This paper clarifies the physical meaning of entropy and its instrumental role as a characteristic that depends on the choice of system (the level of description, coarse‑graining). It is shown that entropy is not an absolute property of a physical object, like mass or charge. The same object can have different entropy values depending on which degrees of freedom we include in the description and which we “lump together” into macrostates. Examples are provided: a coin as a macroscopic object (heads/tails) has entropy kB 2; the same coin as a piece of brass consisting of atoms has enormous entropy — tens of J/ (mol·K). A coin in flight (position, velocity, rotation) has high entropy, while a coin on a table (only the side) has low entropy. A gas in a container has large entropy under macroscopic description and small entropy when tracking a single molecule. A working definition is formulated: entropy is the logarithm of the number of ways a system can be arranged without changing what interests us about it (the macrostate), multiplied by Boltzmann’s constant. The key phrase is: “…without changing what interests us about it” — this reflects the instrumental, conditional nature of entropy. The paper calls for an end to the mystification of entropy and for ceasing to treat it as a “divine, unknowable characteristic. ” Entropy is a working tool, not a mystical entity. It should be used to solve specific problems, not to construct pseudo‑scientific theories.
Alexander Yourievitch Kotelnikov (Thu,) studied this question.