1. InTitroduction

le: Time Asymmetry striking observin Entropy Dynamics: Why Destruction Is Faster Than Creation

Author: iJohn nOnimisi Obidi

License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0

Abstract:

This article is that creation takes time, butexplores the asymmetry between the time required to increase versus decrease entropy, revealing that entropy-increasing processes such as destruction occurs rapidly. Building a house may take months; demolishing it takes hours. An aeroplane or a rocket may take months or years to build; but to destroy it may take only hours much faster than entropy-reducing processes like creation. Using both classical thermodynamics and the Theory of Entropicity (ToE), it explains how this asymmetry is a fundamental consequence of entropy acting as a real physical field. The article concludes that entropy governs the flow of time and constraints of structure across all systems—from the cosmos to consciousness.

1. Introduction

A ostr even split seconds in the event of a catastrophic crashiking observation in nature is that creation takes time, but destruction occurs rapidly. Building a house may take months; demolishing it takes hours. A star may take billions of years to form, but a supernova destroys it in seconds. This asymmetry invites a deeper question:

Does this mean that increasing entropy takes less time than reducing or eliminating it?

To address this, we examine both the classical thermodynamic account of entropy and the entropic field model proposed by the Theory of Entropicity (ToE).^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

2. Entropy in Classical Thermodynamics

2.1. Spontaneous Entropy Increase

In traditional thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of disorder or multiplicity of microstates. Physical systems naturally evolve from ordered (low entropy) states to disordered (high entropy) ones unless constrained. Entropy increases when systems evolve spontaneously toward disorder.

Examples:

• A shattered glass disperses energy rapidly.
• A gas expands into a vacuum without needing external input.
• Burning, melting, rusting — all are spontaneous entropy-increasing processes.

2.2. Slower Entropy Decrease

Conversely, entropy reduction is only possible when work is performed against natural tendencies. Systems must be actively cooled, compressed, or constrained. These actions are time-consuming and energetically expensive. Thus, Entropy decreases only through external work or imposed constraints.

Examples:

• Cooling steam back into water requires external refrigeration.
• Crystallization needs precise temperature and chemical controls.
• Biological organisms use vast metabolic energy to maintain order.

Thus, entropy increase is fast and natural; entropy reduction is slow and artificial.

So, in classical terms, entropy is [mostly] faster [and easier] to increase than to decrease.

3. The Theory of Entropicity (ToE): A Deeper Framework

The Theory of Entropicity (ToE), which gives us a deeper interpretation to all of the above classical models, rederedefines entropy as a real, dynamic field, not merely a statistical descriptor. Entropy in ToE is a constraint field that governs all interactions, motion, structure, and evolution.

3.1. Entropy as a Field

In ToE, entropy flows through space and time, shaping behavior. ToE teaches us that entropy is not just a statistical artifact but a real field—a dynamic agent driving physical processes:

• It has local gradients like other fields (e.g., electric, gravitational).
• It interacts with mass, energy, and information.
• It dictates the arrow of time and the rate of interaction via the No-Rush Theorem.

 Key Insight from ToE:

• “To create something” (a structure, pattern, or form) is a reduction of entropy relative to a background.
• “To destroy something” is a release of entropic constraints back to the field — increasing entropy.

3.2. Entropic Field and Temporal Cost

Thus, to increase entropy takes less time than to reduce or eliminate it, both:

• Empirically, in observed physical systems, and 

• Theoretically, under the ToE, where entropy is the natural gradient of the universe, and resisting it requires time-bound, energy-limited action.

Entropy increase is passively allowed and supported by the field of ToE.

Entropy decrease requires active resistance to the field, which is time-delayed due to the No-Rush Theorem — which emphasizes that every interaction takes minimum finite time.

The No-Rush^[6] Theorem, central to ToE, states that no interaction can occur instantaneously. All transformations, especially those that reduce entropy, are bound by minimum entropic interaction times, which introduce delays in achieving order.

4. Time Asymmetry: A Fundamental Law

Whether viewed through classical lenses or the ToE paradigm, the conclusion remains robust:

It takes less time to destroy (increase entropy) than to create (reduce entropy).

This asymmetry arises because:

• Destruction follows the entropy field’s natural gradient.
• Creation resists the field, requiring intentional delay and constraint.
• Destruction follows the entropy field’s natural gradient. Hence, creation of disorder (entropy increase) is often fast, spontaneous, and natural.
• Creation resists the field, requiring intentional delay and constraint. Therefore, creation of order (entropy decrease) is slow, requires energy input, control, and usually fine-tuning.

This principle thus reveals why:

• Civilizations collapse faster than they rise.
• Chaos is easier to reach than coherence.
• Evolutionary construction is slow, but extinction can be sudden.

5. Broader Implications

5.1. Physics

• CReivilizations collapse faster than they risenforces entropy as a time-structuring field.
• ChExplaos is easier to reach than coherenceins irreversibility without relying solely on probability.
• Evolutionary construction is slow, but extinction can be sudden.

5. Broader Implications

5.1. Physics

• Reinforces entropy as a time-structuring field.
• Explains irreversibility without relying solely on probability.

5.2. Cosmology

• Supports the idea that cosmic expansion is entropically driven.
• Offers a new explanation for asymmetries in the early universe.
• Supports the idea that cosmic expansion is entropically driven.
• Offers a new explanation for asymmetries in the early universe.
• Stars burn fast, but planetary formation takes millions of years.

5.3. Psychology and Information

• Describes how mental breakdown or loss of information can occur faster than learning or organization.
• Frames memory loss, trauma, or AI system failure as entropic collapses.

