
The three leading thinkers to expand on the premise, initiated by Empedocles (On Nature, 435BC) with his chemical aphorisms, that “friends mix like water and wine, whereas enemies separate like oil and water”, have been: Goethe (Elective Affinities, 1809), Pakistani organometallic chemist Mirza Beg (New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior, 1987), and American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims (Human Chemistry, 2007; Chemical Thermodynamics: with Applications in the Humanities, 2014). A dialogue between Beg and Thims, i.e. a Beg-Thims dialogue, was initiated on 23 Jun 2014. A mental dialogue was initiated between Thims and Goethe in circa Feb 2006.

The three leading thinkers to expand on the premise, initiated by Empedocles (On Nature, 435BC) with his chemical aphorisms, that “friends mix like water and wine, whereas enemies separate like oil and water”, have been: Goethe (Elective Affinities, 1809), Pakistani organometallic chemist Mirza Beg (New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior, 1987), and American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims (Human Chemistry, 2007; Chemical Thermodynamics: with Applications in the Humanities, 2014). A dialogue between Beg and Thims, i.e. a Beg-Thims dialogue, was initiated on 23 Jun 2014. A mental dialogue was initiated between Thims and Goethe in circa Feb 2006.

In dialogues, Beg-Thims dialogue refers to the discussion, initiated publicly, 23 Jun to 12 Sep 2014, in the threads of Hmolpedia, between Pakistani THEIST islamic organometallic chemist Mirza Beg—pioneer of physicochemical sociology—and American ATHEIST electrochemical engineer Libb Thims—curator of the field of physicochemical humanities, who early 2014 initiated the drafting of the first textbook on human chemical thermodynamics (Chemical Thermodynamics: with Applications in the Humanities), along with interjection by Hmolpedia Inderjit Singh.

Beg
On 13 May 2014, Thims discovered the physiochemical sociology work of Mirza Beg; in late May, Thims obtained a copy of of Beg’s 1987 New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior. [1] On 23 Jun 2014, Begs and Thims began communicating, via Hmolpedia messaging, and in some 189+ public thread dialogue interactions, over the course of two months, until 12 Sep 2014.

Goethe | Beg
The 2014 discovery of Beg by Thims, via keyword Google search on term “physico-chemical sociology”, who only recently began to upload his work to Academia.edu, is comparable to the discover of Goethe by Thims, via footnote 2.5, in circa Feb 2006, the latter effects of which have been profound (see: progress report), one example of which being the penning of the two-volume textbook Human Chemistry (2007). [2]

Atheism Reviews
An immediately recognizable precipitate of the "Beg discovery" and followup "Beg-Thims dialogue" has been the initiation of the Atheism Reviews YouTube video channel, wherein per observation of Beg's salient main weakness being the underlying religious backbone of his entire corpus of work, e.g. his belief in flying donkeys (namely the buraq

that Muhammad, supposedly, rode on his night journey), it was instilled into Thims mind that it was an an imperative or moral imperative, so to say, that he make 100 atheism vs religion videos on review, debate, discussion, and or education of this underlying global tensional issue, e.g. 2014 polls show that 56% of Americans believe that Adam and Eve were real people. (Ѻ) By 8 Jan 2015, Thims had made 21 videos. [4]

Thims, prior to this, was aiming to bottle the "religious issue" into about the equivalent of an introductory footnote, and thereby sidestep the entire issue, via implicit atheism. [3] The new path taken has been that of explicit atheism, of the extreme atheism historical approach.

Dialogue
The following are the initial 163 Hmolpedia thread posts between Beg and Thims, following in-site messaging from Beg to Thims: [1]

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #0 | Re: Dr. Mirza Arshad Ali Beg (message repost)

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jun 23 2014, 11:36 AM EDT | Post edited: Jun 23 2014, 11:39 AM EDT

The following is a reposted message, sent to me yesterday (4:23 pm EDT 23 Jun 2014), from Beg (user:MirzaArshadAliBeg) copied here for conversation preservation utility and for better discussion purposes:

“Sadi, I have been introduced to hmol.pedia as Mirza Beg by Libb Thims. My full name is Mirza Arshad Ali Beg. My publications at the University of British Columbia with Professor HC Clark carried the name M.A.A. Beg. Subsequent publications from Pakistan carried the name M. Arshad A. Beg and that name went on until 1980. From this time onwards I started writing my full name on each publication. I wonder if my full name can replace the Mirza Beg in the hmol.pedia. I will send you my recent articles and also those that are listed with academia.edu, but you say that this is not the forum. What is the best thing to do? Dr. Mirza Arshad Ali Beg”

To reply, firstly, Sadi-Carnot is my (Libb Thims) site user name, hence you are communicating with Libb Thims.

Votes | 3 of 3 found valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #1 | Re: Dr. Mirza Arshad Ali Beg (message repost)

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jun 23 2014, 11:37 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 4 2014, 7:23 PM EDT

I could be persuaded to retitle your article to “Arshad Beg”, if that is how you are known to your fellow co-workers in Pakistan? But, to note, you are already cited as “Mirza Beg” 35+ times in Hmolpedia:

http://www.eoht.info/search/everything/Mirza%20Beg?contains=Mirza%20Beg

and in my working textbook [pdf]. Please communicated further here in this thread. Secondly, in regards to your article “name”, the general rules and protocols for naming Hmolpedia articles is here, one that generally teeters on a balance between hyperlink facility, name usage commonality, and future name usage tendency or repetitiveness in working articles (see: naming articles). Hence, we will not be able to retitle your article as “Mirza Arshad Ali Beg”, because the hyperlink tool will not recognize your hyperlink in other articles, when I discuss your work, e.g. “in 1987, Mirza Beg, in his physicochemical sociology, theorized that fugacity applies to sociology, as a working concept”, etc.

Votes | 2 of 2 found valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #2

MirzaArshadAliBeg (Mirza Beg)
Jun 25 2014, 4:25 PM EDT

I would be more comfortable if we could settle for ArshadAliBeg as one word name. The second choice would be Arshad Beg.

With regard to your humanthermodynamics, there is quite a lot of thermodynamics in my Book: Life Processes, Health Aging & Disease. I wonder if you have had time to visit the copy of its Chapter 1 that I sent you, or the six papers relating to Oxidative Dehydration Theory on Life Processes, Health Aging & Disease that are placed on the https://independent.academia.edu/MirzaArshadAliBeg, All of these papers and the Book were presented in the HEC-International Workshop on Contemporary Versus Sustainable Health Care System in Pakistan held in March 2013.

I am now adding 3 papers on Emergence of life forms in the light of Quran and Science. I do not know how to place attachments in the threads that you want us to follow.

Votes | 2 of 2 found valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #3

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jun 26 2014, 2:20 PM EDT

Beg, thank-you for your note. I’ll ruminate on the second choice “Arshad Beg”.

