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.

Epistemological obstacles for Reductionism

Physics without experimental test is futile. After hundreds --if not thousands-- of years, we have finally settled on some basic quantities, i.e. SI base units. Anything we said and say in physics, ultimately boils down to a mixture of these base units. It is not that we cannot introduce more basic quantities but the epistemological limitations tie our hands very tightly. New basic quantities need not come only in the case of new phenomena. Occasionally theoretical consistency demands introduction of whole new independent base concepts which might not be possible to measure even after having constructed a whole new theory. 

All I want to say is that whatever we want to propose and test should ultimately come in a base units system with finite number of units; but how far can we go here in deepening our basic units? ultimately there is a place where not ontologically but epistemologically we cannot continue to dig down our basic units. we may already be at such boundary. What we can dream of our experimental means to probe is far from what we have in our basic units. 

A related issue here is that of Emergence. Suppose we decide to fix the current SI system as the aforementioned epistemological boundary. in such system a quantity like temperature is a key basic element. how are we then going to explain the emergence of temperature when everything we say in such hypothetical explanation has to be explained in terms of SI base units?!