From Hmolpedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discussion Page Tips
Function Wiki markup Resulting wiki code Resulting display
Use "signature plus timestamp" (after post)
-- ~~~~
--[[User:Username|Username]] 12:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC) -- Username 12:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Use "colons" :, ::, :::, etc. (to indent posts)
:This is my first post.

::This is a response post.
:::This another response post.

This is the first post.
This is a response post.
This is another response post.

'Information' is a derivative of 'energy' [?] that could be more fundamental [?] in time!

From the 2019 to 2020 Thermodynamics 2.0 conference, drafting and Q&A session:

“I think it was in Terence’s presentation that Dilip was asking whether he though that ‘information’ was more fundamental than matter [?]. If I can make a comment on that, I know certainly that information if physical, and the ‘bit’, as some scientists have argued, is more fundamental than [matter or energy]] and the new fundamental kernel in the universe, and is actually more fundamental than ‘matter’ itself. To produce motion, e.g., or ‘change’, requires energy, whereas to ‘direct’ this change, you need information. So one can argue that information is more fundamental then matter and energy itself.”
Wassim Haddad (2020), “Thermodynamics 2.0 conference Group Session Q&A dialogue” (Ѻ (0:00-1:29)), Jun 22
“That’s really great, Wassim for bringing it up. That reminded me that when we started thinking about the ‘Thermodynamics 2.0’, we considered that there could be a three triad, one based on ‘energy’, the second one based on ‘entropy’, the third one based on ‘information’. And it was initially like that on our website:
  • ORIGINAL: “The language of Thermodynamics 2.0 is ‘energy’ or its derivatives such as ‘entropy’ or ‘information’ which could be more fundamental than energy in time.” ( homepage on 25 Jul 2019)
  • REVISED: “The language of Thermodynamics 2.0 is ‘energy’ or its derivatives such as ‘power’ and ‘entropy’ which could be more fundamental than energy in time.” ( homepage on 26 Sep 2020)
But, I’m just sharing with you kind of the ‘making of thermodynamics 2.0’. One of our board of directors [Thims] strictly objected to that. But we didn’t talk about what kind of ‘information’ he was referring to, but he said that he was referring to this ‘Shannon’ type of information, and I had so much respect for him, and he even emailed me that if ‘information’ is on the thermodynamics 2.0 [platform], he will not be helping me in organizing this conference, therefore we dropped that [‘information’] out.”
Ram Poudel (2020), “Thermodynamics 2.0 conference Group Session Q&A dialogue” (Ѻ (1:30-4:08)), Jun 22

Basically, I told Ram that if the sentence: the "language of thermodynamics is ‘energy’ or its derivatives such as ‘entropy’ or ‘information’ which could be more fundamental than energy in time”, remains on the homepage and or is sold as platform for the conference, that I would NOT be attending the conference.

The 30+ historical refutations of this “information = energy or entropy” error, along with Shannon’s 1956 “Bandwagon” article, wherein Shannon specifically states:

“Workers in other fields should realize that the basic results of this subject [information science] are aimed at a very specific direction, one that is NOT relevant to fields such as psychology, economics, and other social sciences.”
— Claude Shannon (1956), “The Bandwagon”

along with my 2012 article: “Thermodynamics ≠ Information Theory” [1] were given, to Poudel, as justification for this; yet he, like many, seem to dismiss these frank warnings? The false equivalence of these, however, seems to grow exponentially, with time? --Sadi-Carnot (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2020 (EDT)

Poudel’s R.N Adams Award and Iberall Award

Ram Poudel’s email request (7 Sep 2020), that I attend and give a Zoom speech (or attend the Zoom conference) as representative for Poudel’s “IAISAE” organization, for Poudel’s conceived “Richard Adams Award” (named after Richard Adams):

R.N. Adams Award.jpg

not to mention his conceived “Iberall Award” (named after Arthur Iberall), both show below, with my hand-written notes:

Iberall Award.jpg

The “Iberall Award”, Poudel has awarded to Bernard Guy, and has gotten Adrian Bejan and Thea Iberall to sign off on it. I really have NO idea who Bernard Guy is?

