In response to P. Harari’s article: What if Judaism did not have a major influence on the human race?

שו”ת › Category: general › In response to P. Harari’s article: What if Judaism did not have a major influence on the human race?

0 Vote Up Vote Down

asked 9 years ago

To Rabbi Dr. Michael Avraham, greetings.
On July 20, 2016, an article by Yuval Noah Harari was published on the Haaretz website under the title:
And what if Judaism didn’t have a major influence on the human race?

I would love to hear your response to the article. Thanks in advance.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 9 years ago

Yuval Noah Harari does not disappoint. So much nonsense, demagogy, presuppositions and unfounded assumptions, in one article. It’s nonsense that is even more concentrated than in his books. He is probably looking for sensations, and to that end he uses meaningless word games that unskilled people sometimes follow blindly. Postmodern arguments that empty every concept of content by going to extremes, and in fact do not notice that in doing so they themselves are also emptied of content. First, I will direct you to several review articles on Harari’s books, links to which appear here on the site (two by Persico in my words, and another by Nadav Shnerb in the comment below). This article suffers from a common fallacy throughout the study of the history of ideas. In fact, the whole thing is nothing more than one continuous fallacy. It is very difficult to define and therefore also to point out a connection between ideas and the relationships of influence between them. I can point to any case of influence, like the relationship between Newton’s mother and his mechanics, or between Judaism and Einstein’s physics. According to him, nothing has an influence on anything, because the concept of influence is empty and undefined. After all, according to him, even Christianity and Islam, who spread the Bible, had no more influence than those who printed and bound it or invented printing. They only brought the Bible to all sorts of places, but they decided to adopt it. So why is there influence here? It’s like Newton’s mother, isn’t it? The same goes for the printer or the inventor of ink. If those who wrote and conceived the Bible (=all Jews, to the best of my knowledge) are not considered to have influenced those who apply it and the culture that adopted it as a founding text – then I don’t know what influence is. You can see the other side of this fallacy in the following example. After I published my first book, Two Carts, I received quite a few responses along the lines of: Well, everything is already in Rabbi Kook, Rabbi Tzadok, Rabbi Nachman, Maharal, Ramchal, etc. Each such claim has something in it, and yet this is the other side of the same fallacy. There are different influences on my words, of course (as on everyone), but an idea belongs to the one who conceived and formulated it. Even if you later find it encapsulated in another book or article, the birth of the idea in the history of ideas is with the one who conceived and formulated it, who put it in the universal human toolbox. This fallacy is the other side of Harari’s fallacy, since here too the basis of the fallacy is the inability to point out the relationships of influence between ideas. If we empty the concepts of influence of any content in a postmodern argument of this type by Harari (going to the extreme), it has no meaning at all. According to him, it is impossible to talk about influences without reference to Judaism specifically, but in general. This fallacy is very typical of postmodern emptiness, and it expresses the typical lack of awareness of its speakers that they are cutting down the branch on which they themselves are sitting. Beyond that, he repeats here a fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts of morality. As a materialist, he identifies morality with thoughtful and altruistic behavior, and points out that it also exists in animals. As I explained in my fourth notebook, this is a very fundamental philosophical misunderstanding (which is very typical of Harari). Morality is behavior that derives from a commitment to a categorical imperative. No monkey is committed to such an imperative. A ram that behaves very nicely to its friends is not moral, just as a computer that does not harm other computers is not moral, and a stone that does not crush the chair on which it is placed is not moral. And it seems to me that this moral idea is a fairly distinctly Jewish product (even if not entirely exclusive. Kant was the one who finally achieved it, although it was actually found quite clearly before him as well. See my first comment). It is a pity that Harari himself did not learn this Jewish lesson. Likewise, a computer has no intelligence, just as integers that flow according to very complicated equations or a bird that navigates in a very complex way has no intelligence. The reason for this is that intelligence is distilled from reflection. Only an entity that thinks and considers in its mind and makes decisions in a non-deterministic manner is endowed with intelligence. Harari himself believes that humans are not like that (he is a materialist and a determinist), so perhaps he cannot be required to make demands on logic and philosophical understanding. He writes what he is conditioned to write. But why should I care about these things? It goes without saying that it is impossible to talk about significant ideas, good or bad (such as the denial of racism) in Harari’s materialistic worldview. According to him, ideas are neither right nor wrong. They are inherent in us and as such are not subject to judgment. Some people are built in a racist way, so they are racist, and others are built differently. A contradictory statement like this actually borders on ridiculous: There is no doubt that the Jewish people are a special people with a fascinating history (although it must be admitted that this statement is true for most peoples); That is, we are a “special people” in the same way that every other people is special. In this sense, the term “special” is of course emptied of its essential content. Every person or stone is special because the collection of qualities of each such person is never found in any other individual. So what? Although logic is mainly taught at Givat Ram (in mathematics), I think he could also excel at it at Mount Scopus (in the philosophy department). The man lacks basic concepts and his thinking is deeply flawed. —————————————————————————————— Asks: Beautiful. You didn’t disappoint either. thanks. You enlightened my eyes. But I would like to ask you for your opinion on a few more points. Let’s really start with this issue of ‘genocide’ in Judaism. How do you see things? What about babies, women, and children, and innocent people in general? I have my side on this issue, but I would love to know what you think about this issue. (I am referring to the commandment: No soul shall live, except the life of Amalek and the seven of the Gentiles, and all the rest of the twelve tribes) —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: I don’t have too much to say about that. First, the Torah strictly prohibits murder, both for Jews (you shall not murder) and for Gentiles (you shall not shed human blood). Therefore, when it commands the destruction of these peoples, I assume that it is not just for nothing, but that it has a good reason for it. It is common to bring a parable to a Jew who lived during the Holocaust. Does it sound unreasonable if he wished that all Germans from infants to old people would be destroyed? So we who are on the outside can relate to this more academically, but