Regarding lightbulbs and processes seeking their lowest energy state:

You said, “This is an all-too-common example of misunderstanding in physics. Physical systems seek for their lowest energy state provided that they are isolated. Look e.g. at an old light bulb. Once unplugged, it is switched off, and is isolated from the grid; if it is switched on, it gets warmer, it is not isolated, and its energy content is obviously larger. Note that the bulb is in steady, stable state in both cases; if you shake it gently, it will remain in its original condition, whatever it is, i.e. it relaxes down to its original state after a small perturbation. Both the switched-on and the switched-off bulb are therefore in relaxed state, but the energy content of one state is larger than the energy content of the other state. Should the bulb seek fot its lowest energy state, you’d never be able to switch it on.”

This is the common mistake of many physicists, that all problems must be simple and linear. I did specifically state that the path to the lowest energy state is often “bumpy.” Turn the bulb on. Now turn it off. Now turn it on. Now turn it off. Now turn it on. Now turn it off… Eventually you will reach a point where you can no longer turn it on because the filaments have burned through, i.e., they have reached their current possible lowest energy state. And it will have done so by the quickest possible path, given the parameters of its local system. In your example, you seem to assume that last part does not matter in accounting for a system seeking its lowest energy state, “given the parameters of its local system.” I never said everything seeks it’s lowest energy state by a direct linear path disregarding all other factors! Also, I never said it will always FIND its lowest absolute energy state, only that it seeks it. Energy, after all, is bound into matter, and matter is bound to its local system’s interactions, which constrain it in wonderful ways.

Neither you or I are dim bulbs, Da Vita.