Q&A: The Argument Outside the Laws
The Argument Outside the Laws
Question
Hello Honorable Rabbi,
2 questions:
1) Is the argument outside the laws relevant on the assumption that I see the specific result that was produced, in which we exist, as something unique? After all, this is something that happened out of countless possible outcomes, and the wonder and search for a reason for this specific result proceed from the assumption that this is a unique result (and not unique in the sense that it is different from the other options, since probably every result is different from all the others, but rather that there is something specifically unique about it, whereas in all the other cases things are the same). Is there anything that makes the specific result in which we were created unique? And again, to say that we were created and therefore it is special seems to me to fall under the fallacy I mentioned, and it may be that because we were created, subjectively we attribute a certain “uniqueness” to it that has no objective basis. If so, what objective things can I present to show that this is a unique result that requires explanation? And the very fact that I am struck by the result is not, in my opinion, a criterion…
2) Is there also truth to the claim that every set of laws requires an explanation—who established those laws? That is, beyond your claim that there is a set of laws that leads to a unique outcome and therefore I need to assume there is a lawgiver, is it also correct to say that even if the set of laws did not lead to anything special, but only to a world that does not progress anywhere, the question would still be asked: what created those laws that lead to that same disorder? And even if we say they were somehow created at some point, what set of laws created them? I hope I am understanding the concept of a “law” correctly. That is, this claim can become two difficulties: 1) Where do laws come from at all? 2) How was such a specific set created?
Is my argument here precise?
Thank you very much
Answer
The question of uniqueness has been discussed here on the site at very great length. See especially Column 144 and the discussion in the comments there, and the references brought there. There was a heated debate about it.
Discussion on Answer
I briefly went over the post and the responses.
My question is whether it is at all possible for a person to see what was formed after the fact as something not special. Maybe by our very existence we are compelled to see what exists as special. After all, we too were formed through an evolutionary process that causes us to fit our environment, so do we have the ability to “step outside ourselves” and see a measure of uniqueness that is not “biased”? Because as I understand it, as long as we give the criterion that it simply “seems special to us,” that is problematic.
And perhaps the entropy measure itself, or the desire to see something special in lower entropy, is also a product of our own thinking, such that we could not have seen things otherwise. That is, if we had been created in a different world where entropy increased to the same extent, we would say that that was special. And our very being where we are obligates us to say of whatever led to that that it is “special.”
That is, I’m not interested in what the generator of the laws thought; the question is whether I had the option of thinking otherwise. If yes, then uniqueness has meaning because it comes against another possibility. But if in every possible situation I would have had to see uniqueness, then the argument is invalid.
Still waiting for your response, hoping there really is an objective measure that presents the uniqueness, one that does not depend on the way I developed.
A possible direction I just thought of is that the very existence of a creature capable at all of discussing the subject, of sensing the meaning that arises on its own, of feeling the “uniqueness” even if it is forced in every system we might live in—that is not something self-evident, and maybe that is an objective measure. That is, that is where the uniqueness lies. Not in my feeling one kind of uniqueness or another, since according to my question it may be that in every situation I would feel uniqueness, but rather in my very ability to feel uniqueness at all, and the satisfaction from that—maybe that is an objective measure that represents the uniqueness.
As I explained in the booklet, the measure of complexity does not depend on how you developed. Entropy is a quantity that can be calculated objectively, and in fact in the physical world there is the second law of thermodynamics, according to which a closed system never decreases entropy (= does not increase complexity/uniqueness). If entropy were something subjective on our part, there would be no reason in the world for physics to take such a quantity into account.
Eric, regarding the first question, I claim there is a universal misunderstanding in understanding the argument, and according to my approach your question is answered. The Rabbi did not agree with me, but one of the experts in probability (Ari Martzbach) agreed with me completely (I pestered him again and again to make sure he really agreed; I didn’t publish everything on the site).
See my two articles here (the link to the second one is in one of the comments):
https://mikyab.net/Responsa/A response article to TheoLogica/
As for the second question, I think so. When there is a law, it is reasonable that there is a lawgiver even if it does not produce special creatures. Put differently, as long as the conduct is according to a fixed procedure (a rigid law), that itself is special.
“There would be no reason in the world for physics to take such a quantity into account.”
What do you mean, Rabbi?
I mean to say that if entropy were a subjective measure, then in a world inhabited by different creatures it would be defined differently. But entropy appears in the laws of physics and describes the behavior of the world as it is, and therefore it apparently does not depend on our specific way of looking at things. After all, it is the same world for us and for aliens who would observe it. From here there is proof that entropy is an objective quantity and not a product of our structure or biography. Anyone who has studied statistical mechanics knows that there is a mathematical way to calculate entropy, and there is nothing subjective about it. It is simply counting possibilities.
1) So the expectation of an entropic result is something self-evident even not from subjective eyes, and therefore if reality is anti-entropic contrary to expectation, that requires explanation?
2) Is reality indeed anti-entropic? Doesn’t the order on Earth affect disorder in other places as a consequence, in accordance with the entropic law?
3) Is it not possible that the very argument I made in section 1 itself stems from the subjective structure?
1. Correct. I claim that uniqueness can be defined objectively through entropy. And now I ask why the world or the laws are special.
2. Indeed, that is the scientific explanation, but it does not explain the philosophical problem. I explained this. Even if somewhere a human being was created and elsewhere disorder increased, that still requires a philosophical explanation. To illustrate the difference, see the discussion here about Anaximander:
“Even if somewhere a human being was created and elsewhere disorder increased, that still requires a philosophical explanation.” Why is that philosophically difficult? After all, it is logical that within a certain framework entropy will not increase if in the larger framework the principle is preserved. What is illogical about that? Why is that surprising?
It is definitely surprising, as everyone understands very well. After all, if a human being were created next to you, you would be very astonished, even if they explained to you very nicely that around it the mess had increased and the overall entropy was balanced out. If you saw next to you a strong wind blowing pot shards up onto the roof and there they arranged themselves into the shape of a whole flowerpot, would you not be surprised? And again, they would explain to you that around it the mess had increased, so you need not worry about entropy and the second law.
People think the laws of physics are the whole picture. But no—they are a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. See the discussion in the article I sent you.
And regarding the second question, that the very existence of laws already raises a question?