that does not mean that it is not justified. For example, if those peoples are lost cases since they educate all their friends to murder and severe prohibitions, then we are talking about a gang of murderers, present or future. Therefore, in such a situation, there could be logic in the command to destroy them all. Like a wayward son who is condemned to his end (when he has no hope). Beyond that, the sages knew throughout the generations to sublimate these commandments, and I assume that if it becomes relevant and they realize that it is truly a terrible crime, they will find a way to change the law and abolish it. As Maimonides did for the Amalekites (that there is an obligation to call them to peace, and to kill only warriors, etc.), and as an eye for an eye, etc. In such a situation, the Torah’s teaching takes on a general ethical meaning (that it was appropriate to kill, just as it was appropriate to put out an eye), but not a practical one. I didn’t write about all the problems in his article, because the paper was full and they couldn’t. I’ll just add here that his claims about the difference between Jews and Gentiles are also incorrect, or at least inaccurate. First, we are talking about Gentiles who themselves are not acting correctly, because Gentiles are moral and humane and have obligations towards them as towards a Jew (according to the Meiri). So why should they freely murder us and we be as careful about murdering them as we would murder a Jew? Especially according to Harari’s theory that there is no difference between animals and humans, so why should he make claims against us when he claims against the whole world that it prefers humans over animals. Furthermore, the fact that there is an additional severity for murdering a Jew is not discrimination at all, since there is a Torah prohibition, albeit a different one, also for murdering a Gentile. So what is the problem? There is a severe prohibition on murdering any person, Jew or Gentile, but if it is a Jew, the prohibition is even more severe. This is not a lenient prohibition on murdering a Gentile, but a severity for murdering a Jew. And isn’t it customary in various countries to give preferential rights to their citizens? As long as fundamental rights (human rights, as opposed to civil rights) are not violated, there is no obligation for total equality, and no one does this. Everyone prefers their family and their people over others, and rightly so. Now we must discuss whether reducing the prohibition on murder is a violation of a human right. In my opinion, absolutely not, since the prohibition on murder applies to every person, and this is the basic right of every person. Beyond that, imposing the death penalty for murder is not a fundamental human right (we do not have the right to have someone kill us if we murder them. We have the right not to be murdered, and this right is truly given equally to every person). —————————————————————————————— Asks: Speaking of which, I’ll ask, why do you think the Torah reduces the punishment for rape so much to the point of a ridiculous financial fine? —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Again, this is a punishment for the halakhic prohibition. But the act of rape is very immoral, and on the moral level there can be a completely different treatment (in the Jewish Law, beatings and punishments that are not lawful). —————————————————————————————— Asks: thanks. But this time I don’t understand. The halakhic prohibition (if I accept this distinction) is ‘there shall be no holy thing in you’ or ‘nothing’, etc., for which there are already penalties (which he will certainly receive in this case as well, if not from the KLB). When we talk about rape, we are talking about a special penalty, which the Torah imposes on the actual rape – that is, non-consensual relations – that is, politeness – one person to another – and not on violating the laws of holiness. And here such a light penalty seems extremely forgiving. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: What’s the matter?! For the prohibition of a nida, one receives a punishment in itself. And if it is not a nida, then there is no rape law? And the same applies to the prohibition of not being holy, since it exists even without rape. Therefore, it is clear that we are not talking about these prohibitions. This is a fine for the act. Incidentally, this fine also exists in the case of a tempter, and therefore it is clear that the fine is not for rape either. There is no punishment for rape at all. Furthermore, the Maimonides explains that the fine of 50 shekels is paid for the pleasure of lying down (see the Hebrew: Ne’ara Betula Ref. 2. This is an innovation of course, since this is a fine that is supposed to be punitive and not blood money for something). In other words, this fine is not even a punishment, and what it is defined as a fine is probably because there is no personal assessment of the value of the pleasure of lying down. Beyond that, there are payments of sorrow, shame, and disgrace (and in seduction there is no sorrow). Only here is there a difference between rape and seduction. In any case, all of these are compensations and pleasure payments, not punishment. There is no punishment at all for such an act, since the offense here is a moral offense, as I wrote. This can be likened to financial damage. Here too, commentators wonder about the scope of his warning, since the Torah only mentions the payment obligations, the compensation. But there too, it is clear that there is a moral prohibition, and payment is not a punishment for it. —————————————————————————————— Asks: What you write is very interesting. Can you provide evidence for it? But the real question is, why? Why is there really no punishment? Would you also say that in murder, it is not (the death penalty) a punishment for the moral crime? —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Indeed, in my opinion, even in murder the punishment is for the halakhic offense. The punishment for the moral issue is entering the Kippur. Therefore, in murdering a gentile there is no punishment because there is no halakhic offense of not murdering (but only shedding human blood, which is not punishable by death), but only a moral offense. —————————————————————————————— Pine: Further to this question, in your last answer you wrote about the murder of a Gentile, which has a halakhic prohibition of “he who sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” (beyond the moral prohibition). The question is why is there no punishment alongside this halakhic offense, especially since the punishment is explicitly detailed in the verse itself (by man shall his blood be shed)? —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: I don’t know. Maybe because it’s a moral offense and the Torah doesn’t include punishment for such offenses. It’s up to the courts to punish those who are not in accordance with the law. —————————————————————————————— Pine: But there is also a halakhic offense here (correct me if I’m wrong), which comes from the verse – He who sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed. That is, there is a halakhic prohibition imposed on all humans to refrain from shedding blood (one of the 7 commandments of the sons of Noah), and furthermore, the Torah permitted the shedding of the blood of the alleged shedder. