# Prediction

 French physician-chemist Etienne Geoffroy’s 1718 affinity table, culled from Isaac Newton's "Query 31", the first reaction prediction device; the forerunner to prediction base on free energy, as embodied in 20th century free energy tables.
In thermodynamics, prediction, as applied to events or processes that are predictable, as opposed to those which are unpredictable, refers to the use of the laws of thermodynamics, generally the law that entropy will tend to increase over time, or its formulaic synonym that free energy will tend to decrease over time, to predict or predetermine certain processes, events, or reactions over time.

Overview

Thermodynamics
On 2 Jan 1849, Scottish engineer James Thomson, in his “Theoretical Considerations on the Effect of Pressure in Lowering the Freezing Point of Water”, made the following prediction, via thermodynamical reasoning, as summarized by Fielding Garrison: [26]

James Thomson, one of the early pioneers of physical chemistry, was able, by an implicit denial of Carnot’s assumption, to predict and prove that the freezing point of water would be lowered by pressure.”

Later that year, James’ brother William Thomson verified this deduction to its numerical details by direct experiment. [27]

Chemical reactions
Most chemical reactions can be predicted using the methods of chemical thermodynamics, such as summarized cogently by American science historian Henry Guerlac, from his 1969 article “Chemistry as a Branch of Physics”: [19]

“By means of chemical thermodynamics the physical chemist can indeed, without leaving the ‘cabinet’, predict the course of many chemical reactions.”

Scaled up to the human-human reaction level (reactions between people), this logic implies that “by means of human chemical thermodynamics the human physical chemist can indeed, without leaving the ‘cabinet’, predict the course of many human chemical reactions.”

Prediction can also refer to the predetermination of the most likely product or products in a chemical reaction or the final conformational state in geometrical rearrangement. The logic of thermodynamic prediction is commonly used in economic forecasting, weather prediction, and protein conformational studies, among others.

Affinity
The subject of "reaction prediction" entered into chemistry with the initiation of the science of affinity chemistry. To exemplify, in commenting on French chemist Étienne Geoffroy’s 1718 affinity table, the French History of the Royal Academy of Science, stated the year of its publication that: [6]

“That a body which is united to another, for instance a solvent which has penetrated a metal, should leave it to go and unite with another which is presented to it, is a thing of which the possibility would not have been guessed by the most subtle of philosophers, and of which the explanation is still today not too easy for them. In the end, leaving as unknown that which is unknown, and keeping to certain facts, all the experiments of chemistry prove that a particular body has more disposition to unite with one body than another, and that this disposition has different degrees. This table becomes sort of prophetic, for if substances are mixed together, it can foretell the effect and result of the mixture, because one will see form their different relations what ought to be, so to speak, the issue of the combat.”

In contemporary presentations of affinity tables, according to English chemistry historian Alistair Duncan: [7]

“The emphasis is on their usefulness in summarizing chemical facts in an easily memorized form and enabling the user to predict the course of a reaction than on their theoretical implications.”

After 1865, with the publication of German physicist Rudolf Clausius' The Mechanical Theory of Heat, it was proved that the measure of affinity is the change in Gibbs free energy (for isothermal-isobaric reaction):

A = ΔG

or Helmholtz free energy (for isothermal-isochoric reactions):

A = ΔF

after which time free energy tables replaced affinity tables, but used in the same sense with regard to prediction.

Temperature
In 1824, French physicist Sadi Carnot outlined the basics of the second law, namely that heat will always flow from hot to cold; therefore if two bodies, of different temperature, are put into contact, one can predict the direction of heat flow. In 1865, with the introduction of entropy, or heat divided by temperature, by German physicist Rudolf Clausius, the prediction aspects of temperature and heat were carried over into entropy, via the inequality sign. In 1947, Belgian-born English thermodynamicist Alfred Ubbelohde commented on this "temperature has to be reckoned with because it predicts the direction of spontaneous heat flow from one body to another. It is a kind of index of spontaneity, though a rather more rudimentary one than entropy." [14]

