Is Entropy really a measure of disorder?

 From wiki:

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time, and is constant if and only if all processes are reversible.

 Armed with this Boltzmann concluded that the universe would always inch towards increased entropy (assuming that it was not reversible which means assuming that time flows forward).

 So what is the end game?

Well one thing we know is that the 2nd Law itself does not change. The universe remains permanently and incredibly structured under the laws of physics.

Now if thermodynamics really was that profound wouldn't it effect the very structure of the universe? Why do the Laws remain constant?

We have SRH here. To form any construction e.g. the laws of thermodynamics we must establish a foundation which cannot then be effected by the construction. Whatever that foundation is that we built the laws of thermodynamics upon it remains outside the scope of the laws.

When we create a foundation we do it with the intention of giving our construction some "power." The problem however like the Little Mermaid is that to get that power we have struck a bargain with the devil. Nothing is free. The bargain is that this power cannot be used to change the foundation. If we want to change the foundations later then we cannot have a very powerful system. It is this that needs to be formalised into a general theory. However what we are looking for with SRH Theory is a powerful foundation for the reason why powerful foundations cannot change themselves. We would need to show that changing the foundations of any theory causes a contradiction, or requires an outside. No system has the explanatory power to understand its own foundations. Power must come from outside etc etc  

Anyway: There will always be an outside.

SRH was part inspired by this necessity for systems to have an outside, that the idea of a system being self contained is a contradiction.

SRH was the realisation that God is always present in human endevour no matter how much we wish to construct a rational world, it always depends upon assumtpions that are established outside the system.

In logic the Axioms are these mysterious starting points that in some views are considered "self evident" or more broadly just the smallest set of starting points that do not contradict and from which all other theorems are derivable from the rules. Needless to say the rules themselves cannot be derived from the axioms because how could you "derive" the process of derivation. This is pure SRH.

It means all human and machine endevours are self-limiting. The very foundations that we accept to get started, become the yoke around are necks that hold us back. The good thinker is very light footed and picks up and puts down rules as needed, and when the restrictions of that set of foundations becomes too limiting they put the tool back down. The good thinker therefore has no fixed foundation. There are, and can be no fixed foundations to good thinking because those very foundations would become the prison.

Now perhaps the logically minded might think that good-thinking requires exactly this prison to remove the possibility of bad thinking. But the prison becomes our thinking then, and as we have seen we would be unable to see the assumtions that underly the prison. And wasn't the idea of logic to determine in a transparent way what bad thinking was. Yet if we just have prison guards telling us what is good and bad thinking we are as blind as before. This was Hegel's critique of Kant, that his search for the foundations of Reason (which ended in a museum of transcendental conditions which were suppose to lend authenticity to Reason) were like an astronomer using his broken telescope to investigate itself. How would the astronomer know given that all he has is the one telescope. He wouldn;t know what a good or bad telescope was.

So we always end up at the same place, the start. We can build our construct and go some interesting places, but we always come home.