Atheists
Hello Michael, a few days ago I heard a debate between an ultra-Orthodox convert (with incredibly deep analytical skills) who went on air with Aviv Franco and another member of the team there, and the truth is that he really taught them a “school.” He presented the claim for the reality of the Creator as a logical conclusion that is required in the face of atheism, which is nothing more than a blind and biased belief in the unexplainable.
The truth is that Aviv tried to make it easier for him and I didn’t really understand the answer of that Haredi. Aviv claimed to him that his entire argument is based on the assumption that there is order in the world, but since we don’t know of another world where chaos prevails, we can’t define what exists here in our world as order anyway, because order is a relative definition. So the Haredi asked him whether in a world where there are no other shapes besides a triangle, wouldn’t a triangle be called a triangle? That is, there are self-defined and non-relative definitions, and so is the definition “order.” So Aviv claimed to him that about order it is appropriate to express “more orderly, less orderly, but about a triangle, it is inappropriate to say “this is more triangular than this.” In any case, order is relative, so he rejected Aviv’s words that there is no such thing as more orderly, either orderly or disorderly. One could say that in this order, order is more evident, but even in an order where order is less evident, it does not make it less orderly because in the end it is orderly and stable, to the extent that we don’t know of random order.
And here Aviv insisted that this was the desired assumption, so the Haredi claimed that he was not assuming that there was order, but rather proving that even in our world there is a state of entropy and disorder, in Kitzur something like that.
I asked, please, do you agree with the Haredi’s claim? And if not, what would you say about the failed attempt to prove physico-theologically, that in fact perhaps there is no order, because we do not know another world and in any case we have no point of reference to define order.
I would appreciate an answer, thank you.
I’ve answered this more than once. This is a common mistake among atheists. There is an objective measure of order, called entropy. Therefore, the claim that our world is very ordered and special is not related to the question of whether we know of another world. If you had never seen a die before, and now someone rolls a die in front of you and you get a 6 a hundred times in a row. Isn’t this a special result because you’ve never seen another result? You understand that this is a special result because it’s clear to you that there could be other results that are less special even if you haven’t seen them.
That is, even if I do not know of a world in which disorder exists, the very fact that I can imagine such a situation constitutes a point of reference for me to define what appears to be order as order (a beautiful example with the cube) Did I understand correctly?
And I would like to know whether you agree with the words of the one who will deal with Aviv who claimed that the term order is not at all relative but is like a triangle and there is no way to say more orderly or less orderly, because everything that is orderly is orderly just as every circle is a circle. Is this true in your opinion?
Avishai,
After you have written to Rabbi Michi for the second time asking if he agrees with "that Haredi", I get the feeling that you are not writing this in jest, and you really did not notice that the speaker there is Rabbi Michi
Meir, no, not a righteous man! You are confusing, it is true that Michael had a debate with that creature known as Franco, on Eyal Yosef's podcast, and Michael certainly did a bird's-eye view, but I am mentioning here another debate that I heard between that Aviv and a real world genius, a Ba'al Teshuvah from Bnei Brak, a former atheist (as he stated in a statement that he abandoned the art of atheism and adopted rational theistic recognition). It was last week evening on the atheist line, they do cell phone debates with hundreds or more listeners, and that Haredi came up and did it to Aviv on the bird's-eye view.
I was just asking if Michael, with all the impressive experience he has in this field, agrees with that Haredi's claim that the term Seder is not a relative definition but rather a self-definition, similar to a circle and a triangle
You don't have to imagine anything. You have to calculate (the entropy). Even without knowing or imagining a four-dimensional world, I can talk about it and analyze it. The same goes for the cube I mentioned earlier.
Avishai,
Interesting. Do you have a link?
It's strange that Franco recycles the same arguments that were already discussed in the debate with Michi
I'm a physics student, third year. At the beginning of thermodynamics, we were told that entropy is order, but they kept saying that it's a first approximation. After we learned more about it, they also gave us examples that sharpened the difference, cases where what seemed more orderly to me was with higher entropy, not lower. So, I'm not convinced that entropy is really a good measure of order. Maybe it's a good approximation of "homogeneity", which is one kind of order, but I'm not even convinced of that.
It doesn't really matter what Landon Didan says. If you think they are different, then I'm talking about one of them (either entropy or order).
If we adopt for the discussion the assumption that entropy and order are different, how do we understand what you said earlier, “There is an objective measure of order, called entropy”? Entropy can be measured objectively, but according to our assumption it is not an objective measure of order. Is there an objective measure of order? And if there is not, doesn’t that blunt the teeth of the explanation you gave above?
Absolutely not. There is a measure of order and it is entropy. Even if you found differences, so what? Entropy measures order in an objective quantitative measure. And as I said, for my part, talk about entropy and not about order and present the argument based on it.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
