Life terminology upgrades

Life (upgrade picture)
Left: American plant physiologist Frank Thone's 1936 depiction and definition of a plant NOT is a living system (or vegetible life), but, using chemically-neutral terminology, as a "CHNOPS plus system". [8] Middle: modern evolutionary-depicted examples of "CHNOPS plus" systems, monkeys upwards through humans, each comprised, elementally, in composition, using agreed upon neutral terminology, as: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur (CHNOPS), plus calcium, potassium, etc. up to vanadium, depending, reactive animate systems. Right: a depiction of "reaction existence", the point in between synthesis (inception) and analysis (desistance), otherwise referred to in olden days, albeit now defunct, colloquial terms as "life" (see: defunct theory of life).
In physical science, life terminology upgrades or reforms, in the framework of the explicit 2009-present defunct theory of life perspective, and or or "life does not exist" (2010-present) purview, are terms or synonym alternatives or upgrades to "life" and all bio-centric terms, and their antonyms.

Overview
The following statements provide some groundwork to the abandonment of all life-centric terms in the humanities; akin to the way the 18th century saw the replacement of the now defunct 17th terms vis viva (living force) and vis mortua (dead force) with the modern physicochemically-neutral terms: kinetic energy and potential energy, respectively; each now formulically defined, without recourse to the arrival of mythological godesses Vita (life) and Mor (death):

“Let us abandon the word ‘alive’.”
Francis Crick, Of Molecules and Men (1966) [9]

“[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 [11]

“After death the force, or power, we call ‘will’ undoubtedly endures; but it endures in this world, not in the next. And so with the thing we call life, or the soul—mere speculative terms for a material thing which, under given conditions, drives this way or that. It too endures in this world, not the other.”
Thomas Edison (1910), interview with NY Times journalist Edward Marshall [21]

Physical chemistry uses mathematical language, and it is a large part of my evangelistic attitude to suppose that 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)

The issue, as English physiologist Charles Sherrington put it in 1938, is that: "chemistry does not know the word life", hence a religio-mythology based portmanteau such as "biochemistry" (bio-chemistry), a conjunction of biology + chemistry, or biophysics (bio-physics), a conjunction of biology + physics, are unrecognized neoplasms in modern hard physical science. [1]

More to the point, thermodynamics, in particular chemical thermodynamics, does not recognize the term "life", as was first alluded to by Serbian-born American electrical engineer Nikola Tesla in his 1915 insight that "there is no thing endowed with life", hence terms such as biothermodynamics (bio-thermodynamics), and the like, e.g. biological thermodynamics, are unrecognized neoplasms based on defunct theories (whether religio-mythology-based or vitalism based)—or more to the point they are defunct scientific terms (similar to caloric, phlogiston, or aether, etc.), as is discussed fully in the 2009 defunct theory of life position. In short, all life-terms and their antonyms, being defunct conceptions in the framework of physical science, must be abandoned and or redefined. Some of these suggested term reforms and or alternative usages are shown below.

Life (analysis and synthesis)
sun icon (no gif)Above: standard chemistry textbook (1858) definitions of synthesis ("putting together") and analysis ("taking apart"), according English chemist John Bidlake, with etymology, as the "taking to pieces a compound body [into] its constitute elements", both of which are free from anthropomorphic and or religio-mythology bias, and hence scientifically "neutral" terms. [12] Right: a generic synthesis icon, from an article on the synthesis of the product iron sulphide from the reactants iron and sulphur, showing that "heat", generally, is needed to bring about product formation, the sun being the heat source in synthesis of humans (see: human free energy of formation) from the elements of the periodic table (see: hmolscience periodic table).
Historical precursors
The following are dated and cited "in usage" term substitute reform examples:

● Birth → Atomic aggregation (Leucippus, 460BC)
● Born → Integrate (Paul Aebersold, 1949)

● Death → Atomic disaggregation (Leucippus, 460BC)
● Death → Separation of elements (Empedocles, 450BC; Anaxagoras, 455BC)

● Alive / Dead → Animate / Inanimate (Harvey (1908) translation of Nietzsche (1778))

● Die → Cease to exist (Thomas Jefferson, 1775) [22]
● Die → Dis-integrate (Paul Aebersold, 1949)
Death → Dissolution from other [well-developed molecules] units (Johannes Barandun, 1910) [24]

● Live → React (Henry Adams, 1907)
● Lives → Goes (Thomas Huxley, 1880) [10]

● Living body → Carbon-based organized body (Francis Macnab, 1818) [23]
Living thingAnimate thing (Gilbert Lewis, 1925) (Ѻ)
Living organism → Energy transformer (Alfred Lotka, 1925)
● Living substance → "CHNOPS plus systems" (Frank Thone, 1936)
● Living perspective → CHNOPS perspective (Paul Keddy, 2007) [4]

