Absurd

The Earth Moves (2009)Human = molecule (absurd)
Left: Dan Hofstader’s The Earth Moves: Galileo and the Roman Inquisition (2009) on how in the years 1500 to 1700 the premise of a “moving earth” was considered “absurd” to all by the inquisitive thinkers, such as Nicolaus Copernicus (1540) or Galileo Galilei (1633). [11] Right: a depiction of a human as a DNA-centric CHNOPS+20 type of “abstract molecule” (Robert Sterner), a view deemed as “absurd” by many in the 21st century.
In terminology, absurd refers to theories, ideas, or premises, e.g. "earth moves", "person = molecule", "heat death", "human ≠ alive", etc., that are ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous; generally because they seem severely at odds to common sense, ingrained beliefs, and or immediate logic. [1]

Earth moves
In circa 1540, Nicolaus Copernicus stated the following about his heliocentric cosmology: [6]

“The scorn which I had to fear on account of the newness and absurdity of my opinion [that the earth moves] almost drove me to abandon a work already undertaken.”

The mention of others before him, supposedly, to the earlier work of al-Zarqali and al-Battani. [7]

In 1633, the congregation of prelates and cardinals convened on the matter of Italian physicist Galileo Galilei’s experimental finding that the “earth moves” concluding that: [2]

“The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith.”

(add discussion)

Perpetual motion
In 1849, James Thomson, in his publication “Theoretical Considerations on the Effect of Pressure in Lowering the Freezing Point of Water”, made the following prediction, arrived at after grappling with an apparent "absurdity" of the possibility of perpetual motion pointed out by his brother: [9]

“Some time ago my brother, professor William Thomson, pointed out to me a curious conclusion to which he had been led, by reasoning on principles similar to those developed by Carnot, with reference to the motive power of heat. It was, that water at the freezing point may be converted into ice by a process solely mechanical, and yet without the final expenditure of any mechanical work. This at first appeared to me to involve an impossibility, because water expands while freezing; and, therefore, it seemed to follow, that if a quantity of it were merely enclosed in a vessel with a moveable piston, and frozen, the motion of the piston, consequent on the expansion, being resisted by pressure, mechanical work would be given out without any corresponding expenditure; or, in other words, a perpetual source of mechanical work, commonly called a perpetual motion, would be possible. After farther consideration, however, the former conclusion appeared to be incontrovertible; but then, to avoid the absurdity of supposing that mechanical work could be got out of nothing, it occurred to me that it is necessary farther to conclude, that the freezing point becomes lower as the pressure to which the water is subjected is increased.”

Later that year, James’ brother William Thomson verified this deduction to its numerical details by direct experiment. [10]

Heat death
In 1869, in a March 21st letter to Karl Marx, German social scientist Friedrich Engels gave his opinion on German physicist Rudolf Clausiusheat death extrapolations of the second law as follows: [3]

“In Germany the conversion of the natural forces, for instance, heat into mechanical energy, etc., has given rise to a very absurd theory—that the world is becoming steadily colder … and that, in the end, a moment will come when all life will be impossible. I am simply waiting for the moment when the clerics seize upon this theory.”

(add discussion)

Human = molecule | Thermodynamics
The premise of a person defined non-metaphorically as a molecule is an absurd premise for many.

In 1903, William Thomson, in his speech on religion and science (see: Thomson on religion), stated that it was not absurd to believe that a crystal could arise from the fortuitous concourse of atoms, but that it was absurd to think that a human could arise from such a mechanism, the latter of which requiring "creative power" as he would go on to assert:

“Sir,—In your report of a few words which I said in proposing a vote of thanks to Professor Henslow for his lecture ‘On Present Day Rationalism’ yesterday evening, in University College, I find the following:—‘Was there anything so absurd as to believe that a number of atoms by falling together of their own accord could make a crystal, a sprig of moss, a microbe, a living animal?’ I wish to delete ‘a crystal,’ though no doubt your report of what I said is correct.”

In 1925, Gilbert Lewis, in his Anatomy of Science lecture, when venturing to guess if either “crystals think” or if a person writing a textbook was but a chemical reaction, commented that both alternatives were absurd: [8]

“Suppose that this hypothetical experiment could be realized, which seems not unlikely, and suppose we could discover a whole chain of phenomena [evolution timeline], leading by imperceptible gradations form the simplest chemical molecule to the most highly developed organism [person or human molecule]. Would we then say that my preparation of this volume [Anatomy of Science] is only a chemical reaction [extrapolate up], or, conversely that a crystal is thinking [extrapolate down] about the concepts of science? Nothing could be more absurd, and I once more express the hope that in attacking the infallibility of categories I have not seemed to intimate that they are the less to be respected because they are not absolute. The interaction between two bodies is treated by methods of mechanics; the interaction of a billion such bodies must be treated by the statistical methods of thermodynamics.”

In 2010, Czech-American theoretical physicist Lubos Motl stated his view, regarding a Human Chemistry 101 educational video, made by American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims, which correlated female sexual heat, specifically music set video clips of scantily clad hot women in photo shoots, of that enthalpy, otherwise known as “heat content”, that: [4]

“It is blatant absurdity to model laws governing human relationships using rules of thermodynamics, a set of rules that only apply at the molecular level. Human beings are NOT molecules.”

On 31 May 2015, Dooker Bewitt, in discussion with Libb Thims on attempts at non-supernatural solution to the Robertson sin problem, stated the following, in commentary about whether or not H2 reacting with O2 to form H2O is good or evil, commented that a human is not a molecule per the following reasoning: (Ѻ)

Humans are a set of molecules in a very specific configuration. In the same way that a table is a very specific set of molecules and atoms as well. The idea that we are a molecule is completely absurd, given that even a single cell in our body is made up of millions of molecules! How can a cell be made up of millions of molecules, but a human then be ‘a molecule’? That's just silly.”

(add discussion)

Human ≠ Alive
In the context of the defunct theory of life, the term “absurdities” finds frequent usage, especially in the questionable borderland of the hypothesized non-life to life transition in the so-called origin of life period. [5]

References
1. Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 2000.
2. (a) Congregation of the Prelates and Cardinals, June 22, 1633.
(b) Pearson, Karl. (1900). The Grammar of Science (pg. 20). Publisher.
3. Byrne, John, Toly, Noah, and Glover, Leigh. (2006). Transforming Power: Energy, Environment, and Society in Conflict (pg. 39). Transaction Publishers.
4. Motl, Lubos. (2010). “Comment: Sexual heat | pop quiz”, Human Chemistry 101 YouTube, Nov. 20.
5. Absurd (search) – Hmolpedia.
6. Copernicus, Nicolaus. (1543). On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres (edited with commentary by Stephen Hawking) (pg. 2). Running Press, 2002.
7. Saleh, Abeer. (2015). One Giant Step for Mankind: One Verse at a Time (pg. 57). Cedar Graphics.
8. Lewis, Gilbert N. (1925). The Anatomy of Science. Silliman Lectures; Yale University Press, 1926.
9. 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.
Stewart, Balfour and Tait, Peter G. (1875). The Unseen Universe: or Physical Speculations on a Future State (§108). Macmillan.
10. (a) 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.
(b) Josiah Willard Gibbs and his Relation to Modern Science: I, II, III, IV – Wikisource.
11. Hofstadter, Dan. (2009). The Earth Moves: Galileo and the Roman Inquisition. W.W. Norton & Co.

TDics icon ns

More pages