Free energy
The pioneering work in thermodynamic prediction was done by American engineer Willard Gibbs who applied German physicist Rudolf Clausius’ 1865 notions of states of energies and entropies of a body to the study of heterogeneous chemical systems. Specifically, in Gibbs 1873 paper "A Method of Geometrical Representation of the Thermodynamic Properties of Substances by Means of Surfaces", he began to outline the principles of, in his own words, “what determines the direction of change”. The first mention of "prediction" seems to be in a footnote where he states that for substances to exist in contact the conditions must be such that there pressures, temperatures, and free energies must be equal. On this conclusion, he comments:

“These results are interesting, as they show us how we might be able to foresee whether two given states of a substance of the same pressure and temperature, can exist in contact.”

Next, Gibbs refers to the experiments of Thomas Andrews, who showed that carbonic acid H2CO3 may be carried from any liquid state to any gas state without losing its homogeneity

“Now, if we had carried it from a state of liquidity to a state of gas of the same pressure and temperature, making the proper measurements in the process, we should be able to foretell what would occur if these two states of the substance should be brought together—whether evaporation would take place, or condensation, or whether they would remain unchanged in contact—although we had never seen the phenomenon of the coexistence of these two states, or of any of the two states of this substance.”

Beyond this, in his paper, he explains, graphically, for various contacts of substances, progress using phrases such as “the proposition above enunciated shows that processes will ensue which will …. ”, or “processes will occur which will …”, etc. Gibbs essential criterion for the stable equilibrium of a substance when surrounded by a medium of constant pressure and temperature is that that the value of the quantity of "available energy", or "free energy" as Helmholtz latter called it, of the body "shall be a minimum". This logic is outlined graphically below, in the form of Maxwell's thermodynamics surface, which he constructed based on Gibbs' graphical descriptions of available energies:

In 1893, German physical chemist Walther Nernst, who built on the work of Gibbs and Helmholtz, applied to reactions near absolute zero, summarized the situation as such: [13]

“Since every chemical process, like every process of nature, can only advance without the introduction of external energy only in the sense in which it can perform work; and since also for a measure of the chemical affinity, we must presuppose the absolute condition, that every process must complete itself in the sense of the affinity—on this basis we me may without suspicion regard the maximal external work of a chemical process (i.e. the change of free energy), as the measure of affinity. Therefore the clearly defined problem of thermo-chemistry is to measure the amounts of the changes of free energy associated with chemical processes, with the greatest accuracy possible … when this problem shall be solved, then it will be possible to predict whether or not a reaction can complete itself under the respective conditions. All reactions advance only in the sense of a diminution of free energy, i.e. only in the sense of the affinity.”
 Diagram showing that the direction of natural change is determined, according to Gibbs, such that the variation δ of the free energy G, produced by any variations in the state of the parts of the body, tends over time to decrease, being equal to zero at equilibrium; hence if a body is in state a then one can predict that it will evolve to state b over time, in that state b satisfies the condition of most stable equilibrium.

In 1905, building on the work of Gibbs, German chemist Fritz Haber published his Thermodynamics of Technical Gas Phase Reactions, in which he systematically studied the thermodynamic data necessary for the calculations of the free energy of chemical substances in a group of important reactions, with which he used to make predictions on chemical reactions—a contribution that was summarized in 1907 by English chemist Arthur B. Lamb, the English translator of Haber’s book, as follows: [2]

“The most important contribution to the subject of predicting the course of a chemical reaction from a few characteristic constants (after the ill-starred attempt of Berthelot).”

In the decades to follow, particularly through the work of physical chemists Gilbert Lewis, Merle Randall, and Edward Guggenheim, it was shown that a decrease in free energy in a chemical system was the criterion used to predict feasibility in chemical reactions.

Gfinal – Ginitial < 0
ΔG < 0 | Criterion for spontaneous reaction

This is called the spontaneity criterion. The modern-day sense of chemical thermodynamics prediction is summarized best by Gilbert Lewis and G.H. Burrows, who in 1912 stated: [9]

“The study of free energy affords the only true measure of chemical affinity, and although, when the free energies of all the substances involved in a given reaction are known, it may still be impossible to predict the rate of reaction, it will be possible to state in advance in what direction and to what extent the process can ultimately occur.”

