Free choice in the face of historical moves

Regarding the matter of weights, it's a bit difficult, because according to this theory, the collective does not have freedom of choice. And it's a bit strange that an individual would have freedom of choice and the collective that is composed of them would not. In addition, in the Torah we see that there is collective responsibility and collective commandments, and the sin of a community. Which is an indication that there is a choice for the community.

The collective has freedom of choice. But if it acts as a collection of individuals, then the average is determined by the law of large numbers (and weights). But if the collective decides as a single unit to act differently, it can of course. This is a choice of the collective as a collective.
This is similar to quantum phenomena that are destroyed on large scales because when each particle acts according to the quantum transition, the phases of all of them cancel each other out. But if there are long-range correlations, meaning that all the particles act as one unit, then quantum phenomena can also appear on large scales (these are the phenomena of liquids and conductors).
Indeed, public sacrifices are not brought about by a decision of all the individuals (voting), but by the establishment in charge of this (the priests). This is a collective decision.

So why did you write above that “assuming that God does intervene, then one can argue that the involvement is only on the collective level”? How is the collective level different from the individual?

What I meant was that it changes the weights, and that doesn't affect the individual's choice, which remains free (albeit with different weights). It changes the collective outcome. I explained this in detail in The Science of Freedom.

But if the collective has freedom of choice, then it also does not influence the collective's choice.

If the collective chooses not to choose (as a single unit) but leaves the arena to the actions of the individuals, then the weights acting on all individuals will on average bias the collective outcome.

I thought about your answer again, and it seems difficult about a referendum. If we say there was a referendum on whether to go to war or not, wouldn't the people be morally responsible for the results of the referendum?

Yes, there will be. At least collective responsibility. Just as the minority in the House of Representatives also bears responsibility for the decision.
I didn't understand why this is a problem with something I wrote.

You wrote above:
“Indeed, public sacrifices are not brought about by a decision of all individuals (a vote), but by the establishment in charge of it (the priests). It is a collective decision.”
That is, you made a distinction between decisions made by a vote of individuals (a referendum) and decisions made by an institution that represents the collective. You said that there is no collective responsibility for decisions made by individuals, contrary to what you just wrote. Something here is not so clear.

This was brought up only to clarify the difference between an action of the collective and a collection of actions of individuals. In principle, an action by voting is something in between (each individual has an influence but the action is collective). But I did not deal with that there, but rather brought up voting as an example of a collection of independent actions of individuals that offset each other on the collective level.

That's exactly what I asked. If voting is a collection of actions by individuals that are supposed to statistically offset each other, then there is no freedom of choice here, but rather everything depends on the weights determined by God, and if that's the case, why would there be responsibility for voting to go to war?

Strong question.

I don't understand the question.
Even if God tilts the scales, then every person has a free choice to vote, and still on average the result will probably be in the direction dictated from above. Although this is also uncertain of course. Therefore, here too there is responsibility (perhaps reduced).

And as we understand that in a normal case He does not tilt the scales, and therefore only the vote determines. Then the responsibility is even greater.

Regarding the first, the choice is not completely free, because in its background there are weights determined by God. And it is a fact that these weights will always determine the results of the vote. Why is this uncertain?

Regarding the final, even if there is no deviation of the weights, there are finally some weights determined by God in the background (even without deviation there are some weights). The vote of the whole is determined deterministically by these weights.

Freedom is the absence of limitations. But it is not true that when there are limitations there is no freedom, but rather the degree of freedom is less. Does a person who acts under limitations not give a damn about his actions? And does a person who grew up with a bad education not get punished? The weights he carries are different from those that a normal person carries, but he still has the choice to decide differently. In arguments for punishment, the weights can be included. When you assign weights to an entire group, it does not deterministically determine the collective outcome. Only on average when there are an infinite number of people or an infinite number of attempts. Otherwise, it is not deterministic, and each person has a choice and therefore also the collective.

According to the law of large numbers, this is pretty deterministic. The chance that the collective will choose differently than what its weights are calibrated towards is zero.

Unlike a die or a coin, where the weights deterministically determine the outcome in large numbers, humans always have the option to choose the good despite the weights. Therefore, the responsibility is still on them. In arguments for punishment, of course, the weights are taken into account. If

For a single person this is true, but for the collective consisting of a large number of individuals, the results of the vote will always be determined by the weights and not by the choices of the individuals. Unless you say that the distribution of the choices of the individuals is not distributed according to the weights (then what is the meaning of the weights?)

