Private supervision

Just commenting that Maimonides probably understood providence differently.

Some argue that, in general, providence operates within the properties of things in the world without violating their nature. For example, it influences improbable events, although possible within the laws of nature, to bring about a certain result, say, saving innocent people, as happened with the recent assassination attempt on Trump (I will upload a conversation he had with Musk on the subject).

Scholastics argued that ”grace complements nature, does not destroy it”. Providence does not work to turn a person into something contrary to who he is (this was, according to Maimonides” in the Moro, the reason for ”and God did not comfort them in the way of the land of the Philistines”). The same applies to other beings in the world.

It is also possible that there are such things as miracles in the conventional sense, but they are rare and exceptional, and this is precisely the reason for this – The regularity of the laws of nature. If they occurred frequently, they would disrupt the natural order. The fact that they are rare allows them to be exceptional cases of divine action that do not undermine the everyday reliability we expect from objects in the world. That we find the laws of nature very regular and that it is rational for us to expect them to be so is consistent with this hypothesis.

It can be argued that our understanding of the laws of nature is limited, and what we perceive as a violation of these laws may simply be a deeper law or principle that we do not yet understand. What seems a highly improbable convention or event may be the result of divine action operating according to principles beyond our current scientific understanding.

Copenhagen, welcome back.
As for what you said, I disagree. There is no possibility of divine intervention within the framework of nature because nature is deterministic. Divine intervention in healing a sick person means that without the intervention he would have died (this is what would have happened due to the laws of nature) and because of the intervention he was saved. After all, if he was saved anyway, there is no divine intervention here. After all, for you, any intervention is an exception to the laws of nature.
Even in quantum theory (according to the interpretation that bears your name that there are coincidences there) there is a given distribution, and therefore there is no possibility of intervention there either because it would contradict the distribution. This is also an exception to the laws of quantum physics.
There is of course the possibility of an intervention that goes beyond nature and plays hide-and-seek with us (it always doesn't happen when we check). I commented on this above.

I assume you meant to upload this link here: https://youtu.be/W7z5pikL5SI
_This is the video where Trump lays out his theological doctrine.)

The laws of science you are talking about can be verified under ”laboratory conditions”, most situations in nature are complex and in which the laws of science cannot be verified. It follows that according to the scientific method, your belief in the universal laws of science is not based on science but on your desire to believe that there are no events that cannot be explained scientifically.

From a scientific point of view, even a basic chaotic situation leads to unpredictable results and therefore according to the scientific method, the chaotic situation falls outside the scope of pure science.

Welcome!

To adhere to your argument, you have to accept some not necessarily acceptable assumptions. First, that humans are the only free intelligent beings capable of acting in the world. After all, given libertarian free choice, humans can “supervise” certain areas so that they produce a desired result from their point of view, which does not stem from the laws of nature (since this is free-indeterministic intervention). Who said that there are no other such beings?

Scholastics argued (for example, Maimonides and Relbach in Judaism, but not only) for the principle known as the “principle of abundance” (Principle of Plenitude), which states that the Creator, being omnipotent and supremely perfect, will create as wide a variety of beings as possible, as long as this is consistent with a cosmic order that expresses His righteousness and goodness. The idea is that a universe that is as rich and complete as possible is preferable to a universe that is “thin.”

In addition, providence does not necessarily mean direct divine action over the laws of nature. A possibility such as that described in 1 Kings 22: And he said, “I have seen the Lord.” He sits on his throne, and all the host of heaven stands around him on his right and on his left, etc., meaning that a certain policy is decided upon and there are those who are appointed to carry it out. The action described there is also not about the laws of nature but about the psychology of the false prophets, which will cause them to behave in a certain way, which will make Ahab believe that he will win, and thus he will come to his punishment.

Another possibility, which is related to what “Dot” wrote. If there is such a thing as emergentism, as some philosophers believe, then providence may influence emergent phenomena at a higher level (such as consciousness or complex systems) without violating laws at a lower level. The influence may be subtle, in a way that directs aspects of the system as a whole without violating basic physical laws.

If, by the way, the monists are right, the question does not arise in the first place. Molinists believe that God has what is called Middle Knowledge, which allows him to know what the choices of free beings would be in all circumstances if they were created. This knowledge allows God to pre-arrange the world in such a way that his will is achieved through free actions and natural processes, without “intervening” at all, simply because he created in the first place exactly those who would choose to do actions that are consistent with the purpose determined by him.

It was not clear to me what the claim is based on that the action of providence on quantum systems (or on human consciousness, which in turn will affect such) is contrary to the laws of nature. Although I did not delve into it, there are theist thinkers who have dealt with this, such as Robert John Russell and Nancey Murphy. Their claim is that God can influence which particular outcome will occur within the probabilistic framework of quantum mechanics, that is, "choose" among the possible outcomes in a way that does not violate the laws of the system.

Indeed, scientific confirmation is built on tests of specific cases and generalizations. If you want to insert God between the folds for health. This is the game of hide and seek I was talking about.

I do not assume that humans are the only creatures, although it seems quite reasonable to me (except for God, of course).

What you described is involvement in the laws of nature (with our choice being part of them) for all intents and purposes. I have already referred here several times in the past to the suggestion of involvement through people's choice.

