Kostic’s Zeroth Religion (2010) vs Thims ZeroTheism (2015)?

A forum for religion or related topics. Note: "religion", meaning belief system that "binds", can be either theistic, agnostic, or atheistic; for example:
“Cosmology is a kind of religion for intelligent atheists.”
— Stephen Hawking (c.1962), description to his wife, when they first met, about himself
Post Reply
User avatar
Sadi-Carnot
Site Admin
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:40 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Kostic’s Zeroth Religion (2010) vs Thims ZeroTheism (2015)?

Post by Sadi-Carnot »

While typing up a summary of Milivoje Kostic's Entropy journal special topic section:
viewtopic.php?f=10&p=56#p56

I ended up penning a new Hmolpedia edition article on Kostic, and while doing so, went back to look at his ZerothReligion.com website:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110209083 ... igion.com/

which brought to mind my "zerotheism kids lecture" (2015):
http://humanthermodynamics.wikifoundry. ... for%20Kids

And thus compared the two here:
https://hmolpedia.com/page/Milivoje_Kos ... h_Religion

Image

If anyone has any comment, feel free?
All the best, Libb.
User avatar
Sadi-Carnot
Site Admin
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:40 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Kostic’s Zeroth Religion (2010) vs Thims ZeroTheism (2015)?

Post by Sadi-Carnot »

Unless I am wrong, Kostic's "zeroth religion", based on his creative/creation term usage, is a "creative energy" conceptualized variety of metaphorical religion?
https://hmolpedia.com/page/Creative_energy
All the best, Libb.
User avatar
Sadi-Carnot
Site Admin
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:40 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Kostic’s Zeroth Religion (2010) vs Thims ZeroTheism (2015)?

Post by Sadi-Carnot »

Kostic replied the following, three days ago (via email):

Hi Libb,

Glad to hear from you, especially about your accomplishments.
I understand you are busy with your endeavors, but if you decide to contribute to my Entropy Topical Collection, please let me know.

Regarding my "Zeroth Religion" I like to clarify for you the following, since it appears you misunderstood my intentions:
I am not a "true believer" but use "zeroth religion" metaphorically as something before, more fundamental than the "regular, first religion."
Likewise, terms creation (meaning formation) and recreation (meaning transformation) are used metaphorically to draw attention:)


Furthermore, I believe, see http://Mass-Energy.MKostic.com that:

►All interactions in nature are physical and based on simple cause-and-effect conservation laws, thus deterministic and should be without any exceptional phenomenon. Due to diversity and complexity of large systems, we would never be able to observe deterministic phenomena with full details but have to use holistic and probabilistic approach for observation; therefore, our observation methodology is holistic and probabilistic, but phenomena have to be deterministic, not miraculous nor probabilistic.
►There is no proof that an electron, or any other elementary particle, has or does not have a structure. The concept of elementary particle is intrinsically problematic (just because we cannot observe or reason a structure which exhibits certain phenomena, does not mean it does not exist). Past and recent history proved us to be wrong every time. Particularly problematic is the current theory which requires elementary particle annihilation/creation (“miraculous creationism”) while using conservation laws. At the very least (in phenomenological view) the elementary particles should be conserved and be the building structure for other particles and systems. Note that many concepts (in modern physics) are "virtual" entities that are part of the mathematical theory, but are not directly observable.
►There is no such thing as a unidirectional force or a force that acts on only one body (no imaginary boundary vector-forces). Put it very simply: a forcing (force-flux cause-and-effect phenomena) acts between an interface of pair of objects (forced interaction: action-reaction, including process-inertial forces), and not on a single object. The Newton Laws and the Laws of Thermodynamics imply that all forces are mass-energy interactions (forced displacements with momentum and energy transfer and conservation) between different particulate bodies due to non-equilibrium (available energy or work potential, cause of forcing) towards the equilibrium.
►All matter must be somewhat elastic (can be compressed or stretched). If bodies could be perfectly rigid we'd have infinite forces acting with infinite speeds for infinitesimal times (if you pushed on one end of a perfectly rigid stick, the other end would move instantaneously). System components (bodies) that exert forces have to be massive (2nd Newton Law) and with accompanying reaction forces (3rd Newton Law).

