I disagree with the author, while I think there is value in minimalism, I like to embrace messiness, and I can use the "entropy" idea to show my opposite viewpoint.
Entropy is a force of nature, it will always increase, second law of thermodynamics. And yes, it is fatal, we will all die in the end there isn't much we can do about it. But that's where the author backs out, saying that "organizational entropy" doesn't follow the laws of thermodynamics because there is a magic spell called "minimalism"... Why make a parallel with physics then?
I think that just like thermodynamic entropy, there is no solution, we will all die, period. The only thing we can do is make the best of the time we are alive.
And if we look at the author's ideal, it has zero entropy, literally absolute zero, nothing moves, which is not the most enjoyable situation...
Furthermore, the proposed solution (minimalism) involves creating a small pocket of low entropy. In thermodynamics, that would be a freezer. But while freezers can lower entropy locally, they increase entropy globally, freezers need energy to function. And the colder your freezer, the more energy it consumes and the more entropy it creates. It means that minimalism can be counterproductive: the more you try to make things perfect, the messier everything around it becomes.
So, don't try to put every atom at it correct place, you simply can't, absolute zero doesn't exist in nature, just admit that life isn't perfect, that it is sometimes better to do something useless than doing even more work trying to find if it actually is useless. And low entropy (nothing moves) is as boring as high entropy (just noise), the best is somewhere in the middle, life is in the middle.