Thank you very much for the quick reply!

If I understood correctly, then your question is even more general—
why are there even stars, instead of a uniform distribution of energy/basic matter in space?

I have a question about something else related to the topic that I really didn’t understand at all, and I’d be happy if the Rabbi could help,

I’ve read a lot of arguments here about thermodynamics, and there’s something I didn’t really understand.
They say the laws of thermodynamics are preserved in the world, and order in one place creates disorder in another.

For example, if on Earth evolution causes there to be very low entropy because of human beings, that comes at the expense of work done by the sun, and there it causes disorder.

But my question is: that still just shifts the question somewhere else—why is there order in the sun? And so one can ask this about every other factor as well. From here it seems that some initial quantity of order must exist.

Or let me put the question differently:
If total entropy really were complete disorder and absolute randomness—for example, energy or matter spread uniformly throughout all of space—then there would be no possibility at all for one place to become ordered at the expense of disorder somewhere else, because the “disorder” somewhere else would already be at its maximum level, and it would be impossible to create more “disorder” than what already exists there.

But we see that stars, human beings, and ordered structures with low entropy do exist, so we must say that there is some minimal sum of order in the world, so that it is possible to create and shape differences of order and disorder in other places in the world.
Isn’t that so?

Sorry, I just don’t know any other words besides “order” and “disorder,” so my message itself is really not very orderly. 🙂

Excellent question. I’m not sure I have a good answer to it, but I’ll try to explain it using your language.
Suppose that in an infinite universe, a tiny amount of “order” (= a large amount of entropy) is spread out everywhere. That is still reasonable and could perhaps arise by chance. But now all that order gathers into very specific places and creates there very ordered states (low entropy), at the expense of the surroundings, which remain in complete disorder. The initial state was still reasonable and could perhaps arise by chance, but now a state has been created in which certain places look very ordered.

According to this, however, one should discuss the moment of the Big Bang itself, because there space was tiny and the order was supposed to be concentrated in a tiny volume. Maybe there one has to divide it by mass-energy and not by volume; I don’t know.

Thank you very much, Rabbi! Interesting whether one can speak of a primordial order that led to instability and caused the bang.

I don’t know. You’d have to ask physicists who specialize in cosmology and/or the Big Bang. I really don’t know what is described as the source of the initial entropy in the universe. But on the philosophical level, in my opinion none of this really matters. It’s a question in physics.

Hello Rabbi,
Thank you very much for the previous quick reply.
I have another question—it’s not so clear to me how the story of the laws of nature works, and this has an important practical implication for the physico-theological and cosmological argument:

It’s easy to see that, as a slight evasion of the cosmological proof—which claims that everything in our experience has a cause—
one can argue against it that it applies only to the material form of the universe, but not to the essence of matter itself [prime matter]—which is energy. And regarding that one can claim that it is primordial. Especially since the laws of conservation of energy-mass support this. Energy never disappears; it only changes form and turns into another.

At first glance, this escape seemingly provides no solution at all, since the obvious question is: even if energy is primordial, formed matter still needs a cause that made it not remain prime matter—energy.
And therefore it is proven that an additional primordial external factor is needed to carve matter out of energy, and if that is an entity in the form of the laws of nature, then that entity is God.
That is usually the Rabbi’s claim.

But in my opinion this answer really does provide a response, and there is no need to escape to some factor external to prime matter.
I’ll explain in two possible ways.

Against the first question—how did matter in the universe come to be from energy? One can argue that the primordial energy was unstable (quantum?) and had to expand or something, and that caused the bang and thereby matter.
The laws are not an independent external entity, but only a description of a reaction among energies. That is, prime energy itself is the source of the laws.
If so, we gain two things—how formed matter came to be, and how these laws of nature prevail.
(Of course, the physico-theological argument from sufficient reason would still remain, but even the Rabbi agrees that this argument is weaker.)

I’d be happy if the Rabbi would look at this argument and offer criticism if he has any of it!
Also, there are two difficult questions regarding this argument:

How is it that over an infinite “time” energy did not convert and change its form, and then suddenly it did change? After all, we can’t speak here about a primordial will that would help explain it.
How do the laws of nature exist in energy? And can energy transfer its laws to matter (after the bang)?
Thanks in advance,
Asaf.

Everything requires a cause; energy too is not self-generated. And if you say it always existed—we are back to an actual infinite. Therefore there must be a first cause that created prime matter (which you identify with energy, though that identification is not necessary). The process of the formation of matter with mass is described today by the Higgs boson and symmetry breaking, so there is now a physical description for that as well.
The source of the laws must be an intelligent being (prime matter or energy are not such), because something special and purposive is created by an intelligent entity and not just like that.
Causality is an a priori principle and is not learned from experience (as David Hume showed).

Noooooo, my whole comment that I wrote just now got deleted—I only noticed now. I’ll write it again, so sorry if it’s more messy and “worked up” than the message that was sent and deleted….

Regarding the claim that energy requires a cause and that this leads to an actual infinite,
my claim is that energy does not require a cause. Why? Because we have no indication whatsoever to assume that it does!
If anything, quite the opposite—we have never seen, and we are not even able to see, energy disappearing or being renewed, because of the law of conservation of energy-mass. It is impossible to destroy energy and impossible to add energy.
If so, we have no reason at all to assume that energy is something created. The trivial assumption in such a situation is that it is primordial and uncreated.

