Volume 27: Number 171
Tue, 07 Sep 2010
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:43:46 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] free will
R' Eli Turkel wrote:
> Several physicists have tried to years to base free will on quantum
> mechanics. The problem with all such proofs is that even if they
> are accepted they only destroy determinism with randomization -
> not with free will. Free will implies an active choice not just
> that our actions are random rather than determined a priori
The problem here is in the word "randomization".
It seems to me that quantum mechanics does NOT replace determinism with
randomization. Quantum mechanics is willing to concede that things might
still be deterministic, but that they *appear* to be random, because there
is nothing in this physical universe which is making the determination.
It is my feeling that whenever an apparently-random quantum event occurs,
it is the deterministic result of a specific cause, but that cause is
*outside* of the physical universe.
In some cases, my bechira chafshit (which is part of my
neshama/nefesh/soul/whatever and is not part of this physical world) makes
a decision, and this causes the quantum events in my brain to go in a
certain direction, causing my free-willed hand to do this or do that.
In another famous case, although water molecules tend to move in random
directions, Someone Who Is Not Of This Universe influenced the
apparently-random motions of the water of the Yam Suf to go in very
specific directions, allowing Bnei Yisrael to pass through.
Science thinks that the clicks of a geiger counter are random, following
only the statistical rules of the half-life of the radioactivity being
examined. My belief is that each and every click was caused by a quantum
event which was specifically caused for that purpose. Regarding whether it
was done by HaShem Himself, or by some mal'ach on His behalf, refer to
previous discussions here on Hashgacha Pratis and Hashgacha Klalis.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Obama Urges Homeowners to Refinance
If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Obama's Refi Program
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4c7d3fb9b744e983158st06vuc
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:00:57 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] free will
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 05:43:46PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: R' Eli Turkel wrote:
: > Several physicists have tried to years to base free will on quantum
: > mechanics. The problem with all such proofs is that even if they
: > are accepted they only destroy determinism with randomization -
: > not with free will. Free will implies an active choice not just
: > that our actions are random rather than determined a priori
: The problem here is in the word "randomization".
It seems to me that neither RET nor RAM sufficiently took into account
the fact that the paper doesn't discuss quantum events themselves,
but what uncertainty says about the measurement process.
They're not saying that quantum uncertainty is the freedom in freedom
of will, but that the role of measurement places constraints on what
can determine which measurement the experimentor chooses to make.
In this sense, it's very different than other QM papers I've read.
: It seems to me that quantum mechanics does NOT replace determinism with
: randomization. Quantum mechanics is willing to concede that things might
: still be deterministic, but that they *appear* to be random, because there
: is nothing in this physical universe which is making the determination.
AND the outcomes fit a probability distribution that correlates to the
magnitude of the wave function.
So that the non-random cause you're positing would still have to yeild the
result that particles already measured to rotate clockwise around their
direction of travel, when their spin is measured on the up vs down axis
will yeild 50% clockwise (spin-up) and 50% counterclockwise (spin-down).
Thus, if you tie the freedom of bechirah chafshi to quantum uncertainty,
it has real limits other than the constraints of physics. (IOW beyond
limits like: you can't choose to flap your arms and fly.)
: In some cases, my bechira chafshit (which is part of my
: neshama/nefesh/soul/whatever and is not part of this physical world)
: makes a decision, and this causes the quantum events in my brain to go
: in a certain direction, causing my free-willed hand to do this or do that.
And the brain, being a chaotic system with many positive feedback loops
will maginfy any such quantum even to the macroscopic level. (Barring
the problem in my previous paragraph with assuming those events are
non-random.)
But as I wrote in my first comment in this post -- that's not the topic
of this paper.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:25:16 +1000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Exclusion of Shlomis bas Divri's son
On 31 August 2010 23:49, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> But in the original post (on Areivim) I wasn't talking about the rejection
> in the immediate cause of his downfall. I was talking about the rest of
> his life until then.
When Moshe killed his father, he looked in all directions and saw that
there will never be any good coming from this man. Therefore this boy
had no potential for good, no matter how he might have been treated;
and that bad character would be sufficient to explain the treatment he
got.
