Questions about the physico-theological view

B. It can be shown that all complexity is a property with low probability. This does not mean that it is an “objective” property. But we have found a way to define reality in a coherent way that will always give us a low probability for that property.
We conclude that we have no reason to assume that another intelligent being would be excited about complexity. Unless, you define the intelligent being as being able to distinguish between complexity and non-complexity. (Which is not excessive.)
And you still need to find a probability of how likely it is that this intelligent being will cause this complex thing. If it has free will, then there is an even greater difficulty in that it cannot be given an internal probability.
And in particular, if it is a primary entity, and you believe that the one who created the values is it, then the difficulty is even greater (everything is Picking). On the other hand, you have already found evidence in itself that is one-sided from morality.

I didn't understand the argument. Entropy is a quantity in physics. Are you claiming that it is also just a product of our way of thinking?

I'm not sure there's a connection between entropy and complexity. But even if we define it as such, it's still just our way of thinking. Indeed, this property allows us to examine cases in a coherent way that are statistically low. But that still doesn't mean that another entity would be excited by this property.

Let everyone get excited about what they want. And if they want something else - then let them take a pill. Who talked about excitement here? I think we've exhausted it.

The Rabbi used this word on the part of the created in column 144, p. 2. Here I borrowed it from the Creator. You can use the phrase ” the way of thinking” instead of the phrase “to be moved” as found, for example, on p. 5 there.
But okay, I already know that you don't want to get into this debate… and for some reason, you didn't want to in the book either. (And that's saying something to me)

I am willing to enter into any argument, and I don't remember any evasion in the book either. But I don't see an argument here. What I see are things that I have explained very well and there is no point in continuing with them.

Whether or not there is indeed evasion is to this extent probably dependent on the observer.
In any case, somehow, many many not only disagree on this issue, but do not understand your words at all so far, and some of them are personally acquainted with those with whom you argued. And they were not suspected of a lack of reading comprehension.
Also, the column itself begins by making certain assumptions that are not at all sufficient.

Although the rabbi defined complexity as objective through the discussion of entropy, he defined that this cannot be satisfied – since from a scientific point of view it can be assumed that entropy increases in one place in the universe and decreases in another. However, this law is nothing more than a scientific model for natural intuition, that complexity does not arise on its own. Here the rabbi added that in terms of rarity, any event can be equally rare, and uniqueness is the measure here. However, uniqueness can be in the eyes of the observer. Therefore, the rabbi said that ultimately the objective dimension of uniqueness is the correlation between uniqueness in reality and our perception. In other words, the fact that there is an exact match between the perception of uniqueness in our minds and the uniqueness that we encounter in reality – is the unique situation (which is not only rare) among the countless possible situations, and in any case it is unlikely that it would happen by chance.
And my question is, can the correspondence also be explained from a naturalistic perspective - the entire world developed through an evolutionary process, and in any case there is a correspondence between the world that developed in a certain evolutionary way, and the intellectual perception that developed in the same way, as part of that world. Therefore, there is no reason why there should not be a correspondence between different parts of reality that developed as one, without any higher factor.

I repeat that according to this there is no point in introducing a quantity like entropy into physical calculations. It is built on our way of looking at things. And in general, if you see our way of thinking like this then it should not be trusted at all. This already brings us to the realms of skepticism.

So I didn't understand why the rabbi was required in column 144 to explain that objectivity is in the correlation between our thinking and the complexity of the world, and wasn't content with defining entropy.

As far as I remember, I tried to explain why it wasn't just a random series of dice roll results (i.e. how it differs from a series of 6s).

True, but the Rabbi brings this up as a difficulty with our very perception of uniqueness, which is defined according to entropy measures. To this the Rabbi replies: “The uniqueness is only in your eyes, but the correlation has objective significance” (HaMatsoi Rishon, 229). I raised this point above, that perhaps the correlation itself does not have any more objective significance than our very entropic perception (that living beings are something special), since it is also part of the same evolutionary system that created our brains, and therefore there is no reason why there should not be such a correlation. Therefore, seemingly, correlation has nothing to teach about anything outside of it, except that reality is coherent.

