Yes, there is just a simple syntactical reason. Your sentence means: “If anything is in harmony, then it is ‘anentropic’”. Thus being in harmony is being “anentropic”.
Emmm… no.
“Harmony” is not the same as “harmony both within itself as well as surrounding itself”.
Those are two different categories.
“Harmony” is the archetype category for all forms of harmony.
“Harmony both within itself as well as surrounding itself” is one particular subset/type/subcategory, of harmony within the category, “harmony” … and the only one that is anentropic.
You mean your sentences do not have any syntactical structure? 
What “structure” did you want it to have that wasn’t there? 
Perhaps;
“Anything that is in harmony both within itself as well as surrounding itself cannot perish (by definition)”
“Anything that is in a harmony that is both a harmony within itself as well as in harmony with whatever is surrounding itself, cannot perish (by definition)”
I did not want a syntactical structure because a syntactical structure is given anyway, unless it is invalid, false.
Please tell me then what the exact definitions of “harmony” and “anentropy” are according to RM:AO.
Harmony == motion with a limitation on the degree of disruptive conflict.
Anentropy == the balance between entropy and anti-entropy, zero (or near zero) disruptive conflict.
Anentropy does not require internal harmony. But eternal internal harmony requires anentropy.
Don’t you think that if to consider Universe space not 3D but 4D this paradox could be understood?
Do you completely agree with the mainstraem-physicist when it comes to interpret the “entropy”?
“Entropy” has multiple meanings. More technically, it refers to;
It’s an issue of further interpretation of the other words; “evolve”, “disorder”, “isolated”, “never”, “state”.
Another common use of the word “entropy” is “the forces that bring disorder”. Many “isolated” systems can decrease their entropy to a stable state, so the second law depends upon at what point one begins the measure. And then “state” of which parts or elements? Although a particle is a stable entity, it is never “isolated”. There are just too many vague concerns involved to commit to a “complete agreement”.
If a particle is not isolated (closed), although it is a stable entity, then tell me what “isolated” means according to RM:AO. Is there anything at all that can be isolated according to RM:AO?
At the time they came up with the laws of thermodynamics, they had no idea that space itself is filled with energy, actually made of energy. They didn’t know that atoms and particles were made of turbulent energy being exchanged with that space. They had no way to know that it is a physical impossibility to truly isolate an atom from the energy all around it (other than thinking more than they did), and thus neither could any object be isolated from such energy exchange. But now in physics, even common physics, they are aware that there is nothing that anyone could do to truly isolate a molecular system from energy exchanges. RM:AO explains exactly why that is so.
I think that I had mentioned that back in 1972, I designed a molecular level device with no mechanical parts that directly broke the second law of thermodynamics by perpetually converting the chaos of heat energy in a molecularity closed system into more orderly gas flow that could be used to create mechanical motion or electric current flow. Other than the converted output, the entire system was a “thermodynamic system” that allowed its internal gases to both increase and decrease their level of entropy. The system could provide either an eternal constant flow of gas from a prior stagnate gas chamber or a regular pressure buildup and release.
The energy that drove the system was simply being absorbed from the ambient environment and sent back out into it. Other than by totally freezing the gas, that system could not be isolated. But even a single atom represents a “system” of perpetual motion and that can never be isolated from the energy of its environment, no matter how “cold” is gets. Isolation from energy flow is impossible.
So something can be isolated from mechanical or molecular interference, but never from energy exchange. No nation actually needs to purchase energy from any other except in the form they want it to be stored in. And with today’s technology, they can change any form into any other on their own.
The following is a small crude anime to display “empty space”, from which nothing can be isolated.
The program generating that wasn’t nearly complete so it is crude and you have to forgive the extra accumulation around the borders. There was a mysterious programming glitch causing that effect, having nothing to do with the emulation of portions of EMR, “Afflates” = ultra-small “charged, virtual-photons”: blue = relative positive, yellow = relative negative, both relative to the total average (coincidentally showing as green).
That is a pic of an area of space perhaps 1000 times small than a single proton presuming that one could actually see EMR in color and at the level. It uses 8000 small afflates, which isn’t anywhere near enough for a good approximation. Anything less than 50,000 at that level isn’t very accurate even when the programming is complete. The pic is merely to relay the general idea of the random affectance in even the smallest bits of space.
And although it might look like the afflates are swirling about, they are actually traveling linearly through a 3D cube of more of themselves, “space”. And I placed a large “stationary positive afflate” in the center just for future reference.
And a “mass particle” forms automatically when that field of afflates gets too dense. The afflates aggregate into a “charged particle” that is constantly exchanging its afflates with the surrounding region yet remaining a stable aggregation, “clump”/“cluster”/“traffic jam”.
