Trojan horse of `Temperature is Emergent'

This dogma is so strong that has been actively obstructing any significant progress in understanding heat since Boltzmann. If you take away this dogma from physicists almost all of pop-science books become empty. It provides a `soft warm pillow' for a dream so sweet that awakening the academic sheep from it requires a fully fledged war, a revolution. 

Almost any topic on emergence anywhere, whether `philosophy' or biology or neuroscience, begins with emergence of temperature and goes like this 

`This quantity is an emergent one, just like temperature' 

Temperature is the prime example of `emergence' for the establishment and it is so serious that some of the bloated windbags like Verlinde have tried to `epidemize' the madness to whole physics but in fact have done nothing other than fallacious rhetoric: Current definition of temperature/entropy as an emergent quantity is circular. I have been saying this for quite some time but physicists --as it is usual-- continue ignoring this either totally or by silly `reasons' like `temperature is only defined for equilibrium' (e.g. Rovelli, private correspondence). The best answer I got from a journal (Europhysics Letters) was this:

Your paper deals very much with philosophical aspects of the concept of temperature and entropy, and as such would be more suitable for a different journal dealing with philosophical aspects of the fundamental laws of physics. 

--Christian Beck 

And of course, you can guess the result of submitting it to journals dealing with `philosophical aspects of fundamental laws of physics': ~`You are dealing with physical aspects of fundamental laws of physics'. 

As long as we ignore this very important point about heat, no progress can be expected on the question of arrow of time: There is no emergence in fundamental physics, and more, there cannot be any. A simple description of the problem is given here.