Ruler

Their production process is not in our experience…
So then God is also something in the experience of the religious…. And a creator is needed.

What is being created here? Are the laws beings? If so, then it is God. I am talking about the basic being who created the world. In my opinion, the laws describe a form of action, but then someone is needed who enacts and implements them. But I think things have been clarified and everyone will choose what they see fit.

I ask from the perspective of the discursive argument if the Rabbi did not understand and not from the perspective of the cosmological argument.

A. It seems to me that things were not explained sufficiently in the notebook.

B. The Rabbi firmly supports the principle of sufficient reason, and since if we use this principle also with regard to God, then we will reach an infinite regression and therefore it is better to stop at God who is the reason of Himself in contrast to the laws of creation. And I ask why? After all, the reason for both is not under our experience.
B1. The assumption that God is the reason for Himself is an assumption that came about as a result of the desire to get rid of the endless grinding of reasons?
B2. And why involve an unknown factor to explain creation rather than remain in a dilemma?
———–

C. The Rabbi often uses the FINE-TUNING argument, but the creation of the laws is unknown to us.
So why ask for a reason for it at all.
D. Why does the Rabbi think that the laws describe a form of action (like in a factory) and are not an arbitrary factor!?
E. Why does the Rabbi think that the idea of a machine that creates worlds and laws is a weaker argument than God?

Thanks in advance, have a good week and a happy Lag BaOmer :=)
I would appreciate it if the Rabbi would answer a little more extensively because I usually feel that many discussions are repetitive because each side does not understand each other. So it may be better to expand a little instead of mincing messages.

I understood well, and I answered.
The regression argument should stop at an object that does not need a cause outside of itself. This object is called God. If the laws are an object, then for me they are God. If they are a description of a mode of action, then an object is still necessary. And if there is a machine that creates laws, then it is God. What is not clear here?

That's about the cosmological regression argument.
But not about the physico-logical argument. Right?

The physico-theological argument does not deal with regression. When you talk about regression or about a being that is its own cause, you are dealing with the cosmological argument. And there we are talking about a being that is not in our experience.
The physico-theological argument deals with the complexity of the laws. The one responsible for it is God. And if the laws are beings (preferably intelligent) I don't care if they are God. Either way, there must be a being responsible for them. And this has nothing to do with our experience but with the a priori explanation that there are no laws without a legislator.
Incidentally, the two arguments (the cosmological and the physico-theological) are combined into one. The separation between them is mainly didactic.

Okay, thanks, so let's leave the regression issue for a moment.

The part of your answer that says, "A priori, there are no laws without a legislator." was the purpose of the initial discussion.

And therefore I would prefer to focus only on this part:

A. I didn't understand why you would claim that there are no laws without a legislator? And the laws are not arbitrary?

B. The Rabbi often uses the FINE-TUNING argument, but the creation of the laws is unknown to us.
So why even ask for a reason for it?

Thanks in advance!

As I wrote, the principle of causality is also unknown to us from experience and we still assume that it is true. We have a priori explanations, such as the explanation that nothing happens without a cause, and certainly if it is a complex thing.
Therefore, when there are laws, the explanation says that there is someone who is responsible for them, created them and/or operates them. When you see a factory with all its departments operating in perfect harmony, you assume that there is a manager who has determined the methods of operation and coordinates the parts. The fact that there are laws that describe how the factory operates and instruct each department and/or person what to do is not an explanation that makes the existence of a manager redundant. On the contrary, it shows that there is a manager and these are the laws that he has determined. The same is true of a washing machine. The fact that there are laws that govern its operation does not mean that no one created it. On the contrary, the fact that there is a machine that operates in a coordinated manner leads us to conclude that there is someone who designed and created it and the laws that govern its operation. The same is true of the world.

Okay, thanks,
So I have a few more questions.
A.
Are the laws that special? I think the way to test how special they are is to notice
the result they leave behind.