5.4. Philosophy

• Connects entropy flow with the metaphysics of time and becoming.
• Suggests that “God’s creative act” is slow not due to incompetence, but due to resistance to entropic gradients.
• Connects entropy flow with the metaphysics of time and becoming.
• Suggests that “God’s creative act” is slow not due to incompetence, but due to resistance to entropic gradients.
• It's easier for a civilization to collapse (entropy surge) than to build one (entropy suppression).
• It's easier for a mind to fall into chaos than to maintain structured reasoning.

6. Case Study: Air India (Flight AI 171) Tragic Crash and the Energy-Asymmetry of Entropic Events

6. Conclusion

The tragic crash of Air India’s Flight AI 171 aircraft [the Air India crash that occurred on 12 June 2025, killing 260 people (241 aboard and 19 on the ground) and injuring 68: The aircraft came down in Ahmedabad, India—impacting the hostel block of B. J. Medical College on the Civil Hospital campus, just outside Ahmedabad Airport. Of the 242 people aboard, only one passenger survived: 40-year-old British national Vishwash Kumar Ramesh]^[7] presents a ssymmetark real-world manifestation of the entropic asymmetryy between creation and ddestruction. Years of entropic constraint—in design, manufacture, testing, and the complex lives aboard the aircraft—were undone in seconds through an uncontrolled release of energy. This stark contrast exposes the hidden asymmetry between the energy required to build complex systems (physical, biological, etc.) and the energy unleashed when they fail.

Thi and creation is not merely anecdotal—it is event raises two questions:

• Did it take the same amount of energy to destroy the plane (and its rather unfortunate human occupants) as it did to build it?

• If the destruction happened in seconds, why did construction (and growth) take months or years?

The manswer lies in the structure and constraint of energy, on how creation and destruction fundamentally interact with thfestation of the entropy field:

• Creation involves a slow, ordered, entropically-resisted process requiring specialized design and sequential work. It is a stepwise process that actively resists entropy’s natural gradient. It requires precisely channeled energy, specialist labor, and sequential protocols.

• Destruction can occur from a sudden, unconstrained and unchecked alignment with the entropy field. It takes much less structured energy to destroy because it doesn’t resist entropy’s gradient—it rides it. It harnesses entropy’s downhill flow, demanding far less organizational overhead to unravel complex structures. 

From a ToE perspeictive, building the aircraft (and birthing and growth of the human passengers on board the aircraft) represents a continuous fight against the entropy field—every bolt tightened and calculation verified (same with the passengers on board the ill-fated aircraft) slows entropy’s advance. By contrast, the crash aligns perfectly with entropy’s drive toward disorder, allowing collapse to “ride” that gradient and unfold rapidly.

• Creation resists the entropy field and requires time.

• Destruction aligns with the entropy field and happens rapidly.

This illustrafield that governs all transformations in tes why energy magnitude is not equivalent to energy organization. It is not just how much energy is involved, but how it is applied, constrained, and ordered that determines whether it leads to construction or collapse.

This case undere universe. Both classicalines that energy magnitude alone doesn’t determine outcome—organization and constraint matter just as much. In designing resilient systems, the goal isn’t merely to amass energy reserves but to structure and channel energy such that it can withstand entropy’s releand ToE-based frameworks affirm:

Entless push. Understanding this entropic asymmetry can guide future engineering, safety protocols, and risk assessments for high-stakes technologies. Entropicopy increases consquiderations should henceforth be built into both human and equipment safety: Entropic Engineering and Entropic Safety^[8] ckly, but reducing the Theory of Entropicity (ToE).

7. Conclusion

The asymmeentropy try between destruction and creation is not merely anecdotal—it is a manifestation of the entropic field that governs all transformations in the universekes time. Both classical and ToE-based frameworks affirm:

Entropy increases quickly, but reducing entropy takes time.

Entropy increases easily and quickly — because it rides the underlying entropic field.

Entropy decreases mostly only through purposeful, time-delayed, constrained action.

This principle lies at the heart of irreversibility, creativity, and the flow of time. It provides a powerful explanatory framework across disciplines—from the decay of particles to the rise and fall of civilizations, from black holes to biological life.

Related Entries

• No-Rush Theorem (ToE)
• Entropy as a Field
• Entropy and Time Arrow
• Obidi Action and Vuli Ndlela Integral
• Entropic Collapse vs Entropic Constraint
• Minimum Entropic Interaction Time (ΔTₑ)
• No-Rush Theorem^[6] of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE)

DReferedicationnces

Dedicated to the lone survivor, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh; the B. J. Medical College doctors who were affected; and the passengers and crew of Air India Flight AI 171 who lost their lives in the tragic crash on 12 June 2025 at 13:39 IST (08:09 UTC) near Ahmedabad.^[7]

• Obidi, John Onimisi. The Entropic Force-Field Hypothesis: Emergent Constraints and the New Laws of Motion. Cambridge Open Engage (COE), 22nd August 2024.
• Obidi, John Onimisi. Wave Function Collapse by Entropic Constraint: A New Resolution to the Quantum Measurement Problem. COE, 14th October 2024.
• Obidi, John Onimisi. Attosecond Constraints on Quantum Entanglement Formation as Empirical Evidence for the Theory of Entropicity. COE, 29th March 2025.
• Obidi, John Onimisi. Review and Analysis of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) in Light of Attosecond Entanglement Formation. COE, 30th March 2025.
• Obidi, John Onimisi. Einstein and Bohr Reconciled: A Resolution through the Theory of Entropicity. COE, 31st March 2025.
• Obidi, John Onimisi. Generalized Entropic Expansion Equation and the Entropic Timeline of the Universe. COE, April 2025.
• Entropy as a Field^[9][10]
• Entropy and Time Arrow
• Obidi Action^[11] and Vuli-Ndlela Integral
• Entropic Collapse vs Entropic Constraint
• Minimum Entropic Interaction Time (ΔTₑ)