Hmolpedia (24 Nov 2016)

In archives, Hmolpedia (24 Nov 2016), refers to the pasted archive of the Hmolpedia main page on 24 Nov 2016, as shown below.

Goethe-Beg synopsis 8
Left: the famous 1799 Goethe to Schiller dialogue (see: Goethe timeline) that Crebillon treats the "passions like playing cards" with NO trace of the delicate "chemical affinities", i.e. micro-interaction forces of attraction and repulsion, that move people, interaction-wise; which is equivalent, as depicted above right, to the post-1882 [see: Helmholtz] statement that "there is no trace of any fine delicate free energies, i.e. Gibbs energies (see: human free energy), that drive the reactive system" in Crebillon, as outlined by Mirza Beg (right) in his 1987 New Dimensions in Sociology; both connected by the affinity-free energy equation.
Hmolpedia ( an A to Z Encyclopedia of Human Thermodynamics, Human Chemistry, and Human Physics (see: etymology) is a one nature | monism (socio-physical monism) focused, two cultures | dualism integrating, recondite, modern Faustian-view (see: top 500 geniuses), putting Humpty Dumpty back together again, work-in-progress, online (and print set) prolegomenon niche-pedia (see: reviews) of 4,200+ articles, sung by TweetsTwitter bird 21x17(Ѻ)(Ѻ), on the details of an historically-reoccurring "idea", and the study of the ramifications of this idea in respect to the application of the hard sciences of thermodynamics, chemistry, and physics to the analysis (see: Beg analysis) and explication of human existence, experience, movements, and states of being and becoming.

This hard science physico-chemical analysis of the humanities, accordingly, interjects with the soft sciences, via the "thermodynamic lens" + "translatability" criterion, aka extreme realism ultra-reductionism, therein making hardened amalgamated newly-emerging sciences, such as: political-economic social mechanics (Winiarski, 1894), heat engine based mathematical economics (Wilson, 1936), Gibbs-Pareto based Sociology 23 (Henderson, 1942), realism political thermodynamics (Rossini, 1971), physico-chemical sociology (Beg, 1987), sociophysics, econophysics, or human chemical thermodynamics, to name a few (see: two cultures namesakes), i.e. physicochemical humanities in general.
Modern University 15
Nietzsche, chemistry moral, moral chemistry Translatability criterion 2
Left: Friedrich Nietzsche (1878) ruminating on the pressing need for moral chemistry in a growing atheistic world. Right: Romanian econophysicist Mircea Gligor, at UPESW 5 (2013), see: video (Ѻ) (14:44-15:27), on Gibbsian vs Prigoginean socioeconomics and the translatability criterion.

The broken university, shown above, is Judson Herrick’s 1930 view of the modern university, i.e. a house divided against itself, filled with broken Humpty Dumpty students, enveloped in a kind of thought-restraining “god fog,” fragmented into mental parts by a Jeffersonian-like “invisible wall” separating, via an unbridgeable gap, the natural, physical, and chemical science departments from the humanities departments, into two cultures, the former speaking in the language of Clausius, the latter in the language of Shakespeare.

The following — the top ten mononymous names in Hmolscience citation rankings — are well representative of the core structure of Hmolpedia; Goethe via Gibbs being the nutshell synopsis of the modern understanding of human existence:

1. Goethe | Johann Goethe (cited: 1329)
2. Gibbs | Willard Gibbs (cited: 955)
3. Clausius | Rudolf Clausius (cited: 705)
4. Newton | Isaac Newton (cited: 638)
5. Lewis | Gilbert Lewis (cited:549)
6. Maxwell | James Maxwell (cited: 520)
7. Einstein | Albert Einstein (cited: 492)
8. Adams | Henry Adams (cited: 486)
9. Darwin | Charles Darwin (cited 463)
10. Helmholtz | Hermann Helmholtz (cited: 452)
Die Wahlverwandtschaften 2
The following is basic flow diagram of the construction of Hmolpedia, at the Mar 2016 level, i.e. the contents of at the 4,050-article level, when the 10-volume (6,496-page) print set of Hmolpedia was made available:
Hmolpedia (construction) 2
In short, core concepts from the humanities (left), are funneled through the reality cleaning mechanism of Clausius-Gibbs and Lewis-Guggenheim chemical thermodynamics (center), producing Hmolpedia (right), a knowledge-pedia of the results of the products of this mechanism.