In other words, the study of free energies yields the ability to "state in advance" in what direction natural processes and reactions will tend and how strongly they will tend to go in that direction.
 A handwritten 2010 note by Russian physical chemist Georgi Gladyshev, in a packet sent to American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims, that according to thermodynamics "history can be predicted."

Shown adjacent is a 2000 memo (in Russian) with a circa 2010 hand-written note (in English) by Russian physical chemist Georgi Gladyshev, sent to American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims, in a package of Gladyshev's collected works on his various thermodynamic theories, wherein he points out that from some time, since at least the late 1990s, he has been under the strong conviction that "history can be predicted" using thermodynamics, specifically Gibbs free energy:

Here we recall similar views expressed in the 1952 work of English physicist C.G. Darwin in regards to historical prediction and thermodynamics (though Darwin, to note, did not discuss "free energy", put presented only outline views; see his "Introduction" chapter for more on this).

The following is a 2005 example problem of reaction "prediction", from Raymond Chang's Physical Chemistry for the Biosciences, one of 32 plus examples of the ability of modern physical chemistry to "prediction" the direction of change in regards to chemical species reacting together: [18]

To solve this, according to change, we us the following equation:

where ΔrG is the Gibbs free energy of the reaction, at the conditions specified, ΔrGº is the standard Gibbs free energy of reaction, R is the ideal gas constant, T the absolute temperature, and Q the reaction quotient. Plugging the given data in to the equation, one can determine that free energy change for the reaction is -3.06 kJ / mol and hence:

and we can “predict”, in advance, according to the spontaneity criterion, that the reaction will proceed from left to right to reach equilibrium. The root key to all of this, of course, is that one has previously obtained thermodynamic data tables (or free energy tables) containing the Gibbs free energies of formation for all the necessary reactants in their standard state. This logic, naturally enough, can be scaled up to the human chemical reaction and human synthesis level and is only but a chemical engineering scaling problem.

Chemical bonding
Into the 1850s the theory of valency was developed, showing that certain atoms have a predisposed power or attachment nature to combine with specific other atoms. This logic slowly began to replace the older "hooked atoms" model of bonding. In 1910, American philosopher Mary Mesny stated, on the modeling of human relationship attachments on atomic valency, that: [12]

“It is a happy thought that certain lovely combinations are foreordained, and that these human atoms often meet their mates.”

This was an early statement of human chemical bonding theory.

Social engineering
In 1957, American astrophysicist and engineer John Q. Stewart, head of the Princeton University Department of Social Physics, gave the following opinions: [22]

“Statesmen of this and other nations … have embarked upon grandiose undertakings where on physical grounds failure was predictable, and … failure meant that … people perished in vain.”

“The British and French invasion of Egypt in 1956 would never have occurred if the Eden government had properly appreciated the role of Newtonian mechanics in American history. Any student of social physics could have warned the British that the tradition of this Republic recognizes the existence of principle separate from any given set of circumstances.”

Human thermodynamics
See main: History thermodynamics
In 1952, English physicist C.G. Darwin argued, in his book The Next Million Years, that (a) humans are molecules, which he defined as "human molecules", and (b) that statistical thermodynamics or rather statistical thermodynamics could be used to "predict" the next million years of human evolution, a rather bold speculation. [3]

In 2005, American physicist Wayne Angel, in his The Theory of Society, outlines a theory he calls "relation thermodynamics", and states that his goal in developing his theory is to:

“Present a theory of social organization and the means to develop the machinery of historical prediction.”
 A 2012 screenshot of SThaR.com or "Social Thermodynamics Applied Research" an Italian business consulting company that claims to use thermodynamic principles to predict and improve business operations and forecasts.
In the 2004 book The Entropy Vector, American engineers Robert Handscombe and Eann Patterson argue that business practice can be facilitated by utilizing entropy logic in operations. In their preface, however, the state that the second law will not be able to play a role in prediction: [10]

“The second law of thermodynamics on its own will not explain management behavior and would not be able to predict ‘what happens next’ by applying it.”

