Bit of a leap from "heat cannon, of itself, pass from one body to a hotter body"?

Who's to say that degrading exergy is strongly or weakly aligned with good or evil, or that good and evil are opposites? Is degrading exergy entirely orthogonal to good and evil, like the gnostics articulate? These are open philosophical questions that the author would do better to contextualise if this essay were to be more than an incomplete survey.

Between this false dichotomy good/evil, and the implicit premise that thermodynamics has a meaning, it's all word salad to me.

> Reality is good.

> But what would our metaphysics and ethics look like if we learned that reality was against us?

I prefer the view of Samsara in Buddhism as the endless, cyclic process--a framework describing the continuous cycle of existence with no inherent or ultimate meaning or purpose within itself. The cycle operates according to mechanistic laws.

Maybe I'm just triggered, gatekeeping thermodynamics as a topic that literary folk shouldn't be having feelings about? Get off my lawn!