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: What I suggested is that this offense is moral and not fully halakhic (although the halakhic law included it in the prohibition against killing a Gentile, as a kind of coercion for the virtue of Sodom), like the other commandments of the sons of Noah. —————————————————————————————— A’: In my humble opinion, communication is not only done through human speech. We communicate through body language, dogs communicate through me wagging my tail, and certain animals communicate by secreting odorous substances. Therefore, even a monkey can obey all kinds of categorical commands, even if he doesn’t know how to explain them to you. He and his friends understand each other, and that’s enough for them. Man is more developed, as I wrote in my own words ( http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=3120416&whichpage=2#R_15 ), and therefore he also develops morality to a higher level. But morality does not belong to Jews as it does not belong to man. Of course, I see a big problem with disrespecting man, since when they want to, they know very well how to claim that they are very enlightened, and only when it comes to people whose opinions they disagree with – then suddenly man becomes a primitive and poor creature, like a monkey at most. But morality itself is the property of God, not man. Only its use is man’s property, although man’s property also ultimately belongs to God. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: I didn’t understand the argument. The problem is not one of understanding but of free will. I expanded on this in the fourth of the five notebooks that appear on the site. See there, part three. Even if the monkey understands everything (this is a philosophical question about what understanding is and whether monkeys have it), it probably doesn’t have free will, meaning it doesn’t decide. Someone who doesn’t decide cannot be moral even if he understands everything. A moral act is only an act that I decided to do. A stone that falls and hits an enemy who is chasing me is not doing a moral act. Not because it doesn’t understand (even a stone with awareness wouldn’t be moral in such a situation), but because it didn’t “decide” to do the act. Therefore, the difference between a human and a monkey is not quantitative but rather substantive and categorical. Obeying a categorical command is a decision and not automatic obedience to a command. Therefore, when a dog obeys its master’s command, it is not obedience, since it is not the result of its decision. That is its nature. Of course, there is an assumption here that animals do not have free will, and if you disagree with that, then the picture changes. But that is my assumption. On the sidelines, I also tend to think that a monkey does not have intelligence, since intelligence is the result of exercising judgment from a decision. An automatic calculation like that of a computer does not indicate the intelligence of the operator, but of the one who programmed it. The movement of water is done according to very complicated equations (Navier-Stokes), which no one knows how to solve in cases beyond the simplest. And water solves them at any moment (because the solution is a description of the movement of water). Does water have intelligence? To the same extent, water cannot be moral. Here too, the assumption is that water does not have free will, and you can of course disagree with that too. I do not understand the talk about “morality as someone’s property.” —————————————————————————————— A’: I really think that animals have free will. It is true that a tiger does not have a choice whether to devour a deer or not. But it does have a choice how to behave with its fellow tigers. In the same way, a person does not have a choice whether to chat with a bull (even if technically he is able to, mentally he is not able to). But he certainly has a choice whether to chat with his friend in the middle of studying or working. To a certain extent, water may also have some kind of thinking. But that is in any case a different story, and requires philosophical thought about the nature of matter. The same goes for intelligence – a monkey has intelligence in what concerns the decisions it implements. And it certainly has such decisions, at its level and in its context. What I wrote about “morality as property” perhaps referred more to the paragraph quoted in Aszkach, in which it was explained that a person is no more moral than a monkey. To this I replied that it is true in terms of “who has moral insight”, and not in terms of “who has high moral insight” —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: So, our debate is about facts and not about substance. —————————————————————————————— Pine: If animals are similar in a certain sense to water, as you said above, what is the meaning of a moral attitude toward them (beyond the halakhic sense of the Tzvach)? Apparently, according to your words, avoiding harm to a monkey is similar to being careful when stepping on stones so as not to hurt them. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: I don’t think so. The animal suffers and therefore there is a moral obligation to prevent it from suffering. Water does not suffer. The obligation to prevent suffering is not because of the value of the animal but rather the very fact that it suffers.
In other words, contrary to your assumption in the question, there is a difference between the individuals who are obligated to behave morally and can be judged as moral or not, which here are only those with free will, and the individuals (or beings) for whom there is a moral obligation. Here, these can also be animals.
This kind of difference also exists in the law regarding minors. They are not obligated by the commandments, but the commandments that apply between one person and another also apply to them. —————————————————————————————— Pine: When you claim that animals suffer, is there also an implicit assumption that they have some kind of consciousness that would experience this suffering? Otherwise, what is the meaning of animal suffering at all? —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Indeed. This is the meaning of suffering. Suffering that is not felt is not suffering. In cases of pain and the like, it seems on the surface that they are truly suffering, and therefore this is my impression (that animals do indeed suffer), but of course it is always possible to interpret these as just accidental convulsions. —————————————————————————————— Just one: The rape answer is a bit lacking.
The payment of the fine is only an addition to the grief, damage, and shame of Shabbat and healing.
So the payment for the rape, its small part, is the fine. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Even if this were true, what difference does it make? But this is not true for the case. After all, all of these payments are not punishments (fines) but rather payments of damages (except for the Maimonides’ method, which is not clear on this). Therefore, only the fine is a punishment for rape. —————————————————————————————— Just one: Peace be upon you
It is explicitly stated that 5 things are required-
How much do you think should be paid for sorrow and shame?
I think you will reach an amount that will make a person need to sell everything they have to pay this amount.
And in return he will have to sell himself into slavery.
And this is a prison in the old world.
It’s not clear to me which is better, today’s punishments or the ones from the past. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: I don’t know what was unclear in my words. None of these are punishments, and therefore it is irrelevant whether or not there is such a difference. These are compensation payments. Only the fine is a punishment. If it is very difficult for a person to compensate someone for damage, then he is exempt from punishment? There is no such thing as a minor offense here.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