Conversely, Spanish business engineer Gregory Botanes, founder of the 2009 consultant, applied human thermodynamics, company STHAR or “Social Thermodynamics Applied Research” argues that thermodynamics can be used to predict business paths and operations. According to Botanes: [11]

Social Thermodynamics Applied Research is the pioneer and world’s leader in the application of social thermodynamics universal laws to real business needs, providing public and private companies with a whole new scientific methodology, not only to model their networks, better understand their user’s roles and influence but, for the first time, to predict, under a non-empirical approach, their future behavior and interactions.”

Curiously, both groups reason that thermodynamics can be applied fortuitously to business needs, but only Botanes argues that thermodynamics will actually predict the future of business needs and issues, just as is prediction is done in thermodynamics.
 The circa 1995 "Thims thought experiment", according to which American chemical engineering student Libb Thims conceptualized his top 19 marriage-potential girlfriends as each having a reaction "potential" quantified by the Lewis inequality: ΔG < 0, analogous to what Goethe conceptualized in 1796 via affinities (see: Goethe-Helmholtz equation: A = -ΔG), according to which the discerning human chemist should theoretically be able to "predict" the most-favored human chemical reaction (see: HCR theory) of a given set of potential reactions.

Determinism | Online dating | Human chemical thermodynamics
The hmolscience view of determinism and prediction, wherein humans are specifically defined specifically as "molecules", i.e. human molecules, is captured well by the following 1999 synopsis on “The ‘Dynamics’ in the Thermodynamics of Binding” by American-born Canadian biophysical chemist Julie Forman-Kay: [2]

“Whether two molecules will bind is [completely] determined by the free energy change (ΔG) of the interaction, composed of both enthalpic and entropic terms.”

which, without change, being that this is a universal rule, can be scaled up to the human-human reaction level, to the affect that:

“Whether two people [human molecules] will bind is [completely] determined by the free energy change (ΔG) of the interaction, composed of both enthalpic and entropic terms.”

An analysis first worked out by Goethe, in terms of chemical affinities, the precursor to free energy, in 1796 (see: Goethe timeline), the principles of which he latter had to defend himself against stating that they were in fact "true" no matter who wants to raise objection (see: best book).

Historically, although the above logic has yet to be carried through into the testing stage, the first outlines of such logic were introduced in 1995, during which time American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims began to study how the spontaneity criterion could be applied to mate selection, so as to predict the feasibility of any given romantic relationship in love the chemical reaction. Much of this work resulted in the 2007 textbook Human Chemistry. [4] To elaborate, by example, given two generic mating reactions, wherein two individuals, A and B or A and C, are hypothetically proposed to pair bond in a marriage potential relationship:

A + B → AB
A + C → AC
 Logo for the the tentative future prediction-based dating site portal: ReactionMatch.com, conceived by American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims in circa 2007-2009; which went into the stalled-out development stage in circa 2010.

by studying the free energy of each reaction, in the words of Lewis, “it will be possible to state in advance in what direction and to what extent each process can ultimately occur.” The logic of using free energy prediction in application in the half-billion-dollar a year dating industry is embodied in the protostage of development site ReactionMatch.com, although this may be something of the very distant future.

Tested theories
In the 1970s, American marriage dynamics mathematical psychologist John Gottman determined stable long-term marriages have a 5-to-1 ratio of attractive-to-repulsive bonding interaction, a ratio now called the Gottman stability ratio, the results of which study were famously published in his 1995 book Why Marriages Succeed or Fail. Through low-motion video recordings of human couple interactions, Gottman was able to develop a formulaic methodology that is able to “predict”, with 94 percent accuracy, which couples will divorce in the long run and which will stay bonded in the long run. Gottman's models, however, only loosely employ thermodynamics logic. In 1999, for example, he gave his view that: [17]

“Something like a second law of thermodynamics seems to function in marriage—that is, when marital distress exists, things usually deteriorate (entropy increases).”