On the Nature of Thing (Elective Affinities)
Left: Sketch (Ѻ) of a little girl, reading about frogs, retouched with the famous 1810 Goethe and Karl Knebel dialogue on who Goethe claimed to have written Elective Affinities for, namely: for “die Madchen”, i.e. little girls (Hollingdale, 1971) or young women (Tantillo, 2001). Right: EmpedoclesFragments of Aphorisms (450BC) and LucretiusOn the Nature of Things (55BC) are two founding famous publications of hmolscience, the general subject matter of Hmolpedia, which outline a general science of “things”, the principle operation of the nature of each thing, examples shown above, governed by one and the same laws of chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics. [5]
Goethe + Gibbs
The following diagram, to illustrated why Goethe and Gibbs (see: Gibbs and Goethe) are cited so much, shows one of the basic reaction mechanisms involved in the construction of the Goethe affinity table (1808), itself built from the physical chemistry principles of the Bergman affinity table (1775), the gist of which being that humans and chemicals react according to one and the same nature or set of principles, namely, the principle of “die wahlverwandtschaften” (see: title decoding) or “the selection (choice or election) by nature of allied (connatural, related, or interrelated) unions (ties, companions, companies, or communities)”.

“Are men and women subject to the same laws of material reality as are the chemical substances?”
Martin Swales (2002), synopsis of Goethe’s Elective Affinities

The logic of which first being set to systematic order in the Geoffroy affinity table (1718), shown below left, which in turn derive from the principles and logic Newton's last and final "Query 31", which in turn derive from his (and others, before him) existence-long quest to understand the secret principle of nature, thereby enabling the rendering of human relations into crude systematic order by Goethe, such as shown below right, aka the Goethe affinity table (1809), the forerunner to the human free energy table (1995):

Geoffroy to Goethe affinity table (construction)
The ramifications of this logic, in terms of public absorption, translates to the following "elective affinities belief scale", as depicted in film renditions, shown in bottom visuals, according to which people over the last two centuries and counting have been split on the matter, depending upon whether one is an admirer (adherent), fence-sitter (undecided), or an enemy (detractor) of the implications of Goethe's human chemical theory, i.e. the view that not only do "people react like chemicals" but that "people are chemicals" and whether this is analogy or reality:
Elective Affinities scale (Goethe lettering)Bray model 6
Dr. Zhivago (Bray labeled)Left: the elective affinities scale, showing (top) historical opinions on whether Goethe's 1809 Elective Affinities is reality or analogy, and bottom film remakes of this philosophy (Goetheanism, Goethean philosophy, or human chemical theory), bottom (left) the 1996 Les affinities electives, a French-Italian film rendition of the original, and bottom (right): the 2010 Afinidades, a Spanish "modern" remake of the original, set in an isolated lagoon resort in Cuba. Right: Henry Bray's 1910 stand three people side by side, two married one single, and situate nitric oxide NO and hydrogen H together, and one and the same affinity (Gibbs energy) determinates or laws of force will prevail in each model. The classic example of what Bray is getting is played out in 1965 epic-drama romance film Dr. Zhivago to a slowed down, human existence scale, i.e. reaction start (birth) to reaction end (death), war-heated mechanism (social mechanism) detailed explanation.