The “R.N. Adams Award”, which I prefix with R.N., as correctly, it should be the “Adams Award”, named after Henry Adams, who has done more than ANY American to “integrate the natural and social sciences”, I have pointed this out to Poudel:

“Henry Adams was the preeminent voice of ‘social thermodynamics’. His collected essays in The Education of Henry Adams on: ‘the Dynamo and the Virgin’ (1900), ‘The Grammar of Science’ (1903), and a ‘Dynamical Theory of History’ (1904) were exemplary.”
Paul Staiti (2001), “Winslow Homer and the Drama of Thermodynamics” (pg. 12)[2]

but he seems to remain in perpetual ignorance or denial of this factoid, has been awarded, by some unknown [?] to me process, to Burin Gumjudpai, stating that there will be a Zoom award ceremony, which I am to give a honors speech, of some sort, to thank Gumjudpai for his accomplishments? Following which, Gumjudpai replied the following:

“We will hold the event on the 9th October 2020 at 19.00 Bangkok time (8.00 AM Boston time). Would it be possible for you and IAISAE to join the prize ceremony? If this is not possible for you, please let me know as soon as possible so that we can change the date and other venue booking. The ceremony will be participated with my family, friends and colleagues to be held at a hotel's functional room. You and another IAISAE member are invited for delivering a speech.”
Burin Gumjudpai (2020), “Email to Ram Poudel”, Sep 16

Now, to clarify, Gumjudpai I respect. I have perused his MS economics thesis, and he seems to be on the right track.

As per “awards”, as I have already discussed with Poudel, we, via the extant network a decade ago, have already discussed “thermodynamics awards in general, and a “two cultures award” in the proposal stage (see: here, discussing “naming choice” (e.g. Clausius Medal) and award amount ($1,000 – 10,000 USD annually).

Poudel, here, seems to want to skip such discussion, nomination procedures, nominees listing, voting, and just randomly pick out a new “certificate of honor” winner, which will “encourage Burin (and family) for his contribution to Thermodynamics”, as Poudel envisions things?

All I can say to Ram, is that if he wants to ride his own canoe, and give out awards, that is great. If he wants to ride with history, he will have to get himself more organized.

--Sadi-Carnot (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2020 (EDT)

A GoDaddy search, shows that is available. Libb Thims would suggest that Poudel mediate this migration.

IAISAE (6 letters) to AINSE (5 letters) suggestion to AINS (4 letters)

Upon looking at the “discussion section” of extant IAISAE article, after looking it up in the Hmolpedia Special:AllPages listing, I noticed that the "I", in Poudel's choosen “international” (I) term, is redundant (especially in the global Internet-connected age), be changed to:

Association for the Integration of the Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and Engineering [AINSE]

or, alternatively:

Association for the Integration of the Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Engineering [AISNE]

The former, which seems more powerful in namesake, seems to be in tune to Poudel’s two “Integration of Natural Science and Social Science” awards? --Sadi-Carnot (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2020 (EDT)

Better yet, "Association for the Integration of Natural Science and Social Science" [AINS]
-- Sadi-Carnot (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2021 (EST)20:11, 24 January 2021 (EST)

FW: I [Keith Skene] am cancelling the talk

The following is email dialogue involving Keith Skene, Ram Poudel, and Libb Thims, and possibly others, surrounding a proposal to have Skene give a Zoom talk entitled: "Thermodynamics and Evolution: why Are There so Many Species of Coleoptera?"

Email dialogue

Dear Ram, I will not comment on social evolution as I have never written on this at all! I do detest Social Darwinism and Eugenics, but that is for another day. My work focuses on evolution and thermodynamics. My title will be: Thermodynamics and evolution: why are there so many species of Coleoptera?
Brief abstract: This presentation will explore the role of thermodynamics in evolution, across all levels of organization. Given that the laws of thermodynamics apply across the Cosmos, it is argued that they also apply to organic evolution. Evidence relating to the functional and structural aspects of the Biosphere are explored and neo-Darwinian theory is critiqued in the light of these findings. The significance or otherwise of the Maximum Entropy Production Principle and the intermediate disturbance Hypothesis are explored. Finally the consequences of a thermodynamic evolutionary framework are outlined. All best wishes,
— Keith Skene (2020), "Email to Ram Poudel", Sep 16

Thims' action / Skene's reaction

After Ram contacted me, I wrote an Hmolpedia article on Keith: Keith Skene, basically for memory purposes (e.g. I read in entirety through his 2020 article; which is filled with a vast amount of error, but as a few points of learning), plus I had already written about Skene, back in 2016, for the "maximum entropy principle" article:

  • Skene, Keith. (2020). “In Pursuit of the Framework behind the Biosphere: S-curves, Self-assembly, and the Genetic Entropy Paradox” (abs) (pdf), BioSystems, Volume 190, Apr.