--
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 06:09:49 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Exclusion of Shlomis bas Divri's son
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:25:16PM +1000, Zev Sero wrote:
: When Moshe killed his father, he looked in all directions and saw that
: there will never be any good coming from this man...
But this son was already concieved. So that wasn't what MRAH alav hashalom
was looking for when trying to decide whether the Mitzri's future held
anything worth saving. Rather, at any potential future half-brothers.
Two problems with this medrash, since we raised the subject:
1- R' Jack Love suggests that the medrash presumes Bohm's multiple
universe interpretation of QM, in which every event fans the timeline
out into every possible outcome.
Otherwise, all MRAH would see when looking into the Mitzri's future
would have been a few seconds and then death.
RJL then suggests that if existence is all caused by HQBH projecting
Chokhmah, and since He can conceive (kevayakhol) of every possible
outcome, why not?
2- What about the Mitzri's descendents' bechirah chafshi? How is it
possible to have someone for whom in any decision he is free to make,
no good would come from him?
Now if we didn't combine medrashim, and say the Ben Mitzri was of the
Mitzri Moshe killed AND Moshe looked into his future, then we could
suggest that MRAH saw that the Mitzri was infertile. But in the
combination, the Mitzri had to be fertile. Although not necessarily
fated to reproduce again.
"Vayar ki ein ish - she'ein ish asid lezeis mimenu sheyisgayeir." Well,
if there are no children, then not bechirah problem AND none to redeem
the line later.
BUT, note the language.... This Ben Ish Mitzri was at Har Sinai -- he was
misgayeir. So again, it would appear that MRAH was only looking at
subsequent children.
If both medrashim are supposed to coexist, rather than telling two sides
of a machloqes.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Richard Wolberg <cantorwolb...@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:16:48 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Ein Kemach, Ein Torah
Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah said "If there is no flour, there is no Torah; if there is no Torah, there is no flour." (Pirkei Avos 3:17)
There have been varied interpretations of that verse (as there are with many). I came across one recently which I feel is the best I have ever seen.
Firstly, which everyone agrees, if we don't have our basic material needs, our food, etc. we cannot study Torah. But more important: (If there is no
Torah, there is no flour) if we do not study Torah, we will not even learn what we are expected to DO with the flour.
The metaphor is profound. May we learn and implement what we learn so that we can take that flour and watch it "flower."
rw
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:13:18 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] How game theory solved a religious mystery
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 09:49:24AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> ... the great Gaon... Rav Eliyahu... I
:> heard from his holy mouth that according to what a person is lacking
:> in knowledge of the "other wisdoms," correspondingly he will be
:> lacking one hundred portions in the wisdom of the Torah, because the
:> Torah and the 'other wisdoms' are inextricably linked together ..."
:> (From the Introduction to the Hebrew translation of Euclid's book on
:> geometry, Sefer Uklidos [The Hague, 1780] by R. Barukh Schick of Shklov)
: So I've often wondered if the GRA thought this way (and I agree-not
: that that means anything), and he thought the Rambam was philosophically
: way off base (Aristotle and all that) , why wouldn't he not have accepted
: the Rambam's halacha as being deficient due to this inextricable link.
I must confess I personally feel an estrangement from shitas haRambam
for this reason.
The Rambam treats halakhah as a science not a legal system. Ironically,
the elimination of the idea that a law is open to multiple
interpretations, and thus is not subject to Aristotle's Law of
Contradiction (that A cannot be both true and fale), means means that
leshitas haRambam more things are rabbinic enactments. He can not say
an idea is miSiania but our interpretation of the idea changed; and so
the Rambam is compelled to give the halakhos derived from derashos a
later date.
And so, the Rambam can not have a concept of multiple correct
interpretations, since Aristo is so black-and-white in his logic, with
no grays.
Also, Aristo is a source the Rambam invokes when associating redemption
with acquisition of Truth. And so Torah must be to him a search for
Truth, not a search for a redemptive path -- where redemption includes,
but isn't defined as Truth.