I have finished your 1987 book and have already published a short review of it, pdf below, to be published soon in the Romanian Econophysics, Sociophysics, and Other Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal:

http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/NBPS.pdf

Re: “there is quite a lot of thermodynamics in my Book: Life Processes, Health Aging & Disease”, I’ve skimmed through some of these, but all the thermodynamics discussion in your recent work, seems to be but regurgitation of what you said in your 1987 book, with nothing new added (as far as I recall from memory of past skims)? Your 1987 book, I read in great detail, and will make a scanned pdf soon with my hand written commentary for you to read (and also Jeff Tuhtan (Germany) has requested a copy as well as Gheorghe Savoiu (Romania)).

The main problem you have presently in your work (and mindset) is the religious conflict. As Charles Sherrington put it (1938): “chemistry and physics do not recognize the word life”. You can either side with the Quran or Physical Chemistry, but not both [see: defunct theory of life]. Also, to add attachments to your Hmolpedia page, (a) sign in, (b) click the “more tools” drop link, and (c) click on “add attachment” and then upload file and save.

Votes | 2 of 2 found valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #4

MirzaArshadAliBeg (Mirza Beg)

Jul 6 2014, 8:59 PM EDT

Re: "The main problem you have presently in your work (and mindset) is the religious conflict. As Charles Sherrington put it (1938): “chemistry and physics do not recognize the word life”."

I do not quite agree with the observation that main problem I have presently in the work (and mindset) is the religious conflict; reason being chemistry and physics do not recognize the word life. This reasoning however raises another conflict. Chemistry deals with materials and material sciences while physics deals with energy and the energetics of materials. Wedding chemistry with physics opens the dimensions of physical chemistry. The physical sciences claim that they are exact sciences but they are at best correlation with observations. For the present, I do not contest the above observation since more important for me is the application of the principles of exact sciences to non-exact sciences, which includes the application of physico-chemical principles of exact sciences on a molecular system to a living molecule. This is where the main conflict lies. The living molecule is bound to act differently from the non-living molecule and hence the behaviour of the human molecule is bound to be different from a humanized molecule that has been energized with a certain quantum of free energy. In sum, the behaviour of the energized human molecule is not likely to be exactly in accordance with the physico-chemical principles. There can be empirical correlations and this is what the work so far done has its emphasis on; it does not make tall claims; it only aims at reducing the empiricism in the first instance.

We have followed up and laid the foundations for work on Environmental Sociology and Social Pollution.

Votes | 2 out of 2 found valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #5

MirzaArshadAliBeg (Mirza Beg)
Jul 6 2014, 10:51 PM EDT

Re: "You can either side with the Quran or Physical Chemistry, but not both.'

That would be myopic in approach since Quran, Islam and for that matter any religion is a way of life. All religions including Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism have laid down guiding principles on living a civilized life. All Messengers and Reformers have demonstrated through words and deeds that it is possible to live without polarizing forces. They laid the foundations for an Ideal Society, the one that has the minimum most polarizing forces. In the 1987 publication Prophet Mohammad was the main focus and was designated as the ideal Personality and the Society that He reformed as an Ideal Society. Polarizing forces (satanic in character) were only waiting for opportunity to induce deviations from ideality and introduce cracks into the Ideal Society.

Polarizing forces have been identified in Quran as well as scriptures of other religions and faith. The same have been stated quantitatively by physical sciences in terms of Eternal Laws and cited as case studies in the Scriptures. Physical sciences and the observations in Scriptures therefore do not appear to me as being in conflict. On the other hand, the two of them are supplementing one another while dealing with polarizing forces; one dealing with deviations from Ideality and the other stating the same with figures, equations and models. The present attempt at opening new dimensions in Sociology by a physico-chemical approach aims to understand human behavior by interpreting actions and interactions of the humanized (energized) human molecule under different circumstances, stress situations for example.

More on Polarizing Forces .....

Votes | 1 of 2 found valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #6 | Reply 1

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 7 2014, 6:40 AM EDT

Re: “Post #4”, that is some funny stuff! Before replying, I would just like to say that at this point you have three options, either: (a) hold to your religious convictions (words of the Quran), and go down in history as Ernst Mach did (1897) as someone who would not recant and admit to the existence of atoms, (b) recant, as Wilhelm Ostwald did (1809), and side with physical science (words of Clausius and Gibbs, whom you cite), or (c) leave your final say in regards to your beliefs in riddled form, such as Maxwell did in his last poem "A Paradoxical Ode". See following timeline for Mach/Ostwald recant comparison: here. In your case, by comparison, you will have to recant your religious faith and teachings, if you want your theory to increase in value in the generations to come. Compare how William Thomson held to religious teachings in the face of physico-chemical science and evolution theory, and how his sun age calculations fell into ill repute in his later years, in spite of his early genius years.

Votes | 1 of 1 found valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #7 | Reply 2

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 7 2014, 6:41 AM EDT | Post edited: Jul 7 2014, 6:56 AM EDT

The follow Thomson quote, for example:

“Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atoms. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living creatures.”

is strikingly reminiscent of your statement above (post #4). To exemplify, your statement “wedding chemistry with physics opens the dimensions of physical chemistry”, is parlay into what is called the ontic opening argument, which come in many forms.. A kind of verbal wizardry that attempts to sneak in metaphysical concepts into the physicochemical sciences, albeit without any foundational basis.

Votes | 1 of 1 found valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #8 | Reply 3

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 7 2014, 6:41 AM EDT | Post edited: Jul 7 2014, 7:03 AM EDT

Re: “physical sciences claim that they are exact sciences but they are at best correlation with observations”, this again is another ontic opening attempt. The speed of light is exactly 299,792,458 m/s. The mechanical equivalent of heat is exactly 778.26 ft-lbs. One can never get exactly to absolute zero temperature. These are cornerstones of exact science.

Re: “For the present I do not contest the above observation” [that “chemistry and physics do not recognize the word life”]. This is a good starting point. Here, however, is where you will find conflict. The reason that chemistry and physics do not recognize the word life, as Sherrington pointed out in 1938, the logic of which causing Francis Crick to proclaim that we must “abandon the word alive”, in 1966, is that the word “life”, for 75% of the belief systems of the world (see: religion), including yours (Islam) and mine (Christianity, before age 5), derive from the Egyptian theory that the sun us born each day and dies each night.

The Quran, in short, is a re-write of the Egyptian Book of the Dead; the so-called prophet Abraham and his descendent Mohammed, are mythological anthropomorphizations of the Heliopolis creation myth of father (Ab) – Ra (sun) – born out of earth (Nun) (see: Ab-ra-ham-ic theologies).

Hence, when you go looking to find “life” in the physicochemical sciences, you will run into apparent absurdities, e.g. living molecules (or dead molecules), and incongruous statements, e.g. that “a humanized molecule that has been energized with a certain quantum of free energy”, which are classified as perpetual motion of the living kind theories, such as advocated by Islamic chemical engineer DMR Sekhar and his 2010 “self-drive” theory (see: perpetual motion of the living kind).

