A conceptual-empirical framework for examining divine necessity
Greetings, Honorable Rabbi Dr. Michael Avraham,
I recently watched one of your lectures (“Faith and Its Meaning”, Lesson 3), and at minute 6:35 you discussed the possibility – even if at a theoretical level – of developing a structured empirical framework or experiment that could examine the question of the existence of God. You mentioned that if anyone believes they have found such a bridge between the empirical plane and the metaphysical reality of God, you would be happy to hear about it.
These things have been resonating with me for some time, as part of an effort to formulate a conceptual framework that has metaphysical and logical validity, but one that may also translate into a testable scientific methodology – that is, an attempt to formulate universal principles in a causal-formal language, which can lead to empirical examination and not remain in the realm of mere thought.
In a discussion I opened on the r/TrueAtheism forum on Reddit, I presented an idea I formulated under the name “Ontoentropic Causality” – a theoretical model that attempts to identify measurable traces of divine necessity, through a structural trend of ontological entropy minimization.
To clarify: Ontological Entropy is a theoretical measure that attempts to reflect the degree of existential improbability of a particular structure out of all possible configurations in ontological space. Unlike physical or informational entropy, this is about the degree of “exceptionality” or “non-triviality” of a particular entity in terms of a deep existential order. The rarer or more existentially complex a particular structure is, the lower its OE – and its existence requires a more than just probabilistic explanation.
Here is the link to the discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/comments/1j7vw86/ontoentropic_causality_a_novel_framework_for_the/
It was interesting to see that one of the responders showed an open mind and suggested developing the idea together with a physicist – which is also consistent with my original intention.
By the way, I am aware in advance of the possibilities of scientific criticism and attempts to refute the model. Even if the CNDF (Causally Non-Derivative Field – a field that is not derived from known physical dynamics but acts as a supercausal limiting field, which biases the causal direction of systems towards structures with low OE) is not measured directly, the very fact that models without CNDF will fail to explain anomalous causal consistency – that is, recurring coherent patterns that are not expected according to existing physical dynamics – constitutes a negative indication in the conventional scientific sense, just as is customary in fields such as dark matter or quantum effects: fields that are not directly observed, but whose presence is inferred as a theoretical necessity from measured behavior that has no other explanation. In this context, the CNDF is not a metaphysical entity in the religious sense, but a proposal for a structural field that should be indirectly identifiable – through a consistent statistical anomaly that existing models fail to predict or reproduce.
I would be very happy if you could review the idea and share whether you think it has serious theoretical potential that justifies further development – or whether it is an unproductive direction of investigation.
Best regards,
P.S. – You can also find the article at the following link:
Hello.
I went through the summary and it seemed intriguing, although of course I didn’t understand the details. I think I may have understood the general direction. If I may, I would appreciate it if you could explain to me some initial points that came to mind.
In general, this seems to me like an attempt to formalize a philosophical argument, meaning that instead of saying that the development of life is improbable without the involvement of a guiding hand, you define mathematical quantities and fields that essentially say the same thing. So what have we gained? Of course, if there is an experiment that can show it scientifically, then you have taken a step forward. In that case, we have moved from philosophy to science, and that is certainly progress.
So if you really claim that it is possible to move into the scientific field, the following questions arise for me:
1. Are you claiming that there is an empirical way to show the deviation from the thermodynamic process? If so, you are essentially claiming that the laws of thermodynamics need to be changed. In other words: Are you claiming that there is a scientific experiment that thermodynamics cannot explain?
2. In such an experiment, how would you show that the system is physically isolated and has low entropy even though there is no external physical involvement? That is, to show that there is divine or other involvement, you need to rule out that it is the result of some other physical involvement that we missed.
3. I understand that you want to apply this to LLM system training. Is this intended to explain the extraordinary achievements of such systems? Are you claiming that there is divine or other (non-physical) involvement there too? Sounds strange.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
