Q&A: Entropy in the Physico-Theological Argument
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
Entropy in the Physico-Theological Argument
Question
Hello and blessings. Regarding entropy, two questions came to mind:
- In your YouTube lectures, when you presented the physico-theological proof (in the context of macroscopic states that are generated from microscopic states), you gave an example of 10 squares in which 3 particles can be arranged in 3 particular squares, and thus the number of possible arrangements is 6. In addition, you showed that if the 3 particles can be only at one single point, then of course the number of microscopic states is 1. My question is: how do you calculate probability here? That is, do you need to take into account all the possible arrangements of the particles within the 10 squares, and then divide the possible microscopic states (that generate the macroscopic state) by all the possibilities? I hope my question is clear; if not, say so and I’ll sharpen it.
2. You argued that the complexity of the laws is like the complexity of the phenomena they produce. Can entropy also be applied to the laws? That is, can one argue that the laws that prevail in our world have low entropy? And if so, how is that justified [which microscopic states are the ones that represent macroscopic states (the laws)].
Thank you
Answer
- Yes. (And it’s not six possibilities but many more.)
- Entropy is not relevant to laws, because it speaks about real objects. Laws are not objects. Laws also do not change. The laws are special because the reality they create has low entropy. But as I explained there, entropy is only an index that illustrates an objective definition of complexity, and there’s no point splitting hairs over it.
Discussion on Answer
1. When you want to arrange three objects in ten places, if they are identical it is 10*9*8/(3!) = 120 possibilities.
2. Correct.
1. Thanks. And what do you mean by more than 6? If there are only 3 particles in 3 squares (out of 10 squares), how many possibilities are there for the macroscopic state if not 6?
2. I see. If so, can complexity be translated into statistical rarity? After all, the laws are also complex, and that is because they are rare.
I’m asking because I had the thought that one cannot claim that God is also complex (and so He too would need a composer), and therefore we do not get stuck in an infinite regress in this argument (unlike the cosmological one). In other words, everything complex needs a composer, including the laws, since they are rare (not statistically probable), but something that is outside our experience (God) does not need a composer, since the claim that such a thing is complex has no meaning. What do you think?