Prohibition of false prayer

Here is the relevant passage from the book (Volume 2 of the trilogy):

Every answer to prayer is a miracle (change in nature)
We need to understand the context of the discussion well. Every answer to prayer is a miracle. When God answers prayer, this means that without the prayer the sick person would have died (i.e., this is supposed to be the result of his condition according to the laws of nature), and only because of the prayer will he live. If so, this is a change in the custom of the world and an intervention in the order and laws of nature. In the previous part, we saw that there is no divine intervention in the world that is within the framework of the laws of nature, and now we are witnessing the extent to which there is no answer to prayer that is within the framework of nature. At most, there can be a hidden answer, that is, a deviation from the laws that is not observed by the human eye. But we must know that every answer to prayer is a miracle, and therefore every prayer for divine intervention is actually a prayer for the occurrence of a miracle. The question of the answer to prayers is the question of miracles.

Prayer for a Miracle
As far as I understand, this point itself was not clear to the sages and the early scholars, and it is also not clear to some of the sages of our time. Just as it is not clear to them that all divine intervention is a miracle and that there is no such thing as His intervention within the framework of the laws of nature (i.e., intervention that does not contradict the laws of nature). The sages themselves forbade praying for a miracle, even though all prayer is a prayer for a miracle. This probably stemmed from their worldview, which we described in the previous section, that part of nature itself is open (in the sense that the results are not unambiguously dictated by current circumstances). They did not perceive the world in the deterministic way that we see it today within the framework of our scientific worldview. So it is no wonder that they can regard divine interventions or answers to prayers as something that is not necessarily a miracle. But we today understand that the conduct of the world is deterministic, meaning that current circumstances always unambiguously dictate the future. Therefore, any response to prayer, like any other intervention in creation, is a miracle and a change in the order of the world. Therefore, it is unreasonable for us to expect such a response at all.
Although there was room to interpret that the prohibition against praying for a miracle refers only to praying for a visible miracle as opposed to praying for a hidden miracle, the source of the halakha itself shows that this is not true. The source of the halakha is the Mishnah in Berakot (Ps. 9:33. For the halakha, see Shulchan Ar-Rahman, 19:17):
And the former one who cried out, “This is a vain prayer,” would have had his wife pregnant, and he would say, “May my wife give birth to a male child,” would have been a vain prayer. He would have come on the road and heard the sound of shouting in the city, and would have said, “May she not be in my house.” That would have been a vain prayer.
In other words, one can pray for a male child, but one does not pray for an already existing fetus to be male. What is the difference between these two cases? Even if there is already a fetus in the womb, is it still a hidden miracle, since no one yet knows the sex of the fetus? We see from this that one should not pray for a miracle, even if it is hidden. So why is it permissible to pray for a male child before the fetus is formed (or, as the poskim wrote, even up to forty days before its form is recognized)? The simple explanation is that praying for a male child before the fetus is formed was perceived as a change that occurred naturally (i.e., does not contradict the laws), while praying for an existing fetus is a prayer for a miracle. One should not pray for a miracle because God does not perform miracles. Therefore, this is a vain prayer.
But in light of our current understanding, even before the fetus is formed, the question of whether it will be male or female is determined by natural processes (i.e., is governed by the laws of nature). Accordingly, there is no longer any point in praying for this either. If God does not perform miracles, even if they are hidden, then He probably does not perform other hidden miracles either. In the scientific view, it is clear that the transformation of the fetus into a male is a completely natural process, and if God changes this, He changes something in reality. If it is forbidden to pray that God will change reality, then why is it permitted here? We see from this that the sages probably understood that before the creation of the child there is a non-deterministic interval in nature itself, that is, the sex of the child is determined by God and is not fixed by nature. In their opinion, this is not a change in reality but only the choice of one path among several possible natural paths. But after the fetus is created, we are talking about changing nature, and it is no longer right to ask Him to do this. This view does not fit the way we see things today.
I repeat that Chazal does not intend to say that God cannot do this, but rather that his policy is not to do so (or even more minor: that even if he did, we are forbidden to pray for it). If so, the same is true of any intervention in nature, since any such intervention is a miracle. In other words: it is forbidden to pray a prayer that will be answered, since if it is answered, it will be a change in nature, i.e., a miracle, and no one prays for a miracle. The only prayers that are permitted are those that are not answered (but rather that the laws of nature operate as they should). But then why even pray?

