Questions in Faith
In the SD
Hello,
Indeed, I am aware that the Rabbi took a break from matters of faith. And rightly so. [There were indeed a flood of questions on the subject that never ended]
But I think it is in the form of decrees that the public cannot abide by. And what’s more, they don’t issue decrees (website) for decrees (email). And nowadays, it is not possible to issue decrees except within the framework of community regulations. And regulations in secret (email) can be disregarded.
All of these things and more. I said I would come in an email that was not religious, and what I wrote, I wrote.
I wanted to present the questions that bother me and that I haven’t seen sufficient attention to in the notebook on the site and on the Internet in general.
After reading the third notebook – The Physico-Theological View,
The Rabbi goes ahead and explains what the definition of the concept of complex is, and connects it to the concept of uniqueness. And in any case, it does not make sense for something complex to be created purely by chance. (And in the event that it is created, it is a clear sign that there is someone external to the system who will ‘unique’ the system.)
The rabbi then raises the issue of evolution. The creation of man did not happen by chance and suddenly.
But there is a systematic process behind this. And in that case it is understandable how a person [a unique thing] was created. And there is no need for a creator behind it, “the god of the gaps.”
If so, then why is there really a need for a Creator? Here the Rabbi again reiterates and argues that a process that turns simple into complex is not a random and blind process. It is a unique process and therefore it turns out that there was someone [with will] who chose it. And if it is truly not a unique process, then it would indeed not require sufficient reason.
My questions are precisely regarding the section ‘Complexity of Process’: (I think the Rabbi did not address this section sufficiently, as in the complexity of objects the Rabbi preceded the entropic chapter, perhaps the Rabbi could have made an introduction to the section on complexity of processes).
The concept of complexity in the classical sense does not apply to the process [the law of gravity is no more complex than the Stefan-Boltzmann law or Newton’s laws of motion]
Nor is it appropriate to talk about a process as unique:
1) Therefore, to the extent that a process exists. I don’t understand how one can make a claim that it is special? Just as there can be ∞ (infinity) processes to keep something simple simple, there are ∞ processes that can turn something simple into something complex.
After all, processes can create something complex from a simple thing, with all sorts of “directions” and “possibilities.” We have no way at all to define this concept! And certainly not to talk about it.
2) Does the Rabbi have a definition for a process that is worthy of being called complex that would require a component [and not as a teleological argument]? And a process that is not complex? And why?
Now I will focus on the fine-tuning argument that provides an opening here to talk about the concept of process.
3)
The Rabbi claims that a gravitational singularity is the most unique thing we can find. Although at the beginning of the bang it was not called unique because there was no space around it and no space of possibilities that would allow for uniqueness.
And my question is that all the laws of gravity, over the years, will create a gravitational singularity, but with space around it.
And this point will remain forever. (As it was forever before the Big Bang, according to some opinions)
And therefore all laws with attractive forces will turn a simple thing into a complex one. And the resulting odds then tend to 1. (Except for the law of attraction – 0).
But the rabbi did not explain at all why he does not see this as a process that turns simple into complex, while evolution that ‘creates’ a human does.
4)
The Rabbi writes that there is another condition for a process to be called complex, and that is that it creates a complex thing that remains stable over time (not something that happens for a second and then passes).
A. How did the Rabbi come to this conclusion, from intuition or beyond?
B. Does the Rabbi have an amount of time that the work must remain for the process to be considered a complex and unique process?
C. For example, the sun is about to become a red giant and destroy us along the way in a few million years. Isn’t this a sign that we are part of an unstable system that needs no explanation?
Thank you in advance for the response, which will surely be quick! And I hope we won’t have to whitewash the answers again because this is indeed not over…
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.
Hello,
Thank you!
Regarding what the Rabbi answered, I will indeed not respond.
Only the Rabbi wrote in answer 3 that he did not understand my question.
I think it is a very simple and clear question that anything with gravitational forces will turn a simple thing into a unique thing. Therefore, the entire fine-tuning argument falls apart.
I added a short cartoon that demonstrates this – Every universe with gravitational forces will eventually create a singularity with a surrounding space. And turn a simple thing into a very, very unique thing, much more than humans.
If the Rabbi could answer this even briefly, I would be happy!
(Each square indicates space. A green circle indicates matter. And the arrows indicate the forces acting. An arrow with a round end indicates the initial velocity following the explosion.)
