Why is that involvement? All reward and punishment is fixed in advance. He doesn’t change nature or intervene in nature in order to give each person according to his ways.

Of course one could say that He created laws that respond to transgressions. But I have no indication that such laws exist. If they are natural, then they are things that should be possible to test and examine. We have not seen consistently (in the case of an individual person) that someone does something bad and that particular punishment happens to him.
By contrast, in the theory I proposed I would not necessarily be expected to see how it works.

You definitely should see the effects in your theory too.
As for the proposal itself, you need to sharpen for yourself what exactly you are trying to answer. Why assume at all that He is not involved? After all, it is obvious that He can intervene, since the same mouth that prohibited (that created the laws) can also permit (intervene in them). The only problem is that when we look at reality, we see conduct according to fixed laws of nature, like the laws of physics. The thesis of divine involvement does not fit with our worldview, according to which the world appears to operate by the regular, familiar laws of nature.
But if that is the problem, your theory doesn’t help at all. Even if the Holy One, blessed be He, built into creation from the outset responses to commandments or transgressions, or planted responses according to prior knowledge (if you insist on that), it still violates the laws of nature known to us. That means we still have a picture that does not fit our observations of the natural conduct of the world. So you have gained nothing. That is why I wrote that this is still involvement in every respect. There is no difference at all in the world’s conduct between divine involvement and your proposal. The world would look exactly the same.

The theory you proposed, that He created a correlation between commandments and transgressions and reality, really does not fit the observations. I wrote that earlier too.
So in my opinion my proposal solves that problem (even though I’m not so excited about it either). According to my proposal there is no necessary regularity. The Holy One, blessed be He, determined in advance whatever He wanted to determine, to punish and reward according to the special conditions of each situation. If there were some regularity, then I really should be able to see it, but if there is no necessary regularity between a certain commandment and a certain reward, and the reverse with transgressions, but rather everything is fixed in advance, then maybe the Holy One, blessed be He, for His own reasons decided to punish this way or that way. The point is only that He could do this without intervention (that is, providence without changing nature). And that is what I gain: providence without intervention. I don’t understand what I’m missing.

What you’re missing is that your proposal also does not fit reality. We should have seen the laws of nature being broken, meaning that we would have no natural explanation for what happens. In effect, there are no laws of nature.

What?!
I proposed that when the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world He set things up so that reward and punishment, or anything else God wants to happen, would all “work out.”
For example, He knew in which years the Jewish people would keep the Torah and made sure “at the creation of the world” that in those years rain would fall. Down to the smallest detail: He created the world so that there would be a stone in the road that would cause you to fall and break your leg because of “feet that run to evil.”
I don’t understand where anything here requires breaking the laws of nature.

In my opinion he definitely does gain something. One could argue that without changing the laws of physics (assuming for the sake of simplicity that they are completely deterministic), the Holy One, blessed be He, could by means of the initial conditions (or the values of the constants, and so on) determine, as a kind of providence, what would happen in every situation according to the different scenarios that could develop (the possible branches due to free choice). The problem is that this gets into a calculation of degrees of freedom—namely, whether there are enough degrees of freedom in the initial conditions to support so many possibilities. In simple terms this grows exponentially according to the possible “decision nodes,” though one could imagine some convergence of branches. Maybe there is a way to calculate this; I have no idea at all how to approach such a calculation.

All right, there really is no point to this. The whole discussion is being conducted on the basis of the implausible assumption that there is knowledge of future choices. And another assumption that the laws of nature can be adjusted so as to fit sins and commandments. And all this despite the fact that we do not see any real connection between sins and commandments and what happens in the world. If He adjusted everything in advance, then why in fact is there no orderly response corresponding to commandments and transgressions?
I’m done.

I’ll try to sharpen it a bit, because it seems this was understood in exactly the opposite way. There are 2 issues. 1, whether it appears that there is providence in terms of the order of the world and so on. 2, whether one can speak of providence at all without breaking physical regularity, at least partially. I was referring only to 2 (you already wrote that in your view the main point is 1, because at most one could claim that the regularity is broken for the sake of providence). The claim was not based on there being knowledge of what a person will choose from among the options before him, but on there being knowledge of what the options before him are, and that one can perhaps prepare for all the possible scenarios even without knowing in advance what he will choose.

I understand. But this is a strange piece of pilpul. What you are basically claiming is this: if one adopts the assumption (which seems implausible to me) that the Holy One, blessed be He, knows in advance what we will choose and when, and also assumes that the Holy One, blessed be He, has no other considerations in determining the laws of nature (but only matching them to commandments and transgressions—and this itself requires investigation, since why then was the rest of the universe created?), and that there are enough degrees of freedom to fine-tune this, and also ignores the fact that in practice we do not see providence (a connection between commandments and what happens), then one could say that there is providence without involvement in the laws.

So why in fact did He not do this (since according to assumption 3 we do not see providence)? Presumably because at least one of the first two assumptions is not correct. In my opinion, both are not.

You need to adopt either that the Holy One, blessed be He, knows in advance, or that there are enough degrees of freedom—not both.
And it’s not hard to explain why we don’t see providence. As Y.V. wrote, that is a separate question. Here the issue is only that providence does not require intervention; the fact that we don’t understand why a baby dies is a different question (which fits better with there being no providence, but is still a different question).
In my opinion, what is important here is that there is a way for providence without intervention. Even if it is not such a convincing explanation at first glance, it shows that there is no frontal contradiction; maybe there are better explanations. It only rules out the assumption that because there is no intervention, there is no providence.

You definitely need to adopt both. If He knows in advance but there are not enough degrees of freedom, then He will not be able to coordinate the laws so that they fit all the situations.

If He knows in advance, then there is no need to coordinate for both possibilities. He coordinates only for what the person will choose. If He knew all the choices, then why couldn’t He initialize things in a starting state so that everything would work out? From God’s perspective, it is like a completely deterministic view where every outcome can be calculated.
Are you saying it is impossible to arrange such a reality? I didn’t understand why not.

Ah, I understand.