Once we accept this—that causality does not apply in the context of prime energy—then the infinity we get is potential and not actual. And the Rabbi’s question falls away. [After all, in what case do we treat infinity as an actual infinite? Only when we accept the assumption that everything requires a cause on the one hand, but still claim on the other hand that it is primordial.]

Regarding the laws of the formation of matter—the Higgs boson and symmetry breaking,
of course there are laws that caused matter to be formed from energy,
but my claim is that those laws are not entities; rather, they are an internal energetic-prime description. Just as the laws of nature are a description of matter and are not an entity external to the system.

Therefore, once we accept that prime-energetic matter is primordial, and that the laws themselves are included within it, we have canceled both the cosmological proof and the physico-theological proof together.

I agree that perhaps, even so, these laws might require an intelligent being—but that is only on the level of sufficient reason, not on the level of the proofs the Rabbi wrote in the booklet. And that is also what the Rabbi wrote there: that sufficient reason is weaker than the classical physico-theological proof.

Thank you very much for the quick reply!
Best regards,
Asaf.

Hello Asaf.
Maybe it’s connected to the fact that I asked Oren to merge this thread with the previous one.
I disagree with you. Conservation of energy is precisely the reason that energy requires a cause, because without a cause no energy is added. That is much stronger than the need for a cause for objects with mass.

Even if the laws are, in your words, an internal-energetic description (not a very successful phrase. Beyond that, in my opinion it’s worth dropping “hylē,” which is apparently hylē. The first letter is not the definite article but a letter with a hiriq vowel. “Hylic” = formless), they still require a cause that is an intelligent being, or a reason deriving from the action of an intelligent being. Beyond that, it is highly likely that the laws are not primordial, because if they are not entities but properties of matter, then if there is no matter there are no laws. And if energy is an entity, then I do not see any difference between it and matter.

In the context of conservation of energy,
indeed only a source external to the energy can add energy to the system.
But what reason do we have to assume at all that such an external source exists!? And moreover, how do the conservation laws strengthen the claim that energy was created?!
Maybe the Rabbi could expand on this? In my opinion this is a very significant part, and I didn’t understand it at all.

In the context of the laws,
of course they do not require a cause that is an intelligent being, because the laws are primordial—they are the energy itself. Rather, as I said, only with respect to sufficient reason (a vertical plane of emanation) might they require an intelligent being; but again, that already cancels the cosmological and physico-theological proof.

My claim is that they are a property of energy and not of matter, and therefore they are not nullified. An example that the law is a property of energy is quantum mechanics, where the conservation laws are still preserved.

The conservation laws strengthen it because they say that energy cannot be created on its own (only if work is done on the system from outside). Therefore the question that arises is: where do we get the energy that exists here? Beyond that, energy does not look like something that is self-caused. Even if it always exists, it is a physical entity (even if without mass). Therefore primordial energy is not plausible in itself, just as primordial matter is not plausible in itself. And it too requires sufficient reason.
The principle of sufficient reason is precisely the physico-theological proof when it is applied to the laws, if the claim is raised that the laws are primordial.
In general, I do not understand what you gain by moving from matter to energy (whether the laws are a property of energy or of matter). I do not see any difference between them. Beyond that, there is a dragging-in of quantum theory here that is unclear. Quantum mechanics is not energy but a law of nature (and conservation of energy is part of quantum theory). What exactly does that last sentence mean?
It seems we have entered into philosophizing that is losing direction.

I don’t think this is mere philosophizing, but I’m willing to end all the philosophizing just in order to “grind through” the first part—energy is not primordial.

As I understand it, the Rabbi thinks that energy cannot be primordial, and therefore the conservation laws reinforce his point—it can’t just come about on its own; someone external to the system has to create it.
But according to my view too, the conservation laws work perfectly well: energy is apparently primordial, and the conservation laws only reinforce this—we have no ability to add or subtract it, it doesn’t disintegrate, etc. etc.!

So the root of the dispute between us, as I understand it, is whether it makes sense to say that energy is primordial or not—and it has nothing at all to do with the conservation laws, since each side interprets them in its favor.

So why not claim that energy is primordial?

Exactly the same way matter is not primordial. And if the laws characterize energy, they require sufficient reason.
That’s it. I’m exhausted. Sorry.

“And if the laws characterize energy, they require sufficient reason.”
Yes, now I understood what you meant here; I do agree.
That the moment you put the laws into matter, matter much more strongly requires sufficient reason for why it is this way and not otherwise.
And if they are external entities, then they are God + sufficient reason, so you can unify them into one great intelligence.

Regarding the claim that matter is not primordial—that is clear to me, because all matter is created, and it would be an actual infinite to claim that it is primordial.
But we have no information about energy being created just like that. I think I’m repeating myself.
Maybe the Rabbi will have the strength to write tomorrow? 🙂 Or should I call the Rabbi sometime?
This seems to me the most basic point. Because if you accept the cosmological proof in its real goal (not to arrive at primordial matter but at something that can join up with the physico-theological argument and is not material/energetic etc., then it boosts all the proofs by several levels)….

As I said, I do not see any difference between matter and energy, except perhaps in energy’s favor (because of the conservation law).
If you think it would help, try calling and we’ll find a time to talk. 052-3320543