This idea

This idea (Goethe) 3
A diagrammatic showing how it took Goethe 31-years to from the 1770 age 19 "puzzlement stage" (see: Goethe’s daimonic) to the 1799 age 50 "verbal gripe" / "idea stage" (see: passions like playing cards), to go another 10-years exactly to working finished "product stage", namely his coded novella Elective Affinities, which he declared his "best book" (greatest work), wherein the passions are explained NOT like playing cards, as Crebillon did, but rather by the rules, laws, and reactions of physical chemistry.
In hmolscience, this idea refers to the "radical", according to some, view, discerned, independently, by those including: Goethe (1770), Shelley (1804), Adams (1885), De Lange (1960), Rossini (1971), Beg (1974), Thims (1995), Hirata (2000), and Hwang (2001), that people ARE chemical substances, NO metaphor, and that the forces of attraction and repulsion, and reactions mediated thereby, of which, being governed by one and the same nature and laws of physics and chemistry, actuate as evidenced in the behaviors of smaller chemical substances, as experimented with in the chemistry class, laboratory, and or observed in nature.

It took Goethe exactly 10-years to go from age 19-20 puzzlement stage (1770) of his confusion (see: Goethe’s daimonic) to working model stage, i.e. his plant evolution theory (1780), to go another 4-years to the evidence stage of his human evolution theory (see: human intermaxillary bone) (1784), to go another 12-years to the “metaphor stage” of the general alluded to concept of a “human chemical theory”, see: Third Lecture on Anatomy (1796), to go another 3-years to the “griping stage”, i.e. something needs to be done about this abysmal state of the situation, see: passions like playing cards (1799), to go another 10-more years to the “finished product” stage of the realization of “the idea”, i.e. human passions or heats of emotion NOT treated in literature like playing cards, but as real quantitative functions of the heats, forces, and affinities of atoms and chemicals actually reacting, according to measurement, i.e. atoms and molecules do NOT react together like the mixing of playing cards, so why should human reactions be any different; the ramifications of which he discussed and employed in his own existence and discussions up into his last year in 1832, for a total of 62-years at a minimum working on the so-named "hard problem" of the humanities (see: below).

In took Percy Shelley 8-years to go from the 1803 age 11 “this idea” stage, namely: that heats, elements, chemical reactions, and the affinities apply to human social interactions and the passions, which he discerned while a student in the chemistry class of Adam Walker, to the 1811 age 19 “atheism stage”, namely that religion and chemistry are at odds with each other, therein penning his The Necessity of Atheism, which got him expelled from Oxford, to go another 5-years to the 1816 age 24 “applied stage” of using his new radical elective affinities philosophical, which is summarized below, in his daily goings-on:

Shelley elective affinities idea
Mary Shelley, famed Frankenstein author, on the "radical" elective affinities philosophy of her late husband Percy Shelley, "the idea" of which he gleaned, at the age of 12, in the chemistry class of Adam Walker.
“The radical tenets of Shelley’s philosophy appear transmuted to something rich and strange in the medium of his poetry. These principles, which he imbibed from William Godwin’s Political Justice, are, briefly, the perfectibility of man, the usurpation of Church and State, the negation of moral evil, and the doctrine of elective affinities. When religion and government shall have passed away, and liberty, equality and fraternity, the ideals of the French Revolution, shall have come to dwell among men, then will the golden age return. Shelley regarded himself as a seer, a hierophant whose concern was with the regeneration of humanity.”
— Florence Moynihan (1922), “The Centenary of Shelley” (Ѻ)

to eventually, e.g., marry soon-to-become famed Frankenstein author Mary Shelley in the conceptual god-free "Church of Elective Affinities", as Mary Shelley retrospectively referred to it; for a total of 18-years mentally working on the so-named "hard problem" of the humanities (see: below), before committing suicide at age 29 a month before his 30th birthday (similar to Patrick Fergus).

