I hope the Rabbi sees that as a compliment; if not, then sorry! 🙂 [It’s not a good sign about me, that I’m slow to understand…]

I don’t think complexity is synonymous with entropy and uniqueness.
It is something different, more connected to the concepts of “system” and “order”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity

But according to the Rabbi’s answer, complexity is illustrated through entropy and uniqueness. So the question that has been asked on the site many times comes back. Every system of laws with actual attractive forces will create something unique. For example, in the example the Rabbi gave in the introduction to the notebook: there is a container with an ideal gas. Ordinarily we would expect the gas to be uniformly distributed in the container. But if there are attractive forces in the gas, a very, very special state will form in the container: [a solid]. So too with respect to the universe: every system with high gravitational constants and strong-force values—its products will be far more special than a human being.
[Though not complex.]

So my question returns: complexity is a definition of ours that does not exist in reality. Why is a complex thing preferable to a system that would create the biggest star in the universe, etc.?

Hello Yedidya. I was only joking. Everything is fine.
I addressed this question in an answer here on the site not long ago. For some reason I can’t find it right now. I’ll try to look for it. I’ll just say that there’s no point getting into this. Life and the laws that led to its formation are sufficiently complex without getting into all kinds of unnecessary definitions. And it’s not true that every system of laws will lead to something unique, because then it wouldn’t be unique.

Ah…
I did indeed see the question there; that’s where I wrote my question here from.

I meant that every system of laws would lead to something unique in its own way. One would create the biggest star, another the most uniform distribution in space, a third would create the most complex element in nature, and so on. Our system of laws, for example, creates something very complex.
Surely most systems of laws produce an outcome that is the most unique precisely in its own parameter! A kind of Guinness world record in its *own* field. (As I showed above, for example—the biggest star, the most uniform distribution overall, the most complex element in nature, etc.)
And after all, complexity is only one parameter among the many parameters that would appear in the Guinness Book of Records.

So once we do not define complexity in terms of specialness, like the analogy of the gas in the container -> entropy, there is no reason to choose the parameter of complexity as an objective parameter to examine in the other systems of laws (although I agree that most systems of laws would not produce anything complex).

Thank you, Rabbi,
Something in my question really does seem silly, but on the other hand it also seems very fundamental. I’d be glad if the Rabbi would point out what exactly is wrong here….

I don’t understand what you want. I explained everything. The above answer will be uploaded to the site soon and we’ll link to it.

Here is the link: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94-2/#answer-4390&comment=7587

Thank you for the reply,
I do not understand what is unclear here.
I saw the exchange there, and that is exactly the difference between the question there and my question.
The question there focuses within the definition of complexity—whether one can derive from it that the world is special.
I think it is obvious that most universes would not produce a complex world that produces human beings… I do not understand the writer there.

In any case,
My claim focuses on the issue: why is complexity a preferable parameter over any other parameter in defining the world’s specialness?

After all, the Rabbi would agree with me that the number of laws that would produce an especially large and complex chemical element is very small. And such a chemical element is not at all complex—only perhaps unique.

So if we were to see a universe that produces a special chemical element, would we be surprised and say that most laws of nature would not produce this, and therefore it is a sign of a designer?!
Complexity is one parameter among many possible parameters that the laws of nature can produce (uniqueness, aesthetics, beauty, complexity, and so on and so on).
Why does the parameter of complexity rise above all the others?

I already explained, and I’ll repeat it one last time.
I’m talking about specialness. If something special is formed, it is reasonable that it did not happen by chance. Life is special enough to ground such an argument. That’s all. Whether that is called complexity or not—that’s unimportant semantics.
If every system of laws produced something special, then it would not be special. Specialness is not defined relative to the current system of laws, but in a general way (relative to the products of other systems). If you were to randomly draw a certain system of laws, things at the level of complexity/specialness of life would not be formed. It’s really not that complicated.

It is true that life is special, and it is true that almost all systems of laws would not produce life.
But!
But every system of laws would produce one thing in which it is special.
For example, maybe there would be some system of laws that creates stars uniformly spaced 100 kilometers apart from one another (say).
That is a very special system of laws; presumably only one could create that.
Would we therefore assume that there is a designer behind it?

Every system of laws would create some case that is special for it, which the other systems of laws would not create. (Otherwise there would be no difference between them.)
Would we then relate to that case as special?!

Rather, complexity is one definition among many definitions, and it happens to fit our system of laws.
Therefore we cannot use complexity, any more than any other parameter, in order to derive a fact from it.