For the same reason the Rambam, between the Peirush haMishnayos and
the Yad, dismissed the notion of relying on later sources to interpret
earlier ones -- he instead confronts the texts themselves with a clean
slate, trying to reach original meaning. Even WRT mishnayos vs amora'im;
although the letters I'm referring to (Igeros haRambam, Silat ed. pg
305, 647) were about approaching Chazal only through the primary sources
without the tradition of interpretation of the ge'onim.
Googling, I found this English translation of the aforementioned igeros
by R' Marc Shapiro:
This confusion that people have with regard to the Perush HaMishnah
is entirely due to the fact that I corrected it in places. The Creator
knows that most of my mistakes were due to my having followed Geonim,
z"l, such as Rabbeinu Nissim in his Megilas Setarim and Rav Chefetz,
z"l, in the Sefer HaMitzvos, and others whom it is difficult for me
to mention. (pg 305)
That which is codified in the chibbur [i.e. the Yad -mb] is
undoubtedly correct, and so we wrote as well in the Perush HaMishnah,
and that which is in your hands [an early version of the Peirush
haMishnayos -mb] is the first version which I released without proper
diligence. And I was influenced in this by the Sefer HaMitzvos of
Rav Chefetz, z"l, and the mistake was in his [analysis], and I just
followed after him without verifying. And when I further evaluated
and analyzed the statements [of Chazal], it became clear that the
truth was what we recorded in the chibbur and we corrected the Perush
HaMishnah accordingly. The same happened in so many places that the
first version of the Perush HaMishnah was subsequently modified, tens
of times. Each case we had originally followed the opinion of some
Gaon, z"l, and afterwards the area of error became clear. (pg 647)
This focus on primary sources rather than an acnkowledgement of the
Torah's inherent orality and fluidity means that the Rambam isn't using
a halachic process that remotely resembles the ones "everyone" else does.
If we buy into the Rambam's model of what halakhah is -- which, again,
has Aristotelian foundation -- not only did the chassidim bend the
halachic process into a pretzel, there are NO observant Jews today.
And thus the contrapositive, if we accept the halachic process as
practiced by acharonim and arguably most rishonim, then what do we do
with what the Rambam describes?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction.
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: David Riceman <drice...@optimum.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 09:33:56 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] pikuach nefesh
RET:
<<The basic question was a plane who has a sick patient on boeard and
when should the
doctor insist on an emergency landing.
The basic answer was that for hilchot shabbat one violates shabbat if
the risk is more
then 1/1000 (R Elyashiv). Howver, if it involves a loss of money to
the airline company and other
passengers then one makes an emergency landing only if the danger is
greater the 5%,
i.e. mitzvot between people are more stringent then mitzvot between man and G-d.>>
My experience is that physicians lack expertise at doing these
estimates. What if the doctor doesn't know the probabilities, or
doesn't know how to describe them numerically?
David Riceman
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:24:21 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] How game theory solved a religious mystery
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 11:13:18AM -0400, I wrote:
: I must confess I personally feel an estrangement from shitas haRambam
: for this reason.
I am kind of disappointed no one yet has tried to reconcile me...
: The Rambam treats halakhah as a science not a legal system...
: And so, the Rambam can not have a concept of multiple correct
: interpretations, since Aristo is so black-and-white in his logic, with
: no grays.
:
: Also, Aristo is a source the Rambam invokes when associating redemption
: with acquisition of Truth. And so Torah must be to him a search for
: Truth, not a search for a redemptive path -- where redemption includes,
: but isn't defined as Truth.
...
Well, I came across an example that shows the above is an
oversimplification.
How many lines of text were / will be on the tzitz?
In a beraisa quoted in Shabbos 63b and Sukkah 5a, the stam beraisa
says it had two rows -- Hashem's name, and below it, "Qodesh La-".
R' Eliezer then says that he saw the tzitz in Rome, and it had Qodesh
Lashem written out in one row.
The Rambam, Hil' Kelei haMiqdash 9:1, holds like the stam beraisa.
