threads into "one pdf" file entitled "Defunct Life Theory Debates" for easy of viewing[13]; a basic citation of these debates is as follows:

  • Thims, Libb. (2021). “Defunct Life Theory Debates: 2008 to 2018” (pdf),, May 7.

Beg-Thims dialogue

In 2014, Libb Thims engaged Arshad Beg in dialogue on the defunct theory of life, e.g. when did Goethe become alive?"; these threads are amassed into one pdf below:

  • Beg, Arshad; Thims, Libb. (2014). “Dialogue on Beg’s Physico-Chemical Sociology” (commentator: Inderjit Singh) (pdf), Hmolpedia Forum, 23 Jun to 12 Sep.

Thread comments

Gladyshev, in the heat of this debate, made the following comment:

“Libb, you write on science very often. Now you wrote that you a scientist (you wrote: “I'm a scientist so is Ubbelohde, who first made the suggestion…”). What is your specialty in science? I and my friends do not know about your articles in peer reviewed professional journals? I think you should write on science very carefully. I try to support you. However, you do not listen to my opinions. I believe that you create an incredible mess. I'm beginning to understand that you do not know “what is science?”. Your work will have value only for information but would have no value to science. I'm convinced of it. Very sorry!”
— Georgi Gladyshev (2011), “Re: defunct theory of life” (post #5), Feb 2

Gladyshev, after this comment, did not communicate with Thims for nine-years:[14]Gladyshev and Thims, to note, had been good intellectual friends in the previous five years; Gladyshev even coming to Chicago, from Russia, twice to meet with Thims. He did, however, continue his attack in print; for example:

“Notions about the ‘non-existent theory of life’ and the use of the term ‘molecule’ to define a human are manifestly absurd.”
— Georgi Gladyshev (2013), “Life as a Phenomenon”; cited by Libb Thims (2016) in “Lotka’s Jabberwock: on the ‘Bio’ of BioPhysical Economics” [15]

Here, Gladyshev declares that the non-existence of life is "manifestly absurd"! Other comments:

“There is no ‘life’ according to you and yet you taught biothermodynamics (life thermodynamics)?”
— Joshua Nesselroth (2018), “I Would Look to Descartes First Meditations” (page: atheism) (post: 48), Hmolpedia 2020 Threads, Jan 3

Life terminology upgrades

See main: Life terminology reform

On 23 Dec 2012, Libb Thims started the "life terminology upgrades" page, wherein he began to list historically-employed physico-chemically neutral term-equivalent replacements, such as shown below, which can be employed as "upgrades" to thereby usurp any extant defunct anthropism based terms:[16]

  • Living beings → Affinity mediated CHON beings (Henry Clark, 1865)
  • Protoplasm → CHNOPS comprised entity (Edwin Hill, 1900; Anon, c.1915)
  • Living substance → "CHNOPS plus systems" (Frank Thone, 1936)
  • Life → Animate matter (Alfred Ubbelohde, 1954)
  • Earth-based life forms → CHNOPS organisms (Harold Morowitz, 1968)
  • Biochemistry → Study of ‘powered CHNOPS systems’ (Henry Swan, 1974)
  • Life thermodynamics → Animate thermodynamics (Sture Nordholm, 1997)
  • Biogenic elements → CHNOPS (National Academy of Science, 1998)
  • The living perspective → The CHNOPS perspective (Paul Keddy, 2007)
  • Life → Animate bound state reactive existence (Libb Thims, 2007)

In the years to follow, this list has grown, and such terms have been integrated into the majority of the language of all Hmolpedia articles, so as to speak cogently about what is being discussed.


