Q&A: The Physico-Theological Argument
The Physico-Theological Argument
Question
The common rejection of the physico-theological argument is evolution. About that you say that it is certainly not relevant, because that is an argument within the laws, whereas the question is about the laws themselves. As I understand it, one of the aspirations of current science is to arrive at one theory (and perhaps preferably as simple as possible) that will explain all of physics.
My question is this: I am absolutely not familiar with contemporary physics or the mathematical framework surrounding the physics of the beginning of the universe (if such a framework exists). But suppose we arrive at two or three fundamental laws (or even one mathematical formula, if physics really is a branch of mathematics).
In such a situation, it would in any case be impossible to argue that there is complexity, because there are only two or three simple laws, and only from them do more and more data branch out and new situations arise, and only after a long chain do we see the complexity that exists. In such a situation, even when I am talking about the laws themselves—the most fundamental ones—if I do not see complexity there, is it correct to relate to the entire current situation as complex, and therefore the argument will remain valid, or rather, if it is just a branching-out of simple laws, then the physico-theological proof is not relevant?
Of course, there are a lot of "ifs" here, but that is mainly in order to understand, in principle, whether I need there to be complexity at the stage of "creation," or even in the later branching-out.
Sabbath שלום
Answer
Even if we arrive at one law, it will still be just as complex. On the contrary, if it is one law, then it is more complex. Something very orderly has low entropy. Beyond that, its complexity is assessed through the outcomes that are produced from it.
Discussion on Answer
You didn't see any such thing anywhere, so the question does not arise.
To ask a question, you need to go into the responsa tab and open a new question.
First of all, I don't understand how to ask questions, so I'm commenting here, and maybe the Rabbi will answer me how to send a new question, and apologies to his honor.
I saw elsewhere that the Rabbi says that in the case of rabbinic commandments and prohibitions, when they conflict with morality then the Rabbi would violate them, and I want to ask regarding some case what the Rabbi would think about it, in your opinion.
Let's say on the Sabbath, when it is forbidden to move muktzeh, and when I'm walking with my dog and it relieves itself, and rabbinically it is forbidden to move its droppings because they are newly formed muktzeh, but if this is in the street and people might step on it or be disgusted by it, would the Rabbi think that one should violate a rabbinic prohibition for the sake of those people?
That's what I wrote to Michi Bot, and I wanted to see how the Rabbi himself would answer.
Thank you