I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked TSW are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".
BW: Macrocosmic infinity *might* explain why composition (convergence/order) occurs as often as decomposition (divergence/disorder), but the evidence says otherwise. If our cosmos is expanding (fairly evident) ... even expanding at an accelerated rate ... then it has "somewhere else to go": it isn't isolated (nor confined by the existence of non-visible portions of the universe) and all matter in motion still has "a less dense space to fill" before it achieves maximum separation or a state of balance (equilibrium). On the evidence, entropy still rules. We could speculate that this is a temporary "imbalance" in one portion (our cosmos) of the universe, but there's no evidence supporting that proposition. So, the mere assumption of infinity doesn't solve the observed problem Whyte noted:
"... the tendency toward disorder has not been powerful enough to arrest the formation of the great inorganic hierarchy and the myriad organic ones."
Even if we ignore the evidence for "local cosmic entropy" (within our light cone), even if we posit an infinite universe that has always been in equilibrium, even if we suppose an eternal universe that has had forever to reach some kind of "steady state", we still have NOT identified the material causes for a disentropic effect.
For example, what in my simplistic definition of entropy needs to change, in order to eliminate the "bounce"? For a starter, the presumption is that the "objects" are homogenous atoms or molecules of gas. If they aren't, then some might combine in chemical reactions, producing a momentary disentropy. The same effect occurs if the objects are a mixture of opposite-charged particles. So, we're left with only a few forces that might counteract the "bounce" of entropy: gravity, the strong, and the weak atomic forces.
In Unimid Theory, the cause is an "existential bond" between fundamental particles, which causes them to compose themselves into fractal structures that exhibit emergent properties. They are only "entropic" under specific conditions, which I won't describe here.
TSW: "In reality, all systems are open systems; truly isolated or truly closed systems cannot exist."
BW: I agree, though I would have expected you to vociferously object to the distinction of Closed Systems, which presume motion without matter. Usually, it's phrased as an exchange of energy, which we know is actually matter in motion.
BW: Correct, but even in an Open System, the effects of extraneous environmental forces can be minimized to inconsequentiality for familiar particles and objects ... even if the universe is infinite and eternal.
TSW: "In itself, [Schrödinger's] idea of an ordering process that functions as the dialectical opposite of the disordering process is excellent. The term negentropy is likewise excellent."
BW: Schrödinger was characterizing it as a "bridge" between matter and life; a poor substitute for the evolution of life in nature. It was actually Léon Brillouin who coined the term "negentropy", but I prefer disentropy. I think "negentropy" hints at a unique "life force", rather than a natural effect. I won't repeat my distaste for the term "dialectics" in nature (though I just did). Whyte's natural "morphic force" derived from the "geometry of space" is even less attractive.
TSW: "... Einstein explained gravitation ..."
BW: He didn't "explain" gravity any more than Newton did. All he did was to construct a fanciful analogy to "fabrics" which was mistaken in a dozen different ways.