If this were one paper in isolation, I'd call it an honest attempt at good science gone-wrong by a lack of consultation with theoretical computer scientists and

If this were one paper in isolation, I'd call it an honest attempt at good science gone-wrong by a lack of consultation with theoretical computer scientists and specialists in thermodynamics. However, I think this is just *the entire field* -- which is then different. I think a whole field is pseudoscience when it systematically engages in the same games. I think likewise of much fMRI work,... all the way to basically the whole of nutritional science, etc. If the premises of your project can be pretty quickly falsified by relevant domain experts, and you build a whole field out of it, you slip into my category of "pseudoscience". This paper explicitly tries to prescribe to engineers (!!!) where their "focus" should be, having absolutely no warrant to do so. A trivial application of the same analysis to CPUs would provide the relevant baseline comparison the paper should have made. With this analysis, the key results of the paper would be exposed as useless. I have little sympathy for all this now: it's a research hype cycle craze to apply random bits of computer science to random bits of science in the most hairbrained manner.