# Entropy and second principle: the great mystification

## The mystification of the ultimate disorder

Entropy is the measure of the disorder of an isolated system. The second principle is systematically associated with it: the system can only evolve towards greater entropy / disorder. It is an additive quantity (science say extensive): the entropy of the system is equal to the sum of the entropies of its parts. What mystification am I going to talk to you about? To make the universe a vast system made of a puzzle of smaller systems, concluding that it inevitably evolves into an ultimate disorder. An aberrant epilogue, stated by something that contradicts it: the human mind, the most orderly system that the known universe has produced, after an already very long evolution.

## In the definition of entropy

What stage is the error? To each of them. In the very definition of entropy, which fails to specify to which view it belongs. Indeed the entropy is property of the measurer,which counts the disorder. This device/mind capable of analyzing disorder is located at a higher level of complexity. Entropy is the property of its downward look (in the complex dimension). While the elements of the system are content to explore their possible relationships. For them, for their upward look, it is a diversification of possible states. In this direction they see no disorder; they multiply the orders that are accessible to them. Thus, order is not the opposite of disorder; they are different orders, depending on the look used.

## In the second principle

Second mistake: the second principle. It uses a false definition of the system, that of the measurer and his downward look, when in reality the system is self-delimiting. The definition belongs to the related elements. They are the ones who “see” the limits of the system, with their upward look. They use their available degrees of freedom inside this “container” that they themselves have formed. In this direction, disorder comes from an extremely precise order, based on the constituent properties of the elements. The evolution that the second principle calls ‘greatest disorder’ is for the elements an ‘equilibrium’, based on several possible results: 1) The system has finished exploring its degrees of freedom; it closes its chain of interactions. 2) A system state is stable enough to interrupt the sequence. 3) The number of possible states is almost infinite but each of them has infinitely neighboring properties. In the 3 cases the system appears as stable individuation. It becomes an ‘element’ of a different temporo-spatial framework, another level of reality.

## In a too horizontal vision

Why does the measurer speak in this case of increased entropy / disorder? Have we not just witnessed, on the contrary, a gain in order / negentropy? The confusion comes from a measurer confined to the level of constitutive reality. If he reduces his downward look to this level, he actually sees an increase in the disorder/amount of information needed to describe it. But by raising itself to a level it can compress this growing information into uniform ownership of the system. It is no longer a ‘system of particles’ but an ‘atom’. This level of information does not make the previous one disappear. It surimposes itself on it.

The second principle is intrinsic to a level of reality. It does not apply to the complex dimension, which is neguentropic. Better explanation of the presence of the human mind, perched at the known summit of this dimension, and particularly neguentropic in its way of transforming things.

Entropy is an extensive magnitude only within a level of reality. We can add the entropies of sets of molecules, but not entropies of biological entities with molecules, let alone with elements of the mind. Their levels of reality are not miscible.

## Complexity is negentropic

The universe appears globally neguentropic, taking into account its complex dimension. The second principle actually favors this evolution, pushing the systems towards one of the described equilibria, which makes them individualized. He builds the steps of complexity.

*