Votes | 1 of 1 found valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #9 | Reply 4

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 7 2014, 6:42 AM EDT | Post edited: Jul 7 2014, 7:00 AM EDT

To resolve this paradox, what you need to do is spend some time thinking to yourself exactly where, i.e. at what point, on the molecular evolution table, molecules “became alive”, or energized by the quantum of free energy, as you put it.

Once you come to the conclusion that there is no such point, you are directed to the premise that the hydrogen atom is “sort of alive”, and once you convince yourself that the hydrogen atom is not “sort of alive”, then you will arrive at the conclusion that the notion of life and death must be jettisoned, as Francis Crick concluded, following rounds of vitalism/anti-vitalism debate in the 1960s.

Re: “That [you can either side with the Quran or Physical Chemistry, but not both] would be myopic in approach since Quran, Islam and for that matter any religion is a way of life. All religions including Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism have laid down guiding principles on living a civilized life”, we concur on this point: each religion has indeed laid down “guiding principles” for each respective civilization. These guiding principles, however, were laid down not by the hand of god, but by wise men of past centuries.

As times (centuries) change, however, so to do the bases behind these guiding principles, e.g. slavery was once deemed moral now it is immoral. This led Goethe to conclude in 1809 that “conventional moral norms can turn into sheer immorality when applied to situations of [certain] character” and that we must turn to “moral symbols in the natural sciences”, i.e. the affinities and or free energies of physical chemistry, to find our new “guiding principles” for the future religion, in order to foundationally answer puzzling legal issues, such as “should the woman who kills her newly born child suffer the death penalty?” (Goethe’s thesis 55) (see: student reactions).

Votes | 1 of 1 found valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #10 | Reply 5

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 7 2014, 6:42 AM EDT

The true “prophet” now, is not the fictional character of someone named “Muhammad”, descendent from the Egyptian aggregate god Abraham, but the prophets of the physicochemical sciences, who are able to use the “prediction” methods of physical chemistry, to better foresee and laydown new “guiding principles” for each respective future civilization. This subject will, in the future, be known as the physicochemical based humanities religion. While certainly this will not be seen solidified for many centuries to come, at the very least, if we can convince you to recant at least some of your hold on the teachings of the Quran, at least we can make some small bit of agreeable progress, for the moment.

Re: “Physical sciences and the observations in Scriptures therefore do not appear to me as being in conflict”, one could write a whole multi-volume book on the conflicts between scriptures and the physical sciences. To cite one dominate example, in regards to the formation of humans, the Quran states (38:71-72) (37:11) (23:12-15) that humans were created as follows:

“I [Allah] created a human being out of clay. I formed him, from sticky clay, and breathed my spirit into him.”

Baring prolonged dissent into absurdities and digressions on mythology, a human is not formed from the elements of clay {Al, Si, O} but rather of the elements {C, H, N, O, P, S + P, Ca, K, Na, Cl, Mg, Fe, F, Zn, Si, Cu, B, Cr, Mn, Ni, Se, Sn, I, Mo, Co, V). Here we see a conflict: there is no aluminum Al in a human? (see: human molecular formula) [see: disproof #1 of the existence of god].

Votes | 1 of 1 found valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #11 | Re: Reply 6

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 7 2014, 6:43 AM EDT

The issue here is that the Quran employs the so-called clay creation theory [see: clay creation myth] to explain human formation and animation. The modern physicochemical sciences, however, now employ free energy of formation [see: human free energy of formation] logic to explain human synthesis, in which there is no such thing as “spirit” involved. We all notice, e.g., how in your 1983 article “Physico-Chemical Processes and Human Behaviour Part—IV: Muslim Society, its Formation & Decline”, cited above, you attempt to grapple with the so-called “spirit issue”, via equation 12(a), but that in your finalized book, you leave this “conflicting” issue on the drawing room floor, mentioning spirit only in regards to how Newton, and the chemists of his day used to refer to gases as the “spirits” of reaction.
You may very well continue to retain, i.e. remain, in your apparent denial that there is not conflict, but you will lose face, i.e. lose my respect to a certain amount. Again, either we can be brothers in our belief in the exactness of the physicochemical methods as they apply to the test tube as well as to society [see: social test tube], or we can be at odds? I should hope you side with reality, i.e. the methods of the physicochemical sciences, as Goethe did some 200-years ago [see: Goethe timeline]?

1 out of 1found this valuable.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #12 | RE: Reply 7

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 7 2014, 6:52 AM EDT | Post edited: Jul 7 2014, 7:05 AM EDT

Re: “The present attempt at opening new dimensions in Sociology by a physico-chemical approach aims to understand human behaviour by interpreting actions and interactions of the humanized (energized) human molecule under different circumstances, stress situations for example”, this is all good, but again you will need to come to grips with your underlying conflicts, which are numerous at this point. Goethe's moral symbols should help guide you. Either you can believe that physicochemical sciences, which teaches that life is something not recognized by physics and chemistry, that energy is conserved, and chemical reactions stop when the entropy reaches a maximum, or you can believe in the Quran, which teaches that life exists, that humans have free will, that each individual choice determines the weight of one’s soul, and that the soul is immortal, but you cannot believe in both.

If its reconciliation you are after, you can believe that choices are determined by fermion-boson interaction, that energy is conserved, or the energy measure of a force-distance conjugate variable pair behind a determined choice is conserved, that there are natural and unnatural processes in the universe, as thermodynamics sees things, and that these natural and unnatural processes are coupled, and that this coupling would seem to have something to do with the spins and dynamics of the universe, but that is about as much reconciliation you will be able to salvage, as far as I see things presently: forces determine a choice, but atoms and molecules don’t have souls nor spirits, and are neither alive nor dead.

I’m still ruminating on your name change?

Also, please try to remember to sign in before posting, so that we know who is posting, without you having to sign your name each time.

1 out of 1found this valuable


The 2013 Triple Bond Chemistry article, entitled "The Chemical Formula of a Human" (Ѻ), which cited the Sterner-Elser molecular formula (2000) and the Thims molecular formula (2002), shown with some type of protein-like molecule amid the Michelangelo's painting of god creating Adam.

The 2013 Triple Bond Chemistry article, entitled "The Chemical Formula of a Human" (Ѻ), which cited the Sterner-Elser molecular formula (2000) and the Thims molecular formula (2002), shown with some type of protein-like molecule amid the Michelangelo's painting of god creating Adam.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #13 | RE: "living molecule"

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 7 2014, 7:32 AM EDT

I just found this Spanish article, citing my 2002 calculations of the human molecular formula, with an image of the hand of god reaching down and touching a molecules, i.e. giving life to it:

http://triplenlace.com/2013/09/04/la-formula-quimica-del-ser-humano/

which may help shed light on the issues of conflict I'm getting at, i.e. either Allah reached down and gave life to a molecule, such as DNA or a human, or a molecule is animated in its daily reactions and movements, as the physicochemical sciences describe such movement, via the SI units and formulas of thermodynamics (no God involved).