However, the Meiri preserves my basic picture of the Rambam. He writes
that the stam beraisa is more reliable than the evidence of a tzitz found
in Rome.
It could be that this particular tzitz was made in a bedi'eved or inferior
way, or even an imitation designed to let the Romans think they had the
tzitz while the sacred one was hidden away.
But the Rambam DOES deal with existing halakhah as though it were mining
facts, that interpreting laws.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres Hakodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: "Prof. Levine" <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:51:06 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] No Supernatural of Incomprehensible Secrets
The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devarim 30
11 For this commandment that I command you today is not beyond your
understanding, nor is it far away.
In the preceding verses it says that the fulfillment of God's
Torah transmitted to us through Moshe is the sole basis of our destiny
in all times and the foundation of our hopes for the future. In addition,
confidence is expressed that, in spite of all the vicissitudes of our fate,
the Torah will never be lost to us, nor will we ever be lost to it; rather,
ultimately we will return to it with all our hearts and with all our souls.
As grounds for this confidence, Scripture [v v. 11-14] points out that the
Torah's contents are close to man's nature and accessible to his intellect.
Lo nephlas he mimcha: [The Torah] does not deal with secrets that are
supernatural and incomprehensible to the human mind.
v'lo r'chokah he : Understanding and fulfilling [the Torah] do not depend
on remote conditions which are not accessible everywhere to those
who are obligated by it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100903/c584ff94/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 15:11:56 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] No Supernatural of Incomprehensible Secrets
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 02:51:06PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Lo nephlas he mimcha: [The Torah] does not deal with secrets that are
> supernatural and incomprehensible to the human mind.
This, including RSRH's translation of "choq" (those commandments that
demand showing justice toward plants, animals and our own selves),
as well as similar comments in "Ben Uzziel's" letter #11 (of the 19
Letters), is daas yachid territory.
This does relate to something I wrote in reply to a blog entry on
Hirhurim this morning.
Rational and Mystical Desire
September 2, 2010
http://torahmusings.com/2010/09/rational-and-mystical-desire.html
...
R. Yisrael Salanter, in his Letter on Repentance (Or Yisrael,
no. 32), provides two approaches to understanding the yetzer ha-ra,
the evil inclination. Rationalists see it as man's physical desires,
his biological needs pulling his mind, body asserting itself over
soul. Mystics, however, consider it to be a spiritual force enticing
man to violate the Torah's laws. R. Salanter accepts both approaches,
and we can readily see the duality. Most desires are of a physical
nature -- food, rest, relations. Some are more psychological but can
still be connected to physical success -- power, praise, money. Yet
the "forbidden waters" example fails to fit into this definition. The
occasional desire that is contrary to physical pleasures remains
unexplicable without the Mystical approach.
...
(The ellided part of the post relates to the week's parashah and Rashi
on Dev 29:15-17.)
I disagreed with this characterization of RYS's hashkafah:
... RYS rationalizes the mystical. It's the essence of his
derekh. E.g. we're in this world to refine the soul, but refining
the soul is in fully rationalistic, character-based, terms.
Similarly here -- that negative "spiritual force" and the "body
asserting itself" are not, leshitaso, a duality. They are different
descriptions of one thing!
But saying that observance can be understood without invoking those
secrets is a more limited claim than saying "does not deal" altogether,
not even as a second, deeper, level of explaining the same laws.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Yitzchak Schaffer <yitzchak.schaf...@gmx.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 15:45:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] No Supernatural of Incomprehensible Secrets
On Sep 3, 2010, at 15:11, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 02:51:06PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
>> Lo nephlas he mimcha: [The Torah] does not deal with secrets that are
>> supernatural and incomprehensible to the human mind.
>
> This, ... is daas yachid territory.
> (snip)
> ... RYS rationalizes the mystical. It's the essence of his
> derekh. E.g. we're in this world to refine the soul, but refining
> the soul is in fully rationalistic, character-based, terms.
>
>
When I look at this RSRH again, I home in on the word incomprehensible.
