tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post115378292264574195..comments2023-10-30T08:40:59.016-04:00Comments on Wolfish Musings: The Wolfish Theory Of CreationBrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1154361004694768982006-07-31T11:50:00.000-04:002006-07-31T11:50:00.000-04:00If God had built on all subsequent events into the...If God had built on all subsequent events <BR/>into the moment of Creation, does that <BR/>mean that we are talking about merely<BR/>a watchmaker God? <BR/><BR/>Or do we say that because God is outside of time, it does not make sense to say that God was present at creation, but was not actively involved <I>afterwards</I>?<BR/><BR/>There used to be a computer game that involved making simple molecules. The idea is that you would at first locate the building blocks (atoms) around the board, and then press Go. The atoms would then assemble themselves into mollecules using the game's preset algorithm. Your challenge as a player/creator was to arrange the mollecules in a fashion that would produce the needed arrangement.DYMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15910417509922257606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1154093380343568002006-07-28T09:29:00.000-04:002006-07-28T09:29:00.000-04:00This is essentially the view of chasidus on the su...This is essentially the view of chasidus on the subject of creation. Famously, there is a machlokes whether 1 Nissan or 1 Tishrei is the day that Adam was created. The conclusion is that 1 Nissan was the creation "in thought", 1 Tishrei "in action". I think you present an interesting practical presentation of this concept.Rebeljewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12134454584925044808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1153930134972132242006-07-26T12:08:00.000-04:002006-07-26T12:08:00.000-04:00It is a G-d of the gaps theory because you are ass...It is a G-d of the gaps theory because you are assuming that by some unknown mechanism Hashem set up things in the first few 'days' so that the universe would evolve as it did much later. <BR/><BR/>As soon as the knowledge of physics reaches the point where we can show it is not possible for events during those 'days' to have that kind of effect, you'll have to come up with another explanation based on an area where then-contemporary science does not yet have an explanation.<BR/><BR/>In fact I think you'd have to do that already - as I said, I can't think of way within contemporary physics to achieve your goals in the timeframe you want. I think the science for those times are pretty well settled, but I am not a physicist - I could be wrong.Larry Lennhoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1153928851301890332006-07-26T11:47:00.000-04:002006-07-26T11:47:00.000-04:00Larry,I've looked at the Wikipedia article you lin...<B>Larry</B>,<BR/><BR/>I've looked at the Wikipedia article you linked to, but I don't see the connection. Can you elaborate on why this is a "God of the gaps" argument?<BR/><BR/><B>Mis-nagid</B>,<BR/>Welcome back! I thought you had stopped reading my blog! <BR/><BR/>Of course, I should have known that you would "love" my theory. However, to point out, it should have been clear that I don't get my science from movies but from Douglas Adams books.<BR/><BR/>Seriously, however, perhaps my characterization of Chaos Theory was a bit off... but I suppose you could also term the state of Creation after the BB as chaotic.<BR/><BR/>In any event, I explicitly stated at the end of the post that this theory wouldn't pass scientific muster since it's not a scientific theory. <BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, would you care to elaborate further on why the Science and Torah are both bad? I'd like the opportunity to fine-tune the theory (or toss it entirely) with your further feedback.<BR/><BR/>The WolfBrooklynWolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1153882757994056742006-07-25T22:59:00.000-04:002006-07-25T22:59:00.000-04:00"In short, chaos theory [...] states that small ch..."<I>In short, chaos theory [...] states that small changes at the start of <B>any given system</B></I>"<BR/><BR/>Wrong. Not "any given system." <I>Chaotic</I> systems. Only some systems are chaotic.<BR/><BR/>The rest of it is even worse. Drivel from someone who knows his science from movies and Torah from cheder.M-nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544559966559522003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1153870832255752492006-07-25T19:40:00.000-04:002006-07-25T19:40:00.000-04:00Wolf,"But, of course, the uncertainy principle sho...Wolf,<BR/><BR/>"But, of course, the uncertainy principle should not stop God from determing the position and direction of any particular particle."<BR/><BR/>That would rightly be called a miracle. The inability to accurately measure the particle is not because of a failure in the mechanism of measuring but because of the actual indeterminancy of the 'particle' in the real world.<BR/><BR/>You can't pin down a particle because the particle is literally not there. There is no 'particle.'<BR/><BR/>QM throws to hell all of the common knowledge we think we have about the world.<BR/><BR/>Most people don't bring QM into theological discussions since it really is difficult to think about in its counterintuitive nature, but the idea of God bringing order from chaos often seems fitting to me.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1153848510406765662006-07-25T13:28:00.000-04:002006-07-25T13:28:00.000-04:00It is a very common mistake. That is why I don't ...It is a very common mistake. That is why I don't get upset by it, I just try to correct it.Larry Lennhoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1153836228083661252006-07-25T10:03:00.000-04:002006-07-25T10:03:00.000-04:00P.S. Please try to use Larry and not LennyMy apolo...<I>P.S. Please try to use Larry and not Lenny</I><BR/><BR/>My apologies. I guess I didn't read it clearly and saw "Lenny." I honestly thought that was your first name.