In 2013, David Bossens, in reflection of what he had learned from the debate, talking place in many various threads aside from the main three above, published the book Debates of the Hmolpedians, wherein he discusses his newly-learned views on hmolscience, in regards to questions on the defunct theory of life, biology, free will, prediction, DNA, human molecular theory, among others.[17]

Life does NOT exist

A 2016 video[18] by Alfred Rogers, an American philosopher, speaking on his 1990s discernment that “life does not exist”, aka abioism (Thims, 2015), along with his 2013-launched website, and how the only difference that separate things such as atoms, e.g. hydrogen, seeds, geysers, such as Old Faithful, amoeba, and humans, is "complexity".


In the 1990s, Alfred Rogers began to collect a shoebox of philosophical notes on the idea that “life does not exist”; eventually starting, in 2010, the website, the main points of which are shown below:

Life does not exist in the sense that life is not absolutely different from non-life. The difference between life and non-life is like the difference between plants and animals. A recent article in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reported that bacteria locked in Antarctic ice for 100,000 to 8-million years resumed growing when given warmth and nutrients. Could they have been alive for all that time? Could any life processes been going on for that period? If not, can a living thing spend an intermittent part of its life as a non-living thing? I think this is incongruous with life and non-life being absolutely different. During the frozen period all the conditions for life, including the DNA existed, but life did not exist. More commonly many seeds remain viable for many years under certain conditions. They go through a life cycle in part of which they are not alive. Can a living thing be not alive during part of its life?”

In 2014, Libb Thims contacted Rogers, after which they began to exchange emails; Thims probing him for weak points in his theory, e.g. whether he believed that the hydrogen atom was alive, his theological beliefs or non-beliefs, etc.; one example:

Rogers view (2014).jpg
“There is no essential difference between ‘life’ and ‘non-life.’ The perceived difference is complexity. Old Faithful (Ѻ) has ‘life-like’ movement but is easier to understand than a paramecium (Ѻ). The hydrogen atom is NOT alive.”
— Alfred Rogers (2014), “Email to Libb Thims”, Nov 21

In 2016, Rogers, per request of Thims, made a video explaining his "life does not exist" philosophy, shown adjacent, which was published on Thims' HumanChemistry101 channel, with introductory commentary by Thims and special guest Inderjet Singh.


In 1998 to 2004, Jonathan Dowling, while working at NASA, began to float the idea to his colleagues that, from the point of view of atoms, DNA and entropy, “there is NO line” that separates what we have been accustomed to distinguish as “living” from “nonliving”, particularly when it comes to the measured search for so-called “extraterrestrial” life.

In 2013, Dowling, in his Schrödinger's Killer App: Race to Build the World's First Quantum Computer, eventually published a note on his so-called "there is no line" view:

“When [1998-2004] I was at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, we would have endless discussions on the definition of life. What is life? The discussions were always hinged on the metaphysical and religiously infused idea that there should be a line—things on one side of the line were alive and things on the other were not. The game was to find that line. People argued and continue to argue about this endlessly. Should it reproduce, reduce the entropy of its environment, have DNA, or what? For example, viruses are infectious, reproduce, and have DNA and most vote they are alive (but some not). Prions, which cause mad cow disease, are malevolent proteins that reproduce, are infectious, but have no DNA. Most say they are not alive and say we should draw the line of life between prions and viruses. My response to these discussions was, there is no such thing as life! There are interesting chemical reactions, like Stephen Hawking, and less interesting chemical reactions, like salt crystals growing in a glass of salt water. There is no line, no ‘breath of life’ separating living from nonliving. That is a metaphysical bit of silliness. We should focus on interesting over boring chemical reactions and forget about this line that does not exist except in our own minds.”
— Jonathan Dowling (2013), (2013). Schrödinger's Killer App: Race to Build the World's First Quantum Computer (ref. #88, pgs. 429-30)


In 2013, Ferris Jabr, a science writer, gleaned the view that "life does not exist", after thinking deeply about the difference between the movements of his cat jumping around its play tree, and a K'Nex roller coaster moving up and down its tracks.