ננ replied 9 years ago

What does it mean that the animal suffers? Even if we say that it is not a convulsion but pain, they still do not have consciousness, but only an electrical response of the nervous system that stimulates parts of the brain. There is no added value that turns pain into something transcendent, as in animals.

Therefore, the suffering is on the part of the emotional effect on the person and not on the part of the animal. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no moral problem with eating meat, although the breeders themselves do have (sorrow or emotional impact on the person).

מיכי Staff replied 9 years ago

I don't know what the source of the authoritative and conclusive information you present here is. In my opinion, there is speculation here that seems unlikely to me. My intuition says that they do suffer (I'm not completely convinced, but that's what seems likely to me. Enough to be concerned about).
If you want, call it consciousness in some basic sense (this is already a question of terminology). When they are in pain, they suffer and see reactions to it. If you attribute this to instinctive electrical reactions without suffering, you can also say the same about people who are suffering next to you (this is the problem of the other minds).

ננ replied 9 years ago

The point is not whether they suffer or not, but what the *meaning* of suffering is. Studies have shown that even when plants suffer, they secrete all sorts of chemicals during times of stress and so on.

The point is that, both halakhically and in simple intuition, it is permissible to cause suffering to an animal to some extent. Anyone who has ridden a donkey knows that it needs to be “spurred” a little, or if you want to tame a dog, for example, you use the stick and carrot method, which involves punishment to the extent of the dog. And so is the slaughter itself (although there is a Toss in Holin, as I believe, that claims that there is no suffering in slaughter).

If the point is the suffering of the animal, why is it permissible? It would be unthinkable to cause a little suffering to another person for the sake of one’s needs, even if it is a great need. If my cleaner doesn't work fast enough in my opinion, I can't give her a little nudge to make her hurry up, compared to a donkey that does (an exception is if the suffering is constructive, such as military training, where it's also by choice).

Also, during courtship, all kinds of hormones and the like are secreted in animals, and yet it's not "love", so the suffering of the animal has no meaning beyond instinctive reactions that really hurt it (like for plants).

Therefore, it's only relevant according to the effect it has on the person. Obviously, those who are more sensitive and are saddened by the disgraceful treatment in the industry, then it's relevant to them. But it's not a moral issue at all. In my opinion, the benefit of food security for all of humanity, and especially for the weaker classes, outweighs the cost of suffering, if it is consumed and not just unnecessary abuse (in which case the effect on the soul of the person abusing it is more severe and this is already a danger to society).

מיכי Staff replied 9 years ago

There is a mix of different levels of discussion and incomprehensible logical leaps in your words.

I don't know what the difference is between suffering and the meaning of suffering. If animals suffer, that's a problem. Even a baby who is abused suffers, even though he has no awareness, and I don't think he is in a different state than an animal, or perhaps less so.

You can of course argue that causing suffering to an animal is not the same as causing suffering to a person, because the moral status of an animal is different (if it even exists) from that of a person. I certainly agree with that, and it is still forbidden to cause it suffering without a justifiable reason.

Hormones and other vegetables are not related to the discussion here. Hormone secretion is not suffering. Suffering is a feeling, not a physical phenomenon, but my argument is that to the best of my judgment, animals also have such a feeling.

The question of dosage, whether it is permissible to cause a little or a lot of suffering to an animal, is again unrelated to the subject under discussion. We also cause suffering to humans in the army in order to benefit society. This is a question of reasonable dosage, not of animals or humans. Assigning a task to your cleaner is itself causing suffering. Not cleaning up the dirt you leave is causing suffering. None of this is relevant to our discussion.

In conclusion, this is the picture as I understand it:
1. There are physical phenomena that accompany suffering. These are certainly not suffering. And did anyone say otherwise? That is agreed upon.
2. There is a feeling of suffering in humans (why also in others?). The debate between us (if I understood correctly) is whether there is such a feeling in animals as well.
3. There is a moral meaning and status for different beings. Humans have a higher status than animals. I am even willing to agree that animals do not have moral rights, but we still have an obligation not to cause them suffering (for them too. Not just for our education, as you wrote). I suppose we agree here too.
4. The degree of suffering that is permissible to cause to anyone is a function of the moral status of the suffering object and our level of need in the matter and the situation. This is true for both humans and animals. However, the difference in status (section 3) makes a difference in the difference in the levels of suffering that is justified to cause in given circumstances. Here I do not know if there is agreement between us, but it seems trivial to me.