After which, Skene responded that he is cancelling his talk:

“Ram, I am cancelling the talk.”
Keith Skene, “Email to Ram Poudel”, Sep 25
“Hi Libb, I don't want to advice you on this matter of your personal choice but I know for sure this is not an outcome you wanted, neither do I. Keith cancelled his talk. We want to build an organization based on mutual respect for each other; and we agree to disagree! I hope you are well.”
Ram Poudel, “Email to Libb Thims”, 11AM EST Sep 26

Re: "We want to build an organization based on mutual respect for each other", brings to mind Sean Carroll (Ѻ), and how, as a matter of principle, he won’t take $ from the Templeton Foundation, per reason that it does a great disservice to the world:

“I don’t think that science and religion are reconciling or can be reconciled in any meaningful sense, and I believe that it does a great disservice to the world to suggest otherwise.”
Sean Carroll (2013), “Why I Won’t Take Money From the Templeton Foundation” (Ѻ)(Ѻ), May 9

In other words, to refrain from speaking the truth (or glossing or misrepresenting the truth), out of so-called mutual “respect” for someone’s religion, is not the way of the scientific method. And this is coming from someone who was raised Christian (Lutheran), baptized (age 1) and confirmed (age 9 to 13 [?])! All of this, as I had to unlearn, over many years, is but astro-theology based mythology.

Baptism, e.g., is nothing but the sun "perceptually" moving into the Aquarius constellation of the Zodiac, which the Egyptians mirrored onto the phenomenon of the annual flooding of the Nile River; which was molded into the guise of Roman Christianity in the story of John the Baptist and Jesus (which a large percentage of Americans believe as being factual true stories); below left we see the "sun" (‘ʘ’, ‘⊗’, Θ, Theta, Th-, or a H transforming He burning mass) [3], moving from the "water carrier" (Aquarius / John the Baptist constellation) into the "fishes" (Horus, Osiris, Jesus on the "cross") constellation:


These underlying "childish" beliefs, NO DISRESPECT intended, have to be brought up and placed onto the OPEN dialogue table, before we start address the "thermodynamics" of this or that, and talk about "mutual respect" (or disrespect).

“Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing. The child mind accepts and believes them, and only through great pain and perhaps tragedy can he or she be in after years relieved of them. The reason for this is that a superstition is so intangible a thing that you cannot get at it to refute it.”
Hypatia (c.400), Publication

I personally do not disrespect anyone; and if anyone takes it that way, there are misinformed.--Sadi-Carnot (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2020 (EDT)

Thims response (to Ram)

Originally, I typed this as an email to Ram. But then realized, to solve my on-going frustration with Ram, I could just post my entire response HERE, and solve all my problems.

“Ram (or Keith), I will be busy for at least the next 6-months. Trying to block out external influence, and focus on (a) getting my wiki migrated and (b) penning chapters to my Human Chemical Thermodynamics treatise. If you want to include me in some of your so-called "IAISAE" activities, I would suggest that you “vet” (make a careful and critical examination of something) some of these activities with me before hand, before getting others involved, and do so OPENLY, such as in one of the following two public forums:

Or make another forum available? For the mean time, I will use "this discussion" page (Talk:IAISAE) to communicate.

Presently, you are doing all these various “things” on your own, e.g. have a talk/symposium centered on a creationist’s view of evolution, start an organization, presumably based on thermodynamics, which purports the notion that “information” is the new secret of the universe, play a Mike Pence video, and have no group discussion as to why you played this video, make an inaccurate acronym IAISAE, give out some random (ill-named) awards, to individuals with no seeming criterion as to how they were picked, nor time to digest nominees, etc., etc., and just expecting me to tag along.

From my point of view, your entire program, while being well-meaning, I will give you that, is getting pretty sloppy. As you will find, when you begin to “tackle the problem”, as Roegen (1971) said, manifold avenues will begin to open up:

Manifold avenues open up almost as soon as one begins to tackle the problem.”
Nicholas Roegen (1971), The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (pg. 3)

and a large majority of these "avenues" (I consider each of the 5,376-articles I have penned online since 2007 to be a Roegen avenue), as I have found, end up in cul-de-sacs (dead ends), when travelling along the broad "highway of thermodynamics" (as Gilbert Lewis drove on at high speeds to great fame and eternal glory in the minds of many geniuses of the future):

Manifold avenues.png
“The fascination of a growing science lies in the work of the pioneers at the very borderland of the unknown, but to reach this frontier one must pass over well traveled roads; of these one of the safest and surest is the broad highway of thermodynamics.”
— Gilbert Lewis (1923), Thermodynamics and the Free Energy of Chemical Substances (pg. x)

Moreover, and more importantly, there are many “weeds” in the garden of thermodynamics, which if you let them grow in your mind, will stunt the growth of useful fruit and vegetables:

“Often in our more carefully cultivate gardens of thought some rank weed (Ѻ) grows with such vigor as to stunt the growth of the neighboring useful vegetables.”
Gilbert Lewis (1925), The Anatomy of Science (pg. 75)
“All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics.”
Erwin Hiebert (1966), “The Uses and Abuses of Thermodynamics in Religion”

Thirdly, in thermodynamics applied to the big questions, there are many entropy “pied pipers, whose music will carry you along like hypnotized mice running along at a happy pace, who are lead away from truth or off a cliff (into the abyss of ignorance).