<BR/><BR/>The WolfBrooklynWolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1153832325645943142006-07-25T08:58:00.000-04:002006-07-25T08:58:00.000-04:00For more information, see G-d of the gaps on wikip...For more information, see <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps" REL="nofollow">G-d of the gaps</A> on wikipedia. <BR/><BR/>P.S. Please try to use Larry and not Lenny. No insult taken, I just prefer being addressed by my first name, not a diminuitive of my last.Larry Lennhoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1153814895352137732006-07-25T04:08:00.000-04:002006-07-25T04:08:00.000-04:00Thank you, everyone, for your comments so far.J,th...Thank you, everyone, for your comments so far.<BR/><BR/><B>J</B>,<BR/><I>the obvious problem to me is almost nothing in Genesis is in the correct order (i.e. like the earth appearing before the sun and stars).</I><BR/><BR/>The beauty of this theory is that it doesn't matter - the Earth may not have appeared before the sun and stars -- just that the *potential* for it's creation occured first.<BR/><BR/><B>Orthoprax</B>,<BR/><I>Except Heisenberg gets all uncertain on us.</I><BR/><BR/>I did forget to take Heisenberg into account when giving my example. But, of course, the uncertainy principle should not stop God from determing the position and direction of any particular particle.<BR/><BR/><B>Lenny</B>,<BR/><I>First a minor quibble - The Butterfly effect was first called by that name in 1972 whereas the Bradbury story was written in 1952.</I><BR/><BR/>Fair enough. However, the error on my part does not really affect the theory presented.<BR/><BR/><I>Your argument seems to be a standard 'God of the gaps' argument. </I><BR/><BR/>I wasn't even aware of such an argument... I'll have to research this.<BR/><BR/><I>modern cosmology believes all the natural constants were set by a few seconds after the big bang. I'm not sure what precisely could have been tweaked one day after the bang to create light, etc. </I><BR/><BR/>Well, HKBH could have said "yehi ohr" in the first second after the Big Bang. <BR/><BR/><I>My personal theory is that Hashem is omnipotent, and hence is fully able to use the literary tools of allegory and metaphor. </I><BR/><BR/>I agree with you that Beraishis doesn't have to be read literally and could be metaphor. But if it can be made to fit, why not?<BR/><BR/><B>Enigma</B>,<BR/>Using the terms "day," "night," "morning," etc. without the presence of the sun/moon is not as big a difficulty as you might think. Beraishis uses "future terms" in sevral places. The first that comes to mind is during the War of the Kings when the area known as "S'dai HaAmaleiki" is used -- even though Amalek didn't, as yet, exist. <BR/><BR/><I>Again, we have not reached the point in the creation narrative where the sun has been created, yet we have plants growing</I><BR/><BR/>You seem to have missed the point. I wasn't proposing that plants actually grew on Day 3, but rather that God created the potential for plant growth (whenever it should occur) on Day 3. It's as if saying that a person planted an oak tree -- you don't really mean that he planted the tree that day, but the seed, which has the future potential for the seed.<BR/><BR/><I>Chapter 2 presents us with more problems</I><BR/><BR/>I know that the theory doesn't fit nearly as well with Chapter 2. But as I answered earlier, it doesn't have to be taken literally. <BR/><BR/><I>And then there are the obvious questions that arise upon further reading. The story of a global flood is difficult to swallow</I><BR/><BR/>I agree. I wasn't trying to reconcile all of Beraishis... just Chapter 1.<BR/><BR/>The WolfBrooklynWolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1153791638201001482006-07-24T21:40:00.000-04:002006-07-24T21:40:00.000-04:00First a minor quibble - The Butterfly effect was f...First a minor quibble - The Butterfly effect was first called by that name in 1972 whereas the Bradbury story was written in 1952.<BR/><BR/>Your argument seems to be a standard 'God of the gaps' argument. But I think the gaps it seeks to hide in have already been filled - modern cosmology believes all the natural constants were set by a few seconds after the big bang. I'm not sure what precisely could have been tweaked one day after the bang to create light, etc. <BR/><BR/>My personal theory is that Hashem is omnipotent, and hence is fully able to use the literary tools of allegory and metaphor. Accordingly I look to Bereshis not for details in how to build a universe, but rather for moral and theological lessons. I suspect that there are some deep lessons in Hashem's decision to write a metaphorical story about creation that is not also literally correct.Larry Lennhoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1153790974857613192006-07-24T21:29:00.000-04:002006-07-24T21:29:00.000-04:00Wolf,"The point is that if you could successfully ...Wolf,<BR/><BR/>"The point is that if you could successfully account for all these factors, you could predict the result of every throw of the dice."<BR/><BR/>Except Heisenberg gets all uncertain on us.<BR/><BR/>Quantum physics indicates that the universe isn't actually run by determined mechanisms and hence little changes at one point in time do not guarantee a specific result in the future.<BR/><BR/>In any case though, God could potentially by 'guiding' the quantum indeterminancy the entire way down from the Big Bang to today.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1153790737935158762006-07-24T21:25:00.000-04:002006-07-24T21:25:00.000-04:00the obvious problem to me is almost nothing in Gen...the obvious problem to me is almost nothing in Genesis is in the correct order (i.e. like the earth appearing before the sun and stars).<BR/><BR/>It's kind of hard to take anything there literally even in light of a non-literal understanding of time. There are just so many more more problems.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com