Thermodynamics Is Not the Ultimate Framework for Reality: A Critical Response

Drew M. Dalton’s essay, Reality is evil, argues that thermodynamics—especially the principle of entropy—ought to be treated as the fundamental structure shaping all metaphysical, ethical, and even aesthetic thought. While the call for philosophy to engage scientific insights is commendable, elevating entropy to a universal explanatory principle is premature and reductive. Below, six reasons why thermodynamics cannot bear the metaphysical weight Dalton assigns to it.

 
1. Humility Before the Mystery of Life

Thermodynamics provides an indispensable statistical framework for energy transformations, yet it falls short of explaining the essence of life. Biochemistry, often invoked to support claims about life’s origin, remains largely descriptive and grounded in probabilistic patterns rather than deeply tested theoretical constructs like those in fundamental physics. Despite decades of research, humanity has not succeeded in creating life from non-life, even under controlled laboratory conditions. This inability underscores a critical gap in our understanding. Declaring thermodynamic principles as the ultimate explanation of life overstates our current knowledge and ignores the profound mystery that life continues to pose.

 
2. The Limits of Entropy as a Metaphysical Principle

Entropy has a precise and technical definition: it is the logarithm of the phase space volume consistent with a given energy level. Its increase signifies an expansion of possible configurations in a system. While this is a powerful statistical insight, it does not justify attaching human values such as order, beauty, or morality to entropy. These are constructs of human cognition and culture, not intrinsic features of physical systems. Interpreting entropy in ethical or aesthetic terms risks conflating scientific concepts with philosophical projections, thereby stretching a mathematical principle into a metaphysical doctrine without sufficient justification.

 
3. The Question of Closed Systems and Cosmic Scale

The second law of thermodynamics applies rigorously to closed systems, but whether the universe as a whole constitutes a closed system remains an open question. Recent cosmological observations indicate that the universe is flat and possibly infinite. If this is true, the presumption of a finite, entropically doomed cosmos becomes questionable. An infinite universe complicates narratives about a singular “heat death” and introduces scenarios where entropy does not dominate in the deterministic manner Dalton suggests. Philosophical conclusions drawn from assumptions about closure and finitude must therefore remain provisional.

 
4. The Problem of the Low-Entropy Beginning

One of the most profound unsolved questions in cosmology concerns why the universe began in an extraordinarily low-entropy state. Current physics offers no definitive explanation, and cyclic or bouncing cosmological models suggest that the “beginning” we observe may merely be a transition in an eternal process of cosmic regeneration. If universes can emerge from prior universes, entropy may be periodically reset or reconfigured, undercutting any claim that entropic decline is the final destiny of reality. Until these questions are resolved, metaphysical systems built exclusively on thermodynamic principles rest on uncertain ground.

 
5. Alternative Metaphysical Visions: The Indo-Iranic Perspective

Thermodynamics is not the only framework for understanding existence. Indo-Iranic traditions offer an alternative metaphysical vision grounded in Arta (or Rta)—a concept signifying the ultimate cosmic and ethical order that underlies both matter and mind. This view departs radically from the reductionism implicit in thermodynamic metaphysics. Philosophers such as Mulla Sadra advanced a dynamic ontology in which the unity of Being, the non-local and non-dual, continuously manifests in graded forms of existence, moment by moment. Here, reality is fundamentally creative and purposive rather than passively succumbing to entropic decay. Unity-in-diversity, a cornerstone of these traditions, portrays the cosmos as an evolving whole infused with meaning—a vision that thermodynamics alone cannot capture.

6. J. S. Mill and the Naturalness of Art and Intelligence

Dalton also claims that human efforts, such as medicine, “do not work in concert with nature.” J. S. Mill offers a counterpoint that reframes our understanding of what is “natural”:

“…in the sense of the word ‘nature’ which has just been defined, and which is the true scientific sense, Art is as much Nature as anything else; and everything which is artificial is natural—Art has no independent powers of its own: Art is but the employment of the powers of Nature for an end.”

This observation challenges the artificial/natural dichotomy. By Mill’s logic, human inventions—including medicine, technology, and even artificial intelligence—are not opposed to nature, but are expressions of it. This critique exposes even the misleading term “Artificial Intelligence”: all intelligence is fundamentally natural, an unfolding of existing powers and capacities. Philosophical frameworks should recognize this continuum rather than creating artificial separations.

Conclusion: The Case for Philosophical Humility

Dalton’s essay rightly emphasizes the need for philosophy to take scientific insights seriously. However, to enthrone entropy as the ultimate metaphysical principle risks substituting one dogma for another. Our ignorance about life’s origin, the open nature of the cosmos, and the mystery of the low-entropy beginning all counsel caution. Moreover, rich alternative traditions—such as the Indo-Iranic philosophy of dynamic Being—offer conceptual resources for thinking beyond the confines of thermodynamics. A comprehensive metaphysics must integrate scientific knowledge without reducing the fullness of reality to statistical mechanics.