In short: Yes. But the closed system is not singular (and need not be singular).
First things first: the origin for matter. In the prior state of energy (no further details provided yet), the idea is that an inward motion occurred that led to the end of the prior state.
I don't think there was a tremendous increase in heat during the inward motion, but will accept moderate increases of heat. I claim that prior energy was all of the same make and there was therefore a very large area in the center of inward motion in which that energy simply got stuck. Under pressure, but not breaking apart or melding into something new. That limits the temperature expression.
As you can see, I am already considering certain properties for energy: collective properties that can nevertheless have individuated qualities/strengths. I am doing my best to keep it as vague as possible.
Not the center, but a specific region very far away from the center experienced shifting of pressure at the break-even point. Inward motion continued from an extremely large area, but with energy stuck in the center and growing in size, the overall inward push would find that specific moment where it could not add an additional layer of stuck energy to the center. It would then start to wobble in that spot, or better: establish side-way motions. Two actions occurred therefore in that specific region, where the overall action was rather singular (but collective).
Matter is then from that specific region only, it having been pushed to incorporate two actions.
Okay, that was the introduction.
From a state in which two actions take place, one should expect a good level of complexity. Yet in that complexity, one should also expect to find a balancing outcome that ends up ruling overall (while in specifics the conditions can remain chaotic in parts).
Said differently, if I multiply 2 times 2 then I can recognize 4 as the balancing outcome, but I would have to recognize 3 as the part that represents the part that will not balance nicely, but will have tipping properties. Declared differently: one can find a different answer in specific locations than at the overall level.
One of the problems is that we are not dealing with the original, but with two outcomes of that original state: matter plus the remnant of original energy. While this means that disorder is found at that largest of levels, we can also declare that largest of levels as conceptual only. Our brain can do that, establish a highest level that is an abstract only and that can be true nevertheless. That means again that 4 and 3 can both be the outcome in reality, while 4 is then nevertheless the overall (abstract) outcome.
I need to back up and declare that separation is the fundamental part that had to occur at the end of the prior state of the universe, and separation is therefore the first action in our material universe as well.
From this, there is then no overall universal level (other than the abstract we call the universe). At the universal level divergence is the natural mode. However, in specifics, we find that all matter likes to hang out with matter and will do so where possible.
The universe is therefore not a singular reality, but is based on specifically established separate realities. The largest of them simply the largest galaxy in the universe (whichever that is).
Within each reality (read: galaxy and its environment in which remnants of original energy is also present), we can find quite the complexity. Yet the complexity will not be greater than what that galaxy ('island of energy') can support.
Before I say anything else, Graham, I'd appreciate your feedback, your views on things and perhaps the essence of how you read the second law of thermodynamics -- what you find most important about it.