1 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #14 | Reply 1: Three choices

MirzaArshadAliBeg (Mirza Beg)

Jul 7 2014, 9:54 PM EDT

"Re: “Post #4”, that is some funny stuff! Before replying, I would just like to say that at this point you have three options, either: (a) hold to your religious convictions (words of the Quran), and go down in history as Ernst Mach did (1897) as someone who would not recant and admit to the existence of atoms, (b) recant, as Wilhelm Ostwald did (1809), and side with physical science (words of Clausius and Gibbs, whom you cite), or (c) leave your final say in regards to your beliefs in riddled form, such as Maxwell did in his last poem "A Paradoxical Ode". See following timeline for Mach/Ostwald recant comparison: here. In your case, by comparison, you will have to recant your religious faith and teachings, if you want your theory to increase in value in the generations to come. Compare how William Thomson held to religious teachings in the face of physico-chemical science and evolution theory, and how his sun age calculations fell into ill repute in his later years, in spite of his early genius years."


Beg’s 2014 “Emergence of Life Forms in Thermodynamic & Islam” (Ѻ) article, wherein he attempts to explain life in terms of Allah-based thermodynamics.

Beg’s 2014 “Emergence of Life Forms in Thermodynamic & Islam” (Ѻ) article, wherein he attempts to explain life in terms of Allah-based thermodynamics.

Before commenting on the three choices offered to me, I would like you all to have a quick glance of my paper: Emergence of Life Forms --- in the site:

https:academia.edu/7460187

There I have clearly stated, "Ecologists and ecological anthropologists may not agree with most of the above analyses in terms of Quranic interpretations of ecological anthropology and physical laws (including those of thermodynamics). This may, however, be considered as useful attempt at some basic understanding of the physical constraints on ecological processes and their governance by the Eternal Laws which have been rediscovered in the last three centuries. I am only trying to draw parallels between the principles of physics and chemistry and what has been stated in the Glorious Quran.

1 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #15 | Reply 1: Three choices

MirzaArshadAliBeg (Mirza Beg)
Jul 7 2014, 10:43 PM EDT

Papers on “Creation of Universe was Designed”, and “Interpretation of Nature & Environmental Degradation in Islam & Science, led me to suggest that the commonality of observable facts is observed at all hierarchies of the universe starting from the most minute in the cellular constituents of the smallest creatures to the widespread distribution of stellar bodies in the celestial environment or the ecosystem of the universe. This is upheld by the Quranic verse 6:59 states that everything seen and unseen, is ordered and regulated through the governance system of Allah by His Eternal laws. The simplest as well as the most difficult things in nature are subsisted to His laws that have been clearly stated in the Holy Quran and were rediscovered much later in 19th century. The fresh and the withered, living and lifeless are none of them outside the Plan of His Creation. The statement "Rediscovery" may hurt some scientists but that is plain truth. To my limited knowledge principles stated in the Glorius Quran are the most comprehensive. The approach can be restated as: Religio-Physico-Chemical Sociology or Religio-Physico-Chemical Dimension of Sociology. Remember: The whole world has not gone secular yet.

1 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #16 | Reply 1: Three choices

MirzaArshadAliBeg (Mirza Beg)
Jul 7 2014, 11:24 PM EDT

"Re: Either you can believe that physicochemical sciences, which teaches that life is something not recognized by physics and chemistry, that energy is conserved, and chemical reactions stop when the entropy reaches a maximum, or you can believe in the Quran, which teaches that life exists, that humans have free will, that each individual choice determines the weight of one’s soul, and that the soul is immortal."

Personally I do not find anything wrong in believing both in physico-chemical sciences, which teach that life processes are governed at the cellular/pico-environment level, that energy is conserved, and chemical reactions as well as social interactions stop when the entropy reaches a maximum, and (not or) still believing in the Quran or other scriptures, which teach that life processes operate according to available free energy, that humans have restraints on free will, and that the soul is immortal.

0 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #17 | RE: Response 1

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 8 2014, 3:28 AM EDT | Post edited: Jul 8 2014, 3:31 AM EDT

Re: “Emergence of Life Forms in Thermodynamics and Islam”, what year did you write this? Please date all of these Academia.edu uploads.

In any event, I began skimming this new article. All I can say at this point is that your 1987 book, repetitive digressions about Muhammad aside, was very impressive! With these newer 2014, publications, however, you seem to be going down a very slippery slope to metaphysical land, wherein you seem to have lost track of measureable objective reality? The only way I can categorize this is that when you started making your physicochemical terms “notes” turned finalized book, you were 42-55 age range, the so-called “skepticism” range, according to Goethe’s stages of existence classification, whereas now at age 82 you are into the mysticism stage [see: stages of existence].

There is so much error in your new thermodynamic emergence paper, that it is difficult to see where to begin. The biggest error, naturally enough, is your belief in the existence of god. Presently, only 5% of leading US scientists believe in the existence of god.

A number which mirrors much of the scientific belief among leading world universities. Hence, when you write about how “Allah did this”, and Allah created that”, you are wasting your time. Laplace declared the “hypothesis of god” superfluous and unneeded over 200-years ago [see: Napoleon Laplace anecdote].

Hence, you in your 2014 writings, are basing your work on a defunct scientific hypothesis. While I understand that in Pakistan, 98% of the populous is Islamic, and there are “social pressures” against claiming no religious belief:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Pakistan

1 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #18 | RE: Response 2

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 8 2014, 3:29 AM EDT

Here, however, we are speaking scientist-to-scientist, and the power I believe in is that defined by thermodynamics, in which there is no god involved. In any event, in reference to the following quote, from said paper:

“The living body was energized [by Allah] with a soul consisting of free energy and entropy. The soul acts as the driving force for all forward reactions and interactions, while entropy retards the forward reactions.”

Where, on the following timeline, i.e. at what point in time (years ago), did Allah give “life” to bodies [see: evolution timeline]. Also, did Allah energize the first body with “life” and insert it with a “soul” on the same day, or did this soul-insertion come later?

1 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #19 | RE: Response 3

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 8 2014, 3:49 AM EDT

Re: "interpreting Quranic passages in terms of thermodynamics", you should spend some time studying Mehdi Bazargan’s 1956 work [see: Thermodynamics of Humans]. Or if you can read Farsi:

http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Thermodynamics_of_Human_Beings__Persian_.pdf

You can see that he goes about the situation in a much better way, relegating Quranic passage discussion to footnotes.