This same pied piper music, alternatively, can take the form of perceptual open sesames, where some magic man seems to miraculously open the great and seemingly-impenetrable door of thermodynamics for you and solve some famously-unsolvable problem. Lastly, beyond weeds, flutes, and open sesames, there are scientific “Trojan horses”! These you will willingly let into your mind, and give them free reign to your ideas, thoughts, and formulative beliefs.

Thermodynamic tricks.jpg

This happen to me with Prigogine and his “dissipative structures” theory, when I first learned about him back in c.2002/2003, as his theory was described in Fritjof Capra’s 1996 Web of Life. It took me over a decade to realize that his whole program was a repackaging of Henri Bergson’s creationism version of evolution. Notice now, however, how Prigogine is ranked #45 (here).

Note #1: I have posted my email response to you here (in public), because that is my normal modus operandi. I don’t know why I have given you a pass all these years? Lately, however, I have begun to notice that you send me a one sentence email, and I respond back with pages of dialogue (with no response from you, because as you say, “I don’t want to lose you”). In other words, I expend vast amount of time and energy to respond (and the entire conversation gets lost or forgotten in email ghost land).

Note #2: I will probably continue this “public” method of responding to you here (in this Talk:IAIASE discussion page, which can be archived endlessly; e.g. see here how there are 13 archived discussion pages of the “entropy” article of Wikipedia), and via this wiki-method stored for future public consumption [think: future students in mind here]). Notice, e.g., how students can go back to the first Wikipedia entropy discussion page archive #1:

and see me (as User:Sadi-Carnot) posting about a proposal to start an article on “corporate entropy” (per citation of the 1999 book Peopleware, wherein this concept is proposed).--Sadi-Carnot (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2020 (EDT)

Note to Keith 1 | Force that separates the animate from the inanimate?

Note #3: If Keith (or whoever) wants to present a talk, he or she should "vet" the entire article here on a talk page first. In this way we all will have organized time to respond to issues and difficulties on theory, and LEARN from each other's points of view and or mistakes. For example, take a look at the opening sentence from Keith's 2020 article:

“The concept that there is a ‘force’ that separates the animate from the inanimate would stretch back through time. As early as 440BC, Empedocles asserted that ‘life’ derived from ether (McGirr, 1992).”
— Keith Skene (2020), “In Pursuit of the Framework behind the Biosphere” (pg. 1) [4]

Firstly, the statement "there is a ‘force’ that separates the animate from the inanimate", is loaded dualism from the get-go (not to argue that there has been, historically, a large school of thought that has argued this position). Correctly, "animation" is a geometrical property (NOT an emergent property, that derives from "column 14" of the periodic table, and there is NO "force" that separates or differentiates when carbon-based geometries become "animate" so to say, it is the electromagnetic force, through and through, as defined by quantum electrodynamics, in advanced description, or the Bohr model, in simplified description.

Among animate things of a decisively "intelligent" nature, e.g. robots, humans, or monkeys, etc., it is found that the nature of this intelligence derives from the geometric arraignment of the protons, neutrons, and electrons of the elements of "column 14" of the periodic table (see: hmolscience periodic table), as shown below, specifically the elements carbon C (Z=6), for humans and monkeys, and silicon Si (Z=14), for robots or computers, or germanium Ge (Z=32), for various early semiconductors and or future computers, in particular:

Carbon atom (overview).jpg

which have the property of light-induced electron-rearrangement or flexibility, i.e. "animation", not individually (as single atoms), but when attached to other elements, and when their valence shells are engaged into photon-electron interactions or exchange.

The following are four examples of related intelligent carbon-based animate things, namely: retinal, DTA, AQ, and human, the first three with the ability to bend, walk, and carry, respectively, and the human, with the ability to bend, walk, carry, as well as to plan and think about other types of movements, when engaged into such photon-electron interactions or exchanges:

CH-based Animate Things
Thing Movement
Bending Formula: C20H28O
Powering: Light-powered

Retinal (bending molecule).png
Retinal bending gif.gif
Walking Formula: C14H10S2
Powering: Heat-powered

DTA (walking molecule).png
DTA gif.gif
Carrying Formula: C14H8O2
Powering: Heat-powered

AQ carrying molecule.png
AQ gif.gif

Formula: CHNOPS+20E
Powering: Fuel+Heat+Light-powered

Human dancing.jpg
Human walking gif.gif

Hopefully, this clarifies things? --Sadi-Carnot (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2020 (EDT)

Note to Keith 2 | Empedocles said "life derives from ether"?