It took Henry Adams 28-years to go from his age 25 “idea confusion” (1863) stage, which he expressed in letter to Charles Gaskell (see: Adams creed), aka the "daimonic stage", as Goethe referred to it:

“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.”

to the “proof stage”, i.e. to 1889 to 1891 penning of his nine-volume History of the United States of America, covering the years during the Jefferson Administration, 1801 to 1817, to prove to his own mind that history operates “mechanistically” (see: social mechanism), which he summarizes as follows:

“He had even published a dozen volumes of American history for no other purpose than to satisfy himself whether, by severest process of stating, with the least possible comment, such facts as seemed sure, in such order as seemed rigorously consequent, he could fix for a familiar moment a necessary sequence of human movement. The result had satisfied him as little as at Harvard College.”
Henry Adams (thought experiment) 3
The 1885 Henry Adams love thought experiment, i.e. trying to understand "the idea" of relationships from the point of view of nature as determined by physics and chemistry.

To go another 18-years into the publication manuscript peer review stage of “of idea” stage, which in 1909 he found in the mind of Henry Bumstead, one of the few students of Willard Gibbs, who reviewed his "The Rule of Phase Applied to History” (1909); some of which is evidenced by the following quotes:

“On the physico-chemical law of development and dynamics, our society has reached what is called the critical point where it is near a new phase or equilibrium.”
— Henry Adams (1908), “Letter to Charles Gaskell” (Sep 27)

“The solution of mind is certainly in the magnet.”
— Henry Adams (1908), “Letter to Charles Gaskell” (Sep 27)

“I have run my head hard up against a form of mathematics that grinds my brains out. I flounder like a sculpin in the mud. It is called the ‘law of phases’, and was invented at Yale [by Gibbs]. No one shall persuade me that I am not a phase.”
— Henry Adams (1908), “Letter to Elizabeth Cameron” (Sep 29)

“I’m looking for a ‘young and innocent physico-chemist who wants to earn a few dollars by teaching an idiot what is the first element of theory and expression in physics.’”
— Henry Adams (1908), “Note to John Jameson” (Dec)

“My essay ‘The Rule of Phase [Applied to History]’ is a ‘mere intellectual plaything, like a puzzle’ [to Brooks]. I am interested in getting it into the hands of a ‘scientific, physico-chemical proofreader’ and I am willing to pay ‘liberally for the job’ [to Jameson].”
— Henry Adams (1909), Notes to Brooks Adams and John Jameson

to go another year to get to the suggested solution stage, as contained in his Letter to American Teachers of History (1910), to get to the competent peer-review stage, after which he had a seizure or stroke, after which he could no longer mentally function at this level of inquire; for a total of 47-years working on the so-named "hard problem" of the humanities (see: below).

Adriaan De Lange (1986) 2
A mock rendition of South African physical chemistry Adriaan de Lange (1986) teaching Lewis-based physical chemistry to his students, amid which he came to the realization that these principles ALSO apply to people at the social interaction and reaction level; it would take him another 23-years to go from the "idea stage" to be able to pen out a full book on this view. [3]
De Lange
It took Adriaan de Lange approximately 22-years to from the circa 1960 age 15 "struggle stage", which he describes, in retrospect, as follows:

“Since as a kid I was aware of the abyss (super rift) between the material and mental worlds. I tried to bridge this abyss, but could not. Yet I kept on with my own "Steigerung" as Goethe did.”

to go to the age 37 "discovery stage" (1982), which he describes as follows:

“Then during 1982-83 I discovered empirically that the law of entropy production applies to the spiritual [humanistic] world as it applies to the physical world. My joy knew no bounds. I have found the bridge between these two worlds with which to cross the abyss between them. Others thought I was crazy and would not dare to publish my account.”

to go another 4-years to the mental solution stage (1986), which arose in his mind "while lecturing" to students as a physical chemistry professor, which he describes in retrospect as follows:

“Then, in 1986, if I remember correctly, I was teaching university students the intricate calculations concerning free energy in chemical reactions. During that lecture I suddenly became aware how my mind was rushing along two levels. The lower level was concerned with chemical processes as a physical phenomenon. I executed this level almost automatically. But the higher level of my mind was exploring free energy in the process of knowing-learning as a spiritual [thermodynamics] phenomenon. I followed this level with great curiosity. I think the students became aware that I was rather absent minded that day, not perceiving my higher most thoughts. That day marks the beginning of my continual exploring of the role of free energy in the spiritulization [actualization] of humankind.”

to go another 12-years to get to the internet sphere / online / forum "discussion stage" of idea water testing and discussion (1998-2001). [2]