1 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #20 | Reply 2

MirzaArshadAliBeg (Mirza Beg)
Jul 8 2014, 6:37 AM EDT

"Re: “Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atoms. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living creatures.”

is strikingly reminiscent of your statement above (post #4). To exemplify, your statement “wedding chemistry with physics opens the dimensions of physical chemistry”, is parlay into what is called the ontic opening argument, which come in many forms. A kind of verbal wizardry that attempts to sneak in metaphysical concepts into the physicochemical sciences, albeit without any foundational basis."

Life forms emerged on planet earth when the ideal environmental conditions to sustain life processes were achieved. The Glorious Quran has at verse 2:117, as well as at several other occasions stated that Creation of man follows a series of processes. It is stated that life form was created out of clay or earthy matter. This implies that clay was used as the medium for personifying the quantum of energy that was destined to form the body of a certain creature in the shape of a man.
The embodiment of the quantum of energy i.e. the earthly body and its energizing with the soul that constitutes the driving force or free energy (Delta) F is what constitutes the living being, while granting the soul a number of (not infinite) degrees of freedom makes a man, the unique creation of Allah.
It has been suggested that the basic logic of life, information storage, and replication began with crystals, long before nucleic acids and proteins ever came on the scene. Accordingly it would be something that could induce replication of information.

More...

0 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #21 | Reply 4

MirzaArshadAliBeg (Mirza Beg)
Jul 8 2014, 8:15 AM EDT

"Re: To resolve this paradox, what you need to do is spend some time thinking to yourself exactly where, i.e. at what point, on the molecular evolution table, molecules “became alive”, or energized by the quantum of free energy, as you put it"

Life forms emerged on planet earth when the ideal environmental conditions to sustain life processes were achieved. The Glorious Quran has at verse 2:117, as well as at several other occasions stated that Creation of man follows a series of processes. It is stated that life form was created out of clay or earthy matter. This implies that clay was used as the medium for personifying the quantum of energy that was destined to form the body of a certain creature in the shape of a man. The embodiment of the quantum of energy i.e. the earthly body and its energizing with the soul that constitutes the driving force or free energy is what constitutes the living being, while granting the soul a number of (not infinite) degrees of freedom makes a man, the unique creation of Allah. The soul has to undergo numerous stages of personification and embodiment of quantized energy.

More... Information Storage & Replication

0 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #22 | RE: Year?

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 8 2014, 3:32 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 8 2014, 3:46 PM EDT

I will ask again: “in what YEAR did this [first life] formation occur?”

To give you a comparable example, in 2011, I asked this same question to Russian physical chemist Georgi Gladyshev, who is about the same age as you (age 78), i.e. four years younger, and who since the 1970s has been working on a "thermodynamic theory of the evolution of living beings", explained like you in terms of free energy theory, albeit unlike you (as Russia is largely atheist), his theory is god-free, but alas after 91-thread posts:

http://www.eoht.info/thread/4456714/defunct+theory+of+life

he retreated in defeat never to return to Hmolpedia public debate threads again? Now he just gripes about this in external publications:

“At this juncture, I would like to express my opinion about many new big publications of Libb. I do not want to have any relation to the manifestly absurd notions about ‘non-existent theory of life’ and the widespread use of the term ‘molecule’.”
— Georgi Gladyshev (2013), “Life as a Phenomenon”

http://endeav.net/news/23-life.html

Hopefully, you will not retreat away from debate like Gladyshev? In any event, if you cannot, in your mind, pick a specific year in which Allah came down from his heavens and started the “first life” form, then you may be grappling with the so-called no origin of life theory [see: no origin theory of life]. If this is so, then say so?

1 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #23 | Reply 1

MirzaArshadAliBeg (Mirza Beg)
Jul 8 2014, 3:57 PM EDT

"Re: “Post #4”, that is some funny stuff! If you want your theory to increase in value in the generations to come!"

The theory will take firm roots if the ground reality i.e. religion is regarded as absurdity instead of a way of life, and life itself as a disregarded entity. The theory has already opened new dimensions in Sociology, Environmental Sociology, Environmental Psychology and Religio-Physico-Chemical Sociology, proposed during the present discussion.

0 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #24 | Re: Reply 1

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 8 2014, 5:10 PM EDT

Re: “The theory has already opened new dimensions in sociology”, in whose work? As far as I am aware, no physical scientist or sociologist in the last three decades has picked up on your work, until I discovered it on 13 May 2014. You need to come down to reality here? Compare the way South African chemical physicist Adriaan de Lange, in his 1982 theories, mixes free energy and spirituality, applied socially. But how now nobody cites his work:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Adriaan+de+Lange&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C14&as_sdtp=

and he now has to hide off in South Africa, no longer publishing in English, but writing in Afrikaans, so that no actual modern scholar will be able to find, let alone critique or attack his work; with German metallurgist Jurgen Mimkes, who in 1992 began to mix in free energy without reference to god, soul, or spirituality, and how now he does get cited a lot, invited to conferences, and so on:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jurgen+Mimkes&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14

This is one of the reasons why you currently are ranked #4 in existive social Newton rankings, while de Lange is #6, and Mimkes is #1, and how Wallace (#2) and Hirata (#3) are now ranked above you.

1 out of 2found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #25 | Re: Reply 2

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 8 2014, 5:11 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 8 2014, 5:17 PM EDT

Re: “The theory will take firm roots if the ground reality i.e. religion is regarded as absurdity instead of a way of life, and life itself as a disregarded entity”, I’ll try to explain further, via example. The moral system of the Quran and the Bible, i.e. that of soul weight, derive their basis of justification on the grounds that certain actions are “wrong”, whereas certain actions are “right”. These wrongs and rights were first drawn up into a list, called the “negative confessions” (NC), see the 1500BC version below for examples:

http://www.eoht.info/page/Negative+confessions

To go through one example, NC#15: “I have not lain with men”, this was considered a sin or wrong action, in 1500BC, that was said to weight the soul down, barring access to heaven, according to soul weight theory:

http://www.eoht.info/page/Soul+weight

This NC#15 was carried over into the 10 commandment, and then into the Quran in a number of places, as an act of sin (e.g. Quran 7:80):

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Homosexuality

Where in chemical thermodynamics does it say that a man cannot sleep and or bond with another man? Certainly, it is thermodynamically feasible for two same sex hydrogen atoms to bind into the hydrogen molecule?

H + H → H2

Why should it be a sin, for humans?
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #26 | Re: Reply 3

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 8 2014, 5:12 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 8 2014, 5:21 PM EDT

American child prodigy turned astrophysicist Christopher Hirata, by comparison, addressed this very same problem, albeit without recourse to the Bible or the Quran, instead siding with the morality of physicochemical sciences. For example, see his homework problem #4 (section one), namely: “work out the mathematics of homosexuality in a men-only society through the reaction 2 Y ↔ Y2, considering limiting cases as was done in this chapter's treatment of heterosexual relations with both men and women present”.

http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/The_Physics_of_Relationships.pdf

You, conversely, side with the Quran, not physical chemistry, and declare homosexuality immoral and a sin, on the baseless logic that because "Allah says so". This is why Hirata is ranked above you in social Newton rankings.

