Q&A: Entropy — Is Evolution Really So Special?
Entropy — Is Evolution Really So Special?
Question
Hello and blessings,
The Rabbi argues that complexity can be defined objectively by the number of possibilities that allow state X relative to all the other possible states. And the complexity of a process is measured by the ratio between the complexity of the initial state and the final complexity — the simpler the starting point and the more complex the endpoint, the more complex the process as a whole.
Based on this understanding, the Rabbi answers the common question that almost any system of laws would produce a human being, and the Rabbi brings the fine-tuning argument, which shows that all the laws of nature are built (among other things) on 4 basic constants, and any change in one of them would not allow the creation of human beings.
You don’t have to be a genius to understand that not every system of laws will produce a human being. But even if not every system of laws will produce a human being, it could still produce some other complex reality.
Take for example the gravitational constant — one of the four fundamental constants. The stronger the force, the more unique and complex structures will of course be formed. And the only chance that there would not be a process that turns something simple into something complex is if the force were 0! Of course, the probability of that happening is 1/infinity.
And on the other hand, as people usually argue in fine-tuning videos — in the case of a constant larger than the one that prevails in our world, the matter created in the Big Bang would collapse back into a state of a gravitational singular point. But in that case, the singular point would be found within a real space (and not that the space itself would be the size of the singular point as at the beginning of the Big Bang). In such a case, for example, the uniqueness would be many times greater than that of a human being! Relative to the possibility of a uniform distribution of energy/matter in space. Therefore, even according to the Rabbi’s own words, the complexity of the universe is not in need of a sufficient reason (p. 41 in the third booklet).
Is that not so?
Answer
I’ll answer briefly (because of my previous notice): no. The overwhelming majority of systems of laws would not produce anything complex at all, and certainly not something complex that would remain stable over time (not something that happens for a second and then passes).
Discussion on Answer
I meant my previous notice (from a few days ago), to you and not to Yosef (that I’m taking a time-out from dealing with proofs from the booklets).
Seems to me the time-out is over, since that was “a few days ago”… (speaking of time as an objective measure)
C. If fine-tuning is talking about a reality in which there supposedly exist infinitely many universes, and from that it shows the uniqueness of life, then it’s pretty clear that among infinitely many universes the distribution between complex and non-complex universes (not universes that create life and those that don’t create life, but complex in general) is 50/50, no? Even though if in 1000 universes the distribution is 1/1000 in favor of the complex, still with infinity the probability changes.
A. I’m not Yosef from the previous message. Indeed, I don’t see the anthropic principle as a challenge. Rather, the entropic principle… and if my principle is correct then the Rabbi also agrees that there is no need to look for a sufficient reason for the laws of the universe.
B. Why is stability a condition for the physico-theological proof? And does it have an objective measure? How much time is minimal and how much is not? The sun is going to turn into a red giant and wipe us out along the way in another few million-plus years. Isn’t that a sign that we are part of a very unstable system.