Some questions about chapter three of the book – God plays dice
Hello Rabbi,
I started reading your books (Science of Freedom, God Plays Dice)
And I reached the third chapter where you talk about all kinds of claims by atheists about the likelihood of the creation of the world and the universe by a being or just by chance.
- One of the claims is that it is likely that we live on exactly such a planet with all the laws and the environment in which we would grow. So of course the atheists’ answer is that because the place itself is like that (ready for life to grow), then life grew there and we are here. I read that you did not accept this claim and tried to give examples of why the claim is not appropriate, but I did not understand your examples. Apparently it does not matter what the likelihood of such a thing happening is, only if there happens to be a world that is ready for life, then life will grow there.
- In addition, you explain that the moment we talk about the laws of nature or the fixed ones, then we are talking about God, because where did the laws come from that would be exactly like this to allow the process (evolution) or life, then either they were created by chance or God created them. You showed that the probability of them being created by chance is low, so God created them. why? Because the rules do not differ from star to star, and then there are as many stars as the probability of one star with these rules. But these rules do change. Maybe the force exerted on the atomic nucleus does not change, but it does not exactly affect life either. For example, the distance from the sun, which is very precise, does apparently change from galaxy to galaxy. The same goes for the atmosphere and the gravity of the star itself, etc. So apparently this argument does not apply here.
- And regarding probability, I learned from my rabbi (I studied at the Lev Institute, also with your perspective but a little different) that it’s a bit difficult to talk about probability. Probability in things we know is simple because you can see what the chance is of one happening out of the large sample space. But probability regarding the creation of humans or the creation of things we have no experience with is meaningless. You can’t say something is more or less likely when we don’t know how to create it or what the sample space is.
- Finally, I would be grateful if you could direct me to one of your books or articles that talks about rationality in Judaism and how to deal with most of the difficulties about Judaism (let’s say I accept the claims that G-d plays dice, how do you link such an entity to Judaism, and how do you make Judaism that is full of unequivocal errors legitimate today?) and how do you maintain a religious lifestyle in today’s reality?
Thank you very much for reading and for the answers!
I explained all these things.
* I didn’t understand what wasn’t clear. Look at the example of the execution (the entire class missed and the person in question was saved). Is there anything to be surprised about? In your opinion, even if he was saved, it’s not surprising because without him being saved, he wouldn’t be here to wonder.
* All stars have the same set of laws. It is a special system because it allows for biology and chemistry, and therefore life. In another system, there would be no life even if there were a sun and its distance from a star was the same as ours.
* We can certainly talk about likelihood. We can’t talk about probability. A sample space is needed for probability calculations, not for estimating likelihood. If you think that the emergence of life just like that is something likely, we have a disagreement.
* See the fifth notebook on my website. The fact that there are mistakes is not really important in my opinion. Things will be more detailed in the trilogy that is currently being edited.
All the best,
Thank you very much for the quick answer,
1. Really, after thinking about it for a while, I suddenly can't understand myself. But actually, the question of why we are here has an answer, because there are good conditions here that are sufficient for life. But then you can ask the question whether it is likely that there will be good conditions here blindly. The same thing in the shooting class. It is not surprising that he was saved (he was not hit by bullets). The question is why he was not hit by bullets. Still, the initial question (what is the probability that we will fall exactly on such a star) is meaningless, it will always be 100% because we live here. The question is how such a world evolved.
2. Supposedly, if you create a galaxy that is exactly like our galaxy, then life will be created there. It is impossible to know whether the life that was created here is because of God or because there are different laws on this planet. (If there was a sun that is similar in distance to ours on another planet, if all our rules were also there here, such as an atmosphere, etc., then life would be created). Apparently what I'm saying is that you need to go through all the above constants and see that they really don't change from star to star.
3. So is probability just a feeling and not something measurable? Compared to probability.
4. Where do I enter the notebooks? What is its name? How can I be informed when the trilogy comes out?
Once again, thank you very much.
1. You didn't understand yourself and now you're repeating the same thing again? Now I don't understand. Or did you just explain my answer here.