● Life → Mingling of elements + light (Empedocles, 450BC; Anaxagoras, 455BC)
● Life → Will to power (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1883 | WP:617)
● Life → “faculty of reaction” (Rene Lubicz, 1949)
LifeAnimate matter (Alfred Ubbelohde, 1954)
Life thermodynamicsAnimate thermodynamics (Sture Nordholm, 1997)
● Life → Animate bound state reactive existence (Libb Thims, 2007)
● Life → Powered chnopsological structure (Libb Thims, 2015)

Biochemistry → The study of ‘powered CHNOPS systems’ (Henry Swan, 1974)
● Biosphere → External energy supplied CHNOPS matrix terrestrial region (Henry Swan, 1974)
● Biogenic elements → CHNOPS (National Academy of Science, 1998) [3]

ProtoplasmCHNOPS comprised entity (Edwin Hill, 1900; Anon, c.1915)
Earth-based life forms → CHNOPS organisms (Harold Morowitz, 1968) [2]
synthesis fn
The new 21st century chemical thermodynamically-neutral interpretation of a new formed human (human molecule) brought into the universe NOT by the process of "birth" and coming "alive" but by the process of "synthesis" and "reactivity", the former of which are religio-mythology carryovers, the latter of which are upgraded terminologies; likewise for the reverse going out of the universe process of "death", a religio-mythology term (atoms and molecules don't die; nor are they alive to begin with), upgraded to "analysis", or the taking apart of a molecule or chemical species (the opposite of synthesis). [13]

Hmolscience | Employed
The following are precipitative terminology upgrades, resulting from the 2009 Thims-based defunct theory of life perspective, the majority of which being terms implemented in recent years,out of necessity, as Hmolpedia-introduced terms:

● Born → Synthesized ("to put together")
● Die → Analyzed ("to take apart")

BirthReaction start
LifeReaction existence

Alive → Reactive
● Alive → Existive | Truncation of "react-ive exist-ence" (Thims, c.2013)

LivingAnimate
Living systemChnopsological system
Living matterCHNOPS-based matter

● Died → Dereacted (Ѻ) ; Deboundstated
Dead → Debounded; No reaction existence
DeathReaction end

Bio- → (see: Note 4, Thims, 2012) [20]
● Bio- → Powered CHNOPS+ (2015)
BiologyChnopsology
BiographiesExistographies (2015)

Transition | Example
The following—the 1999 back cover author blurb of Matt Riddley (Genome (Ѻ)), top left, upon which, in format style, Libb Thims modeled his 2008 author blurb (The Human Molecule (Ѻ)), bottom left, which differs notably, in life terminology reform, from Thims’ 2013 author blurb (Purpose? In a Godless Universe (Ѻ)), below right—shows the subtle but profound transitory change that occurs when one begins to adopt and to implement "life terminology" upgrade reform, namely the "lives" to "react" term change, first suggested in the erudite 1907 writings of Henry Adams (see: "models | drafts" section below):

Libb Thims (life terminology reform)

The author blurb flow chart shows the intellectual discarding of the terms "lives" and "biochemistry", both of which are mythological-schemed turned covert-vitalism stylized neoplasms, per "bio-" prefix, in the 2008 to 2013 jump, following the 2009 defunct theory of life viewpoint arrival.

Human
The following shows the old Linnaean classification, devised by Carl Linnaeus (1753), albeit now defunct theory and supplanted classified, per Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (2000) definition of a human, as compared to the new accurate physicochemically-neutral (chemical thermodynamically neutral), according to Kalyan Annamalai's Advanced Engineering Thermodynamics (2011) definition of a human, per citation of Libb Thims (2002), shown with the "Hu" human element symbol over the baby, the difference between the two being that the term "living" is not found in the latter, and thereby supplanted by "energy/heat-driven", per modern physical science protocol: [14]

Human (2011 textbook definition)

the former of which (old view) being crouched in religio-mythology based "life theory"; the latter (new view) being chemically and thermodynamically neutral. The above 1974 Henry Swan upgrade definition of biochemistry as the study of “powered CHNOPS systems” might equally apply as well.

JHT | Protocal initiatives
In 2012, JHT founding editor Libb Thims, following protocol introduced into Hmolpedia articles (c.2010), began to implement editorial restrictions on usages of bio-related prefixes, per reasoning that “life theories”, constitute the inclusion of perpetual motion theory in a thermodynamics journal—in particular perpetual motion of the living kind—an inclusion or submission long ago, circa 1900, ruled as non-acceptable to patent offices.
JHT cover (2010)
In 2012 issues of the Journal of Human Thermodynamics, founding editor Libb Thims began to implement "life" terminology restrictions and to implement editorial rewrites/redactions of such terms into that of thermodynamically-neutral terms.

