Q&A: Mechanism of Laws
Mechanism of Laws
Question
You wrote in your article on evolution that we do not know of a mechanism that creates worlds with laws, in order to claim that many worlds were created in which life could not have arisen, until this world was created, in which life did arise.
Apparently, the evolutionist community would argue that indeed millions, and perhaps billions, of planets were created throughout the universe, so that statistically it is possible that one of them would meet all the conditions necessary for the emergence of life. They would also argue that the very creation of all those stars and planets, which seemingly serve no purpose, indicates a random mechanism with no guiding intention, Heaven forbid.
I would be glad to hear your answer.
Thank you.
Answer
I answered this both in my book and in the article.
The problem is not the worlds, but the laws. All the stars and planets have the same system of laws (as far as we know), and that system allows chemistry, biology, and life. There are no other universes with different systems of laws. Our universe, with its system of laws, allows for the formation of many stars and planets, and on one of them life emerged. That would not have happened if the system of laws in the universe had been even slightly different (this is the fine-tuning argument).
In that same community there are many who go even further and claim that complex creatures would arise anywhere and under any system of laws, only they would not necessarily be living beings as we know them. And I, in my smallness, wonder: where are these complex creatures that are supposedly arising on each and every planet? Even with our life-friendly system of laws, this does not happen. So this is nonsense and emptiness.
Discussion on Answer
As I explained there, the same question arises regarding the remnants of evolution (the intermediate stages that went extinct and did not continue in the evolutionary process). I explained that the evidence still stands, because the laws are special and it is hard to assume they were not created intentionally by someone. At most, you can ask how the Creator’s “mind” works, since it is different from ours. So the claim here is that there is a Creator with a different kind of “mind.” But the conclusion that there is no Creator does not fit the facts. The same applies to your question. Beyond that, who says the rest of the universe has no role? It even affects our own planet. And beyond that, Maimonides and Maharam Gavaya (the author of Avodat HaKodesh) already disagreed about whether every creature in the world was created for the sake of man, or whether every creature has a role of its own, but this is not the place to go into it.
One more small clarification, if I may: it is not clear to me exactly what general system of laws you are talking about. As I understand it, the possibility of life arising in our world comes from laws that are specifically connected to our Earth and not to other planets. For example, its precise distance from the sun, the way it rotates, its size and physical mass that create balanced gravity, the amount of water on it, and other things connected specifically to it. (As far as I know—from what I learned in high-school physics—the known strength of gravity belongs specifically to our planet because of its mass.)
And again, people in the scientist community could argue that out of the random formation of billions of planets—which in itself is very unclear how it could supposedly happen without guidance, but let us assume it for the sake of discussion—one such planet emerged that is exactly in the right place and of exactly the right size in the galaxy, and that is what enabled life to arise on it out of all of them.
Where is the mistake here?
I am talking about the laws of nature (mainly physics). Without them there is no life. True, even with them you still need additional conditions for it to happen, and those conditions exist on our planet. But under different laws, life could not arise anywhere, on any planet.
Could you give me an example of one or two such laws, so I can understand what you mean?
This is not a question of one or two laws, or of an example. If one of the physical constants were even a little different, there would be no biology and no chemistry, and therefore no life either. Search online for the fine-tuning argument.
Okay, thanks.
And regarding my second question: why, apparently, is there any need for all those galaxies that were created intentionally according to our faith? Their lack of necessity might seem like evidence for their view that everything is random, and again—Heaven forbid.