It took him another 8-years to go from the scattering of online postings of dialogue and idea stage to go to the "online chapter-by-capther book stage", in the form of the published book Irreversible Self-Organization (2009), which is only available in Afrikaans and not available as a printed book; for a total of 49-years working on the so-named "hard problem" of the humanities (see: below). As of 2010, De Lange's health is too frail for him to move beyond this stage to make an English-translation stage of his work so to be available in either article form (e.g. JHT publication) or book form, for the global audience. [4]

Beg change of social states (diagram)
It took Pakistani organometallic chemist Mirza Beg 13-years to go from the 1974 age 42 "this idea" stage of listening to his fellow humanities scholars lecture about public administration using metaphorical physical chemist language, such as: “polarization, activation, potential energy, complexes, compounds, etc.” to get to the 1987 age 55 non-metaphor presentation of physicochemical description "view" of society as an actual trained organometallic chemist sees things, via the publication of his New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior.
It took Mirza Beg exact 2-years to go from the 1974 age 42 “observation stage” that, as an attending scientist, taking notes, lecturers in his advanced training humanities course at the National Institute of Public Administration, Karachi, Pakistan, were using physical chemistry like terms such as: “polarization, activation, potential energy, complexes, compounds, perhaps metaphorically and in an unrelated context”, to the mimeographing of his notes into the 1976 age 46 booklet Human Behavior in Scientific Terminology, to go another 5-years to get past the 1983 age 51 “peer review stage”, according to which out of this booklet five articles were published in local journals, namely:

● Beg, Mirza. (1979). “Human Behaviour in Scientific Terminology”, Pakistan Management Review.
● Beg, Mirza. (1980). “Human Behaviour in Scientific Terminology: Assimilation”, Pakistan Management Review.
● Beg, Mirza. (1981). “Human Behaviour in Scientific Terminology: Affinity, Free Energy Changes, Equilibria, and Human Behaviour”, Pakistan Management Review.
● Beg, Mirza. (1982). “Article Title”, Pakistan Marketing Review.
● Beg, Mirza. (1983). “Physico-Chemical Processes and Human Behaviour Part—IV: Muslim Society, its Formation & Decline”, Science & Technology in the Islamic World.

It took Beg another 4-years to get to the 1987 age 55 revolution stage setting book: New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior, wherein the science of physicochemical sociology is largely founded; after which taking him another 27-years to get to the 2014 age 82 global water-testing of his ideas stage, via, OUTSIDE of the sphere of the Islamic-anchored mindsets of his fellow Pakistani's, wherein in their minds, everything he suppositions is implicitly assumed to be the will or infinite power of Allah, morality defined by the Quran, wherein he "collided" with extreme ultra-reductionist atheist Libb Thims (see: Beg-Thims dialogue), and therein found the inherent weaknesses in his "idea" turned published presentation.

it took Thims exactly 8-years to go from an age 15 confusion about the subject, namely of mate selection, in relation to work (occupation, social climbing, and happiness, to age 23 visualization of "the idea" that the solution was found in chemical thermodynamics + evolutionary psychology base mate selection modes. Specifically, in Fall 1994, amid his course: Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics I [ChE 230], Winter 1995, or amid the course: Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics II [ChE 330], or at the very latest, Spring 199, amid the course: Physical Chemistry [CHEM 468], see: Libb Thims (history), Thims’ gleaned the patently-obvious “idea”, in his mind, that these equations, reactions, and principles, he was learning, in these courses, wherein he received straight As, being near the top of his graduating class, of about 128 student, in each course, to predict and understand the nature of molecular formations, reactions, and dissolutions, applied to human reactions at the macro-social level; something along the lines of the following logic or view, i.e. that columns 1-3 are "translatable" to the phenomena described in columns 5-6:

Social reaction diagram (footnote 2.5)

The question Thims had, in his mind, at this point, was “who” exactly, historically, or “how” exactly, in modern terms, was this explained, in detail? Thims, for whatever reason, did not ask the question OPENLY in class, despite of the fact, that he routinely sat in the front of every class, raised his hand to as the most questions in class, or thereabouts, and was the student that did some of the most teacher office visits, to get specifics answer, on various questions, that he couldn’t solve on his own.