In 2010, building on the work of John Gottman, Spanish mathematical economist Jose-Manuel Rey, in his “A Mathematical Model of Sentimental Dynamics Accounting for Marital Dissolution”, attempted to formulaically and graphically explain marital dissolution using a metaphorical version of the second law of thermodynamics to indicate outline a model in which “the feeling of attachment in a relationship ‘cools down’ (thermal word) as time evolves—unless energy in form of effort is supplied to keep things alive.”

 Generic drug-receptor reaction coordinate: showing the decrease in Gibbs free energy of the extent of a spontaneous reaction, meaning that the two reactants have a large positive affinity (graphical depiction of reaction prediction). [8]
Drug-receptor thermodynamics
In the underpinnings of drug-receptor thermodynamics, is affinity or drug receptor affinity, which equates to measurements of ‘free energy’. As stated in the opening to 2001, 782-page, tome Drug-Receptor Thermodynamics coordinated by senior editor Robert Raffa: [8]

“That chemical reactions proceed spontaneously only when the change in a quantity termed the ‘free energy’ is negative for the reaction as written, and that spontaneity can be predicted using this construct, is widely known and gives thermodynamics a pragmatic utility that extends to an applied science such as pharmacology.”

Objections
Of curiosity, many new to the subjects of either human chemistry or human thermodynamics, will quick object to the subjects and comment to the effect, possibly seeing the testing of the subjects along something in the theme of Karl Popper's "falsifiability", of "what exactly can these subjects predict", or something along these lines. That human choices can be predicted, overrides the premise of free will, leading to the conclusion that humans have no "choice" in the matter in the first place, which is a disturbing and objectionable view for many. One of the first to raise such an objection, seems to have been American sociologist Edward Ross, who, in 1907 commentary on the human thermodynamics work of Polish economist Leon Winiarski, namely his social mechanics-thermodynamics view of desire as a form of energy (Essay on Social Mechanics, 1898), stated in objection:

Desire may or may not be a form of energy. In any case it is certain that a mechanical interpretation cannot help to predict the choices of people.”

Ross seems to base this argument in the view that prediction can be made on the lower animals, whose behaviors are simply stimulus and reaction processes, but that in higher organisms, factors such as memory, psychological energy, consciousness, spontaneous sportive or festive activities, etc., exempt humans from mechanical simplicity. [5]

In the 2009 Moriarty-Thims debate, the questions prediction, quantification, and falsifiability arose. Beginning in about comment #41, American philosopher Aaron Agassi commented:

“Indeed, what is student heat [see: social heat ]? Is it anything like teen spirit? Or is it, or so I gather, a factor of compression and agitation of people in crowds? And is it quantifiable? It just might be. But why would any of that be important or interesting? Perhaps it might even factor into human movement patterns for building designs in situationist applied unitary urbanism. But any of that doesn't validate or even connect application to sociology or politics.”
 The opening section to Irish biochemistry student Ryan Grannell's 2011 blog entry “The Predictions of Human Chemistry”, in which he attempt to argue that human chemistry is not a science because it cannot make predictions and hence is not falsifiable. [16]

a query to which American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims replied (comment #42):

“Regarding your question ‘why would any of that be important or interesting?’, from my point of view (similar to C.G. Darwin), is that of prediction: someone, 200-300 years from now, will be able to predict whether or not any given human chemical reaction will occur, e.g. divorce or 50-years of happy marriage, based on calculated measures of energy and entropy, just as is done with smaller chemical reactions. In other words, in the near future (not likely in our lifetime), people will be able to choose mates intelligently (20-30% rate of divorce at the 15-year mark), rather than willy-nilly (43% divorce rate at the 15-year mark, the current rate).”