No. What I am arguing is that the distribution will probably come out according to the weights, but there is blame on the individuals since they could have chosen differently. After all, if everyone had done what was required of them, it would not have happened despite the weights. Think of a group of a hundred people who are debating whether to rob a bank. God Almighty has given them weights that tilt them towards the robbery by 70%. They voted and there was a majority in favor of the robbery (let's say a majority of 60%). Obviously, everyone had an obligation to vote against, and therefore they are responsible for what they voted for. Therefore, the entire group is also responsible for its vote. They could have overcome themselves and voted against the robbery and not done so. It might have been more difficult than in a situation without weights, but still.
You have to remember that even the economic interest itself (there is profit from robbing a bank) is a weight, and it can also make people vote for the robbery. Does that absolve them of responsibility?

But for an individual, he could have chosen differently, and therefore it makes sense to hold him responsible. For the collective, he has no freedom to choose differently from the weights that were dictated to him, so does it make sense to hold him collectively responsible?

For example, if we assume the German people voted to go to war against a certain people, and after 100 years all the individuals who participated in the vote died. Can we still demand compensation from them as a collective for the damages of the war? Or is it because the responsibility lies with the individuals and not with the collective, that there is no reason to demand compensation here?

The collective can also choose differently. This is just a statistic. I also tend to think so regarding compensation. The responsibility lies with the collective that made a bad choice.

According to the law of large numbers, the chance that the collective will choose otherwise is zero. This also contradicts what you wrote above:
“Indeed, public sacrifices are not brought about by a decision of all the individuals (voting), but by the establishment in charge of it (the priests).”

We are repeating ourselves and I fail to understand what the problem is. I distinguished between the action of the collective as a single unit (public sacrifices) and a collection of actions of individuals that statistically create a collective situation. In the second case, the weights determine the average of the distribution (the law of large numbers, the phases are offset) but even then there is a possibility of deviating from it. These are decisions made by humans (such as a bank robbery). For example, God can predict that the Egyptians will become slaves in Israel despite the choice of every Egyptian, but if the Egyptians were to nevertheless bend their necks and choose goodness, this prediction would fail. This is a disagreement between Rambam and Rabed in the Teshuvah.

I claim that there is no realistic possibility of deviating from it because the chance of that is zero. In other words, this is a case of the collective being forced to choose the option that was defined by the scales as the more likely option. For an individual, he still has a realistic chance of choosing the less likely option (say 30%), but for the collective, the chance is zero (say one in a billion). This is not true free choice.

I'll try to clarify more, and if we don't agree then we'll stick with it.
Let's say there are a thousand people who are debating whether to commit genocide (Nazis). The Jews have angered them very, very much to the point of terrible rage, and therefore they have a tendency to do so. This means that their scales are tilting them towards doing the deed. Now a vote is being held on whether to do it, and the majority supports the matter, and everyone is going to do it. Do you think they are exempt from responsibility? Even if the scales determine that there is a very, very high chance that the majority will support it, everyone still has freedom of choice and is responsible for their choice. In any case, the entire collective is also responsible for its choice. Both because of the very possibility of not doing this deed, and also because if they had also acted on a collective level and tried to convince the public not to vote for this proposal, they might have tipped the scales and made the right choice. Bottom line, the public is responsible for its actions.
Even in the legal world, when there is provocation, even if it is very strong, the person who acted violently is responsible for his actions. Provocation only enters into considerations for punishment.
This can be explained in a technical sense: punishment is imposed so that the punishment itself balances the scales towards inaction. But this is of course irrelevant in relation to punishment from God. In my opinion, there is real responsibility, and not just technical. As long as you had the possibility not to do it, even if with a small chance, you are responsible. The size of the chance only affects the punishment.
That's it. I've repeated myself here, but this is what I can explain.

Even in light of the theory of weights (on the collective or the individual) – How can this way of influencing God work?

After all, the most innocent and small action taken with free will against the weights can cause major consequences and chaos over time (the cigarette that lit the Carmel or even causing bigger things in history such as a war between countries) – beautifully illustrated in the movie ‘The Butterfly Effect’.

Does this also affect the status of prophecies – meaning on the ability of God to ‘commit’ to a prophecy (even in a soft and uncertain way!)
How can we believe that a prophecy will come true with so many free decisions of humans in the middle??
Decisions that will surely change the picture beyond recognition…

As I think I explained, it's the law of large numbers. If God is using weights, it means He is involved. If you accept His involvement, then by all means, there is no problem. But if not, I don't see why the weights are being raised or lowered in this discussion.