Entropy is In-tropy… seen in reverse

entropy was only invented to explain--and therefore only applies to--simple machines. But the universe is NOT a simple machine. Rather, it seems to be at least indefinitely complex beyond our observational horizons, and the laws of self-similarity would suggest that this depth of complexity is infinite. Therefore, entropy has a very minimal role in physical reality as a whole even though to the physics of man and his simple machines, entropy is King.

 
Sorce Theory (http://www.anpheon.org) shows how indeed entropy is only one side of a cycle of continuous (yet punctuated or quantized) energy transformations with, for example, heat ultimately leading to the attraction of fine dust particles, as opposed to being the end product of dispersion. This can be seen in a simple experiment using a cooled smoke-filled jar and a heat source, like a stove on high. The smoke will clearly "gravitate" toward the heat, tilting the surface between the settled smoke and the air in the sealed jar, and pulling the smoke toward the source. This effect can be seen from across the room, in fact. 

So a simple demonstration that anyone can do in their kitchen (not to mention the many demonstrations from Prigogine et al) shows that entropy does not rule the universe leading it down into a final dissolution or "heat death".  Rather, heat can function as the beginning of the cycle, acting as a local collective force, rather than merely as a global tendency for ultimate dispersion as seen in our simple machines.  Entropy is clearly not the final word.

For those who appreciate the dissolution of duality into a Taoist identity of interpenetrating opposites, here is one for the organic/machinic distinction.  The organic quality to the universe that the above seems to imply can also be seen in purely machinic terms, which seems ultimately to defy the orgnic/machinic distinction itself. For example, Deleuze says that our machines are not nearly mechanical enough.  They are not machines made out of machines made out of machines, etc, etc, etc, etc... the way we find them in nature.  Rather, in man's machines, very quickly the parts "break down" into bulk (undesigned/unevolved) materials generally composed of simple crystaline, haphazard and regular grids.

Our machines are made of parts, and "stuff," not of machines made of machines etc. .... In other words, the infinite holarchy (wholes (machines, systems) which are the parts of the next level ad infinitum, up and down) which is fundamental to universal "designs", gets truncated with the simple grids of our human-limited "bulk" materials and computational grids, etc. The universe doesn't run on parts that are not also wholes. It runs on holarchy, self-similarity and complexity.

Entropy is merely the incompatability between the simple machines of man and the infinitely complex machines of nature. Nature's infinite machines underly, and over-arch, man's bulk materials with their simple, random and static geometric grids of repeating units or parts. And nature's unceasing and dynamic complexity begins to emerge from within and without until its holarchy self-resonates throughout in the dissolution of the "artificial" which does not use nature's organizational, and machinic/organismic methods. In this way, nature's extropy (syntropy) is man's entropy. They are the two sides of the same coin. The dissolution is merely the destruction inherent in every act of creation. The artist must destroy the simple tube of paint to create his masterpiece of complexity, as the sculptor must destroy the block of marble and the composer must destroy the silence...

... the difference is, (to circumvent the transcendent (top-down) anthropic overtones) that "G-D" works from both the inside and the out...  and that creation, or intelligent evolution, is the entropy=in-tropy identity of opposites.  We merely have to decide which pole or polarity with which we wish to align: in/out or both/neither.