(a) that the symbol S comes from Rudolf Clausius, not Ludwig Boltzmann (who used the symbol E for entropy);
(b) that the relationship of the Poincare recurrence theorem and entropy is a mute issue;[Moriarty says: “you’ve got to define the difference between something that’s impossible and something that is very very improbable. Its not impossible, for example, for all the atoms and molecules in the air around us to suddenly collect themselves together and suddenly head off there and re-asphyxiate. That’s not impossible, it’s just incredibly incredibly improbable”];(c) that the exact equation used in the video, S = k ln Ω, was penned not by Boltzmann (although based on his work and inscribed on Boltzmann's tombstone) but by Max Planck.
Entropy - Sixty Symbols Entropy: Professor's Response Entropy Confusion - Sixty Symbols (add) (add) (add) 23 Apr 2009 4 Aug 2009 3 Nov 2013 Moriarty's set of entropy explanation videos.
See main: Human chemical bond, Human quantum mechanicsIn objection to the premise that entropy and quantum mechanics apply to human activity, on Aug 30th, 2009, Moriarty commented. in regards to human entropy (or the premise of the entropy of humans):
“[Thims has] taken the abuse of the term entropy to an entirely new level, by suggesting that it—and, unbelievably, quantum mechanics—can be applied to 'interactions' in romantic human relationships.”
“Then, as they sort of spread out or move around [from this packed state], we say that they are moving to a high entropy state … and that’s what entropy’s really about ... about this dispersal of energy, about moving from a state where everything is nicely packed and close together to one where everything is spread out … and you can apply that to gas molecules just as easily as you can to students.”Moriarty clarified in a subsequent YouTube video (see above) his position, highlighting that the distribution of students was used as an analogy. In Sept. 2009, and as part of the lengthy online debate discussed above, Moriarty further clarified his position for Thims:
Quote: “We can think about the students who are milling about here and filling out this state quite well [as a high entropy state].” “Then we can think about bringing them into what we term a low entropy state, where we pack them all nicely together, nicely ordered in the center of this lovely green.”
“It is this distinction between analogy and mathematical/physical equivalence that is so important and which you seem unable to grasp. Hence, you misinterpreted the analogy I drew in the Sixty Symbols YouTube video on entropy and argued that I was actually claiming that one could associate a thermodynamic entropy with the arrangement of students.
That someone could confuse the analogy with the actual thermodynamic quantity just never occurred to me. Of the approximately 750 physics majors who took the first-year Thermal and Kinetic Physics module I taught, not one made this fundamental error. Similarly, the number of professional scientists who have made this error is very small indeed.”
See main: Working Body, Working Substance, Working medium, System, Thermodynamic System, Social system, Human system, Economic system, etc.In commentary on the point made by Thims that, according to Willard Gibbs’ 1876 On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances, which is considered as the Principia of thermodynamics, that “all material systems are thermodynamics systems”, whereby a system of humans (made of matter) is one such material system, and that “the laws of thermodynamics which govern any material system is greatly facilitated by considering the energy and entropy of the system in the various states of which it is capable”, Moriarty responds back with:
“Where did Gibbs state that ‘a society is one such material system’? He didn't - that is your particular (incorrect) reading of the application of thermodynamics.”
These comments by Moriarty are akin to those of Paul Samuelson (a student of Gibbs). In other words, when teaching a class on thermal physics or thermodynamics, the first lesson (lecture) typically involves instilling the rule that the laws of thermodynamics are universal (laws of the universal), in that they apply to any and all systems. Thims highlights the contribution of YouTube user (PenguinJin) who commented:
“So, why are we exempt from this application of thermodynamics? Why would energy alter its behavior in a fundamental way when it began manifesting as the patterns of human behavior? Recursion is everywhere.”
“The main points are:(i) An arrangement of students (or socks, or objects in a room) will not *spontaneously* rearrange themselves (unlike the milk molecules mentioned in the video).
(ii) There is no change in the thermodynamic free energy of, e.g., socks [or students], if we rearrange them.”
“If I understand you correctly, you *are* suggesting that the (romantic) relationships of groups of humans are associated with a thermodynamic entropy (and other functions of state)! This is very worrying … you seem to be making the same type[s] of fundamental error[s] pointed out in the essays of Frank Lambert.” 
"Every single one day of rotation of the earth constitutes one Carnot cycle. Expansion stroke: Heat is added (daytime) to the system (surface of the earth), the particles (human molecules) become active and expand outward, doing work in the process (occupation); contraction stroke: heat is removed (nighttime) from the system (surface of the earth), the particles (human molecules) begin to deactivate expanding inward (towards their bed), doing a reverse work in the process. This is all basic thermodynamics."
“Concepts of entropy apply to gas molecules; you cannot say that a particular arrangement of students has a thermodynamic entropy.”
"Your [Thims’] laughable central premise is as follows: Well, a human is made of lots of atoms. Therefore a human is just a big molecule. Big molecules will behave just like small molecules. Therefore I can apply all thermodynamic principles to human 'molecules'."
“It's a little more than that. I attend Moriarty’s university, and he's universally disliked because he refuses to ever acknowledge other viewpoints than his own. He's dogmatic, and that's unacceptable in someone who calls themselves a scientist.”— RedChris18 (2018), Reddit comment (Ѻ) to query: “What’s going on with Prof. Philip Moriarty?” in r/OutOfTheLoop