Counter-arguments run along the lines of Entropy is the idea that all objects have a certain level of complexity. The concept of entropy was invented to express the idea that things will always get more complicated, more random. So far, in all of our scientific observations we have found that this concept has been supported. In chemistry chemicals mix and match and combine to form more complex form of matter. In biology, evlution appears to favour the more complex with complex thoughts i.e.: us, quite literally taking over the world and destroying, bit by bit any opposition from any of the simpler species. In psychology, the more adatablely intelligent or complex the mind the greatr the success of the species in a given environment. Low entropy or complexity to high entropy seems to rule supreme.
On the ultimate level, the very universe we starte with hydrogen atoms in a fixed small finely compacted ball-like or string-like (as later theoies are now suggesting) to the immensely complicated myriad of planets, stars nebulae, black holesand other otherworldly manifestations. Questions remain to be asked though, 'why is there this trend towards increasing complexity, 'why did higher levels of entropy lead to the appearance of life'. 'has there always been a trend toward rising entropy and is it constant' and perhaps most importantly 'will we ever definitively be able to answer any of these questions?' Unfortunately, it seems that the answer to the last question was, is and probably will forever be 'no'.
In this case, I am making the knowledge claim that low to high entropy is a valid concept. The issue here is, 'why'. Can we ever rationally know why entropy naturally leads from the low complexity to high complexity when all we have ever known is our own universe? Probably not. Recent developments suggest that every universe has its own set of 'constants' which define how the universe works – for example, in our universe thus far, one plus one has always equalled two. In another universe this may not be the case. Similarly, in other universes perhaps there was originally high entropy and the universe has lead to an ever increasing trend towards lower entropy. The idea of entropy seems universal across all disciplines but it must be realised that there are various levels of purity in disciplines. For arguments sake, let us propose a classification.
First there is logic, then there is mathmatics, then physics, chemisty, biology, psychology and finally sociology. Firstly we have the most pure description of nature, that is logic. We can assume this as it describes the very essence of reality. Then comes the description of logic in practice, in mathmatics – the study of numbers. After that we have the first few sciences, physics being the most pure as it is based upon a mathmatical description of our universe. Then comes chemistry which defines the individual interactions of every molecule. After that we have biology: the study of life and the sum total of all chemical interactions.
Last but not least, or at any rate not least if you value relativism (the studies of psychology and sociology are particularly criticised for not having an empirical basis and thus not properly describing reality and thus not describing absolute truths but truths that are only relative to the study of life as we know it) are the studies of psychology and sociology. These two studies are the least pure sociology being even less pure as it describes the mass interactions individuals' behaviour, psychology being the study of separate individual's behaviour.
Of course this is not wholelly comprehensive however it is intended only as a purely illustrative demonstration of the fact that different disciplines are really only descriptions of reality at different levels and thus if we assume that there is one uniting principle at the heart of all processes in the universe then in a strange fractal kind of way we should have one law which governs every single interaction of the universe: this partially describes chaos theory and Stephen Wolfram's 'A New Kind of Science'. What if that sole guiding principle was entropy: if we could break down the elements of how entropy works by applying logic to our universe the most pure and thus least biased unempirical way of knowing because logic describes truth.
Logic is flawed in only one sense that being that it is limited by the information that we can input into it and we cannot know every individual molecules interaction as to do so would require a computer (no human would be capable of or probably willing to handle such volumes of data) whereby there would be a logic processor for every single molecule which would require a computer the size of the universe or more as a logic procesor requires at the very minimum one particle (even the world's most powerful supercomputers cannot model the interactions of the molecules in a cup of hot choclate) and by that fact that we are the ones using logic and we can never be completely logical/rational/empirical. Can I say then, that we are looking at a new era of rationalism based on this concept that could affect our perception of what knowledge is?
I am limited though in my thinking in that I am assuming that the universe is rational and can be logically defined which may not be the case although our preliminary scientific investigations suggest that this is the case: returning to my original example namely one plus one equals two, so far one plus one has always equalled two based on our logic and our empirical investigations that we can assume that entropy will always remain flowing from low to high: an event would have to take place outside of the universe to change this and such a cataclysmic event would probably destroy the universe anyway as if it were not to then we would have probably found through our investigations a change in the direction of entropy: using the example of a cup of hot choclate, the hot choclate does not separate out into choclate powder and milk before decomposing into the individual elements it was composed of. I propose that this concept of entropy is the same as the concept of time.
If I were to ask you to define time, you would most likely say that it was simple before realising that it was in fact an incredibly difficult question to answer. This suggests that it is somthing that is so fundamental that we hardly realise its existence and find it extremely difficult to quantify. The Oxford dictionary defines time to be all the years past, present and future. According to standard scientific definitions, it is defined by the rate of a calibrated standard interaction between particles; this starts to make sense when we think that quartz watches are made up of a crystal that emits an electric implus at an incredibly steady rate when a current is applied to it if this interaction were to take place faster, it would indicate a speedier progression of time.
This suggests that time can be stopped by causing all interactions between particles to cease which happens when particles reach the temperature of absolute zero, the coldest possible temperature which is currently theoretically impossible due to the second law of thermodynamics, it also suggests that to reverse time would simply require the reversal of each individual molecules actions: in other words a reversal of entropy.
I am limited in my thinking though in assuming that there is such a thing as time; some physicists suggest that time is an illusion although a number of theories of the universe including Einstein's theory of relativity assume the existence of time suggesting that time is neccesary to describe the universe even if it is both a dimensionless (scalar) illusory value (much like density). Einstein's theory of relativity and empirical observations have suggested that the progression of time can change although not run backwards except at a quantum level suggesting that entropy may also be able to change.
As to whether or not it will be possible to say why there is a trend towards increasing complexity that question remains unanswered and no-one has suggested a possible answer, yet, maybe it's is simply a property of the universe and maybe our universe it just one of many although it would seem that this is not only nigh on impossible to test but also something that would destroy our current understanding of all empiricism as science would be different if there were a different set of constants for particles and I have already proved that every study is interelated in a fractal manner.
I may be biased in that I have read a lot about theories relating to general unification and so I may have unrealistically portrayed our perception of the essence of the universe as being fundamentally describable by one unifying principle and may have been too hasty in my attempts to find patterns which are only co-incidence or don't really exist. Counter-arguments denying the existence of entropy tend to bely the face of rationality as empirical studies have all supported the existence of an entropy gradient to and usually run along the lines of religious beliefs and other emotional appeals that defy logic, again a different debate altogther.