Entropy – Is evolution so special?
Peace and blessings,
The Rabbi claims that complexity can be defined objectively by the number of possibilities that allow for state X in relation to all other possible states. And the complexity of a process will be measured by the ratio of the complexity of the initial state to the final complexity – the simpler the starting point and the more complex the final point, the more complex the process as a whole.
From this understanding, the Rabbi answers the common question that almost any set of laws will create a human being, and the Rabbi brings the fine tuning – which shows that all laws of nature are built (among other things) from 4 basic values, and any change in one of them will not allow the creation of humans.
You don’t have to be a genius to understand that not every set of rules will create a person. But, even if not every set of rules will create a person, it can create a different complex reality.
Let’s look at the gravitational constant – one of the four fundamental constants – as a dog, the stronger the force, then of course more unique and complex structures will be created. And the only chance that there will not be a process that turns something simple into something complex is just that the force is -0! Of course, the chance of this happening is 1/infinity.
And on the other hand, and as is usually claimed in the fine-tuning videos – in the case of a constant greater than the constant that prevails in our world, the matter that was created in the Big Bang will collapse back into a state of gravitational singularity. But in this case, the singularity will be found within real space (and not the space will be the size of the singularity as at the beginning of the bang). In such a case, for example, the singularity will be double and multiplied by that of a person! In relation to the possibility of a uniform distribution of energy/matter in space. Therefore, even according to the Rabbi, the complexity of the universe will not require sufficient reason (p. 41 in the third notebook).
Isn’t that so?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A. I am not Yosef from the previous message. Indeed, I do not see the anthropic principle as an objection. But the entropic principle… and to the extent that my principle is correct, even the Rabbi agrees that one should not seek a sufficient reason for the laws of the universe.
B. Why is stability a condition for physico-theological evidence? And does it have an objective measure? How long is it minimal and how long is it not? The sun is about to become a red giant and annihilate us along the way in a few (millions+) more years. Isn't this a sign that we are part of a very unstable system.
I meant my previous message (from a few days ago) to you and not to Yosef (that I am taking a break from dealing with proofs from the notebooks).
Naturally, the timeout is over, it was “a few days ago”… (speaking of time as an objective measure)
C. If the fine tuning speaks of a reality that supposedly exists in infinite universes and from which it shows the uniqueness of life, then it is quite clear that in infinite universes the distribution of complex and non-complex universes (not universes that create life and do not create life but complex in general) is 50/50, isn't it? Although even if in 1000 universes the distribution is 1/1000 towards the complex, in infinity the probability still changes.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
