Question

I recently finished the chapter dealing with the physico-theological argument in your book The First Existent.
One of the things that bothered me was the use of the second law of thermodynamics as a criterion for the uniqueness of our world.
Seemingly, as I understand it, there is a much stronger criterion—we believe that there is a correlation between our human reason and what takes place in the world, and that is what is unique about it. The use of the second law is a consequence of that assumption, and in fact that assumption grounds the claim that there are laws of nature at all.
Is there an essential reason why you did not define the uniqueness of our world in that way?