2. No phenomena of the kind you are alluding to cannot be explained by the laws of physics. Any particular physical model has a limited domain of application. For instance, currently physics doesn’t know precisely what happens when particles collide with energies > 1 TeV or so (that’s why the LHC was built). But it has nothing to do with animate vs. inanimate.

3. Physical experiments are done both to animate and inanimate objects.

4. I don’t understand. Does the computer have a soul or doesn’t? Is soul = complexity or is it something distinct?

5. Your opinion about the complexity of human DNA is irrelevant since it’s not based on solid arguments.

6. Earth is not a closed system. Earth’s ecosystem receives its energy from this, which is very much important.

7. I’ll explain you what’s not logical in your “scheme”. You have formulated neither the problem you wish to address nor its solution. Once you’ve done both, you still have to formulate and conduct an experiment testing this solution.

More positively, to understand why, you first have to understand why Copernicus’ theory is considered true.

However, when we talk about the feeling of free will, and this feeling in consistent in us (yesterday we felt it, and also in any other day) you tell that this is not a real feeling, and it only looks like it exsits while it is not actually true. You don’t even try building a theory, and only because it contradicts to another theory?

Why? In such cases I remember many *impossible* theories in the past, like for example of Copernics (which was considered completely wrong, because it contradicted to what was *obvious* that time).

Like any other force, it doesn’t demonstrate itself equally visible in all objects. (Before last 100-200 years electricity can be seen only in thunderbirds and wool+glass stick). But it is strong in living objects, and it is much more strong in humans than in animals, or in plants.

This force, however, is not like a physical force It is not deterministics, and one call tell it comes from God. It has free will, creativity, passion as its own properties. And, by interacting with material objects, it slowly changes the Earth.

Would you, please, tell me if you see anything non-logical in this scheme?

Now we certainly have a set of phenomena that have no easy explaination by pure laws of physics. I am not saying they are completely impossible to explain, but it is obvious that the physical explainations of these phenomena are too vague.

Take into account that 99% of physical experiments are done only to inanimate objects. And when they are done with living things, they are still limited to biochemical reactions and electrical measurements – which means that these experiments solely relate to the “body” and not to the “soul”, whether it is existing or not.
So your decision to extrapolate these laws to human mental activity is only your assumption.

Now let me address your objections.
It is clear that a system that has a high complexity CAN produce another system of a similar complexity. Which means that a computer may produce another computer, and a married (well, it is not strictly neccessary) couple may produce a child. The question is how a system of low complexity produces a system of high complexity.
We can explain it by unpredictable chaotic mutation, of course, and it has some logic. But it looks like the living things utilize this probabilistic trick way too often.

In addition to what I have said, please note that also parents do not *produce* the child. Instead the child is produced by himself. Of course, one can say that the DNA has the child in the “compressed” format, but it stills leave me some question. Because the complexity of the DNA to my opinion is way too small (only ~4Gbytes if I remember correctly) to keep all the complexity of human mental “software”, if you like to consider human behavior in this way.

Another difference that I observe between us and computers, is that I hardly believe that the computers think something about themselves. Even if they appear to be thinking, something inside of me tells that they are not really thinking. There is no *inner self* in them, and it will never be (well, at least until bio-cyborgs are be invented).

Now finally let me address the entropy. Your objection about closed sysyems is popular, but I am not sure it is very much correct. For example, our Earth is a quite closed system (well, not completely, of course, but I don’t think it is important for this discussion). And as you can see, the mankind is reducing its entropy quite successfully.