In 2020 I updated/finished three papers:

The Second Law and Entropy Misconceptions Demystified. Entropy 2020, 22, 648 * (Full-text HTML online * PDF) https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/6/648
Maxwell's Demon and Its Faulaces Demystified, arXiv:2001.10083 [PDF] Harvard *physics4me*
“Heat Flowing from Cold to Hot without External Intervention” Demystified: Thermal-Transformer and Temperature, arXiv:2001.05991 [PDF] Harvard

[second email (followup)]

I forgot to draw your attention to my recent UPDATED posting at:
http://EM-Heat-Work.MKostic.com
OR https://sites.google.com/site/professor ... /em-nature
All the best, Libb.
User avatar
Sadi-Carnot
Site Admin
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:40 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Kostic’s Zeroth Religion (2010) vs Thims ZeroTheism (2015)?

Post by Sadi-Carnot »

Hi Milivoje, I will re-post my reply to you here, as public posting and dialogue is my mode of operation.

I believe that it is more “good” for everyone to read our dialogue (online), than just for you and I to read our dialogue (in emails). If you have a more-accurate definition of what “good” is, thermodynamics, according to what you “believe”, please inform me as to your thermodynamics-based definition of good? If, e.g., you are able to state "Kostic's creed" (say in five bullet points), please do do?

As to the rest of your reply (and links associated), I have not read it fully. I do note, that you tend to over-use “colored font”, highlights, bold, and italics, in a way that detracts from readership.

Firstly, the word “create”, is a scientific god synonym (regardless of what you openly admit to believing):
https://hmolpedia.com/page/God_synonym#Scientific

Second, the word that caught my red flat attention is: “holistic”.
https://eoht.info/page/Holism

“At its nuttiest extreme are those with holistics in their heads, those whose reaction to reductionism takes the form of a belief in psychic energies, life forces that cannot be described in terms of the ordinary laws of inanimate nature.”
— Steven Weinberg (1992), Dreams of a Final Theory (pg. 53)

I’m not trying to say, that you are ‘nuts’, but rather that this is the best quote that comes to mind, baring full elaboration of what I’m trying to say.

Third, “probabilities”, off the top of my head, this seems to be code for a free will argument.

Out of time for day.
All the best, Libb.
User avatar
Sadi-Carnot
Site Admin
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:40 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Kostic’s Zeroth Religion (2010) vs Thims ZeroTheism (2015)?

Post by Sadi-Carnot »

Also, to put the previous post into context (at least my mental recent context), I just spent the last half dozen hours work in on the Prometheus heat model of life:
https://hmolpedia.com/page/Prometheus

Where you might note that “life” is the second ranked (by links) term in Hmolpedia, behind thermodynamics:
https://hmolpedia.com/page/TL#Rankings_.7C_Terms

Back then (750BC), the Greeks were dealing with crude definitions of “power”, “force”, and “intelligence” in respect to defining or attempting to understand “life”.

We (you and I) are three millennia advanced. Hopefully, we can speak openly and clearly, about what we now mean in respect to power, force, and intelligence, beyond what was accomplished or rather advanced by Aeschylus (660BC)?

Re: “Entropy Journal”, the name Shannon is ranked #1 in your journal:
https://hmolpedia.com/page/Entropy_(journal)

whereas the name Shannon is ranked #50 in my encyclopedia:
https://hmolpedia.com/page/TL#Rankings_.7C_People

While I appreciate the offer to publish; I believe the real issue is bit (math) or joules (physics). That is a question that has never entered my mind, but I suppose it ruminates in your mind?
All the best, Libb.
Post Reply