1.) Why should it not be possible that energy and matter are isolated from each other? I know that according to RM:AO it is impossible because “existence is that which has affect”.
2.) If it is right that “it is a physical impossibility to truly isolate an atom from the energy all around it (other than thinking more than they did), and thus neither could any object be isolated from such energy exchange”, is it then also not possible to Isolate anything at all according to RM:AO? Are you isolated from me?
Are you sure that that really was a “closed system”?
Yes, but again: If it is right that “it is a physical impossibility to truly isolate an atom from the energy all around it (other than thinking more than they did), and thus neither could any object be isolated from such energy exchange”, then there is only one system possible (which is either an open or a closed one), thus an isolated closed system (isolated from that only one system) is not possible.
But “mechanical or molecular interference” is also energy.
Is that to see in the picture?
Is what “to see”? The mass particle? No.
That is just a crude example display of “empty space”.
But the space is not empty!
That is why.
Both energy and mass are affects. They are merely different degrees of the same thing. Although even in physics, there is “potential energy” and also “actualized energy” (kinetic, radiant). In RM:AO those are PtA and Affectance (“actualized energy”). What they call “mass” is merely a cluster of radiant energy giving the appearance of not radiating because the cluster as a whole is not radiating, although it might be moving (forming “momentum”) - “energy in a clump”.
Physical things are only isolated through time and any dispersal that might take place as they propagate to each other. If we do not move from where we are, the constant stream of energy leaving from each of us, in some minuscule way reaches each other. All physical things have less than absolute zero affect upon all other physical things, but only through time.
It is “closed” in the way that they meant it. My point was that radiant heat energy, especially on an ultra small sub-particle scale, cannot be blocked. They weren’t looking any further down than molecular vibrations, which can be isolated merely by a vacuum of particles. Later they realized that radiant heat energy had to be blocked too, through reflection or absorption. But me, looking on an even much smaller scale than that, I know that there is nothing at all that can block “sub-particle radiation” or “afflates”. It doesn’t really reflect (reflecting “surfaces” could not be made on that scale. Surfaces don’t exist on that scale) and any absorption is temporary. It is the lowest, smallest form of energy and occupies all space regardless of what is in that space. Everything is made of it, so there is no escape from it. And it doesn’t stick around, but propagates always, merely getting delayed more or less which is what gives form to particles and objects.
And again, it was only “closed” in the way that they meant when they said “closed”. In reality, there is no such thing as “absolutely closed”.
It is a particular type/form of energy that can be prevented from moving too close. One can stop a baseball from getting to ones head, but one cannot stop affectance radiation from getting anywhere it happens to want to go.
I’m still not understanding what you are asking. There is no such thing as actual “empty space”. What we call “empty space” isn’t empty at all. That is what the anime was showing, “space” is a very busy place.
No wonder because I was asking nothing!
How “busy” is the space?
Well that anime shows how busy it is when there is “no-thing” in the space and near a large mass such as Earth.
But if there is a particle in that space (“some-thing”) and falling toward a black-hole, the following would represent how much of that same “noise/busy-ness” would be in that space:
But in that graph, the particle never reaches the black-hole. The “Ambient Density” is a rough measure of how close to the black-hole it is.
The simplicity of RM:AO is that EVERYTHING is simply different concentrations of Affectance and situated such that potentials for altering the amounts and locations of the concentrations arise.
You are saying that „physical reality has no such thing as a force“. What do you think about Newton’s “laws”?
[size=120]1) First law:[/size] When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force. The first law states that if the net force (the vector sum of all forces acting on an object) is zero, then the velocity of the object is constant. Velocity is a vector quantity which expresses both the object’s speed and the direction of its motion; therefore, the statement that the object’s velocity is constant is a statement that both its speed and the direction of its motion are constant. The first law can be stated mathematically as:
[size=120]2) Second law:[/size] F = ma. The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object. The second law states that the net force on an object is equal to the rate of change (that is, the derivative) of its linear momentum p in an inertial reference frame:
The second law can also be stated in terms of an object’s acceleration. Since Newton’s second law is only valid for constant-mass systems,[16][17][18] mass can be taken outside the differentiation operator by the constant factor rule in differentiation. Thus,
where F is the net force applied, m is the mass of the body, and a is the body’s acceleration. Thus, the net force applied to a body produces a proportional acceleration. In other words, if a body is accelerating, then there is a force on it.
[size=120]3) Third law:[/size] When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body. The third law states that all forces exist in pairs: if one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal and opposite: FA = −FB.