Oops, Im really sorry. I now see that you devoted an entire chapter to exactly this question!
(Apparently when I read it the first time I didnt get that far..)
Thank you very much, and sorry,
may you be sealed for good!

Okay, so I read it, and sorry for driving you crazy, but I didnt really understand what you wrote here:

"Moreover, in the second chapter we proposed a mathematical definition of complexity via 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 organism is very high, much more so than the complex entities produced in computerized dynamics of cellular automata. Therefore, even if we did not define a priori that we expect the formation of living beings, it is hard to argue that there is nothing special about them because this is an a posteriori definition. Their entropy is low, and that is a clear measure of complexity and order (or information)."

Here you used the clear assumption that their entropy is low, again without proving it in an orderly way, as you nicely proved there in chapter 3 that order = uniqueness, and the accumulation of gas in one place = uniqueness, unlike gas spread throughout the whole container, which is not unique because there are many possible permutations of that kind according to combinatorics.

Similarly, it seems that here too there is a need to prove the uniqueness of living creatures relative to the other states in order to prove that the entropy level is low, because that is exactly the question.

Thank you very much.

Unfortunately, I cant give courses in physics and biology here. If you want a proof, go study those fields. The fact that life has low entropy is an accepted scientific fact, without dispute.

If you could briefly explain how the measure (the quantity) of entropy is evaluated in order to prove this. Or rather, how one can measure complexity by a physical quantity when in the end all these measures are seemingly based on our intellectual understanding (the emptiness of the analytic, as I think you called it). And again the question returns: perhaps we are the ones interpreting this as complex?
I know youre very busy and I apologize for the time Im "taking" from you. So if everything is already explained in the booklet (which I read some time ago), Ill be satisfied with a reference.
Thanks in advance, of course.

I referred you to the third booklet. I explain everything there. Flip through until you get to entropy.

Okay, I didnt know this was an established scientific fact agreed upon by everyone; I thought it was your assumption based on very plausible reasoning (also in my view).

Thank you.
By the way, you wrote there that from a purely physical standpoint there can be low entropy in one place that is compensated for by high entropy somewhere else, so that the total entropy in the closed system is preserved or increases.
However, the reason we do not say this is philosophical, because it is impossible for a complex creation to simply come into being somewhere without a directing cause.
But if you arrived at this axiom, then in effect you solved the entire question of the third booklet that way.

Do you mean to say, in essence, that philosophically it is impossible for entropy not to spread evenly throughout the system?

No. Entropy can be distributed in different ways (depending on whether we are at equilibrium). But there is still a limit to the likelihood that very complex and stable entities will arise in one place.

Good morning,
Thank you for all the answers and the time you devote to this. I didnt really understand:

1. What exactly does the law of entropy give us? What added value did it contribute to the discussion and to the physico-theological proof? If in the end one can say that disorder in one place in the system compensates for order elsewhere? Or perhaps this physical state is also statistically rare, and therefore it is hard to make that claim.

2. If everything once again rests on the simple philosophical axiom that a complex creation cannot arise without a directing cause (even though the entropy of the system is preserved), then I dont understand the difference between this proof and what you wrote (in the introduction to the booklets, I think), that one of the ways to arrive at faith in God is simply to say that it is an axiom that requires no proof, namely, "an immediate awareness of the fact that there is a God. As if I see Him (not with the eyes but with the eyes of the intellect). Like the axiom that what I see in front of me really exists there. I have no real basis for this, but it is clear to me that it is true because I see."

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

Why arent you asking through the site? Email isnt convenient for me.

This is not a matter of probability but of plausibility. Even with distributed entropy, it is not plausible that there would be regions with such low entropy. Beyond that, the claim that there is compensation around it has of course not been examined on its own merits. It is a proposal meant to reconcile the emergence of life with the second law of thermodynamics.
Here too and here too there is an axiom, but it is a different axiom. Every argument is based on axioms. According to your approach, is there no difference between any one argument and another because they are all based on axioms? Or were you expecting an argument that is not based on axioms?