Orderly realities and chaos
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to understand,
It is often said that an ordered reality with uniform laws, etc., requires an explanation, while chaos does not require an explanation.
How can I not understand why? After all, just as there can be chaos, there can be an ordered reality. Who hates chaos over order?
Chaos (mathematical) is something deterministic and therefore certainly requires a mechanism to create it. When there is a random process and its result is orderly, this requires an explanation (i.e. it calls into question the assumption that it is really something random).
If you mean something random whose outcome is not special, it requires no explanation, meaning here the assumption that random formation can remain valid.
I was referring, for example, to this claim by David Hume:
“People are fed by all sorts of prejudices, which strengthen their beliefs. However, when “they discover that the course of nature is orderly and uniform, their entire belief is shaken and destroyed. But when, after further reflection, they come to the conclusion that order and uniformity are the strongest proof of planning and supreme intelligence, they return to the abandoned belief, and they are now ready to establish it on a more solid and stable foundation”
I saw, as I think, that the Rabbi also spoke about this somewhere on the site here, I don't remember where at the moment.
And I wanted to ask why order and lawfulness arouse more wonder and a need for desire than disorder.
After all, it's as if it's 50/50 whether reality is random or ordered. There's no more uniqueness to an ordered reality than to a random one. Isn't that right?
It is the giver. It is not exactly 50-50. The definition of order is its uniqueness. An ordered state means a rare state that does not have many other equivalent states. A disordered state is a non-unique state. Therefore the odds ratio of ordered versus disordered is 1-99 (for example) and not 50-50. See the third notebook on entropy.
This is precisely when the laws lead to something unique (evolution –> humans, Fine-tuning, etc.’),
But right now I'm only talking about the reality of deterministic laws without purpose (for the sake of isolating the Rabbi's argument).
For example, a law that every two seconds a die is rolled. And the results of the die are divided according to the probability 1/6 without any uniqueness. It is still natural that this would meet the definition that there is an ordered reality that operates according to strict rules that the Rabbi would ask for a reason for. Even though there is no reason in its result.
Isn't that right?
And I ask why? After all, there is nothing unique here. Just as it could fall every two seconds, it could fall every second.
I've already explained.
When there is a mechanism, it explains every result. Explanations are only needed when there is randomness and the result is unique.
Obviously, my question is whether every mechanism needs a planner – why? Or only a mechanism that leads to uniqueness (Peshita).
Why does just any mechanism need a planner.
Because if there is any machine, however simple, someone created it. Think of a system of completely simple natural laws. Every particle that stands somewhere is bounced a meter to the right. Does such a simple mechanism exist by itself? Something that exists has something that created it unless it is its own cause/ancestor, etc.
I mean the machine is ancient.
Still the Rabbi would argue that it needs sufficient reason? Why isn't it unique?
It is still unlikely that such a thing is its own cause.
So when does the Rabbi define something as its own cause and when not?
This is not a definition but a characteristic. It's just that some machine doesn't seem like something that can be its own cause.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