In 2013, Ferris Jabr, in his Scientific American blog article “Why Life Does Not Really Exist”, explained how, in reference to his cat and a K'Nex roller-coaster, that the life/non-life divide is an anthropomorphism, and that in reality, life does not exist:

“Why is defining life so frustratingly difficult? Why have scientists and philosophers failed for centuries to find a specific physical property or set of properties that clearly separates the living from the inanimate? Because such a property does not exist. Life is a concept that we invented. On the most fundamental level, all matter that exists is an arrangement of atoms and their constituent particles. These arrangements fall onto an immense spectrum of complexity, from a single hydrogen atom to something as intricate as a brain. In trying to define life, we have drawn a line at an arbitrary level of complexity and declared that everything above that border is alive and everything below it is not. In truth, this division does not exist outside the mind. There is no threshold at which a collection of atoms suddenly becomes alive, no categorical distinction between the living and inanimate, no Frankensteinian spark. We have failed to define life because there was never anything to define in the first place.”
— Ferris Jabr (2013), “Why Life Does Not Really Exist”, Dec 2 [19]

In Mar 2014, Jabr followed this up with his New York Times opinion editorial article “Why Nothing is Truly Alive”, arguing along the same lines, using Dutch artist Theo Jansen's so-called StrandBeests, or wind-powered walking sculptures.[20][21]

“Recognizing life as a concept is, in many ways, liberating. We no longer need to recoil from our impulse to endow Mr. Jansen’s sculptures with ‘life’ because they move on their own. The real reason Strandbeest enchant us is the same reason that any so-called ‘living thing’ fascinates us: not because it is ‘alive’, but because it is so complex and, in its complexity, beautiful..”
— Ferris Jabr (2014), “Why Nothing is Truly Alive”, Mar 12


On 3 Nov 2014, Libb Thims, after discovering the work of Rogers and Jabr, the started the "life does not exist" article; shortly thereafter (2016) finding the views of Dowling.[22]


On 4 Jul 2015, Libb Thims introduced the term "abioism", shown below, simply as a header column label:

Abioism (4 Jul 2015 coining) 2.jpg

to represent the view, philosophy, or belief that "life does not exist", similar to how "atheism" represents the view, philosophy, or belief that "god does not exist". The header column was made in the atheism types by denial and belief page, showing the six main “denials” (or disbeliefs), as compared to six main “creeds” (or disbeliefs), of the top 30 atheism-inclining philosophers of all time, amid which “abioism”, as a new term, was introduced, in reference to those who “deny life” or deny that life exists.[23]

BPE 2016

On 28 Jun 2016, Libb Thims, referencing Alfred Lotka's 1925 "Regarding Definitions"[24] chapter, gave a talk entitled “Lotka’s Jabberwock: On the ‘Bio’ of BioPhysical Economics”, at the University of District of Columbia, Washington, DC, during the 7th BioPhysical Economics Conference.[25]


The following are related quotes:

“We should abandon the word alive.”
— Francis Crick (1966), Of Molecules and Man (pg. 5)