Some claim that one of the laws of nature (not yet discovered by scientists) is prayer. And those who truly know how to pray (apparently, depending on intentions, faith, repentance/purification and such things, which are complementary conditions that allow prayer to work its magic in the world) will always be answered.

But the sages themselves gave practical advice for giving birth to a male naturally (a woman inseminates first, etc.), although they did not believe that the sex of the fetus was a non-deterministic determination.

Is all of this obligatory? In my opinion, the division is indeed between an obvious and an invisible miracle, but the test is in what can be seen with our eyes, and even a fetus still in the womb responds to this (if, God forbid, there is a premature birth, its gender will be visible).

In addition, free choice is not deterministic. Is it more theologically difficult to assume that God sometimes intervenes in a person’s free choice, in a way that does not affect the fulfillment of his commandments, than to assume that He almost never answers prayers? For example: a person prays to be accepted for a job, and God causes the resume that does not please the boss to be a little more.

Israel, those who claim this, how do they know? Have they empirically tested this law?

Isaac, I don't know what they were thinking. But who said that this advice was natural to them?

Father, if there is a premature birth, we will see its gender but we will not know whether it changed as a result of the prayer or not. I did not understand your last question.

What my father suggested really sounds like an opening for God to intervene in the world without changing the laws of nature. The idea is that He will flood certain people with ideas and thoughts in order to direct reality in a certain direction. For example, God can flood certain Americans with certain thoughts about why it is good to vote for Trump. The choice whether to vote for him or not still remains in their hands, it is simply that the picture of their considerations has been updated according to what God has informed them of (a kind of hidden prophetic revelation in a person's mind without that person being aware that it is a revelation, but rather they think that the thoughts and ideas came from themselves).
This explains why praying for something that is not under human control, such as changing the sex of a fetus or reviving the dead, is not a legitimate prayer because it certainly requires a change in the laws of nature, while praying for something that humans can influence (even indirectly, such as discovering a cure for a certain disease or providing advice on healing) is actually legitimate.

It's possible. I think you yourself (=Oren) have made such a suggestion in the past (it's here somewhere).
And yet changing the considerations is also an intervention in nature/physics, since these considerations are expressed in a state of mind.

In the book “Science of Freedom” you write that the spiritual world has an influence on the material world, and that free will can move electrons. According to you, this does not even contradict the laws of physics, although it is certainly not deterministic (after all, it is a matter of free choice). Moreover, this process happens all the time, so that it can be seen as part of the laws of nature by which the world operates. If so, why can't the free will of God be able to move electrons in the same way, in order to reach the result that God desires? And why not see this as part of the world's customs?

Yosef, you misunderstood me. It is clear that God has no impediment or difficulty in intervening and performing a miracle. But I get the impression that in practice He does not do so. On the other hand, it is clear to me that our will is free. That is all.

You are actually making two claims: A. Every answer to prayer is a miracle; B. There is no evidence that God answers prayers in our day.
I argue against point A: After all, you do not call the act of free choice a “miracle,” even though it involves external intervention that does not stem from the laws of physics. Why, then, do you call a similar act performed by God a “miracle”?

