Physico-theological perspective

Oops, really sorry. I now see that you dedicated an entire chapter to this exact question!
(I guess when I read it the first time I didn't get there..)
Thank you very much and sorry,
Good ending!

Okay, so I read it and I'm sorry to drive you crazy, but I didn't really understand what you wrote here:

“Moreover, in the second chapter we proposed a mathematical definition of complexity through entropy. This is how it is usually defined in scientific contexts, and therefore it is reasonable to use it in our discussion as well. In these terms, there is no doubt that the complexity of a living being is very high, much higher than the complex beings created in computer dynamics of cellular automata. Therefore, even if we did not define a priori that we expect the formation of living beings, it is difficult to argue that they are not special because this is an a posteriori definition. Their entropy is low, and this is a clear measure of complexity and order (or information).”

You used here a clear assumption that their entropy is low again without proving it in an orderly manner, as you proved beautifully there in Chapter 3, that order = uniqueness, and the accumulation of gas in one place = uniqueness, whereas in a gas that is dispersed throughout the container it is not unique because there are many such possible permutations according to the theory of combinatorics.

In parallel, it seems necessary to prove here the uniqueness of the creatures that live according to the other states, in order to prove that the level of entropy is low, because that is exactly the question.

Thank you very much.

Unfortunately, I am unable to give courses in physics and biology here. If you want proof, you should study these fields. The fact that life has low entropy is an undisputed scientific fact.

If you could briefly explain how the entropy measure (size) is estimated to prove this. Or rather how can complexity be measured by a physical size when in the end all these measures are supposedly according to our intellectual understandings (the emptiness of the analyst as you called it I think). And again the question returns, maybe we interpret this as complex?
I know you are very busy and apologize for the time I am “wasting” you. Therefore, if everything is explained in the notebook (which I read some time ago) I will be content with a reference.
Thanks in advance of course.

I directed you to the third notebook. I explain everything there. Flip through until you reach entropy.

Well, I didn't know that this was a well-established scientific fact that everyone agrees on, I thought it was your assumption from the very obvious logic (to me too).

Thanks.
By the way, you wrote there that from a purely physical point of view, there can be low entropy in one place that is distributed by high entropy in another place, so that the total entropy in the closed system will be preserved or increased.
Although the reason we don't say this is philosophically, because it is not possible for a complex creation to simply be created in one place without a deliberate cause.
Although if you have arrived at this axiom, then you have essentially solved the entire question of the third author.

Do you mean to say that philosophically it is not possible for entropy not to be distributed evenly in the system?

No. Entropy can be dispersed in different forms (depending on whether we are in equilibrium). But there is still a limit to the chance of very complex and stable creatures forming in one place.

Good morning,
Thank you for all the answers and the time you dedicate to this. I didn't really understand:

1. What does the law of entropy actually give us, what added value does it add to the discussion and physico-theological proof. If in the end it can be said that disorder in one place in a system compensates for order in another place? Or is this physical state also a probabilistic rarity and therefore difficult to claim this way.

2. If everything again rests on the simple philosophical axiom that it is impossible for a complex creation to be created without a deliberate factor (although the entropy in the system will be preserved). Then I don't understand what the difference is between this proof and what you wrote (in the introduction to the notebooks, I think) that one of the ways to reach belief in God is to simply say that it is an axiom that does not require proof, that is, “immediate recognition of the fact that there is a God. As if I see him (not with my eyes but with my mind). Like the axiom that what I see in front of me does exist there. I have no real basis for this, but it is clear to me that it is true because I see it.

Here too I have an axiom according to which I understand that there is a Creator of the world?

Why don't you ask via the website? I'm not comfortable with email.

This is not a question of probability but of plausibility. Even in diffuse entropy, it is unlikely that there will be regions with such low entropy. Beyond that, the claim that there is compensation around has of course not been examined in its entirety. This is a proposal to reconcile the formation of life with the second law of thermodynamics.
Both here and here there is an axiom, but it is a different axiom. Every argument is based on axioms. In your opinion, there is no difference between any argument and another because they are all based on axioms? Or did you expect an argument that is not based on axioms?