das,
you know life abuses entropy and can even perform it via math, but are too adherant to exceed your beliefs.
When it comes to physics (including thermodynamics), I'm a pragmatist. I don't believe that any current theory necessarily describes what is "really happening" at the subatomic level, and I'm not even sure that "really happening" is a meaningful concept in that context. For me (and for many others), Theory B is better than Theory A only if:
1) Theory B makes more accurate predictions than Theory A, or
2) Theory B makes predictions with the same accuracy as Theory A, but uses simpler math, or
3) Theory B makes predictions with the same accuracy as Theory A, but is more broadly applicable.
Take QM, for example. I don't like it. It's messy, counterintuitive, has ugly math (yeah, yeah, "ugly" is subjective), etc. However, QM makes lots of very detailed predictions, and experiments have validated those predictions to breathtaking accuracy. Thus, like it or not, I have to concede that QM is the way that things seem to work, until somebody comes up with a better theory. And per the above requirements for "better," QM has set the bar pretty high and I don't expect to ever see a "better" theory.
It's similar for relativity. Counterintuitive, some of the math is messy, really depressing implications. But smart people use relativity to make predictions, and those predictions have been borne out by experiments, so . . . I'm kinda stuck with relativity, too.
Conventional physics gives us a lot of accurate, useful predictions.
So here you are, with your theory of what's "really happening" (em upon mass, whatever) at the subatomic level. But I don't much care for the whole "really happening" thing, I just care about theories that give me accurate, useful predictions. Your theory doesn't seem to give any predictions at all.
If you want me to take it seriously, you'll have to show how it meets at least one of the three criteria above. Frankly, I don't think they're unreasonable criteria.
(for the benefit of anyone else who might be reading this, I know I wasn't really consistent in my use of the word "theory.")