Secondly, this Empedocles "life derives from ether" assertion is factually incorrect. I’ve read all of Empedocles fragments, e.g. this book, and he never said that “life derives from ether”. Ether was Anaxagoras’ brainchild. The only thing that Empedocles, a semi-student of Anaxagoras, said about ether, in his extant fragments, is the following:

“Come then! I shall tell you first the source from which the sun in the beginning and all other things which we now see became clear: earth and billowy sea and fluid air and the Titan aither squeezing all the them around in a circle.”
— Empedocles (c.455BC), Fragment I39 / DK38
“For when aither separated and flew off from air and fire, and evolved into a heaven revolving in a very wide orbit, then fire - which had remained a little apart from the heaven - itself also grew into the rays of the sun. Earth withdrew into one place and when solidified by necessity it emerged and settled in the middle. Moreover, aither, being much lighter, moves all around it without diversion.”
— Empedocles (c.455BC), Fragment I40 / A49a; cited by Philo of Alexandria (c.20AD) in On Providence

Then you check into Edward McGirr’s article “A Matter of Principle: the Vital Spirit”, and you find more error, such as:

“Greek medicine was based on the theory of the ‘four humors’ (phlegm, blood, black bile, and yellow bile), which was first expounded by Empedocles.”
— Edward McGirr (1992), “A Matter of Principle: the Vital Spirit” (pg. 87) [5]

This is incorrect as well. Empedocles was the propagator of the four elements (Ѻ) theory, NOT the four humors theory. The “four humors” theory was first expounded by Hippocrates (c.400BC), based, supposedly, on earlier ideas of Alcmaeon of Croton (c.510BC). See the Greek philosophy tree to get your bearings.

Now, as we see, we are already three citation layers deep in error in the first sentence alone of Keith’s 2020 article? We could go through his entire article if we wanted, particularly in respect to his thermodynamics arguments, and dig out similar factual and theoretical errors.

Re: “god”, now if Keith (or whoever) wants to believe in god, and that god = energy, and that according to the first law or conservation of energy, that energy is infinite, that is great. Good for him (or whoever).

To cite one example, Mirza Beg believes, like Skene, in exactly the same thing, e.g. the energy is infinite, that Gibbs energy is the "will of Allah", and so on. I learned just to accept this fact, and that it is a belief that he will never relinquish. I also realize that he believes in the existence of Muhammad and buraq the “flying donkey” that Muhammad road at the speed of light to visit all the religious prophets: Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc., who he believes were also real people. Nevertheless, his “religious” beliefs aside, I realized that there are things we can learn from each other, which is one of the reasons I flew to Pakistan and recorded 48 videos of interview with him.

But, if Keith, like Mirza, or whoever, wants to talk about questions, such as “how and when life stated”, they will have to do so “scientifically”, which is why, in video #9, when Beg is probed with how he believes “life” started, you will hear him talking about clay substrates and chirality, rather than the “infinite will of Allah”. Keith will have to do the same, albeit in the OPEN (like Beg) context that he believes in the god of Christianity.--Sadi-Carnot (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2020 (EDT)

Note to Keith 3 | Demetrius never said: "thermodynamics can only be applied to inanimate matter"!

In respect to Keith Skene’s published 2020 statement:

“It was Demetrius (2000) who wrote that thermodynamics could only be applied to inanimate matter.”
Keith Skene (2020), “In Pursuit of the Framework behind the Biosphere” (pg. 2) [6]

Correctly, Demetrius said the following:

“The science of thermodynamics is concerned with understanding the properties of inanimate matter in so far as they are determined by changes in temperature.”
Lloyd Demetrius (2020), "Thermodynamics and Evolution" [7]

In fact, no where in Google Books, has anyone ever said "thermodynamics can only be applied to inanimate matter". --Sadi-Carnot (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2020 (EDT)

Thermodynamics and Theology

Now that we have opened the "can of worms", given fact that Ram keeps pushing to have creationism and theology addressed, e.g. having James Thornton give a creationism-based talk on "why is there life?", playing Mike Pence creationism video (at conference), and now pushing to have Keith Skene give a coded-creationism talk, we might as well take a look at Skene's 2010 audio-recorded talk “Thermodynamics and Theology” (which is kind of nice to listen to in audio), particularly in respect to the "Th-" root curiously common to both the words THermodynamics and Theology, which is summarized below; in short is the symbol of sun [Ra] doing battle with the snake [Apep] each night (aka the ouroboros as the Greeks named it):[8]

