If so, I think the Rabbi did not answer my question at all.
In the first answer there, the Rabbi answered that an overwhelming majority of systems of laws will not produce complex things. And I agreed with that.
In the second he wrote—it is not true that every system of laws will lead to a unique product, otherwise it would not be unique.
And he repeated that in the third as well.

But my question is that every system of laws will lead to a different unique feature!
What is this comparable to? To the fact that every single nation is unique: the Jewish people are unique in that they have survived the longest; the Dubai people are unique in that they are the richest people; the Chinese people are unique in their number of people, and so on and so on. Indeed every people is unique! But in a different parameter and feature.

Therefore, one cannot infer from the Jewish people that they are special—unless we show one of two things: either that they are unique in several different features, or that not every feature is equal in its force.
For example—the Jewish people have both survived the longest, are also rich, and also the smartest.
Or—a second possibility—wealth that comes as a result of natural resources is not worthy of the name “wealth”; a high population that comes as a result of lack of persecution is not called uniqueness, and so on and so on.

But here comes the important point: when talking about uniqueness that comes from a “lottery draw,” one cannot attribute more strength to feature X than to feature Y.
And if so, since our world is unique in only one parameter—especially high complexity—it cannot be preferred over a unique world with a different parameter, for example the biggest star / the lowest entropy / the hottest system, and so on and so on.

I’d be glad for an answer!

To Yedidya (and maybe the Rabbi will also get some benefit from this)

I remember that thread. I don’t remember whether anyone said what I’m about to say now, but in any case I’ll just note that not every sequence of digits is considered special. True, for every specific sequence of digits there is the same probability that it will occur. But a uniform sequence of digits like 8888888… is considered special (as opposed to the sequence 1845623728…..) because the amount of information in it is the smallest (a concept from algorithmic information theory). It would indeed be considered special to the same extent as 222222222…. but all this is only a formalization of the basic, fundamental intuition of “specialness.” But all the examples you gave do not indicate uniqueness. Uniqueness goes hand in hand with the concept of complexity (and that is exactly what that information theory deals with—with grounding the concept of “complexity”), and in any case one can compare between different degrees or measures of complexity (you can actually assign a number to it), and all the examples you gave of complexity are negligible compared to the complexity of life (like 1 to 1,000,000, for example). Relative to them, the examples are considered simplicity and not complexity. The Rabbi will argue that not every system of laws produces complexity at the same degree, or even on the same order of magnitude. The one that produces life will be considered, relative to what we know, “special.”

Why does uniqueness go with complexity?
That is begging the question. Uniqueness goes toward a special feature—for example, the size of a star.
Because only one case will give the biggest star, just as only one case will make possible the creation of a human being.
So there is no preference for choosing the feature of complexity over the feature of the size of the star.

And the rest of your lofty words there are not relevant to our issue.

Yedidya, do you have an example of a system of laws / star that is considered complex / unique?

A question for the Rabbi—doesn’t the very existence of all the stars in the universe strengthen the anthropic argument?

I didn’t understand the question.

The very fact that there are planets and different systems and galaxies—doesn’t that somewhat make the argument from the laws (fine-tuning) more difficult?
At first I apparently thought this was a question in theology: why did God decide on this particular way, this and that way? And maybe the reason is unknown (scientifically—the connection to our planet; theologically as well).

But to me this is a difficulty. It shows a lack of order, and a(n apparently blind) attempt to create different states.

True, this is a difficulty for the theistic God, but also for the deistic one in a certain sense.

I hope I now understand (though I’m not sure). The number of stars increases the probability of an accidental formation at the tiny edge, so it has no significance. The proof still stands, because the thesis that there is a Creator is still far preferable to the thesis that there isn’t one and that this came about randomly.

Now, even if we proved the existence of the Creator, you can still ask about His mode of operation: why did the Creator act דווקא in this way? But that is a meaningless question with respect to His very existence. I explained in the notebook and in the book that even if you do not understand the way the watchmaker thinks, that does not mean there is no watchmaker. On the contrary, the proof stands because of the complexity itself.

Moreover, I do not even see here a difficulty regarding His mode of operation, for two reasons: 1. He created laws that produced a world in this way because He wanted the world to operate according to laws. Whoever raises the difficulty has to show that there is some other system of laws that would do the same job without the need for all the stars and creatures and the like. 2. Who said that the other stars have no purpose?

Understood. Thank you!