Entropy in the physical-theological argument
Peace and blessings. Regarding entropy, I have 2 questions:
- In the YouTube lectures, when you presented the physical-theological view (in the context of macroscopic states created from microscopic states), you gave an example of 10 cells in which 3 particles can be arranged in 3 specific cells, and thus the number of possible arrangements is 6. In addition, you showed that if the 3 particles can only be in one point, then of course the number of microscopic states is 1. My question is, how do you calculate probability here? That is, do you have to take into account all the possible arrangements of the particles within the 10 cells, and then divide the possible microscopic states (that create the macroscopic state) by all the possibilities? I hope my question is understandable, if not, please tell me and I will refine it.
2. You claimed that the complexity of the laws is like the complexity of the phenomena they produce. Is it possible to apply entropy to the laws as well? That is, is it possible to claim that the laws that prevail in our world have low entropy? And if so, how do you justify this [what microscopic states are those that represent macroscopic states (the laws)].
thanks
- Yes. (And it’s not six options but many more).
- Entropy is not relevant to laws because it talks about real objects. Laws are not objects. Laws also do not change. Laws are special because the reality they create has low entropy. But as I explained there, entropy is just a measure that demonstrates an objective definition of complexity and there is no point in arguing about it.
1. Thank you. And what does more than 6 mean? If there are only 3 particles in 3 cells (out of 10 cells), how many possibilities are there for a macroscopic state if not 6?
2. I understand. So, can complexity be translated into statistical rarity? After all, the laws are also complex, and that's because they are rare.
I ask because it occurred to me that it is impossible to claim that God is also complex (and so too would we need a component), and therefore we do not get stuck in an infinite regress with this argument (unlike cosmological). In other words, everything complex needs a component, including the laws, since they are rare (not statistically explainable), but something that is not in our experience (God) does not need a component, since the claim that this thing is complex has no meaning. What do you think?
1. When you want to arrange three objects in ten places, if they are the same, that's (3!)/10*9*8= 120 possibilities.
2. Correct.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