In 2011, Irish biochemistry student Ryan Grannell spent a month researching and blogging about human chemistry, one of which was entitled “The Predictions of Human Chemistry”, the opening section of which is shown adjacent, in which he attempted to argue that human chemistry is not a science because it does not meet the falsifiability criterion. Grannell gives the following synopsis: [16]

“In order to verify Thims theories—that thermodynamic equations describe and predict aspects of human relationships—we will need evidence that they are falsifiable, predictive, and have evidence in favor of them.”

Grannell then goes on to question whether or not Étienne Geoffroy was wrong or not in his 1718 affinity theories, but does note correctly that “in modern Chemistry, the idea of affinities has been superseded by the Helmholtz and Gibbs free energies” (see: thermal theory of affinitythermodynamic theory of affinity transition); and does correctly state:

Free energy tables can be used to predict what reactions are favorable; I’ve used them myself on various occasions in my physical chemistry practicals.”

After this, however, Grannell seems to lose focus. At this point, the only question that remains is: are human-human interactions “chemical reactions” yes or no?

If yes, then the methodology of free energy tables can be scaled up to the prediction of reactions between humans, the logic of which being embedded in the form of what are called human free energy tables (see: affinity table page, bottom section, to see how this is done); the first prototypes of this methodology embodied in German polymath Johann Goethe's 1808 human affinity table, with which he used to write a 36 chapter physical chemistry coded novella called Elective Affinities in which each chapter a certain human chemical reaction occurs, predetermined by the nature of elective affinities of the interactions (see: Elective Affinities: Illustrated, Annotated, and Decoded).

The 14+ pioneers of “human chemical reaction theory” (Goethe, Melko, Adler, Steer, Thims, Hirata, Fink, Hwang, Wood, Jorge, Pati, Wallace, Regalla, and Vedula) would answer the question in the affirmative: that yes human interactions are chemical reactions, in the strict scientific definition of the matter, and as such can be "predicted".

This viewpoint is also corroborated by polls, according to which 66 percent of people answer “yes” to the question: is love a chemical reaction? (2005 poll).

Lastly, to conclude, as of 2002, with the publication of Robert Sterner and James Elser’s Ecological Stoichiometry textbook, humans are now defined specifically as "abstract molecules", with a specific human molecular formula, of which Sterner and Elser giving the following calculation:

H375,000,000 O132,000,000 C85,700,000 N6,430,000 Ca1,500,000 P1,020,000 S206,000 Na183,000 K177,000
Cl127,000 Mg40,000 Si38,600 Fe2,680 Zn2,110 Cu76 I14 Mn13 F13 Cr7 Se4 Mo3 Co1

and chemical formula about which Sterner and Elser state the following clarification:

“Organisms can [now] be thought of as complex evolved chemical substances that interact with each other and the abiotic world in a way that resembles a complex, composite, chemical reaction.”

This is the modern view of humans as of 2002. If humans are "molecules" that "react" with each other, via what are called human chemical reactions, then like all reactions they are governed by Lewis' "universal rule" of reaction prediction, no exception. Those who would speak of "falsifiability" are simply not grasping the big picture, as Goethe did two hundred years ago. The problem with attempts to set up predictive experiments so to test the various points of view the theories would entail, is that human free energy theory is very a very complex subject, one might say the most advanced and complex subject of all, as is evidenced by the fact that of the 500+ human thermodynamics pioneers, only about 40 are human free energy theorists, a very rarified niche group, requiring the mastery of the language of partial differential equations and chemical thermodynamics, not something easily done, a task in and of itself barricaded by Willard Gibbs' 1876 On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances, the said-to-be most difficult to read, digest, and understand scientific treatise of all time.
 English chemist and physicist Philip Ball's 2012 social physics booklet Why Society is a Complex Matter, wherein he argues that science that can help to explain and perhaps even to "predict"—a term he uses on twenty-plus pages—social behavior. [20]

Quotes
The following are related quotes:

“To foresee or to guide the affinities of each several molecule would be for the physicist as great a step in advance as it would be for the registrar-general could he foresee or guide every impulse to wedlock in the United Kingdom.”
Frederic Myers (1896), Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily Death