In short, in order to understand Goethe's supposition that every person, conceptualized as a metamorphosized chemical, can be ordered on an affinity table, each person's reaction tendencies ordered with respect to everyone else, in decreasing order, one has to thereby have a deep understanding the the 1876 chemical thermodynamics work of Willard Gibbs, being that Gibbs energy is the modern way of measuring elective affinities, i.e. the micro attractions and repulsions between people (or chemicals), as proved by Helmholtz in his 1882 "On the Thermodynamics of Chemical Processes".
Balzac feelings and affinity dialogue 6
The famous 1834 Balzac feelings and affinity dialogue, by Honore Balzac, which cogently pits the female "feelings" and "emotions" view of love and relationships against the male "equations" and "realism" view side of the fence.

The translation of Goethe's "human affinity table", in modern physicochemical terms, is that each person in a given social system or on the planet would be listed on a "human free energy table", i.e. a free energy table with people listed as chemical species in a given Gibbs free energy of formation state, via the thermodynamic data table method pioneered by Lewis (1923).


Compare also: Aristotle's citation rankings, of core names employed in his collected works; see also: term rank, a ranking of key "terms" used in Hmolpedia, and power centers, a flow diagram of deeply-rooted historical knowledge; a focal-point page is: social Newtons (50+):
Hmolpedia (island main page)
Top: the so-called "island model" used classically to conceptually understand basic human chemical thermodynamics concepts, e.g. system, social chemical potential, bond energy, etc. Left: the Papin engine, the basis of the laws of thermodynamics, which govern the universe. Center: depiction of abiogenesis, namely the hypothesis (Thomas Huxley, 1870) that by heating and or adding energy to non-living matter, life can be generated, i.e. a frog will eventually hop out of the primordial soup; the logic of which many, in modern times, adhere to via a combination of the Miller-Urey experiment (1952), the RNA world hypothesis (Walter Gilbert, 1986) (Ѻ), the hydrothermal vent theory (Gunter Wachtershauser, 1990) (Ѻ), among other arguments. Right: the earth, surface-attached social systems in particular, visualized in the "thermodynamic systems" perspective, alternative heated (fire "day" hot body) and cooled (water "night" cold body), cyclically, as working bodies, triggering metamorphosis (aka evolution) via electrochemical processes.

Social Newton (labeled)

a ranked listing of thinkers to have attempted Social Principia like treatises, i.e. derivations of a universal theory to explain, simultaneously, why an apple falls to the earth, via laws of motion, and why people fall in love, via one and the same laws.
Social Physics (Gladwell) WWI f
Other backbone pages include: Humanities citation ranking (38+), HT pioneers (505+), HC pioneers (57+), HP pioneers (50+), HMS pioneers (122+), human free energy (40+) theorists, and Genius IQs (430+); see also: Stark classification (10+) on the fundamental "forms" of the mechanistic social or social mechanism thought. The deeper thinkers tend to have a mindset in the neighborhood of the molecules to man, molecules in motion, or hydrogen to human paradigm.

Two cultures | Divide
See main: Polymathy degree problem
In the earlier 19th century, bulk human knowledge had begun to grow so fast that last universal geniuses were beginning to die off, modern thinkers were beginning to suffer from the effects of mental "hydraism", according to which by 1833 the so-called “intellectuals” of the world were forcibly divided (see: Whewell-Coleridge debate) between those who worked in the “real sciences” (Samuel Coleridge, 1833), i.e. mathematicians, physicists, and naturalists (William Whewell, 1840), and those who worked in the other seeming “sciences”, i.e. poetry, arts, humanities, or soft sciences, and the metaphysical fields of social concern, namely those connected with moral philosophy ideologies. In the early 20th century, bulk human knowledge had grown so that the so-called biological-minded social philosophers were beginning to be surrounded and encompassed by the physical scientists and natural scientists:
Animate forms 3
Three thing philosophy examples of "animate forms", the respective principles of animation of each differing only in degrees of complexity (see: animate and inanimate; rock vs human); the nature of operation of each governed by one and the same laws of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics (see: one nature).

