An observance to the law and a reason life changes the perspective. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT) is the basis of the idea of randomness or the equilibrium to chaos and this falls all the way into the ‘uncertainty principle,’ and even chemistry. This law is really a tough cookie and deeply intertwined within the accepted systems of logic. For example that law is about as well rooted as ‘creation’ is to certain theological interpretations. A tough cookie to bite into but you can herein take a peak for yourself. Here are 2 approaches to share the basic sense of the principle; 1. Heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold object to a hot object 2. Any system which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with time. This disorder can be expressed in terms of the quantity called entropy. The idea is that if a rock is hot it will get cold and that is how simple the sense is. Or what goes up must come down, again note the simplicity. Yet to observe living structures there are many examples of that ‘law’ appears to be broken. Life shares itself to continue beyond the confines of basic structures such as that rock. The first argument that can pretty much hold its own is to see that a rock is not quite what we consider a living thing. Another argument could be that a living structure will usually move to find warmth before getting too cold. And then finally the argument, ‘well eventually that life will die.’ That makes sense too but what if a life reproduces? What if it gives of its energy to support a complex living organism? Meaning its action actually supports a combined living institution of life that collectively is a unit life. Or if that life was to reproduce, than in a real physical sense that life is contributing mass and energy to continue its life and lineage; in a real sense, it is still alive. Such that if any branch of life was so bound to the laws, then how could evolution occur? We have all heard of the idea that life evolved from a little itty bitty single celled critter to an animal style living form. Well that would mean since the beginning of its evolutionary life, ‘it’ didn’t die or at least that life upon that mass, could not have died completely. The ‘life’ itself could not have died or that chain of life would be extinct. The use of this logic shares that the life of the mass must be the energy upon the mass. For example; when a mammal dies, same elemental structure sitting right there but the life of the mass is no longer there. So then to return back to that little one celled critter, it must reproduce to continue its existence, all the while consuming mass from its environment to make a sort of duplicate of themselves. They literally have to give up a portion of themselves to make the next generation. Well, so then a single celled egg or sperm is also a little itty bitty single celled life? And when that mass associates they combines to increase their total mass and energy for its life to grow and continue. With ‘life’ in mind, then look back at the 2LoT and then see if there is possibly a conflict involved. Meaning in chemistry often the idea is that the mass seeks its lowest construction and cools by law when in reality it seems life is usually doing the exact opposite. Rather than submitting to the environment but consumes and not only takes advantage and evolves within an environment, it appears often life will even change it. To observe this phenomenon see any city, see any beaver damn; mass changing its environment. Which to be of education comprehension it can be said: life abuses entropy. make sense?