This protocal was initiated in a footnote (N4) to his own 2012 issue one article, wherein it became fairly contentious to describe someone as a "bio-physicist", without either adding footnoted discussion or in more rigorous reforming manner rewriting all such 69 plus term usages into thermodynamically-neutral forms. [5]

The footnote method was chosen in this article, being that the rather extended article itself, 120-pages in length, entitled “Thermodynamics ≠ Information Theory: Science’s Greatest Sokal Affair”, was already devoted to term reform in information theory (a move to rename “Shannon entropy” to “bitropy”); hence double term reform effort, throughout the article, became confusingly problematic, in regards to presentation.

In the second JHT 2012 article “A Strange Thing Called Love: in View of Thermodynamics”, by American mechanical engineer Ravi Vedula and Indian chemical engineer Vamshi Regalla, Thims implemented editorial rewrites of bio-related terms with citation to the following note (N3): [6]

“Per the Tesla (1915)—Sherrington (1938)—Ubbelohde (1954)—Nordholm (1997)—Thims (2009) ‘defunct theory of life’ perspective, all bio-related terms, such as ‘living, alive, life, etc., and their antonyms, e.g. dead, death, etc., have been editorially rewritten into thermodynamically-neutral terms.”

This restriction thus brought the total number of "non-acceptable" JHT topics and or terms to three: god theories (2005 stipulation), information theories (2008 stipulation), life theories (2012 stipulation).

Models | Drafts
The following are neutral terminology examples:

“Everything in this universe has its regular waves and tides. Electricity, sound, the wind, and I believe every part of organic nature will be brought someday within this law. The laws which govern animated beings will be ultimately found to be at bottom the same with those which rule inanimate nature, and as I entertain a profound conviction of the littleness of our kind, and of the curious enormity of creation, I am quite ready to receive with pleasure any basis for a systematic conception of it all. I look for regular tides in the affairs of man, and, of course, in our own affairs. In ever progression, somehow or other, the nations move by the same process which has never been explained but is evident in the oceans and the air. On this theory I should expect at about this time, a turn which would carry us backward.”
Henry Adams (c.1865), letter (or note) to someone [16]

“The object of education for [the] mind should be the teaching itself how to react with vigor and economy. No doubt the world at large will always lag so far behind the active mind as to make a soft cushion of inertia to drop upon; but education should try to lessen the obstacles, diminish the friction, invigorate the energy, and should train minds to react, not at haphazard, but by choice, on the lines of force that attract their world.”
Henry Adams (1907) (Ѻ), The Education of Henry Adams

“One cannot predict when any particular unstable atom will disintegrate or ‘die’, just as the case for mice or men.”
Paul Aebersold (1949), “Atomic Energy Benefits: Radioisotopes” [19]

“Out of all the scientists to have cited Goethe that I am aware of (Ѻ) and out of all the physical scientists to have employed free energy logic in social theory that I am aware of (Ѻ), you and myself are the only two existive (alive) people that I am aware of who has ever cited both Goethe and Gibbs in the same context (Ѻ). In this respect, would you be able to write up a short 3-5 page paper for 2014 JHT publication on your philosophy (opinion) on the connection of Empedocles to Goethe to Gibbs? The following page, which I wrote today, might give you some reference point (Ѻ). I’m sure you are busy, but if you could take a few moments of your time to donate such an article in our direction, it would be appreciated.”
Libb Thims (2013), email to Jurgen Mimkes [17]

Other
In 1851, William Thomson, in his formulations of the second law, was employing the phraseology “inanimate material agency” as follows: [18]

“It is impossible by means of inanimate material agency to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects.”

Supposedly, to be distinguished with “animate material agency”, the latter, supposedly, with the implicit assumption that an living thing, e.g. animal or human, is an animate material agent.

Quotes
The following are relevant quotes:

“The first thing needed is the rectification of names.”
— Confucius (500BC), Analects 13:3

“I propose the following definition, which is applied to everything, including minerals: ‘life is the faculty of reaction.’ Everything in the universe tends toward inertia, or absence of reaction. The proof of this inertia, which thermodynamics seeks in ‘absolute zero,’ has never been given, nor will it ever be, because absolute inertia can only be attained through the cessation of the formed matter or ‘thing’. This would be the moment the thing ceased to exist. Everything ‘existing’ is capable of reaction, insofar as it has ‘weight’, that is, fixed or specific energy. The vital phenomenon is the faculty of reacting, and to manifest itself this reaction requires a resistance of the same nature as the action.”
— Rene Lubicz (1949), The Temple of Man