I will answer with an example. My sister was once a counselor in Canada at a summer camp. On Saturday she went to the lake near the camp, and suddenly someone approached there. Then they talked and it turned out that he was from Jerusalem (she also lived in Jerusalem at the time). She was stunned by the coincidence. I told her that the chances of him being from Jerusalem were similar to the chances of him being from anywhere else. After all, he must live somewhere, right?
But of course this is a false argument. She herself is from Jerusalem, and therefore in her eyes Jerusalem is a special place. The chances of him coming from Jerusalem should be compared to the chances of him coming from anywhere else in the world. Jerusalem is special only because she lives in Jerusalem, but assuming that the person there is her, and she does indeed live in Jerusalem, this is objective specialness. The admiration that the man was a resident of Jerusalem was justified.

What?! Naturally, all the understandings I had about your evidence are incorrect…
It does fit with a few lines in column 144, but it still doesn't fit many other places.
And what about the column you wrote about your car breaking down and someone from Yorukham coming for a ride and saying it wasn't special?

Oriel, do you have any sense of humor? I'm already pretty lost for words from the Rabbi.

Now I thought about it, that you might be defining the concept of objective differently 🙂

I understand now that the concern with subjective uniqueness was only with regard to the series of 6s (in which one cannot speak of entropy - after all, the macroscopic state of a series of 6s contains one microscopic state just like any other number), and the problem with it regarding the physiotheological argument was not from the subjectivity of entropy (which is certainly not true), but from the ability to prove something from statistics (reverse statistics). Right?

I didn't understand.

I didn't exactly understand how the series of 6s makes the entropy argument difficult, since it really doesn't belong in the definition of entropy, and in any case the uniqueness of the result is subjective (does a series of 6s have less entropy than any other series? After all, for any given series of numbers there is only one state of numbers that will give the macro result). In the last response I tried to define exactly the connection between them, but if the rabbi doesn't understand, I probably don't understand what he's saying. I would be happy if the rabbi could explain.

I lost you. I'll explain briefly what I mean.
Entropy in general is defined for a microscopic state. Entropy is the number of macroscopic states for a macroscopic state. Therefore, there is no point in asking what the entropy is for a given series. Entropy is the number of series for a globally defined outcome. For example, when you roll a die 100 times and get a thousand times 6, this is a macroscopic state. Its entropy is zero because there is only one such microscopic state. On the other hand, any other series is one realization out of many of a macroscopic state with a higher entropy. For example, a hundred times 6, two hundred and fifty times 5, and so on.
When you see a series of 6, you understand that you have received a unique string (low entropy), because it is the only realization of the macroscopic state of a thousand 6. When you get another string, it is not unique, even though its probability is the same as that of the 6. The probability of the macroscopic state is fundamentally different. This is my definition of uniqueness versus rarity.
Of course, if I am a creature for whom a certain series is special, then for me it will have low entropy. And its appearance will be a phenomenon that requires explanation. And yet if you see a string of a thousand times 6, you will conclude with certainty that the cube is “handled”. Why? Because for you it is a special series. No other series will lead you to the same conclusion.
But life is a phenomenon with low entropy regardless of our way of looking at it, since its entropy is low in physical calculations. The formation of life requires a scientific explanation, and we are not willing to see it as an ordinary phenomenon like something just random and random. Therefore, the claim that we see life as special because we are alive (evolution) is irrelevant to the discussion.
But I will end here. I am tired of these endless discussions.

If so, then why does Canada's situation require an explanation? After all, it is not objective?
If so, there are two possibilities for requiring an explanation, either objective or subjective specialness, and both are correct in your opinion, then why are you trying so hard to claim that the situation here is objective?

In any case, the Rabbi can use his dualism assumption and his familiarity with free choice to claim that most worlds would certainly not allow the implementation of consciousness in the physical world, so if so, it is clear that this situation requires an explanation. If almost all worlds except a few would not allow life. This also assumes here that entropy is objective, but of a much more distinct type.

I clarified this. Because in relation to life, if I were content with the subjective uniqueness, there would be room to argue that evolution explains this uniqueness and there is no need for an explanation. That is why I argued that there is an objective dimension here.