It took Thims another 7-years to to get to the partial equation solution stage (2001) of the problem, in terms of partial differential equations, to another 2-years to the "evidence stage" of proving to oneself that the theory matches real data (see: Beckhaps law proof), to go anther 4-years to get to the published textbook stage of the basics of the model (2007), and another 9-years to publish a 10-volume encyclopedia (2016) on the historical footnotes and elaboration on details of the basic large picture outline of the subject. The Human Chemical Thermodynamics textbook presentation of this complete picture, the way chemical thermodynamics textbooks are actually written, however, is something not realized at the moment; for a total of (as of 2016) approximately 29-years working on the so-named "hard problem" of the humanities (see: below).

In 2000, American child prodigy Christopher Hirata, age 18, in one of his Caltech faculty subpages, entitled "fun stuff", jumped into the published joking "metaphor stage", with his five part The Physics of Relationships, which outlined pretty much the same thing Goethe outlined 200-years ago, albeit with Gibbs energy + Van't Hoff equilibrium reaction model upgrades; the following is a synopsis of this:

Hirata (IQ:225|#3) is an astrophysicist who is known for his work 'The Physics of Relationships.' His fame came at age 13 when became the youngest competitor ever to win a gold medal at the International Physics Olympiad. At 16, he began working with NASA on a project dedicated to colonizing Mars. He produced a similar theory on human chemical thermodynamics to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (IQ:220|#4).”
— Roxy Farrah (2014). “20 Smartest People to Ever Exist” (Ѻ), Aug 30

(add discussion)
Motl on Hirata (2010)
The 16-20 Nov 2010 opinions of wildcard Lubos Motl (photo shown being his Twitter (Ѻ) page avatar) – a former Harvard physics professor, who in 2007 was forced (Ѻ) to resign, owing to his over-typical approach of using flaming criticism of anti-string theory advocates, such as Lee Smolin and Peter Woit, whose books he described as “crank” and “crackpot” – on Hirata and Thims versions of human chemical thermodynamics theories, dismissing Hirata as "but a joke" and Thims as senile or crazy. [8]

Hirata | Joke? | Discussion
Of peculiar note, Hirata, as is often pointed out by detractors and objectors to "this idea", opened his teenage — himself not yet having had any serious romantic relations [reaction] at this point — "fun stuff" derivation with the following disclaimer:

In the true spirit of Caltech (I'm not sure if this applies to Princeton), I devote this section of my website to the application of basic physical principles to relationships, particularly the romantic kind. Before I do this, I will make a few comments. You should understand them before you proceed. They aren't hard to understand: (a) Don't take it too seriously. This site is for your amusement, and it does not serve any other purpose. I am not a counselor, and if you have a real problem with your "significant other" then this page won't help you solve it. I take no responsibility for what you do with this information. Also recall that I don't have a girlfriend, so what do I know about this? Only what physics can tell me. [UPDATE: Since I wrote this page I have found Annika and we are engaged. This confirms that I know what I'm talking about.]. (b) This site is geared primarily toward nerds. If you're not a nerd, this doesn't mean I want you to go away. In fact, it will give you some idea of the types of jokes frequently made in Caltech dorms. You may or may not find it interesting. (c) This is not a dirty site. For my younger audience: since this is the Internet, and I recognize that little kids have access to any material I put here, this site contains no sexually explicit material. (This is also because I don't want losers reading my page.)
So enjoy the compilation of worthless applications of physics and mathematics to relationships:

Hirata, of note, compared to Goethe, was like Goethe a child prodigy, who like Goethe, became an IQ:225 cited adult. Hirata, however, seems to have given this "disclaimer" so not to worry his older peers or hinder his chance of getting tenure or deter funding opportunities down the line, down the line, or something to this effect. In other words, it is very effrontery and dangerous for a young person, without standing, to come out and challenge the status quo by saying, something to the effect of "this is a posited model of reality!"

