Q&A: A Conceptual-Empirical Framework for Examining Divine Necessity
A Conceptual-Empirical Framework for Examining Divine Necessity
Question
Hello Honorable Rabbi Dr. Michael Abraham,
I recently watched one of your lectures ("Faith and Its Meaning," lesson 3), and at minute 6:35 you discussed the possibility—even if only on the theoretical level—of developing a structured framework or empirical experiment that could examine the question of God's existence. You noted that if someone thinks he has found such a bridge between the empirical plane and the metaphysical reality of God, you would be glad to hear about it.
Those remarks have been resonating with me for some time, as part of an effort to formulate a conceptual framework with metaphysical and logical validity, but one that could also develop into a testable scientific methodology—that is, an attempt to formulate universal principles in a causal-formal language that could lead to empirical examination and not remain only in the realm of thought.
As part of a discussion I opened on the r/TrueAtheism forum on Reddit, I presented an idea I developed under the name "Ontoentropic Causality"—a theoretical model that tries to identify measurable traces of divine necessity through a structural tendency toward minimization of ontological entropy.
For clarification: Ontological Entropy (OE) is a theoretical measure that tries to reflect the degree of existential improbability of a given structure out of all possible configurations in ontological space. Unlike physical or informational entropy, this refers to the degree of "exceptionality" or "non-triviality" of a given entity in terms of deep existential order. The rarer or more existentially complex a structure is, the lower its OE—and its existence requires an explanation that is not merely probabilistic.
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 commenters showed intellectual openness and suggested developing the idea together with a physicist—which also matches my original intention.
By the way, I am already aware of the possibilities for scientific criticism and attempts to refute the model. Even if the CNDF (Causally Non-Derivative Field—a field not derived from known physical dynamics, but operating as a constraining supra-causal field that biases the causal direction of systems toward structures with low OE) is not measured directly, the very fact that models without CNDF fail to explain anomalous causal consistency—that is, recurring coherent patterns that are not expected according to existing physical dynamics—constitutes negative evidence in the accepted scientific sense, exactly as is customary in areas such as dark matter or quantum effects: fields that are not observed directly, 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 greatly appreciate it if you could look over the idea and share whether, in your opinion, it has serious theoretical potential that justifies further development—or whether this is an unproductive line of inquiry.
Best regards,
P.S. — You can also find the article at the following link:
Answer
Hello,
I went over the summary, and it seems intriguing, although of course I did not understand the details. I think I may have understood the general direction. With your permission, I would be glad if you could explain a few initial points that occurred to me.
At a general glance, this seems to me like an attempt to formalize a philosophical argument; that is, instead of saying that the development of life is improbable without the involvement of a guiding hand, you define mathematical quantities and fields that are basically saying the same thing. So what have we gained? Of course, if there is an experiment that can show this scientifically, then you have taken a step forward. In that case we have moved from philosophy to science, and that is definitely progress.
So if you are really claiming that one can move into the scientific domain, the following questions come to mind:
1. Are you claiming that there is an empirical way to show a deviation from the thermodynamic course of events? If so, then 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 yet its entropy decreases even though there is no external physical intervention? That is, in order to show that there is divine or other intervention, you need to rule out the possibility that this is the result of some other physical intervention that we missed.
3. I understand that you want to apply this to the training of an LLM system. Is this meant to explain the exceptional achievements of such systems? Are you claiming that there too there is divine or other (non-physical) intervention? That sounds strange.