“As surely as the astronomer can predict the future state of the heavens, the sociologist can foresee that process of adaption must go on until in a remote future it comes to an end in proximate equilibrium.”
John Fiske (1902), Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy [23]

“The great regularity and predictability with which men will things and the ‘choices’ of men can be predicted by exactly the same techniques we use to predict other natural phenomena.”
George Lundberg (1947) on the question of God and free will in a scientific world [28]

“The business of social scientists, broadly speaking, is to be able to predict with high probability the social weather, just as meteorologists predict sunshine or storm.”
George Lundberg (1947), Can Science Save Us? (pg. 38)

“Pious platitudes doubtless will continue to be heard for some time about the ‘unpredictability’ of human behavior.”
George Lundberg (1947), Can Science Save Us? (pg. 49)

Carlyle and the others contend that the knowledge of every act and thought of every individual of a given time must be clearly analyzed, and their permutations understood in order to write history. But by the same token we would never be able to understand the time in which we write. Is a metallurgist in a steel mill debarred from understanding the nature of the processes he himself starts, regulates and controls because he cannot give a graphic chart depicting the actions of ever electron of every atom of all the materials he works with, and therefore cannot predict the end results of his operations? But we have gone over this ground before.”
Morris Zucker (1945), Historical Field Theory [24]

“In general, an object in a given force field will, of necessity, behave in a calculable and predictable way. For any object, whether a stone, a plant, or a human society, force means movement.”
Mehdi Bazargan (c.1980), note on Thermodynamics of Humans [21]

“It’s no mystery why economics is called the dismal science. With most sciences, experts make pretty accurate predictions. Mix two known chemicals, and a chemist can tell you ahead of time what you’ll get. Ask an astronomer when the next solar eclipse will be, and you’ll get the date, time, and best viewing locations, even if the eclipse won’t occur for decades. But mix people with money, and you generally get madness. No economist really has any idea when you’ll see the next total eclipse of the stock market.”
Tom Siegfried (2006), A Beautiful Math: John Nash, Game Theory, and the Modern Quest for a Code of Nature [25]

“When a chemist predicts how molecules will react in a test tube, the molecules are oblivious. They do what they do the same way whether a chemist correctly predicts it or not. But in the social sciences, people display much more independence than molecules do. In particular, if people known what you’re predicting you will do, they might do something else just to annoy you.”
Tom Siegfried (2006), A Beautiful Math: John Nash, Game Theory, and the Modern Quest for a Code of Nature [25]