And further to the question of Joseph R. You only know your free choice while all other humans may not have a choice. “They are robots” (the problem of solipsism). If you trust common sense and the intuition of humans who have a choice and act in this way-(despite what deterministic science claims) what prevents you from also following the intuition of millions of humans throughout history that there is a subtle divine intervention in the midst of nature? “Coincidences are God's way of remaining anonymous“(Albert Einstein)? Is there good proof that there are no empty ‘voids’ within matter through which God can divert the outcome of events? Don't libertarians believe that these voids do exist and they are ‘souls’ Humans who act on atomic particles, etc. Why wouldn't the 'soul of the world' act like that? You wrote, 'Because I get the impression that in reality it doesn't do that' - but as mentioned, millions of believers get the opposite impression and tell stories of providence that can only be denied in the same way that human free choice can also be denied. And indeed, researchers who deny God's intervention and existence also deny libertarianism. Moreover, aren't there studies that prove the effectiveness of prayers and religious life - (as you demonstrated in the book God Plays Dice - What has changed since then?! And that it even went beyond the bounds of reasonable doubt?!). What is the consideration for ignoring the belief of the masses, which is not directly hidden from the laws of nature? Does - and here I ask a simple question - have science in its possession all the information about all the states of subatomic matter? I think not. Therefore, the hypothesis that if we had all the information at our disposal, we would predict the future is not beyond the realm of speculation. And from this, there is still room for God to intervene in matter, both in the ”folding of butterfly wings at the end of the world to cause a typhoon in the other” (a familiar metaphor) - that is, intervention in places that are not deterministically closed, and in the choices of humans, as seen in the scriptures: The heart (=mind) of kings and princes is in the hand of the Lord”, “And the Lord honored the heart of Pharaoh”, ”A man has the dispositions of the heart (=mental systems) and the tongue has the power to control his words”, ”And they (the sons of Eli) did not listen to the voice of their father, because the Lord wanted to kill them” And such are dozens of axioms in biblical thought), and perhaps also in places that contradict the laws of nature, provided that they are not visible to the human eye - for the unknown reasons of God (to allow for choice, etc., etc., and without addressing the issue of false prayer now). What would you expect in order to believe in providence? What would you expect in order to believe in providence? Isn't it a coincidence, for example - that your family is stuck in a hole in the middle of the night and just by chance a hitchhiker arrives - right away - who accidentally stumbles into a place with a huge, vacant vehicle - for everyone - not to be missed - who is driving into a hole that is headed exactly towards the direction of your face - all of this, as you described, will not prove anything to you. Although the coincidences here join in further and further distancing the probability, this is not what you would thank God for, and even without a shadow of a doubt that he is trying in his hidden way to communicate with you, to develop a language with you - a subtle mystical language through which millions of people speak with God: the language of private providence and coincidences. This belief at least sounds coherent with the perception reflected in the Holy Scriptures of all religions and with the perception of humans (which is also through which it is easy to explain the entire period of biblical miracles, as Rambam and Relbeg and other intellectuals did up until our day, who all took the view that God intervenes in the way of nature and its laws, and therefore the parting of the Red Sea was a tide and an ebb, etc., and the miracle was in timing, etc.) while on the other hand, your perception that once God did not intervene in nature for billions of years, and then during the period of the Mount Sinai standoff and onwards for about a thousand years, he decided both to accept prayers and answer them and to perform miracles that rob nature - and then suddenly retreated back to his indifferent hiding place so that we could grow up and manage on our own (as you wrote in one of the articles) - this perception sounds like mythology at its best about some changing divine entity, and it does not present a consistent picture of a unified reality that combines spirit and matter, as mystical logic suggests (such as the profit in the panentheistic view). of Rav Kook and many others to Arthur Green, Jonathan Sachs, Eliezer Berkowitz, Heschel and many others). This is not a refutation of the logic you presented, but rather an expression of bewilderment and a sense of distress in view of the conclusions you draw. This distress is heard here from many and I ask whether, apart from your personal opinion, you assume that it would be a mistake to draw other conclusions for people who believe in all prayer and providence.

P.S. Thank you very much for your dedication in writing and responding.

Yosef, I understood and answered. This is pointless semantics. Choice is part of our world (even if not part of the laws of physics) as it happens all the time. God's intervention is not like that simply because it doesn't happen. For my part, you would call both a miracle. What does it matter what they are called?