Conversely, as history has shown, such ventures tend to somewhat dangerous; the prime examples include: Frederick Rossini who in his age 72 address "Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World" (1971), asserted that this is the modern model of the "real world", a supposition which eventually "sparked" 2006 heated Rossini debate in the Journal of Chemical Education; or such as the young boundary-pushing age 19 Percy Shelley, a fellow human elective affinities theorist (see: Church of Elective Affinities), like Goethe, whose anonymously published 1811 realism pamphlet The Necessity of Atheism, which got him expelled from Oxford on 25 Mar 1811; or as James Froude, the person who did the first English-translation of Goethe's Elective Affinities, found out the hard way, when his book The Nemesis of Faith was burned in the moral philosophy of class professor William Sewell at Oxford:

Affinity and Free Energy Realism Theorists
A selection of four realism philosophers, namely: Goethe, Shelley, Froude, and Rossini, who each asserted boldly that the chemical affinity (human affinity theory) or chemical free energy model (human free energy) of humanity IS the modern real world model, i.e. realism, and and NOT a childish joke, as many, e.g. Hirata, Hwang, among others, like to passingly suggest, so not offend anyone's religion or beliefs, and or to side-step the "danger" that such suggestion tends to bring forth.
Froude’s semi-autobiographical Nemesis of Faith, published in 1848, owed much to Goethe’s novel of human and chemical reactions, Elective Affinities, which he translated. Nemesis lost him his fellowship at Exeter College, Oxford, where his book was publicly burned.”
— David Knight (2009), The Making of Modern Science

Hirata might have seen similar repercussion had he pushed for realism. Likewise, in an 1827 conversation with Johann Eckermann, Goethe discusses a letter from Solger to Tieck in which kind words about the Wahlverwandtschaften (Elective Affinities) were spoken on the fine nature of the Architect’s character; after which he comments on this letter that:

“These remarks were written as early as 1809. I should then have been much cheered to hear so kind a word about the Wahlverwandtschaften; for at that time, and afterwards, not many pleasant remarks were vouchsafed be about that novel.”

Goethe’s bold assertion that his novella / chemical theory is a realism presentation, and not metaphor, found a cold reception and likely rejection for many people, which of course was due to the fact that the logic of the book was many centuries ahead of its time.

Hirata, in short, stopped at this stage, to pursue more practical line of work, namely becoming a astrophysics professor, at Ohio State University, who is presently attempting to solve the dark matter problem and the accelerating universe problem.

In 2001, American chemistry student David Hwang, age 22, jumped into the "metaphor stage", via article size "presentation", when he published his The Thermodynamics of Love, in his newly formed school journal article Journal of Hybrid Vigor, wherein he jokingly or with a flavor of humor (similar to Hirata) outlined how Gibbs free energy explains mate selection:

“Two people who fall in love with one another are often described as having a certain personal ‘chemistry.’ Although most people would probably be quite content with accepting this convention at face value, the truth is that the correlation between romance and everyone's favorite branch of the natural sciences runs quite deep. In fact, while the terminology of thermodynamics explains the spontaneity of chemical reactions very well, it also applies directly to various factors determining the success of human relationships.”
David Hwang (2001), “The Thermodynamics of Love” [1]

Hwang, however, stopped at the published metaphor stage, to pursue more a more practical line of work, i.e. a career as a neurointensivist physician at Yale Medical School.

Others to jumped into the published "this is fun amusing idea" stage, include: John Tukey (1966), Chanel Wood (2007) and Surya Pati (2009), to a few dominate examples.

Einstein (stayed with the problem longer)
Einstein credited his famed intelligence to his tenacity with problems; only a few great thinkers, Goethe and Henry Adams in particular, have had the mental aptitude to “stay with” the elective affinities problem, past the passing “this idea” stage.
Neumann vs Einstein | Problem holding
The above outlined "this idea" chronology of variants of the stages of the elective affinities problem is what is called the hardest of the hard wood problems; as gist of which is outlined as follows:

“I have little patience for [thinkers] who take on a board of wood, look for its thinnest part, and drill a great number of holes when the drilling is easy.”
— Albert Einstein (c.1930), recalled by Philipp Frank [18]

In other words, John Neumann, to cite one example, as compared to Einstein (see: who was smarter?), was a soft wood genius, as compared to Einstein (a hard wood genius). While both were smart, the difference between Neumann and Einstein is that Neumann drilled many holes in medium density wood, whereas Einstein stayed with his hard wood problem, and didn't let go; the following quote attests to this difference:

“I have known a great many intelligent people in my life. I knew Planck, von Laue and Heisenberg. Paul Dirac was my brother in law; Leo Szilard and Edward Teller have been among my closest friends; and Albert Einstein was a good friend, too. But none of them had a mind as quick and acute as Jansci [John] von Neumann. I have often remarked this in the presence of those men and no one ever disputed. But Einstein's understanding was deeper even than von Neumann's. His mind was both more penetrating and more original than von Neumann's. And that is a very remarkable statement. Einstein took an extraordinary pleasure in invention. Two of his greatest inventions are the special and general theories of relativity; and for all of Jansci's brilliance, he never produced anything as original.”
Eugene Wigner (c.1980) (Ѻ)

In 1934, Neumann, in dialogue with Abraham Flexner, on Georges Guillaume's economic thermodynamics PhD dissertation, had the “general idea”, as outlined above, in the minds of: Goethe, De Lange, Thims, etc., which he describes to Flexner as follows:

“I think that the basic intention of the authors, to analyze the economic world, by constructing an analogous fictitious ‘model’, which is sufficiently simplified, so as to allows an absolutely mathematical treatment, is—although not new—sound, and in the spirit of exact sciences. I do not think, however, that the authors have a sufficient amount of mathematical routine and technique, to carry out program out.
Neumann economic thermodynamic variables table
Neumann's 1934 human thermodynamics variables table, based on his review of Georges Guillaume's 1934 On the Fundamentals of the Economy with Rational Forecasting Techniques.

I have the impression that the subject is not yet ripe (I mean that it is not yet fully enough understood, which of its features are the essential ones) to be reduced to a small number of fundamental postulates—like geometry, or mechanics (cf. pgs. 77-78). The analogies with thermodynamics are probably misleading (cf. pgs. 69, 85). The authors think that the ‘amortization’ is analogous to ‘entropy’. It seems to me, that if this analogy can be worked out at all, the analogon of ‘entropy’ must be sought in the direction of ‘liquidity’. To be more specific: if the analogon of ‘energy’ is ‘value’ of the estate of an economical subject, then analogon of its thermodynamic ‘free energy’ should be its ‘cash value’.

The technique of the authors to set up and deal with equations is rather primitive, the way, for instance, in which they discuss the fundamental equations (1) and (2) on page 81-85 is incomplete, as they omit to prove that 1: the resulting prices are all positive (or zero), 2: that there is only one such solution. A correct treatment of this particular question, however, exists in the literature. Various other technical details in the setting up of their equations and in their interpretations could be criticized, too. I do not think that their discussion of the ‘stability of solutions’, which is the only satisfactory way to build up a mathematical theory of economic cycles and of crises, is mathematically satisfactory.

The emphasis the authors put on the possibility of states of equilibrium in economics (cf. pgs. 68-69) seems to me to entirely justified. I think that the importance of this point has not always been duly acknowledged. I cannot judge the value of their statistical methods, as they are given in the last part of the book for practical purposes. Their aim is to diagnose the present status of economics, and to lead to forecasts. But I think that the theoretical deduction, which lead to them is weak and incomplete.”

Neumann, in short, gleaned the general idea of the subject, as Goethe, De Lange, and Thims, independently, e.g. stating that free energy is equivalent to cash value, but did not stay with the problem, say as compared to Einstein did with his running along side a beam of light though experiment. Neumann said the problem was too unripe, and moved on to something else.
Humanities hard problem
The humanities, according to Newton and Bridgman, are "harder" than the physical sciences; this is evidenced by the Bridgman paradox.

Humanities | Hard wood problem
Once one goes through all of the hard sciences, and get into the top 50 range, of the world's greatest geniuses, as Goethe (IQ:230|#1), Newton (IQ:220|#2) and Percy Bridgman (IQ:185|#52) achieved, the above "idea" becomes the crowning jewel "hard problem" of the humanities:

“I can calculate the movements of stars, but not the madness of men.”
Isaac Newton (c.1690), after losing his hat in a market collapse [6]

“The humanities are much more complex and difficult than the sciences.”
Percy Bridgman (1958), “Quo Vadis” [7]

In short, once one goes through and masters all the physical, chemical, and natural sciences, in a pristine manner, the so-called "idea" that Hirata jokes about, that Henry Adams said he floundered "like a sculpin in the mud" on, that Goethe said was his "best book", one comes to discern the physico-chemical solution to the big humanities questions is harder than any question in the pure physical or chemical sciences.