“Surrounding us on all sides are the physicists, chemists, geologists, and astronomers, with whom we must reckon, for their domains and their subject matter overlap ours in countless ways.”
William Patten (1920), Social Philosophy of a Biologist

“Since my name is not Socrates or Einstein and I hold only one of the seven or eight PhD degrees [organic chemistry] this problem requires, readers are quite justified in questioning my qualifications to testify as such a multidisciplinary expert.”
George Scott (1985), on the ethics and physical chemistry of will

In the decades to follow, the puzzling phenomenon of "anti-interdisciplinarity" (see: interdisciplinarity) emerged, a type of defense mechanism, according to which each intellectual turf, set by ingrained beliefs, tended to defend its own, whereby those few “engaged in integrative thought” (Harold Morowitz, 1979) lost status, after which, going into the 21st century, the "mental divide dilemma" (Medi Belortaja, 2009) resulted, each scientific specialty, or mind of that specialty, divided against each other in views and inherent beliefs about human nature.

Humanities + Thermodynamics
The following flow chart shows the overall ongoing construction process of Hmolpedia, namely the dissection and re-interpretative understanding of the humanities and social sciences according to core laws of nature, the foremost of which is Clausius-Gibbs based thermodynamics, in other words in terms of the energy (i.e. enthalpy) and entropy (i.e. transformation content), something worked out in basic framework two centuries ago by Goethe in terms of human chemical reactions and chemical affinity or "elective affinities", the three (energy, entropy, and affinity) relate via the affinity-free energy equation, according to the thermodynamic theory of affinity, proved in 1882 by Helmholtz, all of which derive from Newton's last and final Query 31:
Human thermodynamics (word cloud) 7
Dirac on god 1000px 2
Weimer 1803 (labeled) 1000px
School at Athens (atom labeled) 2
Physicochemical humanities | Equation flowchart
The following physicochemical overlay diagram, below left, and equation flow chart, below right, give an overview of Hmolpedia and of hmolscience, human chemical thermodynamics, and or the physicochemical humanities in general:

Beg cover (G labeled) f3Equation flow chart (new)
(Mirza Beg, 1987)(Frederick Rossini, 1971)

The two above diagrams, in short, show a re-conceptualization of humans and social systems as types of physicochemical systems, governed by the partial differential equations of chemical thermodynamics, with the implicit derived result that humans, animals, plants (e.g. diagram below right), and so-called lower forms of powered chemical animation (e.g. bacteria, viruses, walking molecules, etc.), are not "living things" (a religio-mythology conception), but CHNOPS+ structures in powered states of driven animation. The diagram, above left, is from the cover of Indian-born Pakistani organometallic chemist Mirza Beg’s 1987 book New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior, depicting a conceptualization of slums (or huts), middle class, and big cities as different molecular aggregate states, akin to atoms or molecules in the gas, liquid, and solid state, respectively, according to which human behavior is conceptualized as molecular or chemical behavior, described according to the physicochemical methods and principles of physical chemistry, e.g. activation energy (diagram overlay shown), free energy change, bond energy, etc. The equation flowchart, above right, first outlined in the 2012 Elective Affinities "equation decipherment" article, then presented by American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims at UPESW 2013, Pitesti, Romania, gives an overview of the equation structure of the physical chemical reductionism of the humanities, from the invention of the equal " = " sign by Welsh physician-mathematician Robert Record (1557), i.e. equation invention, to American chemical engineer and physical chemist Frederick Rossini's 1971 derivation of what he defines as "chemical thermodynamics in the real world", according to which entropy ΔS and enthalpy ΔH changes govern the nature of freedom and security, respectively, in social reaction existence and experience equilibration processes. [3]