Now you can see that your conclusion that there is no moral significance to the suffering of animals is unreasonable, unjustified, and does not stem from the assumptions:
* If they do not suffer, then there really is no problem even without all the reasons you have given, but in my opinion it is factually improbable that they do not suffer.
* And if they suffer, then all your arguments are irrelevant and do not lead to your conclusion.

שמעון פישמן replied 8 years ago

You asked about rape, but you didn't know what you asked. You were actually talking about seducing a virgin. First, we need to distinguish between the language of the Torah and its precise prohibition and the intention of its words about – and they are – the actions it is talking about.
I will go on a little so that I can understand.
A quick Google search will find the sources, so I won't give them.
The Torah nowhere speaks of the rape of a virgin, only of an engaged and married woman. See: If she is found in the field, she cries out and there is no one to save her…
Seduction of a virgin, see: And if a man seduces a virgin who is not permitted, etc. It is clear that the Torah is not comfortable with this display of shame, and not only that the man is punished, but she is not. He is under the commandment to fulfill it and he will rule over you and refrain from seducing her.
I will also answer the question of rape. I will say in advance, the Torah is subject to change, perhaps the punishment for raping a virgin is not death like the rape of a virgin. And there is no place to express my opinion on the matter. But we can learn from the act of the concubine on the hill, that the people of Israel and their sages were aware of the seriousness of such heinous acts, and almost destroyed an entire tribe of Israel when they refused to hand over their criminals to trial.
Therefore, go out and learn, rise and succeed, and you will be enlightened by his wisdom.

ידידיה replied 8 years ago

The Rabbi wrote here:
“A contradictory statement like this already borders on ridiculous: There is no doubt that the Jewish people are a special people with a fascinating history (although it must be admitted that this statement is true for most peoples); that is, we are a “special people” in the same way that every other people is special. In this sense, the term “special” is of course emptied of its essential content. Every person or stone is special because the collection of the characteristics of each such person is never found in any other individual. So what?”

My question here is regarding the last line: ” Every person or stone is special because the collection of the characteristics of each such person is never found in any other individual. So what?”

I don’t understand why this is not true? Indeed, every stone and person are special. Because with respect to their own characteristics, all other characteristics of the whole do not exist in them. He is indeed right, isn’t he?

My question here corresponds to the corresponding question in the context of the physico-theological view on the definition of complexity - complexity is only one parameter that exists in the systems of laws. And each system of laws will create a special world (because there is only one system of laws for it).

https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%96%D7%A7%D7%95-%D7%AA%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%99%D7%AA/#comment-7596

ישי replied 8 years ago

Yedidia
Go back to the questions ‘What is exceptional’. Let's say you have a circle, a pentagonal square, and a line. You could say that the square is exceptional because only it is a circle and all the rest are not circles. I hope you understand that this does not make it exceptional. The idea of uniqueness is that all other things have a positive common property that the unique thing does not have – they are all two-dimensional and the line is one-dimensional and therefore is unique. All peoples perish in exile and the Jewish people do not (assuming this is the case). Any set of laws leads to a universe in which there is only inanimate matter except for a certain set of laws that leads to a universe in which there is also life.
You can philosophize about the question of what a positive property is, and I'm not sure that analytically there is a satisfactory answer to this, but it is usually clear, and therefore it is a discussion similar to the stacking paradox.

ידידיה replied 8 years ago

I accept your words regarding objects that cannot be compared between one object and another. After all, there is no general comparison parameter for them. So there is no point in relating them at all….

But there are many cases, and also in the matter of the universe, in which the entity has many characteristics so that from each object it will be possible to create a parameter that will match its characteristic and the rest. But according to it, it will be distinguished from the rest.

For example, for the parameter ‘The nation with the most people’. The Chinese nation is the most special.
Regarding the parameter ‘The nation that survived the longest in difficulties‘. Judaism is the most special.
Regarding the parameter ‘The richest nation’. The Dubaiis/Swiss are the richest. Etc.’ Etc.’.
It seems you can do this for every nation.
So, is Judaism so special? It is true that it is special in the parameter ‘the nation that survived the longest’ but it is not at all clear that it is special than any other nation. Why is the aforementioned parameter – “the nation that survived the longest” better than any other parameter?! (Wealth, etc.)

Thus, my argument in the context of the laws of nature is towards the parameters/characteristics themselves!
It is possible to create for any set of laws a parameter/characteristic that will distinguish it from the rest. For example, a parameter that contains “the largest star” It is clear that the number of sets of laws that will allow this is very small.
So why is the characteristic/parameter of complexity better than the rest!?! (You did not answer this)

ישי replied 8 years ago

A few things:
1. If everyone is different in a different parameter, it is not true that there is anything special here. It is reasonable to give priority to certain parameters according to their exceptions and according to an intuition that determines importance.
2. “The most X” is not special at all. There is always something that is the most and there is nothing special about it. Regarding Judaism, the claim is not that it survived the longest, but that it survived exile, separation from the territory, which brings destruction to other peoples (assuming this is true; I do not intend to defend this claim).
3. It is really not clear to me where the confidence comes from that for every set of laws you can find a ‘the most’ characteristic. In any case, as I wrote in Bank’ 2 the most characteristic is not really interesting. It is also possible that with small changes in the constants we would get an even more complex world than the current one. The ’the most’ It is not really what underlies the proof. The point is the complexity itself, and the claim is that almost any other set of rules would not result in any complexity at all (or almost none at all, but the point is qualitative, not quantitative).