An overview of the root of the "Th-" prefix of English words, such as: thermodynamics, temperature, thought, think, theology, theos (i.e. dios mio = OMG, in modern Spanish), etc. [3]

As has been pointed out in the "alphabet" (Ѻ) article and in my 2020 HCT manuscript[3], the reason why the title "Thermodynamics and Theology" sounds so enticing and appealing to the ear, is that the "Th-" part of the words thermodynamics and theology, derive from the Greek Theta "Θ", which itself derives from the Egyptian symbol of the sun ‘⊗’ or ‘ʘ’, which is part of the 3,000BC hieroglyph for the name of the ancient Egyptian city of Heliopolis, specifically:


aka the "city of the sun", as the Greeks dubbed it; in more detail:

Heliopolis (hieroglyph).jpg

This "sun" symbol, changed over time, alphabetically, as follows:


Without going into prolonged digression (which is sort of attempted in the HCT [3] manuscript), the Greek letter Theta "Θ" is numerically equivalent, in the Greek numbering system, to the number 9, which is code or symbolic of the Egyptian Ennead (9 god creation family) of Heliopolis:


which, in modern Christianity translation, equates to:

Ennead [9 gods] = Abraham (Ra) + Joshua (& moisture goddess) + Joseph (& sky goddess) + (Moses [Old Testament] or God the Father (New Testament], Mary, Satan, Mary Magdalene)

And, of course, "God the father" famously becomes the magical father of "Jesus" (aka Horus, the oldest god of ancient Egypt). Hence, a Christian-believer who is also a thermodynamics-believer, has an inherent conflict of interest.

In Ram Poudel's case, him being born [synthesized] in Nepal, he was indoctrinated, culturally, in one of the following: 81.3% of the Nepalese population is Hindu, 9.3% are Buddhist, 4.2% are Muslim, 3.0% (at 2011 census). The rescript here is the same, the gods of the "#9" of Theta (of thermodynamics and theology), became: Brahma (Ra), Shiva (Shu), and Saraswati (Isis) to name a few. Or in the case of Buddhism, Horus is rescripted into Buddha. The belief that the sun (heat or energy) is a "god", or that the "rays of sunlight" are the "figures of god" (as Akhenaten believed), which was put into the Old Testament to the effect that the 10 Commandments (i.e. "morality") was written with the "long outstretched figures of god", inherently, is rooted DEEPLY into our childhood indoctrinations, whatever the location we were born, argue it or not.

Moreover, both the Theta and Helios are numerically equivalent to the number 318 (although I don't know what the meaning of this is yet):

Θῆτα (Theta) = 9 + 8 + 300 + 1 = 318
Ηλιος (Helios) = 8 + 30 + 10 + 70 + 200 = 318

Now, because of this peculiar word origin commonality, the "A-Theist", such as myself, believes that heat "is in motion, and no thing else" (Bacon, 1620), or something equivalent. The "Theist", like Skene or Beg, believes that heat, or its semi-equivalent such as "work", "energy", or "free energy", is "god" or the "will of god", or something equivalent.

Then you have others, such as quoted above, who believe that "information", which they, without stating so directly, equates to the "mind of god" (e.g. the infinite mind of god "informs" matter how to organize via energy, force, or power, or something along these lines), is MORE FUNDAMENTAL, in the universe, than either energy, entropy, or matter, and go to great lengths to argue so, via "Sokal affair" (Ѻ), "ontic opening" (Ѻ), or "toolism" (Ѻ) style arguments, which have absolutely NO fundamental connection with experimental evidence (which energy and entropy do have). All the best, (Libb). —Sadi-Carnot (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2020 (EDT)

Guy Bernard | Iberall Award dialogue

On 2 Oct 2020, Bernard Guy (User:Bernard_GUY) joined the site, following my recent mass email to about two or three dozen people, connected to the so-called “Poudel circle”, a majority of which I helped him construct (e.g. by giving him a draft list on who to invite to speak), commenting:

“Dear Libb, dear all: I apologize for my email: I thank you Libb for your mail; a place for discussion and contradiction is important. I have created an account, but I do not know how I can contribute (well I do not know in advance how much time I will be able to devote to this list). Sincerely." — Bernard Guy (2020), “Email to Libb Thims”, Oct 2
“Hi Bernard, thanks for joining. Re: “a place for discussion and contradiction is important”, YES. Presently, I do not know of such as an online platform. Hence, I offer this page (and or other discussion pages in this wiki) for such a purpose. Take the 2006 BioPhysical Economics Conference, details of which outlined [ 2016 here], wherein, at the end of which I watched a room filled with 300 people applauding each other over the perceived success of the so-called “Roegen-Daly school + Odum school”. From my perspective, as I watched this large mess, as I just shook my head, I wonder if anyone in the audience (speakers included) have actually ever taken a class (and passed) in thermodynamics? You can see here (§:1.5: Types of Matter and Reaction Energy) (pdf pg. 49-), how I touch on the grand confusions in these purported schools. But, I digress. Just as there was no group “online” discussion of that event, so to has there been no group online discussion of this last “Thermodynamics 2.0” event. Ram Poudel, the central organizer, originally wanted a “thermodynamics based on information theory” conference; now he is emailing me that wants an “origin of life based on creationism” symposium? None of which has been vetted (except via random and unorganized email exchanges) or OPENLY discussed.
To give some contrast, notice how we used a wiki to peer review JHT articles (e.g. for Terrance Deacon, who was at the T2.0 conference). Note: You have to change the subdomain of the peer review URLs from "this" to "this"; temporary; as we are amid site migration. But you can see from these how refreshing the open style of critique and review was. As Alec Groysman notably said during the T2.O Zoom Q&A, the “Journal of Human Thermodynamics was beautiful, what happened to it?” Whatever the case, all the best Libb. --Sadi-Carnot (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2020 (EDT)

Proposal: Movement precedes space and time

Bernard Guy’s 2020 Thermodynamics 2.0 Conference talk: “In What Sense can we Say that Movement Precedes Time?”.[9]

Dear colleagues, following Libb Thims advice, I am using this site to send you further comments after the conference Thermodynamics 2.0; I am speaking to all the attendees, or at least to some of them, those who are connected to this site. I am sorry I discuss about personal topics and maybe not those which you would like first to discuss (e.g. theory of information; we can discuss it later...).

So: I was happily surprised and honored that my talks to the conference Thermodynamics 2.0 have been judged worth of the Arthur Iberall Gold Medal. I do thank you for your trust and your interest. As I said, I have presented avenues of research, and further work is still needed. This must be done in two directions.

1. The exploration of the many consequences of my central proposition "movement precedes space and time. (is it better to say “proposal”?). In my view, as I told you (and you may have begun to think so yourselves), this proposition brings very many openings, both in the foundations of physics (including technical aspects concerning equations), in the understanding of thermodynamics, or in the links between social and natural sciences.
2. The deepening of the epistemological status of my proposition. My proposition can be based on several grounds: - some “reasonable” thought experiments, - some designations, - some actual particular situations; the results to which it already leads are in continuity with the state of our theories and our knowledge. However, the proposition cannot be considered as a hypothesis to be validated or refuted concerning reality. Rather, if we want to give it a general value, it must be considered as a heuristic fiction in the sense of the philosophers Immanuel Kant and Hans Vaihinger, i.e. a proposal intended to help thinking, and justified by its fruitfulness; but not free of internal contradictions. We use many propositions of this type without always being aware of it, for example: - the concept of infinity, - that of the infinitely small, - the assimilation of a curve to a series of small straight line segments carried by the tangents to the curve, - the imaginary numbers, and, outside physics and mathematics, in the human and social sciences: - the fiction of freedom, indispensable for founding the functioning of justice, etc.

The two previous main directions of research can be carried out independently, and in particular the exploration of the consequences (direction 1) can be carried out by accepting as a sort of recipe, without necessarily going at depth into it, the central proposition recalled just now. I will be pleased and honored that my proposition will be further examined by the scientific community that you represent, and will be happy to receive any comments and criticisms. I salute all of you, as participants in the Thermodynamics 2.0 Conference, for your interesting works in directions and areas different from mine. I have learned a great deal from listening to you. — Bernard Guy (2020), Discussion post, Oct 14