2. Indeed. And again, the question is how was such a galaxy created that allows life (or actually the laws of nature that allow it)? The laws of nature do not change between stars. Certainly not fundamentally.
3. Probability is an explanation that is not measurable. Indeed, it is true. After all, even if we assume that the laws of nature depend on some constant, and its exact value is essential for the creation of life. The probability that such an exact value will come out depends on a distribution that you obviously do not know. That's why you talk about probability. It is unlikely that exactly such an exact value of the constant will come out. And if there is a distribution that allows it, it is unlikely that the mechanism that created such a distribution just came into being by itself.
4. Regarding the notebooks, see under Miscellaneous. The first volume of the trilogy will have an updated and revised version.
5. I don't know exactly. It is currently being edited, and I hope in less than a year.
1. Yes, I tried to explain what I understand and I just wanted you to confirm to see if this is the move.
2. In my opinion, the change between the stars is substantial, can you refer it to appropriate sources?
3. If probability is just a thought, what is its place here? Just common sense? It varies from person to person. Is it likely that such an exact constant would emerge? I don't know. I don't think my opinion here can advance us towards the truth that is why this exact constant remains.
4. Thank you very much
5. Thank you again.
2. Sources for why: That all stars have the same set of laws of physics?
3. Wherever there is no calculation, you need considerations of probability. When a person answers you the question of what time it is and you are wondering whether he is lying to you or not, you have no calculation. But probability means that he is not lying. Even the formation of an exact constant without knowing the distribution is not a probability calculation (unless you assume a uniform distribution in the absence of information). Your opinion is the only thing that will advance you.
2. Yes, is this agreed upon? In my opinion, the small changes between stars are very fundamental and they are the ones that affect the creation of man here.
3. If this is just an opinion, then there is no debate at all. You believe this and I believe that there is no room for argument here. The likelihood that a person tells the time is great because from my experience I have met many people who told me the time and were right (it matched a lot of things for me later) so I assume that the next person will also tell the truth. Compared to the probability of an exact constant, I have no experience with these things (I have never tried to create such a coefficient in our own world) so I have no sense of the probability of speaking.
2. You have some fundamental misunderstanding of the argument in my opinion. It is clear that this is agreed upon. There are changes between the stars, but not in the laws of nature but in the data (distances from the sun, radius, mass, temperature, soil structure, etc.). The values of the constants do not change. Therefore, it is of no importance to our matter, since these laws of nature and only they allow biology (even if it is created only on one of the stars. With us). In other laws of physics there was no biology, and then living beings could not be created anywhere. My question is why the laws of physics are precisely these and not others? It does not in any way concern the stars and the changes that are or are not between them.
3. This is not just an opinion. Probability also has logic in it, even if it cannot be calculated. The principle of causality or induction is probability, and does not have an observational source (as David Hume showed), and is still the foundation of rational thinking. The fact that you met different people who told you the right time means nothing, unless you adopt the principle of induction and generalize from the people you met to the rest of the people. You have no probabilistic calculation to anchor it, yet you accept it because it is plausible.
2. I understand, so you are asking what is the chance that there will be such laws that give the option of life in reality at all? If so, then how can we even talk about probability here? This is a one-time thing that happened, how can I as a person say whether this thing is probable or not? It makes more sense to me to say that the universe was simply created with some laws (one can wonder if there shouldn't have been any laws at all) and if because of them we live then here we are to wonder about it and if not then no (back to the previous argument) I don't understand how this is an argument about God.
3. Ok so in the example I gave you basically justified probability by induction or some other tool, the question is why are assumptions that we have neither induction nor causality about reasonable.
Think about all the possible systems of law on earth, how likely is it that one system of laws will emerge, and that it will be precisely the unique one that allows life. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a deliberate hand that created them.
Okay, I've exhausted all possibilities. All the best.
Y’, there is a point that the Rabbi did not make clear and that is that induction is not the justification for accepting probability but the opposite – There is no reason to trust induction except for its probability that we know with our intuition. Therefore, if you do not want to accept the probability of things from our mind – Do not trust induction (and do not fly in an airplane for example. Gravity is only known by induction)
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
