Empirical refutation of a priori logical arguments
Hello Rabbi.
I remember reading several times in philosophy (and perhaps in yours as well) that there are types of sentences/assumptions that, by their very nature, cannot be refuted by empirical findings.
1) I don’t really remember which sentences fall into this category besides logical sentences. Are probabilistic sentences also included? (as follows).
2) For example, it is clear to all of us that simple does not become complex by chance, after all, these are probability considerations that are mathematical (as if logical).
Now come the neo-Darwinists and claim that evolution refutes this assumption.
Assuming that I agreed a priori that simple does not become complex by chance, from a priori probabilistic considerations, is it correct to say that even before I go out into the field and examine what happens in the evolutionary process, I should have complete confidence that evolution, by its very nature being empirical, cannot refute the claim that simple does not become complex? Is it correct that it should be clear to me that probably one of the data in evolution simply does not match the theorem (and therefore does not contradict it anyway)? That is: a) Either at the beginning of evolution the situation was not simple (relative to the end). b) Or at the end the situation was not complex (relative to the beginning, in fact we would have been the same). c) Or the process was not random (or not completely random)?
3) Can the Rabbi explain why it is true that there is no empirical refutation of such theorems?
4) What does it mean that they are not subject to empirical refutation? Does this strengthen them, or weaken them? (Like a theory that cannot be empirically refutable, which is not scientific).
Best regards, Joseph.
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.
1) But the Rabbi mentioned several times that the claim that simple does not become complex randomly is based on probability (states that are equivalent to an ordered state are null compared to other states), and probability is part of mathematics, which is like logic, and then by definition it should not be subject to empirical refutation, right?
You mentioned the laws, but when there are laws then it is no longer a random process, this is your proof of the irrelevance of evolution to faith, if there is a process that turns simple into complex (perhaps even with 100% certainty), then by definition it is clear that the laws that govern it are rare and special = the process is not random. An assembly line also produces complexity “by itself”, but it is clear that its structure is special (= even though there are no hands operating it, it is the result of intelligent design).
In your language: “Doesn't this mean that there is a factor that has slightly affected the randomness?”.
I'm not talking about non-randomness in the sense that someone arranges the simple into the complex with their own hands, but on the grounds that it proves that the laws are rare.
2) “I can imagine a world in which the simple does become complex.” Why do we need to imagine? This is exactly our world, and we concluded that the fact that the simple became complex proves that the laws are special (= incomplete hackery, like Gould's drunkard), that is, we absolutely assume that the simple was not randomly transformed into the complex, and if we find that it was – it means that it is not completely random (there are mutations and genetics and natural selection).
3) The more correct question to ask is: Is it possible for a world in which states of order to have as many equivalent states as states of disorder?
3. The difference between simple and complex is probabilistic, not physical, and this is certainly true.
1. But the claim that there is no transition from a simple state to a complex state is a claim in physics, not in mathematics (the claim that one does not just arrive at a state with a low probability).
2. Without any laws of nature at all, you are apparently right, but it seems to me that without laws the question is not defined at all. If you are talking about a random lottery, that is also some kind of law of nature. There the chance of such a transition is indeed small. You must provide a mechanism for transitioning between states in order to be able to ask the question about the chances of transition. This mechanism is physics.
And indeed, this is my proof.
3. Is it not possible to think of a world in which the number of states equivalent to an ordered state is equal to the number of states equivalent to a disordered state? For example, an imaginary world in which almost every connection of an electrical circuit will give something special and works? Is there any logical contradiction here? Can't even God overcome this? (Just to clarify).
4. So I'll put it another way: Could I even before I examined evolution know for sure that if there is a process in which a simple thing becomes complex with enormous probability, then it is clear that the laws and conditions that operate in it are very rare (=most of all the systems of laws would not give this)?
Here, apparently, my argument is supposed to be correct, because I am addressing the distribution of systems of laws, and according to the Rabbi, it is a probabilistic and not a physical argument to claim: “Most of all the systems of laws would not create something as complex as a human being”. Right?
Yosef, you can see here the inevitable question that the Lord ignores:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%90%d7%a0%d7%98%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%a4%d7%99%d7%94-%d7%94%d7%90%d7%9d-%d7%94%d7%90%d7%91%d7%95%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%a6%d7%99%d7%94-%d7%9b%d7%94-%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%95%d7%97%d7%93%d7%aa/
After all, the definition of entropy in the notebook is uniqueness.
So a gravitational singular point – has the lowest entropy (assuming that there is space around it, and not that space is the size of the point’… like the beginning of the Big Bang). So far, it is also agreed upon by the Rabbi in the notebook How Many Points’. He bothers to mention that the point’ at the beginning of the bang was without space and therefore is simple…..
This point will be obtained for any value of the gravitational constant greater than 0 (it just depends on the time for it to happen between milliseconds and Graham's number of years) but it will eventually happen.
And therefore, the probability that a simple point will remain simple is only when the gravitational constant is – 0. Which means 1/infinity….
So if the purpose of the fine-tuning argument is to show what the chances are of a person coming out, then okay… Atheists should not get excited. But if his goal is to show what the chances are of something complex coming out. Then he is making a serious mistake because the chances of that really are (for a gravitational singularity) infinity-1=infinity.
Maybe he will treat you as usual. And this time also to my question. Shabbat Shalom.
Shalom Rabbi, I would appreciate the answers to my two questions in the last message. I saw that there is another Yosef who asked a question about G-d, it is not me.
Kobi, what you asked is indeed an interesting question.
I said I was on a break from these topics until further notice.
I think the rabbi got confused.
My question is not about G-d at all and you have already answered most of it here. Just two last questions!
3. Is it not possible to think of a world in which the number of states equivalent to an ordered state is equal to the number of states equivalent to a disordered state? For example, an imaginary world in which almost every connection of an electrical circuit will give something special and works? Is there any logical contradiction here? Can't even G-d overcome this? (Just to clarify).
4. So let me put it another way: Could I even before I examined evolution know for sure that if there is a process in which a simple thing becomes complex with enormous probability, then it is clear that the laws and conditions that operate in it are very rare (=most of all systems of laws would not give this)?
Here, my claim is supposedly correct, because I am addressing the distribution of systems of laws, and according to the rabbi, it is a probabilistic and not a physical argument to claim: “most of all systems of laws would not create something as complex as a human being.” Right?
3. I wasn't confused. I'm taking a break from the topics of proofs for the existence of God and entropy and the rest of the nonsense, precisely because they never end (I answered briefly because I thought it would end). I'll answer just this once and that's it. It's possible to think of such a world, but in which there are even more special laws of nature than ours. Even I can create such a world, I don't have to be God. Just make a short circuit that neutralizes all the circuits.
4. Yes. See previous section.
That's it for now.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