Emergentism is an empty play on words. I explained this, for example, in columns 587 and 593.

His knowledge in advance of what I will choose does not exist in my opinion (see the columns on knowledge and choice). But even if it does, knowledge is not related to involvement and adds nothing to the discussion of involvement. Pre-arrangement is of course possible under this assumption (which I do not agree with), but it is still not involvement.

Quotes from people and attitudes are not an argument. Even if some say something is wrong, it remains wrong.

If you do not take the absence of intelligent, immaterial beings as a premise for the argument, the question is how exactly the critique works. Perhaps some of them are busy implementing the policy. As mentioned, theologians in the tradition of classical theism held that there are many species of intelligent, non-human beings. Maimonides believed that the anthropocentric, egocentric (in his view) view of man as the highest creature was ridiculous. Which he was inclined to argue, contrary to many others (such as Saadia Gaon), that it was not the purpose of creation.
In the eyes of the Bible, before man was created, the sons of God or the “host of heaven” – were already immaterial created beings (this is how Bible scholars see the statement “were made man” – that was said to them). Isaiah therefore prophesies, “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall judge the host of the highest on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.” And Daniel is told, “And at his judgment shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people.” etc.

The argument was that, just as intervention in nature resulting from free human choice is not considered a violation of the laws of nature, so is intervention resulting from free non-human choice. Because the laws of nature describe the situation in the absence of intervention. Alternatively, it can be said that free choice of intelligent beings is consistent with their nature and therefore does not contradict the laws of nature. Either way, providence is possible, if only because there may be creators who are sometimes authorized to carry out policy for it, as in the story of the prophet Micah.

What about the active mind?

Aristotle argued that intellectual cognition cannot be explained without an abundance that comes from outside (since intellectual forms never arise from sense data). The source of this comes to know some in the chain of events that originates from the Creator. If they are right, providence could decide to save Trump by timing the idea to show that diagram at the necessary fraction of a second (it knows that he will think it is an excellent idea – so there is no contradiction to the choice). According to this, the timing of the idea reaching Trump is not actually a contradiction to human nature because that is the normal state – that there is such an effect. This is how the Maimonides also understood the subject of prophecy, which in his opinion is not an exception to human nature but rather its completion, although it is not deterministic and can decide not to fulfill it even though the person is capable of it.

According to the monists, God knew in advance which refuser He would have to create (Pharaoh) in order to make His name known in the world. And He created the conditions for the beginning of the universe so that the parting of the sea would occur in accordance with the laws of nature at the appropriate time, as well as the return of the sea to its original state. Although this does not constitute intervention in the temporal sense of the word (in the sense of A-theory of time), there is no fundamental difference in terms of the believer's perception of providence. God did know in advance that he would pray and therefore created the laws of nature and the conditions for the beginning so that his prayer would be answered. From his point of view, what matters is that the prayer may be accepted.

In quantum physics, it seems possible to intervene in the sense that a particular collapse of a wave function does not necessarily entail a particular outcome, assuming the conventional interpretation that there is no hidden physical mechanism. The act of providence is carried out in a way that does not violate the laws of distribution. An influence on just one collapse may determine the outcome in the Newtonian world, as reflected in the story of Schrödinger's cat.

I'll come back again. I'm not particularly interested in what so-and-so or unknown person, no matter how important and wise, Maimonides or the Scholastics or anyone else, wrote or thought. I'm dealing with arguments for the substance of the matter and not for the person.

I don't understand this nonsense. I have no interest in such and such creatures that none of us have heard of or know about. There may be Harry Potters and Dumbledores and demons and ghosts in the world, minds that work, and other nonsense. What I'm claiming is that the laws of nature work, and according to the best indications, that's what always happens. If you want to assume various games of hide-and-seek, then assume.
Therefore, I don't care what is called interference with the laws of nature and what constitutes part of them. I see that the laws of nature of physics work, and that's all. I also see that people have a choice and that it can indeed change the outcome. Anything beyond that I have no indication that exists.

I have already written my opinion on foreknowledge and the involvement of planning responses to elections. And also about quantum physics.

If you don't believe in private providence, how do you pray? What's the point? And does that mean you don't believe in reward and punishment (not a natural consequence)? This contradicts the Shema parsha that the Kabbalah will change the weather and the parshas of Mount Ebel and Mount Gerizim?

I've answered all of this in great detail several times. You can search the site.

The Rabbi claims in column 280 that the burden of proof is on the one who claims that there is intervention by the Kabbalah in nature (hidden miracles) and because there is no clear evidence there is no reason to assume that there is intervention by the Kabbalah.
I want to argue that the burden of proof is on the one who claims that there are hidden miracles from prophecy during the Tanakh period. The Rabbi claimed that just as the visible miracles disappeared, so too did the hidden miracles. The Rabbi must provide proof of something. Conjecture is not enough. It can be assumed that because there are no visible miracles, it is impossible to prove hidden miracles.

I explained there why I don't think so, and why others don't really believe it either. The assumption is that the laws of nature operate. I don't rule out sporadic involvement.

I want to argue that not only can sporadic involvements not be ruled out, but that there is evidence for this (the Book of Esther and other parts of the Bible) until proven otherwise, there are sporadic involvements.