A philosophical critique of your concept of providence

There is someone named Rafi Vered who posted on Facebook a few years ago a philosophical critique of your concept of providence. I would appreciate it if you could respond to his critique, thanks in advance:
 
I'll start by saying that I like Rabbi Michael Avraham very much. Back when I was in first grade, I came across his immortal book 'Two Carts and a Hot Air Balloon' (in the first edition, without margins and with a size 6 font) and read it eagerly (I hold the record for completing three of his books). Later, I even confronted him with Rabbi Kellner (not directly, of course), and I enjoyed the results very much. I, by the way, believe that the two of them are not very far apart in their views on matters of faith. When I was in my first degree, I managed to arrange a study group with the Rabbi, along with two other guys, on matters of philosophy that lasted almost a year, and today, in addition to our being neighbors, I am privileged to hear him quite a bit in the classes he teaches in Lod.
 
And yet, there are issues on which I definitely disagree with him. A few months ago I was asked (and don't try to understand why I was asked) a question about Rabbi Michael Avraham's concept of providence, who explicitly writes:
 
"In any case, it is unlikely that there is reward and punishment in this world, regardless of the sources of the Sages, since it does not seem to me that there is any involvement of the Blessed One in the conduct of the world. It seems quite clear that the world around us is conducted according to the laws of nature and our free will and without divine involvement."
 
This is, more or less, what I answered to that questioner:
 
The question of providence is certainly a difficult one, and it does clash head-on with the laws of physics as we know them. But before you raise questions about the possibility of providence in the natural world, you should ask a much simpler question that concerns your basic premise: Is there even free choice for humans?
 
Free choice also contradicts the laws of physics as we know them. A common way to illustrate this idea is with an imaginary creature called Laplace's elf. Laplace's elf knows exactly where all the particles in the universe were at any given moment, as well as their exact velocities. Given this information, he is able to instantly calculate where each and every particle will be at any given moment in the future. This is true for distant stars, but it is no less true for humans themselves. That is, since we are ultimately made up of nothing but atoms and elementary particles, we are subject to the same laws of physics. It is those laws that determine how we will behave and what we will do, and not some choice of ours that can break physics.
 
After all, what is a choice, if not just a collection of electrical signals running along the synapses, transmitting information between neurons? This 'mental process' is also just a product of physics, subject to its strict laws. Therefore, the electrical signal running through your brain right now is not a product of 'free choice', but of the physical starting conditions that determined in advance what exactly it will do. In other words: just as the movement of the Earth around itself and around the Sun is derived in a single, unambiguous way from the initial state of the universe some 13 billion years ago, so too does every molecule moving inside your skull do so not because you chose it, but because that is what physics has decreed for it from the beginning.
 
Here everything becomes much simpler: If you believe that a person has free choice (one of the foundations of faith, according to the Darambam) and is able to bend the physics of a goblin to the ground – even though modern science does not allow this – you will believe that God watches over his world and bends physics as he wishes. The revolutionary idea that you have 'free choice' that can change the deterministic course of reality seems obvious to you, because you truly and sincerely believe in this illusion that you have the ability to choose. But deep down, it is a miracle.
 
Providence, quite simply, is the divine response to human choice, so just as providence requires a spoliation of nature, your free choice requires it as well. And just as you can't see nature bending to free choice (and for some reason, it doesn't bother you at all), don't expect to be able to see the effect of providence on the laws of physics.
 
Belief that anything that cannot be measured scientifically does not exist is simple materialism, and therefore in fact a complete heresy. The Jewish faith claims that there is something above nature that governs reality and sometimes bends the laws of physics: free will and providence. And just as Rabbi Michael Avraham believes in free will (and he does. His book will testify), he can believe in providence.