So what’s the question? I’ve already seen the video. It’s an excellent channel. But what’s the point?

As a general opener, I would stress that that entropy only makes sense in an already closed and isolated Cosmos. Conservation doesn't apply otherwise.

So the big question is not where the initial low entropy state of the Big Bang came from, it is how the closure to produce some definite state of entropy could have been achieved.

In that view, time gets born with that same closure. So there is no backward time direction or mirror universes.

Peircean semiosis helps here. It adds the further intellectual resource of a logic of vagueness. That makes all the difference to all our metaphysics. It grounds the dialectic in a pure Apeiron, Ungrund or Firstness of vague possibility. A state of being that is neither one thing, nor another. So it is neither open nor closed in the entropic sense. That is the opposition which must arise as its effective structure.

In physics, they would call this vagueness the sub-Plankian quantum foam. The Wheeler-de Witt equation would give the sum-over-histories view of the spacetime dissipative structure that would have to arise from its naked possibilities in a Princple of Least Action way.

This is the cosmology of loop quantum gravity, causal sets, etc.

So there is a lot of popular science that is based on entropy theory as it was many years ago. But you only have half the story if you do the usual thing of only counting a system’s degrees of freedoms and haven’t got a theory of how the constraints that closed this system came about themselves.

Dissipative structure theory follows on from Prigogine’s far from equilibrium dynamics. What was once treated as something thermodynamically exceptional - self-organising entropic structure - is now being recognised as in fact the more generic case. Openness must come before the closure that is the familiar “entropy equals a blind run down to disorder” metaphysics.

So in short, any popular account of entropy in a cosmological setting will have been the outdated pre-Prigogine version. And it is still fringe to apply the new understanding outside biological and complexity science circles. Although you have had folk like Layzer talking about this for some time. And it is implicitly the metaphysics of many current quantum gravity approaches.

You said existence is a dissipative structure. There's a particular POV where this is true: looking at the universe from our side of the Big Bang. Closer to home, entropy actually fluctuates.

The problem with relying on the larger scale narrative is that we don't know what happens on the other side of the Big Bang. Time might be going backwards there.

So you're favoring one particular perspective drawn from physics, not from your own living experience.

Are we in agreement so far?

The problem with relying on the larger scale narrative is that we don't know what happens on the other side of the Big Bang. Time might be going backwards there. — Tate

Believe what you like. I'll get on with my study of the subject. Not all narratives are equal. But you need to have done the work to properly compare them.

So you're favoring one particular perspective drawn from physics, not from your own living experience. — Tate

I speak from the systems science point of view that unifies all forms of emergent structure, from universes to societies. Physics is part of that empire of thought.

If your understanding of entropy has got as far as the ergodic principle, then hey I remember the hot excitement of first hearing about that some 45 years ago. But treat it like one of Zeno's paradoxes. A line in the sand for where the real thinking has to start.

Believe what you like. I'll get on with my study of the subject. Not all narratives are equal. But you need to have done the work to properly compare them. — apokrisis

Seems pretty straightforward actually. Time only has an arrow relative to an entropy minimum like the big bang. There's really no warrant for "existence is a dissipative structure."

It is always possible to say "no" without understanding. It is quite tough to say "no" and also provide your workings-out.

Check out some actual cosmology, like Charlie Lineweaver or Tamara Davis, and how they view the entropy story of the Big Bang.

The expansion of the universe may redshift its radiation contents, but it also adds to the quantity of dark energy stored in its spatial fabric. The creation and destruction of entropy - measured appropriately - comes out to be fortunately about exactly equal. And therefore the universe exists. Or persists. It has the remarkable thing of a critical balance.

At the end of time, our visible universe will arrive at the de Sitter condition of being empty of all content and stuck at the limit of its expansion. All that will remain will be the "holographic sizzle" of the black body radiation of the cosmic event horizon itself – photons with wavelengths of 36 billion lightyears and a temperature of 10^-30 degrees K.

See for example this paper on their dissipative structure approach.