Hello Gilad.
The question of other minds is a well-known gibberish that no one really believes in. So why bother with it? It is also possible that we are surrounded by green, winged fairies all around us, but no one sees them. In all areas of our lives we make generalizations, in science and in life, and therefore the assumption that all humans have a choice is also a reasonable generalization in my opinion. If you don't think so, then good luck.
For a more detailed explanation than what I have given here, I don't have space here. You have to wait for my book (the trilogy), where I will explain it in more detail. There are excellent arguments for this.
Here I am just saying that millions of believers are not impressed otherwise, but assume the opposite. There is no evidence for this, and in every such impression I can explain to the person who is impressed where he is wrong. There are also many who do not understand the theory of relativity - so is it therefore not true? They do not understand. The same is true in the matter of Didan. People do not understand what a miracle is and what divine intervention is, and often make mistakes in the probabilistic meaning of events, and therefore they are impressed in such ways. If they did understand, they would get away with it. There are also quite a few mistakes in your own words. For example, you identify intervention with randomness and chaos and not close to each other (see the books on free science in the two chapters that deal with these areas) and much more.
In general, this picture is not just my interpretation, but an assertion that in my opinion anyone who says otherwise simply does not understand what chess is. This is not about a dispute or different opinions.
In principle, rare and secret intervention is possible, but there is (and almost cannot be) any indication that it actually occurs. Therefore, even if it is theoretically possible, no one can tell us that it actually occurs.

You treat the most established principles and findings of science as hypotheses, but that is not true. These are clear scientific conclusions (and as with any scientific conclusion, it is not necessarily and certainly not certain, of course. But it is not correct to call it a hypothesis). Note that even religious claims (and certainly the “impressions” you mentioned) are not more well-founded and certain. So why should I accept them more than the findings of science that have stood and are constantly standing empirical tests?

By the way, in my book I did not prove the effectiveness of prayers. Read again. I wrote explicitly that I am not taking a position. I only showed the fallacy of biased studies (I provided a link in the comment below to harsh criticisms of the studies that show that prayers are effective).

Regarding what you wrote above: “And yet a change in considerations is also an intervention in nature/physics, since these considerations are expressed in a mental state”.

To the best of my memory, you also agree that there is one place in the world where an electron moves without any prior physical reason for it, and that is in the human brain (a movement that resulted from a conscious decision). For the sake of this matter, we will refer to this process as the influence that passed from the spiritual plane to the physical plane through the ”psychophysical bridge”. Let us assume for the sake of this matter that the human consciousness is divided into two parts, a part that exists in the spiritual plane and a part that exists in the physical plane (electrical signals in the brain, etc.). These two parts influence each other through that “psychophysical bridge”. God's influence on humans on the spiritual plane does not require breaking the laws of nature because the spiritual plane is not subject to nature. That influence permeates the physical plane through the "psychophysical bridge" and thus influences the course of affairs in our world without bending the laws of nature.

There is an amusing anecdote in this context from the English Wikipedia entry on Cantor (who was a Jewish skeptic):
“he considered his work on transfinite numbers to have been directly communicated to him by God, who had chosen Cantor to reveal them to the world”
Not only that, he made use of the annotation of the letter א’ in his teachings as symbolizing infinity in various degrees. As is known, the letter א’ symbolizes God in Jewish thought.

Thank you very much. I will read your book again.

In any case, the position of minor intervention within the random ”pockets” (or spaces) that are not deterministically closed was developed by the philosopher Amos Funkstein Maimonides” - and this is also valid in his opinion in modern physics - in order to explain how providence intervenes within nature, in what are called ”miracles of the possible type” Which are:

“The way in which God directs events because nature is not fixed in all respects, and because there is always an inherent randomness in it. God, so to speak, uses these miracles of chance to direct events this way or that without violating the laws of nature”…. (p. 123 in the article linked below)

…”Rambam”s assumption, according to which there are essentially ‘pockets’ of randomness in nature, is somewhat similar to the conclusions of modern physics, which sees a principle of indeterminacy in nature not precisely because of our lack of attainment or the imprecision of our instruments, but because of the imprecision inherent in the structure of nature itself” (ibid., 122).