We can go through example after example of this type of discourse, where I show how you are incorrect in your basis of logic. Again, you are going to have to recant your religious faith, if you desire for your theory to absorb into the future, more. I doubt, however, you will be able to do this as you seem to be enraptured by the “Glorious Quran”, as you deem it. Myself, alternatively, am enraptured by the glorious “On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances” written by Willard Gibbs in 1876. Gibbs is based in reality; the Quran is not.

2 out of 2found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #27 | Reply 5

MirzaArshadAliBeg (Mirza Beg)
Jul 8 2014, 5:43 PM EDT

"Re: Allah created a human being out of clay. I formed him, from sticky clay, and breathed my spirit into him."

Allah has revealed to the Prophet, bpuh, in verse 23:12-14: We did create life (Man) from clay. The verse then describes the process of creation when inorganic matter becomes living matter, and absorption of inorganic constituents of the earth into living matter by way of food and nutrients. Proceeding from here it is possible to suggest that life emerged from the nutrient rich clayey ferment that produced the enzyme. The enzymes are living molecules of proteins and trace elements. For life processes to proceed the enzyme needs to be charged with soul, the driving force that would carry the guidelines/commands of life processes. It had to be a clayey environment since that alone can store information and help orientation of the molecule in space and help chirality. Likewise it had to be some such mechanism that provides the driving force. Irradiation or interaction with a foreign particle as proposed by the geneticists/evolutionists, is not likely to activate life processes. This leaves us with only one alternative that is Allah‟s will: kun-fayakun, and soon enough the clayey broth has a clay particle charged with a soul that bears the command for shaping the particle into a living organism. It may be reminded that „amr‟ or command is unrelated to time which itself was created along with space by the decree: Be, and it was done. It has been suggested that the basic logic of life, information storage, and replication began with crystals, long before nucleic acids and proteins ever came on the scene. Accordingly it does not have to be DNA, nor anything like DNA, but something that could induce replication of information accurately, for example some mechanism that energizes the crystallization process to replicate. The crystallization is a one-step process which needs a crystalline particle to nucleate on.

1 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #28 | Re: Year?

MirzaArshadAliBeg (Mirza Beg)
Jul 8 2014, 6:40 PM EDT

"Re: I will ask again: “in what YEAR did this [first life] formation occur?"

Life forms emerged on planet earth when the ideal environmental conditions to sustain life processes were achieved. The Glorious Quran has at verse 2:117, as well as at several other occasions stated that Creation of man follows a series of processes. Yes, it is stated that life form was created out of clay or earthy matter.

Emergence of life forms must have occurred when the earth had cooled to temperatures when water in liquid form could interact with clay and form some sort of broth. This must have started some time at the onset of first Ice Age. I have given a timeline in respect of the "Six Periods". Please read the paper, do not just skim it. Also go through the Book: Life Processes, Health Aging & Disease, Ecosystem Approach to Life Processes, where I maintain that Life processes are concerned with interaction of and governed by living molecules.

0 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #29 | RE: Year, for the third time?

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 8 2014, 7:29 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 8 2014, 10:04 PM EDT

Post #27, that was hilarious!

I’m in the process of scanning your entire 1987 book into pdf form (with my hand written comments) so that you can see were your (a) errors are, but also (b) where your good, interesting, and or strong points are. I’m presently on scanned pg. 75, and should have a pdf Online shortly; possibly, I’ll be finished within an hour or three? I will then submit it to the following three or four individuals (Jeff Tuhtan, Gheorghe Savoiu, Jurgen Mimkes, and Ingo Muller) for review. Tuhtan and Savoiu have already requested it; Muller has done social phase diagram work like you, Mimkes is #1 social Newton, Savoiu (and his Romanian cohort physicist Ion Savoiu) is interested in physicochemical migration theories and population demographics, and Tuhtan is a sharp guy, interested in applying thermodynamics to populations of fish (and humans). I hope you will be able to hold under the “pressure”, no analogy intended?

Lastly, to repeat a third time: what year did life begin? Please do not play dumb, by trying to evade the question.

1 out of 1found this valuable


On 8 Jul 2014, during the Beg-Thims dialogue, Thims hand scanned Beg's entire New Dimensions (see: comments #29-30), into pdf form, complete with Thims' and-written notes and commentary, and uploaded to the Internet for public consumption.

On 8 Jul 2014, during the Beg-Thims dialogue, Thims hand scanned Beg's entire New Dimensions (see: comments #29-30), into pdf form, complete with Thims' and-written notes and commentary, and uploaded to the Internet for public consumption.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #30 | RE: Let the games begin!!!

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 8 2014, 10:24 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 8 2014, 10:31 PM EDT

At long (40-years) last, there we are Mirza (or Arshrad as you seem to prefer yourself), a pdf scanned annotated critical review: of your 1987 New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior, which I finished reading (and annotating) on 14 Jun 2014 (the scanning process, which I finished about a-half hour ago):

http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Beg_1987.pdf

All-in-all, religious issues, aside, I will state for the record, that you (in 1987) have penned the best stuff since Goethe. This is no small complement. But, for the record, Goethe penned his great work at the age of 60, and carrying forward his great mind till the end:

“I have found no confession of faith to which I could ally myself without reservation.”
— Johann Goethe (1831), one year before his reaction end

Finished off at the age of 82 with my genuine respect, via completing Faust (1832) [see: Faustian], and carrying through his new “affinities philosophy” up until his last days, e.g. see: 20 Aug 1831 [see: Goethe timeline]

I’m telling you, brother-to-brother, you will have to recant, if you want to save face? State your indecision opening. Either except energy, work, and force, all combined as “power” (energy per unit time), defined via physical chemistry, as Goethe did, as I do, or crawl off as a weak minded (albeit once sharp) scientist who fell prey to the victims of old age. And I don’t mean this in disrespect, but on the off chance, that you might recant, so that future scholars might look back on you and re-quote, e.g., the way Dirac butted heads with Einstein, about his “God does not play dice” comments:

“If we are honest — and scientists have to be — we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of god is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an almighty god helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly god rewards — in heaven if not on earth — all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that god is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins. Any further assumption implied by belief in a god which one may have in one’s faith is inadmissible from the point of view of modern science, and should not be needed in a well-organized society.”
— Paul Dirac (1927/1933), commentary to Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli on Einstein’s “god’s dice” comments

If you recant, you will strengthen me; if you hold-fast to Allah, you will but disappoint me, if not weaken me (although this is difficult to foresee).
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #31 | RE: Email update

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 8 2014, 10:47 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 8 2014, 10:52 PM EDT

Just to keep you in the loop, I just sent four emails out, with the following message:

“Jeff & Gheorghe, you have both requested a scanned copy of Mirza Beg’s 1987 New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior, so here you are, annotations by me (completed on 14 Jun 2014), scanned today:

http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Beg_1987.pdf

Ingo and Jurgen, Beg has now, at the age of 82, entered into debate and discussion with me, see thread #29 where your names enter the fray:

http://www.eoht.info/page/Mirza+Beg

I would appreciate if Jeff and Gheorghe would speak their mind as well, either to me, via email, or post directly into the threads.”
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #32 | Re: Reply 3

MirzaArshadAliBeg (Mirza Beg)
Jul 9 2014, 8:35 AM EDT

"You, conversely, side with the Quran, not physical chemistry. Again, you are going to have to recant your religious faith, if you desire for your theory to absorb into the future, more. I doubt, however, you will be able to do this."