See also
BP/PE dating system
Sociology terminology upgrades

References
1. Sherrington, Charles. (1940). Man on His Nature (chemistry, life, 24+ pgs; "deletes life", pg. 215). CUP Archive.
2. (a) Morowitz, Harold J. (1968). Energy Flow in Biology: Biological Organization as a Problem in Thermal Physics. NY Academy Press.
(b) Keddy, Paul. (2007). Plants and Vegetation: Origins, Processes, Consequences (pg. 63). Cambridge University Press.
3. Committee. (1998). Exploring the Trans-Neptunian Solar System (pg. 16). Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration. National Academy Press.
4. Keddy, Paul. (2007). Plants and Vegetation: Origins, Processes, Consequences (pg. 63). Cambridge University Press.
5. Thims, Libb. (2012). “Thermodynamics ≠ Information Theory: Science’s Greatest Sokal Affair” (url), Journal of Human Thermodynamics, 8(1): 1-120, Dec.
6. Regalla, Vamsi and Vedula, Ravi. (2012). “A Strange Thing Called Love: in the View of Thermodynamics”, Journal of Human Thermodynamics (url), 8(2): 121-##, Dec.
7. (a) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
(b) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume Two). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
8. Thone, Frank. (1936). “Nature Ramblings: ‘Chnops,’ Plus”, Science News Letters (CHNOPS, pg. 110; protoplasm, pg. 110), 30(801), Aug 15.
9. Crick, Francis. (1966). Of Molecules and Men (pg. 5). University of Washington Press.
10. (a) Huxley, Thomas. (1880). Science Primers: Introductory (§65: Living Bodies differ from Mineral Bodies in their Essential Composition, in the manner of their Growth, and in the fact that they are reproduced by Germs, pg. 92). Publisher.
(b) Pearson, Karl. (1900). The Grammar of Science (pg. 329). Adam and Charles Black.
11. Pearson, Karl. (1892). The Grammar of Science (§9.1: The Relation of Biology to Physics, pgs. 328-31). Adam and Charles Black, 1900.
12. Bidlake, John P. (1858). Bidlake’s Elementary Chemistry: a Text-book of Elementary Chemistry for the Use of Schools and Junior Students (analysis, pg. 6). London: Allman and Son.
13. (a) Schroeder, Daniel V. (2000). An Introduction to Thermal Physics (pg. 150). Addison Wesley Longman.
(b) Sterner, Robert W. and Elser, James J. (2002). Ecological Stoichiometry: the Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere (chapter one) (human molecule, empirical formula pg. 3; discussion, pgs. 47, 135). Princeton University Press.
14. 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.
15. Physical and chemical change – EverythingScience.co.za.
16. (a) Taylor, Matthew A. (2008). Universes Without Selves: Cosmologies of the Non-Human in American Literature (pg. 108), PhD dissertation, Johns Hopkins University. ProQuest, 2009.
(b) Adams, Henry. (date). “Letter”, The Letters of Henry Adams (I:395-96), ed. J.C. Levenson, et al. Harvard: Cambridge University Press.
17. Thims, Libb. (2013), Email communication from Thims to Jurgen Mimkes (16 Jul); Used: Smartest person alive | existive (22 Jul).
18. Stewart, Balfour and Tait, Peter G. (1875). The Unseen Universe: or Physical Speculations on a Future State (§110). Macmillan.
19. Aebersold, Paul C. (1949). “Atomic Energy Benefits: Radioisotopes”, address before the teachers in service course on atomic energy, Apr 7, New York City, in: Atoms at Work – Part I: Power From the Atom (by Dubridge), Part II: Atomic Energy Benefits: Radioisotopes (by Aebersold) (disintegrate, pg. 15). Murray & Gee, 1950.
20. Thims, Libb. (2012). “Thermodynamics ≠ Information Theory: Science’s Greatest Sokal Affair” (url), Journal of Human Thermodynamics, 8(1): 1-120, Dec 19.
21. Marshall, Edward. (1910). “No Immortality of the Soul Says Thomas A. Edison” (Ѻ) (pdf), The New York Times, Oct 2.
22. (a) Quote (Thomas Jefferson): “Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.” (29 Nov 1775) (Ѻ)
(b) Hazelton, John H. (1906). The Declaration of Independence: Its History (pg. 19). Da Capo Press, 1970.
23. Macnab, Francis M. (1818). A Theory of the Moral and Physical System of the Universe, Demonstrated by Analogy: in which the Elements of General Science are Explained Upon a Principle Entirely New (organized bodies, pg. 11). London: Ogles, Duncan, and Cochrane.
24. Barandum, Johannes. (1910). “Excursion Into the Infinitely Small”, The Open Court, 24:114-18.

TDics icon ns