Q&A: The Argument from Design: Fine-Tuning
The Argument from Design: Fine-Tuning
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask why we should think that the complexity that exists in the creation of man would be more complex than in some other world.
After all, for example, in a world where the strong force were greater, then immediately after the Big Bang all objects would be drawn to each other. And the entropy would be much smaller than that of a human being, no? In a case where all matter is concentrated at one point, and despite that space keeps expanding…
Answer
I don’t really understand the question. I’ll only say that life is a reality with lower entropy than inanimate matter. That is an objective measure of complexity.
Beyond that, it is worth looking through common-sense glasses and not as physicists. It is obvious that life is more special than inanimate matter.
Discussion on Answer
As I wrote, the complexity here is clear even without physical measures. And even if a different strong force would create lower entropy, so what? I didn’t say that life has the lowest entropy possible. It is enough that it is not plausible that it came about by chance.
But all values higher than the current one, with a stronger strong force, would create something with lower entropy (like one giant star). Is there something special about life beyond “just” entropy?
Because otherwise the argument is void:
“Even regarding the argument from the laws, a similar refutation can be raised. Suppose we randomly select systems of laws in a completely arbitrary way. Every system of laws will produce its own creatures. The system in our universe produces organisms, that is, living beings, but every other system of laws would produce complex entities of different kinds. They would look completely different from those familiar to us here, but they would be no less complex. Therefore the claim that life is an especially complex thing that leads to the conclusion that it has a creator is incorrect. If every system of laws creates its own complexities, then there is nothing special in our universe that requires an explanation, or the assumption that there is an engineer who created it. Theoretically, this could be the result of a completely random draw (a draw among systems of laws). I do not mean to say that there was such a draw of systems of laws (see the next chapter on this), but this is only an indication that such a system of laws does not require sufficient reason.” There later on the Rabbi shows that not all systems of laws would in fact produce life, and therefore the proof comes back.
But my claim is that many other systems of laws would produce things far more unique than life, like a giant star (relative to a whole expanding space).
I am arguing that if we look at complexity as an objective measure, namely entropy,
then it would be appropriate to assume that our world is not complex. Because if the strong force were stronger, then after the Big Bang all the inanimate matter would gather into one point,
whose entropy is much, much lower than our entropy now. Isn’t that so?
So maybe our world is actually not that complex after all….