Q&A: The Difference Between Plausible and Probabilistic
The Difference Between Plausible and Probabilistic
Question
The Rabbi writes in his book God Plays Dice that the chance that the universe was created by accident, in a random way, is tiny. But the fact that it is tiny does not mean that it does not exist. Therefore, the Rabbi distinguishes between what is plausible and what is probabilistic, and since the claim is that it is not plausible that the universe was created by accident, and not merely that the chance of it is small, the Rabbi strengthens the physico-theological argument. But I did not understand the Rabbi’s conclusion: why is a random creation not plausible? Seemingly it is only not probabilistic [and “not probabilistic” is not such a strong claim, since one can always argue that the thing indeed happened, as the Rabbi wrote]. For seemingly, if there is a chance, even a tiny one, that the universe was created by accident, that makes this creation probabilistically possible, and therefore, seemingly, also possible from a logical a priori standpoint.
I would also like to use this opportunity to thank you for the book and wish you a good year.
Answer
D., hello.
First, I did not understand why you did not post the question on the site itself. That is the most efficient way.
As for your point: I did not claim that because the chance is tiny one should move from probability to plausibility. I move to considerations of plausibility in cases where probability cannot be calculated (that is, where a number cannot be assigned). But in terms of logical-philosophical weight, there is no difference between low plausibility and low probability (that does not strengthen the argument). In general, I have written here several times that one should not expect certainty in any field, and certainly not in the theological realm. We are speaking about what is plausible, not what is certain.
Have a good year,
Discussion on Answer
I didn’t understand the question.
A low chance means that it is not plausible that it happened. So what is the question?
Hello, and thank you for the quick response [I am new to the site, so at first I did not post directly on the site… after I saw the option, I did indeed turn to the site.
Regarding what the Rabbi wrote, that the Rabbi moved to plausibility because it is impossible to quantify the probability: admittedly, I understand that we do not know how to quantify the plausibility [because of the rate at which mutations are formed], but our lack of knowledge of the factors that go into the calculation certainly does not mean that there is no chance; it only means that we are limited in our knowledge of the factors needed for the calculation. If so, we do not know the chance, but it certainly exists. Therefore, since there is a chance, even a tiny one, that this happened, it is possible that because of repetition it indeed happened [and perhaps we are mistaken about the age of the world and the like, and that is what would help strengthen the probability]. In short, my claim is that non-probability is not an argument for ruling out a random universe, but only for expanding the factors that go into building it, or for claiming that it happened despite the low probability. And because of this claim, the Rabbi argues in his book [chapter 5] that indeed the argument against a random universe is not built on low probabilistic chance [as the Rabbi noted, there are those who do argue this, but they are mistaken for the reasons I listed], and the argument against it is to move to implausibility instead of improbability. But this move, which is built on our limitations in knowing the factors of the calculation, is not clear to me.
Have a good year