משה replied 8 years ago

Yishai, you're basically saying that uniqueness is subjective. There's no objective difference between complexity and non-complexity.
It's like rolling a die and getting 665829, it's just as unique as 666666, right? The odds of both are equal.
The same goes for the systems of laws. If we number them from 1 to 1000, we'll find that, for example, only system 563 brings about complex life, but to the same extent, only system 579 causes star x to be at a distance a from star y. Only system 295 causes star x to be at a distance b from star z, and only system 683 causes star x to be at a distance c from star y. So, too, does system 563 (which brings about life) cause such a distance between the stars that brings about life. What's the difference?

ידידיה replied 8 years ago

Yishai, I was unable to understand the way you do present to select characteristics/parameters.
Just a negation of my words about what is not a parameter.

I would be happy if you / the Rabbi / someone would present how to choose a parameter to characterize special features.
Why is the characteristic of ‘ chariots’ a logical parameter, and a characteristic like ‘ the biggest star’ a failed parameter.

Thank you, friends.

ישי replied 8 years ago

Moshe
The result 66666 is objectively unique because all the tosses resulted in the same number.
This is also why the distance between X and Y is not interesting. Because it always gives some number. But the formation of life is indeed unique.

Friends
I explained very well why “most X” is not a parameter for anything, and this is for the simple reason that in every group, a priori, there is a member that will satisfy it.

ידידיה replied 8 years ago

Yishai, thank you very much.

1. I understand what you are saying, but in many things reality is not a feature that does not exist in the other members of the group. For example, in your dog’ with two-dimensional objects and a one-dimensional line, then indeed one-dimensional/two-dimensional is a special feature.
But what happens in a place where reality is gray, not a real feature.
For example, if we take Judaism as the dog’ the only people who survived exile, exile is not a renewed feature, it is only a feature of an extremely difficult event. But it is not a new feature.
If we take the dog’ of systems of laws that produce animals. Animals are not a new feature but a form of expression of something very complex.
So my claim “in X” returns.

2. How do we know which side of the group is unique? For example, between the line and two-dimensional members. Maybe the triangle is the special one? According to the number of members for each of the groups?

3. Where does the assumption come from that characteristic X is a more unique characteristic than characteristic Y? For example, that survival in exile is better than extreme wealth (just as survival in exile is nothing more than a very difficult event, so extreme wealth is far beyond ordinary wealth). Why are the Dubai people not more special than the Israelis?
And also why is complexity better according to the parameter of a world with an equal distance between stars. For example.

Thanks in advance.!

ישי replied 8 years ago

1. I didn't understand why animals aren't a feature. As far as I'm concerned, complexity is fine too. If I have a graph that's all very close to 0, and in a certain area it suddenly rises high, I'll see that area as special.
2. Of course, special is the minority, and there's no reason to think it's accidental.
3. Regarding the people, I really think this is a much less strong claim. Indeed, the Dubais can also claim that they are the chosen people, as evidenced by their wealth. There's no escape from using intuition here, but there really are places where even if something seems more special to me, I wouldn't be sure of myself. If you find a set of rules where the distance between all the stars is exactly equal, it would really be unique, I suppose (by the way, if there are more than 4 stars, then you'd also need a different geometry for the distance between every two to be equal…). Anyone who sees this will probably assume that there's a deliberate hand behind it. Although here it's clear to me that life is much more special. If I left balls on a pool table and all sorts of things happened there and then I came back and discovered that they were equidistant (here it's only 3 by the way) I would assume that someone arranged them that way on purpose, but who knows, three balls will line up in an isosceles triangle. It's not that far-fetched. If the pool balls started jumping on their own and multiplying, then that would be much more special (I know this is a flawed example but I'm just trying to demonstrate).

ידידיה replied 8 years ago

Thank you very much.
1. Animals are our characteristic for defining complexity and extremely high entropy. They are not something ‘other’…
Therefore, here you show that it is indeed possible to define “most X” as a parameter. Then my questions above came back.
1.* Note – The soul can be defined as something that is a truly unique parameter (like the analogy between one-dimensional and two-dimensional). A situation that leads to dualism is different from any situation of materialism. But for the sake of discussion, we will ignore this option.

2. Thanks
3. If so, how do we distinguish between parameter X that is stronger and more unique for us than parameter Y.
For example, it could be said that we would be more surprised by a nation that survived a continuous disaster than a nation that is rich.
You claim that the difference between the cases is intuition. Is there anything more formal and correct than that?

3.1. In the dog’ You gave the idea of billiard balls forming an isosceles triangle. If we throw balls at random, we will get a triangle shape. The probability of the ‘random triangle’ being drawn is equal to the probability of an ‘isosceles triangle’ being drawn. So we can’t learn anything if we now see that an isosceles triangle has been drawn. It’s just like any other triangle as long as we didn’t foresee it in advance.
Here’s a wonderful example of what intuition can do. Only mistakes.

משה replied 8 years ago

Yishai, 123456 is also special because all the numbers in the skips are equal. 13579 is also special because there is a skip of two and this can be done for any number.

ישי replied 8 years ago

Yedidia
1. Of course, life is something else. The level of complexity already becomes a different quality.
3. Maybe sometimes there is something formal, I don't know. Intuition is fine for me.