End matter


  1. (a) Thims, Libb. (2009). “Letter to Georgi Gladyshev”, Jan 2.
    (b) Thims, Libb. (2009). “Letter: Life a Defunct Scientific Theory” (pdf), Journal of Human Thermodynamics, Vol. 5, pgs. 20-21.
  2. Anon. (2015). “What Was the Miller-Urey Experiment?”, Stated Clearly, Oct 27.
  3. Darwin, Charles. (1871). “Letter to Joseph Hooker” (Ѻ), Feb 1.
  4. Miller-Urey experiment – Hmolpedia 2020.
  5. Brooks, Michael. (2005). “13 Things: That Don’t Make Sense”, New Scientist, Mar, 19.
  6. (a) Brooks, Michael. (2008). 13 Things That Don’t Make Sense: the Most Baffling Mysteries of Our Time. Profile, 2010.
    (b) 13 Things That Don’t Make Sense? (2008) – Wikipedia.
  7. Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One) (difficulties on term, pgs. 130-31). LuLu.
  8. (a) Thims, Libb. (2009). “Letter to Georgi Gladyshev”, Jan 2.
    (b) Thims, Libb. (2009). “Letter: Life a Defunct Scientific Theory” (pdf), Journal of Human Thermodynamics, Vol. 5, pgs. 20-21.
    (c) Sekhar, DMR. (2010). “Thread: An-att: On Self and Non-self (defunct life theory discussions), Aug 7,
    (d) Sekhar, DMR. (2010). “The Paradox of Life: Life a Defunct Scientific Theory?”, Knol. Aug, 20; in:, 13 Feb 2011; in (c.2010).
    (e) Stamatopoulos, Vangelis. (2010). “It’s Life Jim, but not as we Know it!”,, Nov. 15.
    (f) Bossens, David. (2012). “Life, a defunct concept?”,, Jun 19.
    (g) Bossens, David. (2013). Debates of the Hmolpedians (strong atheist, pg. 4; debates, pgs. 3-96). Lulu.
    (h) Busse, David. (2013). “Viruses: Living or Not?”, Dec 10,
    (g) DNews. (2014) Are Viruses Alive? (Feb thread discussion), YouTube.
  9. Evolution timeline (subdomain) – Hmolpedia 2020.
  10. Thims, Libb. (2009). “Human Evolution timeline | Big bang to present” (Ѻ), Human Chemistry 101, YouTube, Jun 16.
  11. (a) Erikson, Ted. (2009). “What Makes Us Human: Panpsychism and Thermodynamics Explored”; in: Philosophy of Evolution. Publisher, 2010.
    (b) Erikson, Ted. (2010). “Talk given to American Institute of Chemical Engineering students, Illinois Institute of Technology, Apr 1.
  12. Gladyshev and Thims (contributions) – Wikipedia.
  13. Thims, Libb. (2021). “Defunct Life Theory Debates: 2008 to 2018” (pdf),, May 7.
  14. Gladyshev, George. (2020). “Dear Libb! Where can I find the rating of Georgi Gladyshev?”, YouTube comment (Ѻ), Nov.
  15. Thims, Libb. (2016). “Lotka’s Jabberwock: on the ‘Bio’ of BioPhysical Economics” (YT) (Gladyshev, 5:45-), 7th BioPhysical Economics Conference, University of District of Columbia, Washington, Jun 28.
  16. Life terminology upgrades (subdomain) – Hmolpedia 2020.
  17. Bossens, David. (2013). Debates of the Hmolpedians. Lulu.
  18. Rogers, Alfred. (2016). “Abioism: Life does NOT exist” (co-speakers: Libb Thims and Inderjit Singh) (YT), Human Chemistry 101, Jun 23.
  19. Jabr, Ferris. (2013). “Why Life Does Not Really Exist”, Scientific American, Brainwaves Blog, Dec 2.
  20. Jabr, Ferris. (2014). “Why Nothing is Truly Alive” (WB), New York Times, Opinion Pages, Mar 12.
  21. StrandBeest genealogy –
  22. Life does not exist (subdomain) – Hmolpedia 2020.
  23. Atheism types by denial and belief (WikiFoundry subdomain) – Hmolpedia 2020.
  24. Regarding Definitions – Hmolpedia 2020.
  25. Thims, Libb. (2016). “Lotka’s Jabberwock: on the ‘Bio’ of BioPhysical Economics” (slides: Flickr) (YT), 7th BioPhysical Economics meeting, University of District of Columbia, Washington DC, Jun 28; Human Chemistry 101, Jul 6.

Further reading

  • Sekhar, D.M.R. (2011). GenoPsych: a Coinage in the Foundry of Biology (Thims, 5+ pgs). Scientific Publishers.
  • Sekhar, D.M.R. (2011). Consciousness, Entropy, and Evolution: the Laws of Biology (defunct theory of life, pg. 2). Scientific Publishers.


External links

Theta Delta ics T2.jpg