Extreme atheism (God vs Gibbs)
Left: the word scramble mnemonic for the 2014-launched Atheism Reviews video channel, a precipitate of Hmolpedia, a venture into explicit extreme atheism (aka extreme realism). Right: a representation of the God vs Gibbs debates, having erupted in the wake of the Rossini debate and human molecular theory.
Religion | God vs Gibbs
The subjects of chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics are, by definition, “atheism” or atheist ingrained subjects, i.e. in no way is belief in the existence in God (or gods), or for that matter spirits, or anything supernatural or metaphysics, part of their respective structures. Subsequently, when chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics are applied to the humanities, the resulting derived amalgamation or proto-science is, by definition, an atheism-ingrained result. Accordingly, when one comes across attempts at "science + religion" mending amalgamations, typically tending towards the use of ontic opening stylized arguments, something will be inherently wrong with the fundamental points of the argument. The atheism timeline, some of which is partially shown adjacent, touches on some of these key turning points, from Laplace’s 1802 declaration to Napoleon that in his formulation of celestial mechanics he had “no need of that [god] hypothesis” (see: Napoleon Laplace anecdote), a proposition that has not yet seen realization in social mechanics, to Nietzsche’s 1882 pronouncement that “God is dead”, to the modern 2006-present Journal of Chemical Education God vs Gibbs” debates (see: Rossini debate) about whether or not chemical thermodynamics has the “power to explain the human condition” (John Wojcik, Dec 2006).

Atomic theory | Purview
Implicit in the above partial differential equation formulation of human existence and experience, is the "atomic theory" (Leucippus, 450BC) applied to humans point of view, a type of advanced chemical thermodynamically neutral deathropized Aristotelian (teleology expunged) Goethean-Epicureanism, followed in hmolscience, namely from the definition of the molecule (Pierre Gassendi, 1649) to the cell-as-molecule (Lionel Harrison, 1993) to human-as-molecule (Jean Sales, 1789) perspective, to the intersection of this with modern chemical thermodynamics perspectives (e.g. RSS news feed), in the form of modern human chemical thermodynamics: [2]


Thermodynamics newsrss (Ѻ)

People (humans), not as living beings, but "powered" CHNOPS+ chemicals, molecules, or matrices (Henry Swan, 1974) is a well-honed modern description of the humans-as-molecules purview.

Evolution of Human Models (2013)
Synopsis, from Imhotep to Rossini, of the conceptual evolution of models of what a "human" is and its origins.
Historical | Human models
Historically, to put the above in context, the following, from UPESW 2013, is an historical retrospect look at the developmental modeling of the what the great thinkers, over the last 5,000-years, have modeled and conceptualized the "human" as: [2]

In short, five-thousand years ago, scholars conceived of humans as sun-created entities—humans as spirit-life-soul imbibed clay figurine sculptures (the sun deified) the details of which described by religio-mythology; today, likewise, scholars conceive of humans as sun-synthesized entities—humans as powered 26-element atomic geometries (the sun understood as a hydrogen-helium mass undergoing thermonuclear reaction) the details of which described by human chemical thermodynamics.

In long, over the last five-thousand years, the "sun birth" theory (3,000BC) transmogrified into the religio-mythology based "clay creation" humans-as-workers model of Imhotep (2600BC), which turned Aristotle (322BC) teleological physics/metaphysics model of the human; thereafter becoming the automaton + pineal gland (soul), mind-brain "dualism" model of Descartes (1637); which became the mechanical bio-chemical "animal combustion" caloric models of Lavoisier (1787); which modified into the self-assembled "electrochemical automaton" model of Neumann (1948); thereafter being modified by the Darwinian-based "DNA-survival" models, following Watson and Crick (1953); eventually arriving at the modern, albeit hotly debated (2006-present) "chemical thermodynamics in the real world" modelling of Rossini (1971), viewing people as equilibrium adjusting reactive chemicals or “26-element energy/heat driven dynamic atomic structures as modern engineering thermodynamics (2011) defines things. [4]
Old school (god-based) vs New school (energy-based)
While we, over the millennia, certainly have come along way in "deanthropomorphizing" ourselves, as some might reason, Descartes' pineal gland dualism model still lingers, precariously and dangerously, as some posit, in the face of Goethe's true-to-reality 1809 conclusive statement that there is, after all, only "one nature".