Chok definition aside, does he exclude all of the supernatural, or just the
incomprehensible? If RYS is rational, perhaps they are not necessarily as
far apart as this.
--
Yitzchak
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:31:14 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] No Supernatural of Incomprehensible Secrets
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 03:45:55PM -0400, Yitzchak Schaffer wrote:
: On Sep 3, 2010, at 15:11, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
: > On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 02:51:06PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
: >> Lo nephlas he mimcha: [The Torah] does not deal with secrets that are
: >> supernatural and incomprehensible to the human mind.
: > This, ... is daas yachid territory.
: > (snip)
: > ... RYS rationalizes the mystical. It's the essence of his
: > derekh. E.g. we're in this world to refine the soul, but refining
: > the soul is in fully rationalistic, character-based, terms.
: When I look at this RSRH again, I home in on the word
: incomprehensible. Chok definition aside, does he exclude all of the
: supernatural, or just the incomprehensible? If RYS is rational, perhaps
: they are not necessarily as far apart as this.
I am not sure I know what you think I meant when I used the word
"rationalizes".
The usual definition of choq invokes the transrational. That's different
than irrational. Parah adumah, eg, is said to make sense, but only using
a logic more complex than the human mind. The sensibility of parah adumah
is real, even if beyond our ken.
So, the second half of RSRH on "lo neflas hi mimkha" does run counter
to the way most understand chuqim.
That is orthogonal to the question of whether the causality that the
incomprehensible reason depends upon is natural or supernatual. (Or even
if the line between natural and supernatural evaporates if one could
think on that level of complexity.)
RYS bases his derekh on very comprehensible underpinnings. He doesn't
deny qabbalah, he just leaves the whole subject alone. RYS, being a
descendent of the Gra's mesorah would presumably say that the Torah
DOES deal with secrets that are supernatural as well as those that are
incomprehensible to the human mind (to paraphrase RYL's quote) -- but
one needn't invoke them to get on with living al derekh haTorah.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great,
mi...@aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great --
http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 11:26:59 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Stephen Hawking and God
There is much todo in some circles about Stephen Hawking's latest
book. Co-written by Leonard Mlodinow, but it's Hawking's name in science
and sheer genius that gives the book its gravitas, not Moldonow's
explanatory abilities.
Here's one sample review from The Washington Post
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/
09/03/AR2010090302118.html>
(shortened to <http://bit.ly/bVZCBn>. A snippet:
[They] have taken on that ultimate question in a somewhat more
rigorous form by asking three related ones:
Why is there something instead of nothing?
Why do we exist?
Why does this particular set of laws govern our universe and not
some other set?
...
With that background, Hawking and Mlodinow get to the real meat of
their book: the way theories about quantum mechanics and relativity
came together to shape our understanding of how our universe
(and possibly others) formed out of nothing. Our current best
description of the physics of this event, they explain, is the
so-called "M-theories," which predict that there is not a single
universe (the one we live in) but a huge number of universes. In
other words, not only is the Earth just one of several planets in
our solar system and the Milky Way one of billions of galaxies,
but our known universe itself is just one among uncounted billions
of universes. It's a startling replay of the Copernican Revolution.
The conclusions that follow are groundbreaking. Of all the possible
universes, some must have laws that allow the appearance of life. The
fact that we are here already tells us that we are in that corner of
the multiverse. In this way, all origin questions are answered by
pointing to the huge number of possible universes and saying that
some of them have the properties that allow the existence of life,
just by chance.
...
As USA Today quotes from the book:
Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than
nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to
invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
Since this book brings to public discussion an issue I've mentioned here
before, I'm going to repeat myself for da mah lehashiv purposes.
M-theory is not a theory. Here they more accurately describe it as a
set of theories -- but that set is open. There is as of yet no testable
prediction that can be experimentally verified.
(M-theory grew out of string theory, and it's not a theory in the
scientific sense either. For other problems with both, see Roger
Penrose's review in the Financial Times at
<http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/bdf3ae28-b6e9-11df-b3dd-00144feabdc0.html>.
Penrose is another major physicist who made a name for himself writing
popularizations.)