Yes, I will keep siding the Glory of the Quran without fear for going into oblivion, so far as hmolpedia is concerned, but then hmolpedia will also lose faith in not being neutral and being myopic. Yes, I am committed to religion and that is because it has laid down guiding principles for sustainable living. The Principles were enunciated in each religion by a Noble personality; in Islam it was Prophet Mohammad who demonstrated the validity of the principles in letter and spirit. The Quran states all the Guiding Principles for sustainable living and I do not find them at variance with the Eternal Laws. The Quran, for that matter warns against polarization, polarizability and polarizing forces. I have in my own way attempted to draw parallels among the Eternal Laws and those of Physics and Chemistry. The present discussion prompts me to call this a Religio-Physico-Chemical Sociology approach.

It was in this backdrop that I wrote the Chapter VI of the Book (1987): Polarizing Forces and Mind-Body Split or Munafaqat where I proposed a scale of Munafaquat. Dwelling on the theme of this Chapter, I wrote the Book: Democracy Displaced in Pakistan, A Case History of Disasters of Social Pollution (1998). This prompted me to write another Book, this time on Social Polllution and Global Poor Governance, Analysis of Psyche of the Governing Hierarchy (1999). The Corruption Perception Index developed for each country was adopted as Social Pollution Index.

I request you all to read these Books on Religio-Physico-Chemical Sociology with an open mind.

More: Hydrogen Molecule


A 9 Jul 2014 photo (Ѻ) of Thims books read, Beg’s book seen on top shelf, far left.

A 9 Jul 2014 photo (Ѻ) of Thims books read, Beg’s book seen on top shelf, far left.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #33 | RE: Updates / Comments, etc. 1

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 9 2014, 9:03 AM EDT

To update you, I just took a photo of my most-recently read 35-books, your book shown at #31, which you might like to see (adjacent photo; see also: Thims books read)

Re: “All-in-all, religious issues, aside, I will state for the record, that you (in 1987) have penned the best stuff since Goethe”, to clarify on this comment, what I mean is that you have penned the best hmolscience work since Goethe. To clarify, you, as far as I am currently aware, are the first (Goethe (1809) aside, and Henderson (1935), verbally, via analogy), to produce HCR theory (human chemical reaction theory). This is no small feat, I will tell you that. One salient feature missing in your theory is that of “human chemical bonding theory” (see: human chemical bond). In other words, in a given bond between two people, such as a man and women in a marriage reaction:

M + F → M≡F

There is “free energy” stored inside of the bond (see: bond energy). This was worked out by Fritz Lipmann in 1941. I’ll let this slide, as the problem of trying to work out an actual physicochemical-based neuro-socio mechanism to explain the operation and holding functional aspect of the “M≡F” bond, in terms of the fundamental forces, is very difficult. It took me some years to solve this, i.e. to get a working model going.

1 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #34 | RE: Updates / Comments, etc. 2

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 9 2014, 9:03 AM EDT

Secondly, all of your work on social energy / transition state diagrams, 8 in total (pages 166-199), in the history of using energy diagrams to explain social behavior, predates anyone that I am aware of; David Hwang (2000), Adriaan de Lange (2001), and Thomas Wallace (2009), being some that come to mind following you:

Thirdly, your use of fugacity is very impressive! It is one of the more difficult topics in chemical thermodynamics to understand, let alone to apply it socially. No one, among the some 3,300 Hmolpedia articles that I am aware of, nor that I can find via Google Books, i.e. all the world’s libraries, has written about fugacity applied socially:

Fourthly, your connection and use of both “affinity” and “free energy” is also impressive. Not many people are able to do this. Categorically, this is called the Goethe-Gibbs connection; only six people, listed in the previous link, have been able to make this connection (one of whom is Jurgen Mimkes, whose email communication I will share with you shortly).

Fifth, all of your migration and immigration theory work is fairly impressive also; the only other person, of the 1,000+ biographies I’ve written and read about in Hmolpedia, that has done such work, that I am aware of, is John Q. Stewart, who headed the Princeton Department of Social Physics.

These five points, off the top of my head, are your main five strong points.

1 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #35 | RE: Updates / Comments, etc. 3

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 9 2014, 9:04 AM EDT

To point out your main “difficulty on theory”, referring to point four above, i.e. affinity & free energy, the main issue you have is that the logic of affinity tables conflicts with the theory of the soul, a point which Goethe was well aware of, but one that either you are ignorant of or in denial of? In other words, there is no “choice” involved in affinity tables. The species at the lower rows, in any affinity table, will always be displaced in their bond (with the top row species) by any of the species in rows above them. Newton was also well aware of this, which is why he left the puzzle to his last and final Query 31.

1 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #36 | RE: Updates / Comments, etc. 4

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 9 2014, 9:05 AM EDT | Post edited: Jul 9 2014, 9:25 AM EDT

To quote Geoffroy’s first law of affinity, derived from Newton’s Query 31:

“Whenever two substances are united that have a disposition to combine and a third is added that has a greater affinity with one of them, these two will unite, and drive out the other.”

Hence, sodium will drive out hydrogen in its water molecule bond with oxygen, because sodium has a greater affinity for oxygen, than hydrogen. In your mind, you would like to situate the “free energy” as being inside each chemical species—in the human molecule case you conceptualize it as being “soul” placed there by Allah—but, correctly, free energy is a system property, not situated inside of say: hydrogen, sodium, or oxygen, measureable via system properties: temperature, pressure, volume, etc. We can, to note, as mentioned above (i.e. bond energy) situate free energy, quantitatively, inside of bonds, or assign a free energy measure to a species in a given state, such as Gilbert Lewis pioneered, via free energy tables.

In short, sodium will ALWAYS drive out hydrogen in its bond with oxygen. There is no choice involved. The same applies to human chemical reactions. Subsequently, if there is no choice involved in human chemical reactions, the soul theory is defunct. As this is the sub-structure of your entire philosophy, we see the issue at hand—in other words, your book, recent articles, and over all “affinity/free energy + Quran logic” theory is inherently in conflict. Affinity theory and soul theory do not corroborate. Goethe was well aware of this, whereas you do not seem to be?