And he gives an example of the philosophy of history that stems from this insight:

The Maimonides says that although God could have performed a miracle in the mental constellation of the Israelites, and given them from the very beginning, when they left Egypt, enough courage to cross the land of the Philistines directly, and He could also have miraculously changed the mentality from the very beginning so that there would be no need for tricks to ward off polytheism. But that is not how God works in history. He does not act in opposition to the laws of nature, in which "human nature will not suddenly change from one thing to the other", but with their help and with the help of that remnant of chance, which always exists in history and in the entire universe. And thus gradually the religion of Israel took shape and the people of Israel took shape as a group, as a religion, as a thoroughly monotheistic nation. The driving force in this development was, as stated, the cunning and cunning of God, that is, the way in which, naturally, as it were, gradually and as if by itself, the monotheistic faith once again took the place of polytheistic habits. Thus the people of Israel were created, thus, if it may be said so, the Israeli faith was created, thus the Israeli faith took root in the people of Israel – gradually, in accordance with the laws of nature but out of divine intention.”(ibid.,138)

From here stems the conclusion of natural messianism in the Mishnah of Maimonides, in which monotheism dominates the world as it usually does:

“The miracles…from the category …which he called “miracles of the possible kind” They are the spur of history, the active force in history, they are what he sees as the 'craft of God and His wisdom', as the way in which Providence exploits the coincidences of reality to direct the course of history not against nature but by changing existing situations, which appear to be natural situations, such as those that will also be the days of the Messiah (ibid., p. 155).

This is a long and instructive article, which directly touches on the field under discussion here like many others.

If I understand correctly - these 'pockets' do not exist?!

file:///C:/Users/USER/Desktop/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%98/%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%95% D7%A1%20%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A7%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F%20%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%9D.PDF

Oren Shalom.
Indeed, that's true. Now I remember that you actually suggested this a long time ago. And yet the effect, even in this form, can appear and be measured, and I don't think it happens. For example, if we pray for patients (in a sample group versus a control group), God will move the doctors' desires to the right path of healing, and then we should find that indeed the group for which they prayed has a higher percentage of healing. I don't think that happens. In this sense, there is an effect on nature that should be measurable.
We should remember that God can also freeze the laws of nature themselves. He has the ability and the power, but I argue that he doesn't do so. That's why we haven't gained much from the model proposed here. It does not break the laws of nature, but that's not the problem with conventional theology. Breaking the laws of nature is possible without problems, the problem is that it simply doesn't happen. In this sense, an effect on the doctors' minds doesn't really happen either, and therefore, in my opinion, we haven't gained much from this creative idea.
Beyond that, of course, influencing natural events in most cases cannot be accomplished this way.

Gil Shalom.
Funkenstein probably understood physics about the same way Maimonides and other miracle thinkers and scholars of Israeli thought did. There is no such thing as miracles in the framework of nature and there is no random element, holes or pockets, in the laws of nature.
Regarding intervention through human consciousness, see my response to Oren above.
If you read the Science of Freedom, there are other chapters there that are relevant to this discussion (actually almost all of them. Because there I deal with human intervention in nature, and therefore the logic is quite similar to divine intervention).

Regarding the model of intervention through human consciousness, this resolves the difficulty in Chazal's division between prayer and miracles (such as "May my wife give birth to a male child or that these will not be my children = changes that even an influence on consciousness would not benefit) and between prayer for things like complete healing for so-and-so (an influence that can happen without changing the laws of nature, i.e., through an influence on consciousness). This can also constitute a permit for today's prayers, since there is a way for them to be fulfilled without needing a miracle (miracle = changing the laws of nature). This essentially constitutes a substitute for the non-deterministic interval in Chazal's view.

There is another question, which is whether prayers are answered today (even those that do not require miraculous intervention). Regarding this, you claim that even without needing miraculous intervention, even in this way there is no answer (and this is the policy of the Almighty God in our time). From an empirical perspective, this seems to be true (see this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer). The question is whether the mere impression (reasoned) that prayers are not answered today makes all prayers "vain prayers" or whether only prayers that require a change in the laws of nature deserve the title "vain prayers".

I understand. The question is whether this happens, and if not - does it not fall within the scope of false prayer (as you noted later). It is quite clear that the sages did not see things this way, and did not think that there was a difference between intervention through consciousness and intervention in physics.

I commented in the WhatsApp group that the evidence from the gemma in blessings that there is no way for God to perform hidden miracles can be rejected because only in the case of a fetus is there no way for the Kaaba to intervene since there is a nakiba here and turning into a male is a bit like erasing a person. And they also mentioned that the Jerusalemite Plig believes that one can pray until birth.

