The math of the entropy applies even to phenomena which are not tangible, e.g. Shannon Entropy for information.
Cite for me anything written by Penrose or Gödel which disagrees. I actually incorporated Gödel's completeness theorem into my analysis.
Gödel's theorems are a kind of critique of the language of mathematics:
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
Therefore, any mathematically described "theory of everything" is going to face the above problem with the underlying maths. Try explaining the "hard problem of consciousness", or belief, or the 'delusion' of free will, or qualia, or just the mere existence of any observer... using the
empirically observed laws of entropy. Circular reasoning.
Creativity is merely the congruence with diversity in dynamic time, i.e. matching the dynamic configurations of the system as opportunities for fitness of each unique mind.
No, that's an empirical interpretation of what creativity
appears like, in hindsight no less.
You're still not giving any material to suggest that objective value judgements on the creativity of different brains is even plausible.