Second, the whole explanatory power of M-theory is not the features of
the M-dimensional branes (from the word "membrane") that it involves.
Rather, it's from the concept of a multiverse -- the notion that our
universe is just one "corner" of a far grander idea.
So, IOW, Hawking's claim that one doesn't need to invoke G-d to explain
the origin of a universe that supports sentient life involves a concept
that is (1) not scientifically provable or disprovable, and that (2)
involves positing the existence of an infinity can not be reached
empirically. Epistomologically and topically, he's talking religion.
Hawking didn't so much replace the need for G-d in the argument by design
as posited his own kind of deity.
One that lacks purpose and values, and thus poses no demands on the
individual.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Harry Maryles <hmary...@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 09:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Stephen Hawking and God
--- On Tue, 9/7/10, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
??? > Why is there something instead of nothing?
? ? Why do we exist?
? ? Why does this particular set of laws govern our universe and not
? ? some other set?
? ? ...
?? The conclusions that follow are groundbreaking. Of all the possible
? ? universes, some must have laws that allow the appearance of life. The
? ? fact that we are here already tells us that we are in that corner of
? ? the multiverse. In this way, all origin questions are answered by
? ? pointing to the huge number of possible universes and saying that
? ? some of them have the properties that allow the existence of life,
? ? just by chance...
? ? ...
As USA Today quotes from the book:
? ? Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than
? ? nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to
? ? invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
?
?
----------------------------------------------
?
I see no?new explantaion here that eliminates God?in explaining our
existence. Stating that there are multiple universes just increases the
numbers. Big deal!?Why does it matter how many universes there are? So what
if some of?them contain life sustaining conditions. Even assuming that is
true - Who created them? It is illogical to say that they created
themselves - spontaneoulsy! WRT the origins of the universe (or multiple
universes) - what makes M-theory any different than a single universe
theroy?
?
HM
?
Want Emes and Emunah in your life?
Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100907/c61c4721/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:17:33 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Stephen Hawking and God
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 09:52:47AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: I see no?new explantaion here that eliminates God?in explaining our
: existence. Stating that there are multiple universes just increases
: the numbers. Big deal!?Why does it matter how many universes there
: are? So what if some of?them contain life sustaining conditions...
If there is a logical reason for there to be an infinite number of
different laws of physics all coexisting in different places, then there
is no surprise that some of them support life, produced life, and that
that life reached sentience.
The numbers allow one to apply evolution-like arguments to the laws of
physics. Something is unlikely, but if you roll the dice enough times,
even the unlikely will happen.
: assuming that is true - Who created them? It is illogical to say that
: they created themselves - spontaneoulsy! WRT the origins of the universe
: (or multiple universes) - what makes M-theory any different than a single
: universe theroy?
A variant of your question:
M-theory is saying that given the existence of anything, and given that
that anything obeys some kind of laws of physics, the fact that one of
its universes includes laws of physics that eventually led to us is
explicable without invoking design.
But what about the existence of laws altogether? Or even the meta-laws
from which those laws arrived?
This answer gives Hawking a way to explain why the physical constants
are tuned to such perfect values. But not why there are constants to
begin with, nor why it involves these constants, these forces, these
symmetries, etc...
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 16
From: Simon Montagu <simon.mont...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 12:43:27 -0700
Subject: [Avodah] Which way to Jerusalem?
By chance when looking for something else, I came across the following
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla
"In recent years, Muslims from North America have used two rules to
determine the direction of the Qiblah. According to newly determined
spherical calculations a Muslim praying from Anchorage, Alaska would
pray almost due North if determining the Qiblah. However, when one
looks at the world on a Mercator map, Mecca appears to be southeast of
Anchorage. The rhumb line from most points in North America to Mecca
will point toward the southeast, but the distance to Mecca along this
route on the actual surface of the earth is longer than the great
circle route."
It's easy to see from a globe that the same is true, lehavdil, for the
distance from Alaska to Jerusalem. Does anyone happen to know in which
direction Jews in Alaska pray?
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 171
***************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."