Beyond the strange explanation you presented, in the Mishnah, the Gemara, and the commentators there do not see this as a unique case. It is a prayer for the past that is offered as if it were for "May the Lord not let these be the sons of my house."

A Why is this a strange belief? B In the past, it was considered because now it has not changed and anyway his prayer is about yesterday, so it is similar to any prayer for the Sabbath.

The Jerusalemite who says that one can pray until birth proves what I said, and in Parashim there they brought an additional midrash about this.

I meant the invention of erasing a person. I explained that the Mishnah and the Rishonim clearly show that they saw this as a normal example of praying for the former. And I did not understand your rejection.
The Jerusalemite does not prove anything about the Babylonian, and like the Babylonian it is also ruled out by law.

In my understanding, the early ones saw this as a normal case of a former prayer because it was clear to them that the Kaaba would not intervene here to change the newborn and in any case the prayer is about yesterday. Also in your understanding there is an implicit issue here that they do not pray about a miracle and in any case the prayer is about yesterday
The evidence from Jerusalem is that it seems to me that the difference between the Babylonian and the Jerusalemite is not so extreme. Does God perform hidden miracles but rather a specific difference? Does he change a male child into a male?
I still do not understand why in your eyes this is a strange opinion? To turn a male child into a male child without asking her, according to Merav Michaeli is literally murder

According to this logic, even a prayer for the future is a prayer for the past if it is clear that God will not intervene. I think we have exhausted it.

The one who goes to measure his birth says, "May it be pleasing to You, O our God, that You send a blessing upon me." This is a measure, and then he blesses me. This is a vain prayer.

What do you think about the direction of saying that the sages said that it is forbidden to pray about the miracle because of their scientific perception, and since that is wrong then the halakha is also nullified?
After all, it is reasonable to assume that everyone would agree that the fathers who prayed did not sin even though it was a vain prayer because according to the laws of nature it was supposed to happen differently. And so it is permissible to pray about the miracle and the sages simply said otherwise, which is misleading

The prohibition of praying for a miracle is a norm, and I don't see why it should be tied to one perception or another. The fathers did not sin because they did not know reality (or because reality in their time was different).
What I argued for is to change reality. That is, the sages' perception of reality must be changed, not the sages' norms.

Regarding the fathers, you said either they did not sin because they did not know reality or that reality was different.
According to the first excuse, you mean that God really would not want them to pray because it is a prayer for a miracle? (And if He did, then does that mean that the norm is wrong?)
According to the second excuse, what do you mean that reality was different? The laws of nature or the will of God regarding prayers? (If the laws of nature, then it is unlikely. If the will of God, how do we know that God no longer wants us to pray for a miracle)

True.
The change is that God was once more involved and today is less involved. This is his policy change that I described here before:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A9-%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9D
So it's possible that he was once truly involved in nature and now he's not.

I want to say that it does not depend on change, which I assume I agree with.
Even if God intervened more in the past, even then the intervention was a miracle and the prayers were about a miracle.

My argument is based on the power of the prayers of the fathers.
We both agree that they were about a miracle. And I add an assumption that they were desirable before God, since the entire nation of Israel was built from them (although He could have done without them).
Even if the fathers did not think that they were praying about a miracle, God certainly knew that they were, and yet they were desirable before Him (according to my assumption).
From this I want to say that prayers about a miracle are desirable before God and that the norm not to pray about a miracle is wrong (and apparently stemmed from a misconception of the laws of nature, as you say)

It does depend on the change. If there are no natural laws in the sense that there are today, but rather part of normal conduct is through divine intervention, it is possible that there is no prohibition against praying to it.
Regarding your assumption about the Fathers' Prayer, I do not know what it is based on. But if you assume that, then of course you have assumed the desired conclusion and the conclusion does indeed follow from it.

Okay, and if there is no involvement – is there a prohibition? Why is it reasonable to assume so?
(Even the sages who said it was forbidden, did not say so because they thought there was no involvement…)

Because it is not appropriate to ask God to act contrary to His decision and policy. Why is it not appropriate to pray for a miracle at all? Probably for this reason.

