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: Prigogine just got bit by the dialectic bug, with no supporting evidence. Entropy is a consequence of "continuous interaction" among moving particles. Prigogine just turns that on its head, without reference to some other, unique, "antithesis" form of interaction that produces order. Like other philosophers of science, he "anthropomorphizes" nature to conform with what he perceives as happening in humans. Sure, humans have to interact with their environment, or they die, and "dissipate". But, most material objects "dissipate" *as a consequence* of their interaction with their environment, not the inverse. I agree with your conclusion regarding his "silly producers of order".
TSW: "An environmentally focused viewpoint would permit the development of a complementary principle, a law about ideal nonisolation."
BW: You can't establish a principle or formulate a law without real, concrete evidence of an interaction that produces it. I don't see that here.
TSW: "... describes the reality existing between ideal isolation and ideal nonisolation."
BW: You said earlier that there can be no such thing as "ideal isolation". I agree. So, I'm a little surprised to see you proposing the existence of an opposite "ideal nonisolation" ... and then suggesting something in between those exists in nature. I know, it fits the Hegelian "thesis > antithesis > synthesis" paradigm, but nature doesn't need to negotiate with anyone, nor understand what it is doing.
BW: Except, that's not an answer to entropy, which has no problem with particles bouncing apart and going wherever they please. Somewhere, they will bump into another particle and bounce off in a different direction. It will still be entropic action.
TSW: "In an infinite universe, an increase in entropy in one place results in a simultaneous and equivalent decrease in entropy in another."
BW: There's no harm in surmising that some particles, an infinity away, will someday bounce off local particles. Some particles depart, some arrive, but they all bounce. Absent some observable convergent force, you can't have disentropy ... just alien particles doing the same thing as local particles.
TSW: "The possibility of nearly ideal isolation derives from the possibility of divergence; the possibility of nearly ideal nonisolation derives from the possibility of convergence."
BW: This is a rather disoriented. Divergence only occurs until the objects in isolation reach equilibrium. If they are NOT isolated, entropy just keeps bouncing them toward maximum separation, without constraint. So, entropic divergence doesn't require isolation: nature couldn't care less. IF there is such a thing as a "convergent force", it should work in every case, not merely in isolation or non-isolation. There's no evidence or logic to justify a correlation in the form: isolation = divergence or nonisolation = convergence ... infinite or otherwise.
TSW: "The only requirement is for there to be an environment for the parts of a system to move into or to transfer motion to. An infinite universe in which matter and the motion of matter is not everywhere the same is sufficient."
BW: Then, a finite universe, [in which matter and the motion of matter is not everywhere the same] is ALSO sufficient. There's nothing in the nature of an infinite universe that changes the characteristics of entropy.
TSW: "We will continue to study ...
BW: ... until you find a "convergent force" or rational explanation for "negentropy". You haven't found it yet.
TSW: "The acceptance of complementarity for the Second Law of Thermodynamics requires an acceptance of the other assumptions of science."
BW: I don't think there's any logical coherence, nor "Consupponibility", with the other principles. All you've done is elevate the dialectic learning process to the status of a Law of Nature. It doesn't work.
Does that mean that I reject the idea that "All bodies are subject to divergence [from] and convergence [with] other bodies."? Not at all. Both processes obviously exist in nature. What's missing is the identification of some natural physical process that produces convergence. I think the "existential bonding" of my theory is the answer, but it isn't the topic for discussion.