Moshe
123456 is indeed special. It is true that you can also find an explanation for the series 3415365 and then I will have to decide whether it is coincidental or not and my intuition will probably decide not to.

By the way, human intuition has a really great success in making predictions about reality. When it takes a collection of empirical facts and derives a scientific theory from it, the predictions are usually very successful. I think that God plays dice and in the liberal sciences there is some appendix that tries to prove from this that science works (I don't remember exactly).

משה replied 8 years ago

Yishai, you said: “It is true that you can also find an explanation for the series 3415365 and then I will have to decide whether it is coincidental or not and probably my intuition will decide not to.”, the question is why intuition would say so. Intuition can be trusted as long as it is not unfounded, but here it is unfounded.

ישי replied 8 years ago

If you state that it is absurd, who am I to argue?
I assume that in your opinion, since even for the series 123456 one can find another explanation besides +1, therefore it is absurd to say that the series is +1. And in your opinion, also to conclude from a few thousand observations that F=GMm/r^2 is absurd because it is possible to pass an infinite number of other lines between these thousands of points, so why choose this function in particular. That is what I said in the end that intuition works.

M replied 8 years ago

Moshe,
I have been following this correspondence for a few days now and am wondering whether to intervene, but I think it is time.

I understand very well what you are saying, but I think there is a misunderstanding of the term “special” or “complex” from which all the questions come. The Rabbi tried to explain it, but it seems to me that the point did not fall, I will try to do it myself.

I would like to use the term entropy (and in a moment you will understand why in my context this issue is relevant), how do I understand this term – “ a situation at the micro level that allows something at the macro level”, the lower the number of possibilities that would allow this situation, the lower the entropy.

That is, the lower the number of things that allow a certain situation, the more “special” it is. That is to say – The chance of the number 2-2-3-2 on the die is the same as the chance of the situation 6-6-6-6, but the latter is more special because it is a situation that allows *something* for which the number of combinations that allow it is low.

Now we ask about a world that allows the creation of symmetrical balls. The questions that need to be asked are what the fact that a “symmetrical ball” allows, and how many things also allow the same thing. I argue that the phenomenon of a “symmetrical ball” that what it allows is “amazingness” is also allowed by a million other situations and is therefore an uninteresting parameter.

A certain structure of DNA in this context, is a situation that allows something – life, the number of things that allow that situation (life) is terribly low compared to the number of things that allow “something” other (symmetrical things, for example). This is from a principle point of view. That is, it is clear that in every situation there will be something “special” the question is how many other situations would have made this special possible and what is the chance that the special will be possible.

Regarding the other points you raised –
1. Things like “the biggest star” are obviously something uninteresting. It is clear that a certain combination will make the biggest possible, so it is neither interesting nor special, in addition, there are endless types of things that are “the most” so the chance of this is great and even understandable from the outset, on the other hand, a situation like life is so special that only rare things will cause it and therefore it is an interesting parameter.
2. Regarding the people of Israel. Every people has something that is “the most” about them. Money, time, survival, etc. The question is not this, there will clearly be one people that will stand out in every parameter. The question is – 1. What is the likelihood of that characteristic (i.e. how special is it) 2. How interesting is it 3. How many such parameters are there.

The Jewish people have several parameters –
1. Survival – It is clear that someone will survive the longest and I am not at all sure that we survived the longest, what is interesting is that the people who survived so long are people who all of history tried to destroy. Add to that the return to the land.
2. Preservation of their culture – As above, it is not clear that this will happen considering that they persecuted us and gave us everything just to convert our religion
3. Influence – It is not easy to influence from a position of inferiority
4. Talent – Ask yourself is talent in music equivalent to talent in science. What advanced the world more? And what is more important?

That is, these parameters are not parameters that it is clear that someone will hold onto, but rather they are non-trivial parameters that were under the condition of the people of Israel. Add to this the fact that they are much more important parameters from a religious perspective than wealth and their combination together. Add to this the fact that this ethos is written in the prophecy of the prophets “You are the least of all nations, etc.’)

So far.

משה replied 8 years ago

Thanks M, I just didn't understand your example about the dice.
“The chance of the number 2-2-3-2 on the dice is the same as the chance of the situation 6-6-6-6, but the latter is more special because it is a situation that allows *something* for which the number of combinations that allow it is low”
What is this something?

M replied 8 years ago

A. *Entropy
B. In case you don't understand, I'm not claiming that the world is special because it allows for the parameter “entropy” – I'm claiming that entropy (conceptual, as I defined it) is, in my opinion, the measure for testing “special”. Every time you claim that something is special, ask yourself –
1. What does this special allow for – (and how interesting it is, although that's debatable).
2. What is the chance of this situation itself,
3. How many other situations would allow for this ”special”

The lower the number of situations, and the chance of each situation existing, that would allow for this “special”, the more “special” it is. Therefore, the animal world is unusually special.

M replied 8 years ago

1. Admiration
2. Dice with the same number
3. Close a row in backgammon 🙂

משה replied 8 years ago

Admiration is just psychology. I'm actually excited about 141192 because it's my birthday (let's say).

ישי replied 8 years ago

I think the discussion has moved on, so I have no interest in going back there (I will just point out that M did not understand that for every series of numbers you can find a rule and then it becomes unique).
I just wanted to address the fact that Moshe is moved by a different number. The strange thing is that he brought up the number 666666 as an example with the understanding that it does indeed inspire admiration. He probably thought everyone would agree that it inspires admiration, and suddenly it no longer does.

