Q&A: The Third Conversation, the Second Law of Thermodynamics
The Third Conversation, the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Question
The Rabbi wrote an excellent explanation of the anthropic principle and of the proof from the second law of thermodynamics, but in the last part of the proof, the Rabbi argues that it is not reasonable for the universe to be orderly. It seems to us that this claim is weaker than the claim that there must be an organizer. The Rabbi’s original claim (as we understand it) is based on the fact that the universe is infinite, and on the fact that there is a “lottery” determining which state it will be in. In our opinion, one could argue differently.
The fact that there is order in an initial state, assuming that without outside intervention there is no order in the system, means that there must be an organizer who is not subject to the laws of the universe.
Answer
First, it is the anthropic principle (with a “th”). Anthropos = human. Entropy is something else.
I did not understand the question. What is the difference between the claim that it is not reasonable for the universe to come out orderly without an organizer and the claim that it is reasonable that there is an organizer?
Discussion on Answer
The law itself is the order. I do not understand what the difference is between the possibilities.
After all, you do not see a law, but rather a collection of phenomena in a complex and planned world. You decide whether to call that a law or not.
It seems to me that what the questioners mean is that without the law, it is very reasonable that if there is order then there is an organizer; but once we know this law, there is no chance at all that there is no organizer. Order requires there to be an organizer, and this is not a matter of probability. Right?