Hi Bernard, thanks for posting (which I formatted for you). Note: be sure, in future posts, to sign them electronically by typing four tilde symbols “~” (i.e. “~~~~)”, at the end of your post, which generates your username, date, and time automatically.
Short on time today, but quickly, two things come to mind, firstly:
"Time is not one of the variables of pure thermodynamics."
— Gilbert Lewis (1930), “The Symmetry of Time in Physics”
Hence, changes of "state", tends to usurp "time" in chemical thermodynamics.
Secondly, the 1647-1660s work on “space” (vacuums) and “movement” of Otto Guericke (Ѻ), wherein he used “movement” (two men cranking a suction pump) to make “space” (a vacuum or void inside of a beer keg):[10]
Vacuum engines (da Vinci, Galileo, Guericke).jpg
Here, movement preceded space. He then, alternatively, showed how stored “space”, in his vacuum bulb, could be employed to create or make “movement” (the jerking upwards of 20 men using piston and cylinder connected to a vacuum bulb). You might note that in chapters 4 (Greek void theory) to 16 (Papin vacuum experiments), of my Human Chemical Thermodynamics, that I cover the condensed history of the nature of “space” to the making of the first heat engine, along with all of the philosophy and vacuum experiments behind this. [10] In §14.1, e.g., you will see how Hooke (originally in a coded cypher) put the entire science of thermodynamics into an axiom:
"The ‘vacuum’ [space] left by fire lifts a weight."
— Robert Hooke (1675), Description of Helioscopes and Other Instruments
Here, fire (combustion or heat) “precedes” space, which “precedes” movement (weight lifted through a height. The da Vinci gun powder engine (1508) (§9) was the first experimental demonstration of this so-called “Hooke heat axiom”. Post more here later. I’ll message Ram to see if his skin is thick enough yet to take part in our dialogue here. (Lastly, in respect to wiki forum dialogue, the use of colons ":" = one indent, "::" = two indents, etc., before the text of each individual's post, helps to keep track, visually, as to who is posting.) Sadi-Carnot (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2020 (EDT)
Not too much activity, yet, on these Hmolpedia discussion pages. But the new Hmolpedia Forum, is growing. Feel free to post there. Easier than posting here. --Sadi-Carnot (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2021 (EST)

Discussion Topic

→ add new here (below); or use the "add topic" button, shown above, in the page tabs; note: date your post electronically using four tildes: ~~~~ (which the wiki software will change into your "user name" and "date").

Discussion Topic

→ add new here (below); or use the "add topic" button, shown above, in the page tabs; note: date your post electronically using four tildes: ~~~~ (which the wiki software will change into your "user name" and "date").

Discussion Topic

→ add new here (below); or use the "add topic" button, shown above, in the page tabs; note: date your post electronically using four tildes: ~~~~ (which the wiki software will change into your "user name" and "date").


  1. Thims, Libb. (2012). “Thermodynamics ≠ Information Theory: Science’s Greatest Sokal Affair” (pdf) (review), Journal of Human Thermodynamics, 8(1): 1-120, Dec 19.
  2. Staiti, Paul. (2001). “Winslow Homer and the Drama of Thermodynamics” (abs) (pg. 11), American Art, 15(1):11-33.
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Thims, Libb. (2020). Human Chemical Thermodynamics — Chemical Thermodynamics Applied to the Humanities: Meaning, Morality, Purpose; Sociology, Economics, Ecology; History, Philosophy, Government, Anthropology, Politics, Business, Jurisprudence; Religion, Relationships, Warfare, and Love (§2: Alphabet) (pdf). Publisher.
  4. (a) Skene, Keith. (2020). “In Pursuit of the Framework behind the Biosphere: S-curves, Self-assembly, and the Genetic Entropy Paradox” (abs) (pdf), BioSystems, Volume 190, Apr.
    (b) McGirr, Edward M. (1992). “A Matter of Principle: the Vital Spirit” (abs), Scottish Medical Journal, 37(3):87-89.
  5. McGirr, Edward M. (1992). “A Matter of Principle: the Vital Spirit” (abs), Scottish Medical Journal, 37(3):87-89.
  6. (a) Skene, Keith. (2020). “In Pursuit of the Framework behind the Biosphere: S-curves, Self-assembly, and the Genetic Entropy Paradox” (abs) (pdf), BioSystems, Volume 190, Apr.
    (b) Demetrius, Lloyd. (2000). “Thermodynamics and Evolution” (abs), Journal of Theoretical Biology, 206:1-16.
  7. Demetrius, Lloyd. (2000). “Thermodynamics and Evolution” (abs), Journal of Theoretical Biology, 206:1-16.
  8. Skene, Keith. (2010). “Thermodynamics and Theology” (aud), The Art of Looking Sideways,
  9. (a) Guy, Bernard. (2020). “Exploring the Links Between Thermodynamics and Social Sciences: the Contribution of Our Understanding of Space and Time” (abs), Thermodynamics 2.0, Jun 23.
    (b) Guy, Bernard. (2020). “In What Sense can we Say that Movement Precedes Time?” (vid), Thermodynamics 2.0, Jun 28.
  10. 10.0 10.1 Thims, Libb. (2020). Human Chemical Thermodynamics: Chemical Thermodynamics Applied to the Humanities — Love, Meaning, Morality, and Purpose; Sociology, Economics, History, Philosophy, Government, Anthropology, Politics, Business, Jurisprudence, Ecology, Religion, Relationships, and Warfare (§#:Name]) (pdf). Publisher.