לכל איש יש ייחוד וייעוד - מהשפעות היהדות replied 8 years ago

In the 23rd of Elul 7th

To claim that every series of numbers has a unique meaning seems a bit excessive to me, but the argument that every person is a complete world and has a destiny and uniqueness – is certainly a Jewish idea, which we hope humanity will not only proclaim, but also internalize.

The Maharal in ’Derech Chayim’ has already explained that since every person is sealed with the seal of the first Adam, who was created uniquely – all humans are similar to each other in that each has his own personal uniqueness.

And Maimonides explained in Moreh Nevuchim 83:17 that since man is close to his God in that he has knowledge, he is special in that he has the personal supervision of his Creator, “Great in counsel and abundant in knowledge, whose eyes are open to all the ways of men, to give to every man according to his ways and the fruit of his deeds” (Jeremiah 23:19).

May our deeds be like an “upward column” and ascend to the will of our Creator, “Who formed their hearts together, Who understands all their deeds.”

With blessings, S.C. Levinger

M replied 8 years ago

Yishai – It seems to me that if you examine 6-6 against the number that Moshe wrote, under the definition I gave, you will see why the example is valid, but in any case, I said what I said and I have nothing more to add.

Those who were convinced – great, and those who weren't – not bad.

ישי replied 8 years ago

M
I don't really understand what there is to argue about here. You want a special situation where the number of combinations that allow it is low (that's your wording, and I think it's very inaccurate), and it exists equally well in both 6666 and 2232. If you want, you can find a function that allows 2232 just as well (I didn't try to build one because it's not interesting). It's a simple mathematical matter, not something that you can be convinced of.

משה replied 8 years ago

Yishai, there's no need to quibble with my words, indeed, psychologically 66666 is special, but I argued that when you get into mathematics, the chances of all combinations are equal, and there's no rational explanation for thinking that the number 66666 is special and requires intelligence. Because I proved that 134584 is just as special, and that my date of birth also evokes psychological specialness in me.

המבין שבכשפים replied 8 years ago

Moshe Shalom Lekh My Dear.
Of course 6666666 is unique because we would expect a distribution of numbers when rolling. (Even though the odds are the same) But 12345 indeed cannot be learned from it. So be it. Therefore it turns out that 6666 is probably the cube that is unfair.

And in the context of the other important people,
Before you build the uniqueness you need to build what you expect to find is it an unfair cube/sorcerer supreme etc. etc. And how what you expect is useful for the results that came out. If in the casino near my house here in Milan 6666 came out on the cube, someone probably wanted it. But if I don't know of anyone who would want to fake results I have no reason to suspect that the cube is unfair, only for a long series of results (because there is not enough distribution of the other numbers in a small series).

It's a shame that the rabbi doesn't intervene in this basic discussion.
With the blessing of “those who walk in darkness”.

ישי replied 8 years ago

Obviously, 6666 is too short. We're talking about short here. We're referring to something with a very low chance.
Just as you would expect the numbers to be spread out, you would also expect them not to be in a series.
You're right that the question of the mechanism is important here and I raised it in another answer. Even a result like 1234 that repeats itself many times would probably convince me that it's not a coincidence, but more consistency would be needed because I don't know of a mechanism that would lead to this, unlike the result of 6666 etc. where I know of such a mechanism.

מייסדה של ספריית מילאנו לא חשב כפרופ' הררי replied 8 years ago

On the 4th of the month of May, 5777, Milan was also blessed with the Ambrosiana Library, founded in 1609 by Archbishop Borromeo, who believed that opening the treasures of knowledge to the public strengthens faith and the work of the Creator.

The founder of the Ambrosiana sent an envoy to Greece, Egypt, Syria, and the Land of Israel to acquire manuscripts in Latin and Greek, as well as Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic, and thus one of the most important collections of Hebrew manuscripts was established in the Ambrosiana.

As a typical Renaissance man, Borromeo understood that the foundations of European culture lie not only in the classical culture of Greece and Rome, but also in the culture of the people of Israel, whose faith and values were the ironclad assets of all humanity.

Three hundred years after him, the reformers of the nations of the world, such as King George V and Lord Balfour, understood this, and felt that in their work for the national home of the Jewish people, they were repaying a historical debt of gratitude to the ancient nation that gave the entire world the &#8216 Book of Books, from which the world drew its faith and values.

To distinguish a thousand thousand differences, even the most corrupt of the Gentiles, who aspired to impose the &#8216 morality of the masters’ The "Blonde Wild Beast" felt that the Jewish "slave morality" oppressed their conscience and prevented them from running wild as they pleased, and they imagined that with the destruction of the Jews, "Jewish morality" would cease to bother them.

To them, the literacy trait that developed in the people of Israel, due to the vision of Isaiah "And all your children shall be taught by the Lord" and due to the regulation of Joshua ben Gamla that brought about the "Compulsory Education Law" in the people of Israel about 1800 years before the entire civilized world

That literacy led to the proliferation of Jewish scientific greats, who, as great as they were in science, were great in the pursuit of peace, and God, against their will, gave them the right to develop the atomic and hydrogen bombs, which led to the downfall of the evil Nazi empire, and to the “balance of terror” that brought about stable peace in the world for decades.

With best wishes, S.C. Levinger, Librarian of the Nisimiana Library in Jerusalem