Our philosophy is based on the concept of energy as a positive, because we generally live on a planet in a low energy state which does work via fuel. As such, we don’t really have articulate language for “absence of energy.”
However, in electronics, we originally conceived of the absence of charged particles as being a positive. Today it is called “hole flow” and we still refer to the part of a battery that is missing charge carriers (electrons) as the “positive terminal” with the “higher potential”, and it is the “cathode” (which is Greek for “the way down”). Even in electronics schematics we draw semiconductors such as diodes and transistors with arrows pointing in the wrong direction - opposite of the direction that electrons physically move. Of course this was done because at the time we hadn’t understood how electricity really worked. But in the end, it’s just words and it all works out the same.
So I am conceiving a world with an over abundance of energy, where the physics is the same, but instead of adding fuel to increase energy, they typically add an anti-fuel which removes energy to do work. Anything which removes energy is valuable here, because it is how they make light, power transportation, run machinery, etc.
Basically, their thermodynamics language is the equivalent of hole flow in electricity.
An example phrase in our philosophy might be “If you have put a hot bottle on your feet, your feet are warming up.” If we look at the contrapositive, it has many negations making it very wordy and cumbersome: “if your feet are not warming up, you have not put a hot bottle on them.” To make this less cumbersome in their daily conversations, I need cold-based language, as cold-energy naturally flows from colder to their ambient hotter environment via what we would call endothermic reactions. To them, “fuel” would be anything which creates cold And causes it to flow out. Yet, fuel is obviously the wrong word for that. In their language, the statement above may be like this: “If your feet remain cold, you did not use a coldless bottle.” Or would it be “uncooled” or “defrigerated”?
See the challenge is that our language treats heat and energy as the positive, like electron flow. Referring to cold and energy deficiency as a positive is unnatural to us.
So the question is to state the fundamental laws of thermodynamics in their contrapositive statements, which are logically equivalent, and then try to prune out all the cumbersome negatives to form an articulate phrase. I will likely be deriving words like “defrigerate” For heating up or “excool” for inflaming (not the greatest analogy). The results do not use the words “heat” or “hot” or anything defined with those concepts such as enthalpy. As a side, thermometer scales are likely inverted as they measure cold content, so temperatures $decrease$ with heat. So their math changes a little - ideal gas law becomes PV=-nRT, for example, and all units of measure would be different (but they would still work).
EXAMPLE Start with the First Law of Thermodynamics as written:
Heat is a form of energy, therefore heat energy can’t be created; can not be destroyed; it can be transferred to a new location; and can be converted between different forms.
IN CONTRAPOSITION, these logical equivalents are true:
If heat energy can be created, then heat is not a form of energy.
If heat energy can be destroyed, then heat is not a form of energy.
If heat can not be transferred to a new location, then heat is not a form of energy.
If heat can not be converted between forms, heat is not a form of energy.
Because adding coldness is simply the removal of heat from a system, adding coldness obeys the exact same laws of thermodynamics. Cooling is simply a name given for the transfer of heat outward into the ambient environment. Coldness is the quantity of energy deficiency which occupies the areas of a system in the places where energy has left it. When cold is added to a system, the ambient environment must increase in heat (loose coldness).
So the following laws must also be true:
If coldness can be created, then coldness is not energy.
If coldness can be destroyed, then coldness is not a form of energy.
If coldness can not be transferred to a new location, then coldness is not a form of energy.
If coldness can not be converted between forms, coldness is not a form of energy.
This is an example of the framework I am trying to create for a cold-based thermodynamic philosophy.