“Generally finite beings” — does that mean sometimes we aren’t? Or that some of us aren’t?

In order to acheive the Buddha (Avtar) mind body states, you should correct the issues in the past.

The mind (brain) is non linear.

We are generally finite beings.

If that parameter is large, things simplify nicely (everyone likes classical mechanics and counting problems right?). Pack things too tightly, though, and you need to worry about serious quantum effects. Of course, a different level of abstraction, as you call it, would just try to average these quantum effects (to low order) and roll them into some other (it better be dimensionless!) parameter.

This is all a little naive, though, since you obviously can’t get classical thermodynamics out of just one particle. So there’s also an absolute number requirement as you suggest Paul, and over which Adam mulls. How do we turn such an (extensive) requirement into an intensive (and dimensionless) number? Stastics to the rescue again. It’s related to the relative distribution of the particles’ energies. A tight distribution, and you’ve got a well defined thermodynamic Temperature. That is, only one parameter is really needed to specify the distribution: it’s average. A broad one, and you’ve got to do more work; you need more parameters.

Wikipedia: Mole
Wikipedia: Avogadro’s Number
National Mole Day Foundation

Incidentally, I would put the cutoff for “macroscopic” amounts of gas at much smaller than one mole. In fact, consider a liter of very low pressure gas (I’m talking millitorr here) at non-cryogenic temperatures. Gas at that pressure contains much less than one mole of particles, but the typical gas laws will still apply. To tell the truth, I’m not quite sure where to put the cutoff above which gas can be considered “bulk”.

Thanks for the comment!

Criticism: At Standard Temperature and Pressure (0 C, 1 Atm), one mole (6.02×10^23 molecules) of gas occupies 22.4 L of space. Thus, I would say that your cutoff for macroscopic quantities of gas (10^27 molecules) is several orders of magnitude too high. Is there a reason you picked this number?

Addition: An example of where higher prices result in higher demand: Name brand foods versus store brand foods. Consider Kellogg’s Corn Flakes versus Ralph’s brand corn flakes. The Ralph’s brand flakes are probably made by Kellogg’s, thus there is no difference, nutritional- or taste-wise, between the two. However, most people will shun the store brand cereal and go straight for the name brand cereal. The only difference between the two is price (name brand is higher) and packaging (name brand is fancier).