Life terminology reform

From Hmolpedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
In 1943, Erwin Schrodinger, in his What is Life? lecture, famous said that "life" is anything that "feeds on negative entropy", i.e. a thing that eats in short. This assertion was attacked by Francis Simon (1943), John Butler (1946), and Linus Pauling (1987), and others[1] , after which Schrodinger recanted, and said the discussion should have turned to “free energy”. When this is done (see: HFET), one finds that "life" is a a word in need of terminology reform (Lotka, 1925). This reform was initiated by Libb Thims (2012) in the JHT, Hmolpedia, in lecture and on video, and other locations.

In terminology reform, life terminology reform, aka "life terminology upgrades" (TR:126), refers to physico-chemically neutral term replacements and or upgrades for all life-related terms, synonyms, and adjectives.


See main: Abioism glossary

On 23 Dec 2012, Libb Thims, in the wake of the defunct theory of life debate, 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 citation-based practiced or tested "upgrades" to thereby usurp any extant defunct anthropism based terms:

  • Living beings → Affinity-mediated CHON beings (Henry Clark, 1865)
  • Protoplasm → CHNOPS entity (Edwin Hill, 1900; Anon, c.1915)
  • Living substance → "CHNOPS+ 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)
  • BiologyChnopsology (Thims, 2012)
  • 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)

The biggest influence here being the Swan (1974) and Thone (1936) usages, respectively; namely that if one switches out "bio" for "powered", and refers to the class of species, formerly defined as being "alive" or "living things", say bacteria to humans, with the phrase "CHNOPS plus", CHNOPS+, or CHNOPS+ [the number of additional elements in the given species], e.g. a human is a CHNOPS+[20 element] species (see: CHNOPS+20E), then the prefix "bio", as well as the adjectives "living", "life", or "alive", etc., and their antonyms, e.g. "die", "dead", death", etc., become superfluous, and hence meaningless, and we can then begin to speak about "real" things, defined exactly.

In the years to follow, this list has grown, and these new "life terminology reform" words and phrases, were first tested out in submitted articles to the Journal of Human Thermodynamics, and thereafter integrated into the majority of the language of all Hmolpedia articles, in a learn as we go, and grow our mind manner, so as to speak cogently, correctly, and exactly about what is being discussed, in an "exact science" manner.


The following are quotes:

“If these terms: ‘unit-mass of living matter’, ‘resultant of organic forces’, ‘continuity of organic substance’, etc., biologists have adopted from physics, are used figuratively, we ought to find them re-defined.”
Karl Pearson (1892), Grammar of Science (pgs. 328-31) [2]
“It should be observed that nothing has been said of life in describing the system. The system may or may not comprise living organisms, the argument remains the same. This suggests that a term, such as life, so vague that it defies definition, is perhaps not likely to play an important part in any exact argument; we may, indeed, find it wholly unnecessary. It may, in time, in the literature of exact science, meet with the fate of the word cause: a term of rare and at best incidental occurrence in records of exact investigations.”
Alfred Lotka (1925), Elements of Physical Biology (§1: Regarding Definitions, note 18) [3]
“Both the scientific and the everyday elbow are one and the same system of electrical charges. It is of no use asking physics and chemistry whether it is alive’. They do not understand the word. When physics and chemistry have entered on their description of the perceptible, ‘life’ disappears from the scene, and consequently ‘death’. Both are anthropisms.”
Charles Sherrington (1938), Man on His Nature (pgs. 236, 260) [4]
“Lets us abandon the word ‘alive’.”
Francis Crick (1966), Of Molecules and Men (pg. 5)
“Much of developmental biology will someday have to be written in much the same language that physical chemists use.”
— Lionel Harrison (2008), The Shaping of Life (pg. 105)

End matter

See also


  1. Note to Chapter 6 (subdomain) – Hmolpedia 2020.
  2. Pearson, Karl. (1892). The Grammar of Science (§9.1: The Relation of Biology to Physics, pgs. 328-31; quote, pg. 330). Adam and Charles Black, 1900.
  3. Regarding Definitions – Hmolpedia 2020.
  4. Sherrington, Charles. (1938). Man on His Nature (pgs. 236, 260). Publisher.

External links

Theta Delta ics T2.jpg