The following are related quotes:

“Something 60-80 years ahead of its time. Thims, in the future, will be someone who’s talked about in classrooms as this guy who had this idea. However, now, yes the book will sell, but its premise will not be accepted by people of this generation.”
— Monzer Ettawil (2005), American law student

“As strange as it sounds, I have thought the same way (chemically) about relationships ... especially entropy and molecules. Weird.”
— Hala Kalmareiata (Ѻ) (2014), “IQ:200+ | Smartest Person Ever (3 of 4)”, forum (Ѻ) post

1. (a) Hwang, David. (2001). “The Thermodynamics of Love” (WB) (pdf), Journal of Hybrid Vigor, Issue 1, Emory University.
(b) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One) (Hwang diagram, pg. 116). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
(c) Thims, Libb. (2015). “Zerotheism for Kids” (Lecture: Part Two), Aug 10.
2. (a) De Lange, A.M. (1997). “Communication in the LO”,
(b) De Lange, A.M. (1998). “Personal Mastery”,
(c) De Lange, A.M. (1998). “Prigogine”, Feb 01,
(d) De Lange, A.M. (1998). “Primer on Entropy: Part I”, Nov 24,
(e) De Lange, A.M. (1998). “Entropy”, Oct 30,
(f) De Lange, A.M. (2000). “Work and Free Energy: the Dance of LEP on LEP”, Nov 21,
(g) De Lange, A.M. (2001). “Fitness Landscape and other Landscapes” (threads: LO27222), 09/03/01 –
(h) De Lange, A.M. (2001). “Free energy Vampires”, Sep 09,
3. (a) De Lange, A. (2009). Irreversible Self-Organization (pt. 1: Introduction to System Thinking; pt. 2: Introduction to Mathematical Expressions; pt. 3: Introduction to the Necessary and Sufficient Conditions; pt. 4: units; pt. 5: Simplicity and Complexity; pt. 6: Introduction to the Universal and Fenomeneel; pt. 7: Introduction to Ontology and Ontogeny; pt. 8: Energy and Entropy Laws; pt. 9: Wanbegrippe about Entropy; pt. 10: Wenbegrippe about Entropy; pt. 11: How is Entropy Produced?; pt. 12: The Big Wet; pt. 13: The Rate of Entropy Production; pt. 14: The Creative Inploffing;” pt. 15: Entropy Increase is Necessary but not Sufficient; etc.), (Afrikaans → English),
(b) Note: the actual photo is Dean Wilcox (Ѻ) teaching chemistry in Steele Hall, Dartmouth College.
4. De Lange, Adriaan. (2010). "Email Communication with Libb Thims", Apr.
5. (a) Frank, Philipp. (1949). “Einstein’s Philosophy of Science”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 21(3):349-55.
(b) Einstein, Albert. (2011). The Ultimate Quotable Einstein (editor: Alice Calaprice; Foreword: Freeman Dyson) (pg. 402). Princeton University Press.
6. (a) Bouchard, Jean-Philippe. (2008). “Economics Needs a Scientific Revolution” (EP) (ArXiv), Nature, 455:1181, Oct 30.
(b) Weatherall, James O. (2013). The Physics of Wall Street: A Brief History of Predicting the Unpredictable (thermodynamics, pgs. 18, 65; Newton quote, pg. 5). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
7. Bridgman, Percy. (1958). “Quo Vadis” (Ѻ), Daedalus, 87(1):85-93; In: Science and the Modern Mind: a Symposium (by Gerald Holton) (pg. 84). Publisher, 1971.
8. (a) Motl, Lubos. (2010). “Comment: IQ 200+ | Smartest person ever (3 of 4)”, YouTube, Nov. 16.
(b) Motl, Lubos. (2010). “Comment: Group Application Michael Kearney”, YouTube, Nov. 19.
(c) Motl, Lubos. (2010). “Comment: Sexual heat | pop quiz”, YouTube, Nov. 20.

TDics icon ns

More pages