
Three "pointfullness" models, in contrast to the oft-cited Steven Weinberg pointlessness universe model conjectures, namely: Blum model (1934), i.e. Harold Blum's chemical peneplanation evolution model, Beg model (1987), i.e. the physiochemical sociology model of Mirza Beg, and the De Lange model (2001), the Gibbs landscape model of Adriaan de Lange, which if which future state thermodynamic inflection "points" of free energy (thermodynamic potential) minimization.

Three "pointfullness" models, in contrast to the oft-cited Steven Weinberg pointlessness universe model conjectures, namely: Blum model (1934), i.e. Harold Blum's chemical peneplanation evolution model, Beg model (1987), i.e. the physiochemical sociology model of Mirza Beg, and the De Lange model (2001), the Gibbs landscape model of Adriaan de Lange, which if which future state thermodynamic inflection "points" of free energy (thermodynamic potential) minimization.

In hmolscience, pointfullness, as contrasted with “pointlessness” or meaninglessness, refers to the view that the universe is NOT pointless, but rather full of points or equilibrium states of existence, and future and past potentialities, quantified, chemical thermodynamically, in a social sense, by Gibbs energy minimas, i.e. points of stability and general system well-being, Gibbs energy maximas, i.e. points of instability and general system ill-being, and transformation states actuating between points.

Overview
Pointfullness models, based on the premise that transformation content (aka entropy) tends to a maximum, meaning that systems evolve or transform to "points" of free energy minimization, historically, include: Harold Blum's chemical peneplanation model (1934), Bruce Lindsay's thermodynamic potential purpose model (1983), Mirza Beg's physico-chemical model (1987) of social transformations, from from Gibbs energy initial "points" (initial state) to Gibbs energy final "points" (final state), Adriaan de Lange's Gibbs energy evolution model (2001), David Hwang's thermodynamics of love (2001) graphical models, and Libb Thims' Gates model (2015), to name the dominant examples, three of which are depicted above.

The atheistic Gibbs energy based "pointfullness model" usurps the older Greek atheistic atomic school based blind random accidental chance model of things, aka the "fortuitous concourse of atoms" model.

In 2014, Thims, during his “25 Smartest People Alive | Existive” countdown, used the reaction path of Bill Gates, then (Ѻ) ranked #20, to explain Einstein’s “divine a sense of purpose” motto in terms of riding Gibbs potentials. [1]


A visual of David Hwang's 2001 "thermodynamics of love" model, shown people can end up in both "happy" and "unhappy" end "points" in the course of their interactions and reactions with people, depending on their choices, all of which can be measured thermodynamically in terms of differences in Gibbs energy, between the before "point" and the after "point".

A visual of David Hwang's 2001 "thermodynamics of love" model, shown people can end up in both "happy" and "unhappy" end "points" in the course of their interactions and reactions with people, depending on their choices, all of which can be measured thermodynamically in terms of differences in Gibbs energy, between the before "point" and the after "point".

In 2015, Thims, during the “Zerotheism for Kids” lecture, an Ostwald-styled (see: Monistic Sunday Sermons) smart atheism Monday school, so to say, given to six kids, aged 2 to 11: girl 2, boy 6, girl 7, boy 9, girl 10, and boy 11, in Chicago, employed the Gates model again, amid showing the children Kareem Jarrah’s TED-ed “What Triggers a Chemical Reaction?” video, to explain to them how when they go out into the world, some of them, as Einstein said, may “divine a sense of purpose”, and ride these Gibbs potentials, like a surfer rides a wave, that fits into the movement of the universe, like and Adams creed wave. [2]

In 2017, Thims, in his “8 Questions Atheists Supposedly Can’t Answer”, explained the "pointfullness" model of existence, as opposed to the "procreation" model of existence. [3]

Quotes
The following are related quotes:

“The system – solid or social – will be stable only if the negative free energy (-dG) is at a maximum [point]. This idea goes back to Empedocles (450BC), who in his On Nature explains that solubility of wine in water similar to love of relatives, and Goethe (1809) who in his Elective Affinities demonstrated that love and marriage depend on the physico-chemical laws of society.”
— Jurgen Mimkes (2012), Chemistry of the Social Bond (Ѻ)

“Life as we know it, is a point in our existence. If we trace back our beginning up to this point of our existence and try to project it to our probable existence thereafter, our life is a point in our existence where we become animated because of light, energy and matter coming all together to make us what we are.”
— Canadian Anon (2017), “A Point in Existence”, tread post (Ѻ) to panbioism, Dec 11

See also
● Social phase

References
1. Thims, Libb. (2014). “25 Smartest People Alive | Existive (2 of 5)” (Ѻ) (3:49-8:40) video, Human Chemistry 101, Dec 11.
2. (a) Thims, Libb. (2015). 2015 “Zerotheism for Kids: Lecture 4: Enthalpy & Entropy, Moral Compass, and Monism” (Ѻ) (14:47-). Atheism Reviews, Sep 7.
(b) Jarrah, Kareem. (2015). “What triggers a chemical reaction? (Ѻ:1-3:45) video, TED-ed lesson, Jan 20.
3. Thims, Libb. (2017). “8 Questions Atheists Supposedly Can’t Answer” (#4 What is the Purpose [Point] of Existence”, 25:30-) (Ѻ), Atheism Reviews, Aug 23.