1 out of 1found this valuable


Peer review on Beg's New Dimensions in Sociology, from American ecohydrolic engineer Jeff Tuhtan, Romanian physical economist Gheorghe Savoiu, and German sociophysicist Jurgen Mumkes.

Peer review on Beg's New Dimensions in Sociology, from American ecohydrolic engineer Jeff Tuhtan, Romanian physical economist Gheorghe Savoiu, and German sociophysicist Jurgen Mumkes.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #37 | RE: Tuhtan, Savoiu, and Mimkes email responses

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 9 2014, 9:06 AM EDT | Post edited: Jul 9 2014, 9:07 AM EDT

Re: Tuhtan response, 8 hours ago, Jeff Tuhtan sent me the following email:

“Thanks for the scan, will have a look! My comment on the ongoing discussion: If your religion can explain Ostwald ripening, I'll be in church on Sunday.”

Re: Savoiu response, 7 hours ago, Gheorghe Savoiu sent me the following email:

“Thank you ... It must be one of the most amazing and realistic books ... Just give me two weeks or three maybe, please!”

Re: Mimkes response, 1 hour ago Jurgen Mimkes sent me the following email:

“This is a very interesting paper, which corresponds to the views of my papers:

● Society as a many-particle System, J. Thermal Anal. 60 (2000), 1055 - 1069
● Binary Alloys as a Model for the Multicultural Society, J. Thermal Anal. 43 (1995) 521-537
● A thermodynamic formulation of social science in Econophysics & Sociophysics: Trends & Perspectives Bikas K. Chakrabarti, Anirban Chakraborti, Arnab Chatterjee (Eds.) WILEY-VCH Verlag, Weinheim, Germany (2006) 277 - 308
● my talk : Chemistry of social bonds (College Park, 2006)

Comment: The article has very many interesting aspects, I see many analogies, but in his article I miss any experimental proof like in physical chemistry.”

1 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #38 | RE: Ostwald & Sunday church

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 9 2014, 9:12 AM EDT

Re: "If your religion can explain Ostwald ripening, I'll be in church on Sunday.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostwald_ripening

This seems to be a jab at Beg and his religious belief?

In regards to Ostwald and church on Sunday, on a side note, I recently have also found out about Ostwald's famous "Monistic Sunday sermons", which he began giving in circa 1906. Jeff, I'm sure both you and I would have gladly attended these, with zeal!

1 out of 1found this valuable
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #39 | RE: Hmolpedia and neutrality

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 9 2014, 9:48 AM EDT | Post edited: Jul 9 2014, 10:00 AM EDT

Re: (post #32): “Yes, I will keep siding with the Glory of the Quran without fear for going into oblivion, so far as Hmolpedia is concerned, but then Hmolpedia will also lose faith in not being neutral and being myopic”, it is not a matter of being neutral nor myopic, it is matter of experiment disproof.

When Benjamin Thompson did his famous 1798 cannon boring experiment, he disproved caloric theory. We have hence lost faith in caloric theory, and now believe in entropy theory.

When Albert Michelson and Edward Morley did their famous 1887 aether wind measuring experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

getting negative results, leading Einstein, in 1905, via relativity theory, to disabuse the notion of 'ether', the medium in which electromagnetic waves were thought to be propagating, from physics, the combined result disproved ether theory, and we now believe in electromagnetic theory and relativity.

When Benjamin Libet did his famous 1982 readiness potential experiment (see: Libet experiment) he disproved the theory of free will, we now believe in exchange force theory.

In short, when experimental evidence and logic disproves a theory, one cannot remain “neutral”, a scientist must accept measurable fact and experimental findings, and find new theory to corroborate and explain that new evidence, while jettisoning the old theory. One cannot hold hands with both Aristotle (ether) and Einstein (relativity) at the same time. This applies to all theories, even soul theory: One cannot hold hands with Imhotep (soul theory) and Clausius (energy/entropy theory) at the same time.

1 out of 1found this valuable

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #40 | RE: Redford deconversion model

Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Jul 9 2014, 10:31 AM EDT | Post edited: Jul 9 2014, 10:40 AM EDT

Note: I am also aware that “logical argument” alone will not suffice to deconvert someone, such as yourself, from a religious belief system, namely that it requires a weakening of at least four of seven nodal points (Creation, Prayer, Other Muslims, Personal Relationship [with Allah], Morality, Logical Argument, Quran) of one’s adherence system, according to the Redford deconversion process model, which takes on average 3-years:

So, while I may very well weaken your mental nodal points on: creation (vs. chemical synthesis), morality vs. (moral symbols of physical chemistry), and logical argument (such as above thread posts), the other nodal points (Prayer, Other Muslims, Personal Relationship, and Quran) will be something you will likely have to deal with on your own, which is something I’m sure you do not desire to do?

Hence, in short, I see we will only be able to get so far, presently, in regards to debate. Maybe in three years you will able to deconvert yourself?

Then again, I am also aware that apostasy in Islam, say as compared to Christianity deconversion, is a serious offense, publishable by death or imprisonment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

On the bright side, if you do deconvert yourself, and if you subsequently are imprisoned, at least you will find solace in the logical conclusion that you cannot "die", being that "life", according to the deconverted view, is something that does not exist, as Nikola Tesla so famously put it in 1915, or as stated by Charles Sherrington, in 1938, "death is an anthropism", a word "not understood" by physics and chemistry.

2 out of 2found this valuable

Work in progress
The remaining 140+ thread-to-article conversion sections is a work in progress. [1]

Quora | Follow-up
On 4 Aug 2015 into Sep 2015, Beg, via Quora.com, began probing on atheism vs Muslim related questions, asking and commenting on questions such as “Have any atheists actually read the Quran before debating with Muslims?”, wherein he seems to refer to Thims as a “know-all” who makes “flimsy arguments”. [5]

See also
● Moriarty-Thims debate

References
1. (a) Dr. Mirza Arshad Ali Beg (message repost) (23 Jun 2014) – Hmolpedia threads | 163 posts | 12 Aug 2014.
(b) Beg-Thims dialogue (12 Aug 2014) – Hmolpedia threads | 26 posts | 12 Sep 2014.
2. (a) Goethe, Johann. (1809). Elective Affinities: Illustrated, Annotated, and Decoded (editor: Libb Thims). Publisher, 2013.
(b) Beg, Mirza Arshad Ali. (1987). New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior (abs) (intro) (pdf, annotations by Libb Thims, 2014) (individual, pg. 23). Karachi: The Hamdard Foundation.
(c) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
(d) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume Two). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
3. Thims, Libb. (2014). Chemical Thermodynamics: with Applications in the Humanities (85-page version: pdf of 800-pages estimated total). Publisher, 2016.
4. Atheism Reviews – YouTube.
5. Mirza-Arshad-Ali-Beg – Quora.com.