Here is a link to the video:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwJAdMjYRm7Ib05ObHdqQVROZVU
Hello Rabbi,
A friend of mine asked this question to Rabbi Nadav Shnerb regarding the definition of the concept of complexity and he also does not know the answer “I admit that I have no more than intuition on this point.” (Although he did not agree that a singular point would create a more unique state than a human, he is not sure who has less entropy at the end of the day, nor is every constant G going to create a singular point). Therefore, I have turned to you again and would be happy if this time the Rabbi could answer.
My argument is very simple, I will write it in more detail this time because I saw that you did not understand above:
The Rabbi presents in his notebook the second law of thermodynamics, through the presentation of a gas container, in which the gas particles are gathered in one corner, and when they are left, they disperse throughout the room and will never again be gathered in the corner.
And this is exactly the second law of thermodynamics, that no unique state will be created without an external hand.
But what will happen in a situation where the system is in a remote place in the universe, so that the gravitational forces between the gas particles are significant? After all, if we spread the gas in a container, within a few moments it will all gather in one place,
Then we see that a simple law (gravity, for any value of the constant G), causes a unique and ordered state from a disordered state.
The rabbi wrote a notebook proving the existence of the complexity of life in the universe, and he claimed that the claim that simple does not become complex is actually the intuition that underlies the second law of thermodynamics.
There he claims that the number of sets of laws that would take a singular point and turn it into something complex like a human being is zero, and hence there is a God.
But if we go back to what we saw in the plot, any constant that would be in the gravitational force would give a unique state after the Big Bang, and at a very large gravitational constant all the mass would be concentrated in one place immediately after the Big Bang, and this is a very unique state, just like in the case of the gas tank, where the state in which all the gas is concentrated together is very unique.
And intuition is good precisely when there is nothing analytical against it. But here we have something analytical against intuition - a (a priori) calculation that shows that the uniqueness of a point of matter compressed in space is greater than complex life, that is, it has fewer equivalent states than life. So how can we follow intuition? In other words: intuition has been refuted. Isn't it?
I will go ahead and say again that the state of life is complex by any standard. A set of laws that would create life is special. For this, no thermodynamic calculation is needed and things are simple for any reasonable person. Therefore, the entire discussion here is unnecessary.
As for your question, indeed – and this is essentially the question of Maxwell's elf (see Wikipedia), that if you organize a special force, it can create a special state.
A state of gas particles grouped in a corner of a container is special, since a strong gravitational force will only group the particles together, but will not fix them all somewhere in space. When they are all grouped and the space is free in space, it is really less special. And yet it is clear that the specialness is much less than the state of life, and therefore a relatively simple force might be able to create it. If this were the specialness, I would not bring physico-theological evidence from it.
Beyond that, there is no principle that a special state is not created in a one-time lottery. The second law merely states that a special situation will not occur from a less special situation without external intervention (by the way, the law is more complicated because there are also other factors involved, such as energy and the like).
But these are questions in physics and have no importance in our discussion, as I noted above.
And another point. Even if there is a strong gravitational force, it will not pull the particles together, but they will continue to move around each other. Think of just two particles with a force between them (the Earth and another particle), they will pass each other like a spring, and will not stick together (except in a plastic collision).
Thank you very much Rabbi!
Maybe only if the Rabbi could write a positive definition of what complexity is and how it can be measured, instead of refuting what is not complex and indirectly giving the Rabbi a negative definition of the concept.
Indeed, I also think that a person is more complex than a star, etc. But as long as there is no clear definition of the concept, then it will not be possible to know that our world is so special.
I don't have a definition, and as far as I understand, there's no need for one.
Why is there no need for this? How can you talk about a certain criterion if you don't define it?
If complexity is a subjective concept then it's a bit problematic to claim something objective about the universe.
There is a difference between subjective and indefinable (or I simply don't have a definition). Do you have a definition for the color red? But we all know what it is. Do you have a definition for what quality is? But I suppose we would agree that there are things with quality and things without (see Pirsig's book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance). Complex concepts are difficult to define, and there is still no reason to draw conclusions about them. It is clear that life is a complex and improbable thing that it was created just like that without a guiding hand. There is no need to define complexity for that. I also don't know how to define God, and I still claim that he exists.
In the case of entropy, there is a mathematical definition for complexity, so I used it. In the absence of forces, a state in which all the particles are concentrated in one corner is objectively more complex, since the number of states equivalent to it is very small compared to a state of uniform dispersion. When there is a force that takes care of this concentration, the situation of course changes, and I referred to this in previous emails.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