Hello Rabbi. I am trying to understand why there is a comparison between the prohibition of praying for the contradiction of natural laws that we know exist, and the contradiction of hypothetical laws that we do not know exist. After all, the deterministic claim, and I would be happy if a rabbi who is an expert on the subject would correct me if I am wrong, is a philosophical and not an empirical claim. This is a claim that began in philosophy and at a certain point scientists adopted it for philosophical reasons, which were obviously influenced by the development of science, but were not proven by it. After all, this certainly cannot be proven empirically in scientific research, since even those who advocate this claim know that they cannot anticipate and predict determinism since, according to them, we do not know all the laws. If so, this is not a scientific claim, which cannot withstand the test of prediction and confirm or refute it. If so, this is nothing more than a philosophical dispute, which has already faced Chazal, and today only takes on a more credible feel due to the development of science, but nothing more. Therefore, even if one is more inclined to the philosophical opinion that some have expressed, this has no relevance to the matter of the prohibition of false prayer, which is stated with regard to laws that are empirically known to man.

The distinction you make between philosophy and science does not exist. Science itself is based on philosophical assumptions. Every scientific law is the result of a generalization based on some observations in individual cases. Therefore, every contradiction you find to the laws of physics is a contradiction to philosophical principles. This is what is called science. And if praying to change the laws of nature is forbidden, then it is any prayer.

I did not quite understand the Rabbi's words:
A. On a scientific level: Is determinism a scientific claim, does it meet the conditions for Karl Popper's scientific theory? Can it be predicted or refuted?
B. On a philosophical level: Why does it require our (and the sages') perception of thinking? After all, this perception itself is opposed by many, including the Rabbi, regarding the free choice of man. Why is the Rabbi certain that it is wrong regarding man, and the Rabbi certain that the sages are wrong regarding providence? After all, there is no way to prove it, and if so, it is nothing more than intuition. And in any case, the sages simply had a different intuition.

A. On a philosophical level, no scientific theory can be refuted. It is always possible to say that the body did not fall to the ground because at that time an imperceptible wind blew. There are quite a few non-empirical assumptions at the basis of science and also at the basis of the demand for refutation. In this sense, determinism is a scientific claim after all, since it is a direct result of physics. If physics can be refuted, so can determinism.
B. I am not opposed to determinism. I am only arguing that our will sometimes exceeds it. I have written about this many times here on the site, and it is worth searching.
I am not sure that wise people are wrong, but I am sure that there is no reason to think that they are right. They did not have sources of information that you and I do not have, and therefore there is no reason to look for excuses that would justify their method. If Einstein had told me something regarding physics that seemed to me to be absurd, I would think twice because I know that he had great understanding and knowledge of physics. This is not the case with the Talmudic sages, who were wrong even about things that were well known in their time, and sometimes about things that were not known in their time. Just like the sages of our time are wrong about the same things that are known in our time.

This is exactly the point I'm missing. I would be happy if the Rabbi could explain, or if the Rabbi would direct me to its explanation: How is determinism a direct result of physics? Is it really necessary for it, or is it just possible or more convenient for the theory of physics on a methodological level?

Physics bases the inanimate world on four fundamental forces. And yet, it's a complete mess. These forces are deterministic (to the point of being quantum).

What are the four fundamental forces? Do you mean the neutron, proton, and electron?

Why can't we say that the sages believed that it was impossible to change what already exists in reality and didn't talk about natural laws at all?

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%97%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%93

Oh, this is quantum physics. I'm still at the beginning of physics.

Tam asked: Who said that it is forbidden to pray a vain prayer? It only says that it is vain, and I did not see any mention of the language of prohibition.

Who said it's not allowed?

The title of the question claims that there is a prohibition. And your first answer, as I understand it, also discussed the ’prohibition’ regarding praying for salvation.
In fact, you believe that there is no prohibition on praying a vain prayer?

On the surface, there doesn't seem to be a prohibition on this. It's just useless (false). It could be said that the sages established a prohibition on this because they are turning to God without reason. I saw in Yeshuot Yaakov 1922, it was written that there is a prohibition on this lest they deprive him of his rights, as in Gemara Shabbat 32:1, "He who performs a miracle for him is deprived of his rights."