Humanities + physical science
Top: A nutshell synopsis of hmolscience: Goethe's 1796 affinity-based "human chemical theory" (left) explained, in modern terms, via partial differential changes in isothermal-isobaric free energies in a given boundaried social system, per extent of reaction, quantified by the 1882 Goethe-Helmholtz equation (right). Bottom: A depiction of the “mental divide dilemma” (Medi Belortaja, 2009), showing physicists, chemists, astronomers, evolutionists, and sociologists (William Patten, 1920) connected, albeit mentally-divided against each other (Harold Morowitz, 1979) in views and beliefs about human nature, which, owing to hydraism, has resulted in the derisive phenomena of anti-interdisciplinarity.
Like rankings
The following are the 25 most-liked pages (see main: like rankings) in Hmolpedia, as of Jan 2014, according to Facebook likes, main page aside:

1. Equation of love | 430+ likes
2. IQ: 200+ | 228+ likes
3. Founders of thermodynamics and suicide | 220+ likes
4. IQ: 150+ | Smartest woman ever | 214+ likes
5. Love the chemical reaction | 125+ likes
6. Dawkins scale | 99+ likes
7. Endorphin theory of love | 87+ likes
8. Good Will Hunting (William Sidis) | 83+ likes
9. Chocolate theory of love | 53+ likes
10. Christopher Hirata | 53+ likes
11. Last person to know everything | 50+ likes
12. Human molecular formula | 42+
13. Sweaty T-shirt study | 43+ likes
14. Johann Goethe | 34+ likes
15. Thomas Young | 33+ likes
16. Human chemistry | 34+ likes
17. Thermodynamics of hell | 31+ likes
18. Laws of thermodynamics (game version) | 31+ likes
19. Turnover rate | 33+ likes
20. Human thermodynamics | 27+ likes

1. Thims, Libb. (2014-15/16).​ Hmolpedia: A-Z Encyclopedia of Human Thermodynamics, Human Chemistry, and Human Physics, Volumes 1-6 (see: main where pdfs are available). Publisher.
Thims, Libb. (2014-15/16). Chemical Thermodynamics: with Applications in the Humanities (97-page version: pdf of 800-pages estimated total). Publisher.
3. Thims, Libb. (2013). “Econoengineering and Economic Behavior: Particle, Atom, Molecule, or Agent Models?” (video, 1:33-min) (article, 40-pgs) (PowerPoint, 36-slides), Key speaker talk delivered at the University of Pitesti Econophysics and Sociophysics Workshop (UPESW) / Exploratory Domains of Econophysics News (EDEN V) (organizer: Gheorghe Savoiu). University of Pitesti, Pitesti, Romania, Jun 29.
4. Annamalai, Kalyan, Puri, Ishwar K., and Jog, Milind A. (2011). Advanced Thermodynamics Engineering (§14: Thermodynamics and Biological Systems, pgs. 709-99, contributed by Kalyan Annamalai and Carlos Silva; §14.4.1: Human body | Formulae, pgs. 726-27; Thims, ref. 88). CRC Press.
5. Note: things 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, in classification speak, e.g. compare outdated Linnaean classification (1735), are types of “animate” things, and thing 3 being a type of “inanimate” thing (see: rock vs human); among the former variety of which thing 4 is a wind-powered (pressure-sensitive) mechanical thing, thing 5 is a light-powered (light, pressure, smell, and taste sensitive) physicochemical thing (Ѻ), and things 1, 2, and 6 are powered CHNOPS+# things, the "#" indicative of the elemental composition of the thing, e.g. a human, similar, conceptually, to the two fictional Seuss things, is a 21-sense (Ѻ)(Ѻ) powered CHNOPS+20 thing. Things 1, 2, 5, and 6, physicochemically-speaking, are "reactive" things, as compared to things 3 and 4, which are non-reactive or "inert" things, in respect to human-interaction timescales or human chemical reaction energies.

Earth (systems view) sun
Sales quote 5

EoHT logo (2015) 5
“The time may come when human affairs may be described no longer by words and sentences, but by a system of symbols or notation similar to those used in algebra or chemistry … then it may be possible, as Adams suggests, to invent a common formula for thermodynamics and history.”
William Thayer (1918), American historian

TDics icon ns

More pages