Physical intelligence

References
1. Gibbs, J. Willard. (1873). "A Method of Geometrical Representation of the Thermodynamic Properties of Substances by Means of Surfaces", Transactions of the Connecticut Academy, II. pp.382-404, Dec.
2. Haber, Fritz. (1905). Thermodynamics of Technical Gas Reactions, (Translator’s Preface, 1907, pg. vii). Longmans, Green, and Co.
3. Darwin, Charles G. (1952). The Next Million Years. (Google Books). London: Rupert Hart-Davis.
4. (a) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One), (Prediction, pg. 79) (preview), (Google books). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
(b) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume Two), (preview), (Google books). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
5. (a) Ross, Edward A. (1907). Foundations of Sociology (Winiarski, pgs. 156-60). MacMillan Co.
(b) Winiarski, Leon. (Date). “Article”, Revue Philosophique, Vol. XLV, pgs. 351-86; Vol. XVIX, pgs. 113-334.
6. (a) Geoffroy, E.F. (1718). Mem. Acad. R. Sci. pp. 202-12.
(b) Hist. Acad. R. Sci., 1718, pp. 35-7.
7. Bergman, Torbern. (1775). A Dissertation on Elective Attractions (with new introduction by A.M. Duncan). London: Frank Cass & Co.
8. Raffa, Robert B. (2001). Drug-Receptor Thermodynamics - Introduction and Applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
9. (a) Lewis, Gilbert and Burrows, G.H. (1912). “The Equilibrium between Ammonium Carbonate and Ammonium Carbamate in Aqueous Solution at 25̊.” J. Am. Chem. Soc., 34:993.
(b) Lewis, Gilbert N. and Randall, Merle. (1923). Thermodynamics and the Free Energy of Chemical Substances (pg. 584). McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.
10. Handscombe, Robert D. and Patterson, Eann A. (2004). The Entropy Vector: Connecting Business and Science (pg. viii). World Scientific.
11. (a) SThAR (overview) – SocialThermodynamics.org.
(b) Gregory Botanes (info) - Facebook.com.
12. Mesny, Mary B. (1910). “Human Molecules”, The Smart Set: a Magazine of Cleverness, 31:100, May.
13. (a) Nernst, Walther. (1893). Theoretical Chemistry from the standpoint of Avogadro's rule and Thermodynamics (Theoretische Chemie vom Standpunkte der Avogadroschen Regel und der Thermodynamik). Stuttgart, F. Enke, 1893 [5th edition, 1923].
(b) Nernst, Walther. (1895). Theoretical Chemistry: from the Standpoint of Avogadro’s Rule & Thermodynamics (697-pages) (section: The Measure of Affinity, pgs. 586-88). MacMillan and Co.
14. Ubbelohde, Alfred René. (1947). Time and Thermodynamics (pg. 18). Oxford University Press.
15. Falsifiability – Wikipedia.
16. Grannell, Ryan. (2011). “Category: Human Chemistry”, Bag of Many Things, WordPress.com (Jun 26 –Jul 22).
17. Gottman, John M. (1999). The Marriage Clinic (pg. 5). W.W. Norton & Co.
18. Chang, Raymond. (2005). Physical Chemistry for the Biosciences (prediction, 32+ pgs; example 6.2, pgs. 199). University Science Books.
19. (a) Guerlac, Henry. (1969). “Chemistry as a Branch of Physics: Laplace’s Collaboration with Lavoisier” (pg. 275), Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, (7): 193-276.
(b) Henry Guerlac –Wikipedia.
20. Ball, Philip. (2012). Why Society is a Complex Matter: Meeting Twenty-First Century Challenges with a New Kind of Science (predict, 20+ pgs). Springer.
21. Bazargan, Mehdi. (c.1980). “Religion and Liberty” (Section: Opposition: the Cause of Movement and Life, pgs. 81-82, note 23: Thermodynamics of Humanity); originally in Rediscovery of Values (Bazyabi-e Arzeshha); reprinted in Liberal Islam: a Source Book (chapter 7, pgs. 73-84) edited by Charles Kurzman, Oxford University Press, 1998.
22. Lear, John. (1957). “American Newsletter: The Laws of Social Relationship”, New Scientist, Jan 31.
23. Fiske, John (1902). Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy: Based on the Doctrine of Evolution, with Criticisms on the Positive Philosophy, Volume 2 (pg. 234). Cambridge.
24. Zucker, Morris. (1945). The Philosophy of American History: The Historical Field Theory (pg. 166). Arnold-Howard Publishing Co.
25. Siegfried, Tom. (2006). A Beautiful Math: John Nash, Game Theory, and the Modern Quest for a Code of Nature (pg. 27). National Academies Press.
26. (a) Thomson, James. (1849). “Theoretical Considerations on the Effect of Pressure in Lowering the Freezing Point of Water” (Ѻ), Read to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Jan 2; in: Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 16:575-80.
(b) Garrison, Fielding H. (1909). “Josiah Willard Gibbs and his Relation to Modern Science, Parts I-IV” (pdf) (predict, §1: 475), Popular Science Monthly, Part I: 74(27):470-84, May; Part II: 74:551-61, Jun; Part III: 75:41-48, Jul; Part IV: 75:191-203, Aug.
(c) Josiah Willard Gibbs and his Relation to Modern Science: I, II, III, IV – Wikisource.
27. Stewart, Balfour and Tait, Peter G. (1875). The Unseen Universe: or Physical Speculations on a Future State (§108). Macmillan.
28. Lundberg, George. (1947). Can Science Save Us? (pg. 107). Longmans, Green and Co.