B. So when we see their very “special” work, we will discover that they have neglected how many billions! Galaxies! That exist in the universe that are simply empty and not special at all, but insanely random.
In that case, would the Rabbi still say that this shows a functioning work?

Where do you get the idea that they are random?
There may be a need for them that has not yet been explained.
If I am not mistaken, the Rabbi explained elsewhere that
the creation of the rules does not prevent departure from them.
Like the vocal cords in animals, this indicates randomness in creation.

Beyond the comment about the randomness that was made above me, I say that it definitely does. Every factory produces a lot of waste (when entropy is reduced, it inevitably increases around it). This is how a quarry produces stones and leaves destruction on the mountain from which they are quarried, and so it is with any production. The fact that there is a special product is what determines it.

This is the kind of answer I was looking for,
Can the rabbi expand?

It is impossible to create without waste? Is this some kind of logical law?
For example, in a bamboo production factory, it is not normal that they have so much waste. After all, they use everything they put in. So do most factories. But the rabbi likens creation to a quarrying factory. Why?

Moishbbb, can you elaborate, I didn't understand.

?

There is no factory without waste (this is the second law of thermodynamics). Sometimes the waste is found where the raw materials are produced (such as the building blocks of the factory, or the raw materials for the products).
My argument is that this is indeed a logical law. The same is true for the natural evil created in the world. It is a logical consequence of the decision to create a world that will operate according to fixed laws. I have already written about this here before.

Does the Rabbi have an article on this that goes into more detail?
With an emphasis on the first part – the second law of thermodynamics.?

PS
God could not have created reality without the second law of thermodynamics?

I don't have such an article. The second law (or at least this component of it) is actually the result of a purely probabilistic calculation. Probability is mathematics, not physics. Therefore, another world would probably behave similarly in this regard.

What is the definition of fallout?
Why is the destruction on the mountain the fallout? After all, it is only a reflection of the act of mining.

I would understand if the fallout was the energy invested in drills, etc. to mine the stones.

But then it is not so much related as a dog to our factory - the factory that produces the world.

Fallout is disorder. In physics, this is measured by entropy. All of these are disorder. When you build something, you create a small thing with some order. You will pay for it with disorder around it.

Just to clarify, this is a natural process of creation. If there is an intelligent creator, he can do things without disorder around it (like collecting stones and arranging them). In that case, he will invest his own information (and energy) in the system and information can create order. A random process cannot create order without paying for disorder around it.

A.
So it means that there is no intelligent being that has invested more energy into the system since the Big Bang, right? Z”A We see that God has not intervened in the world since creation.

Therefore, the Rabbi wants to claim that the laws are special that created such a star. Right?

B. The Rabbi wrote in the notebook that the order in creation is great. Why? I understand about life on Earth. But why claim this about the other galaxies as well?

C. The Rabbi had some evidence, found in a note in the physics notebook, that the order in the initial time of the Big Bang (when space was the size of the initial energy alone) was smaller than the order found in space today. Why?

After all, it was simply more compact; it was not possible for there to be another order.

A. I didn't understand where the sign came from and why, and even if I did – why is it important to the discussion.

B. The order in creation is that complex beings were created here. Even inanimate matter is very complex and built with great sophistication. And life is also complex, although so far we only know about one star.

C. The order after the big bang was smaller than the order of today because there was no life. Solid matter also didn't exist yet. All of reality as we know it didn't exist then.

A. Because we see that the sawdust was not used. And indeed it is not that related.

B. What is so complex about stillness? Maybe the Rabbi will enlighten me.

C. Okay, but the change from energy to mass had to happen following the bang, right? That means it is not that complex.

B. What do you think they study for so many years in the physics department if inanimate matter is so simple? If you want enlightenment on this matter, go and study physics and chemistry.
I don't think you need to be a physics major to understand that the business is incredibly complex. Physics only describes the details, but everyone understands the complexity of atoms and molecules and elementary particles and the connections between them.
C. ???
I think this whole discussion is quite bizarre.