God can write straight with crooked lines.

[MG 2.0]

One thing that may seem rather obvious but should be said is that from inside the system, no one can map God’s “5d lines” in detail, so providence cannot function as a neat empirical hypothesis like a lab prediction. In the realm that we find ourselves there really isn't any way of treating "God is guiding events" in the same way we might treat a scientific claim that we can test with controlled experiments and clear, repeatable predictions.

"God writes straight with crooked lines" doesn't always give us this kind of testable "if I do Y, then Z must happen within a certain time frame, otherwise providence is false and/or doesn't intervene in the affairs of men.

I think it is true that there is no clean, agreed‑upon observation within the 3d world that would count as decisive disconfirmation the way failed lab results do for a scientific hypothesis.

God's ways are not our ways, and all that.

Just more input to the system (hopscotch game).

Please interact with any ideas I've presented among yourselves, for now, rather than bringing me in. That almost ALWAYS brings in an element of individuals that I find distasteful to deal with.

I find your comments pretty much spot on in a number of respects, gadianton. With the caveat of what I've said in this post. But I don't want to go back and forth on it. Let others join in to the conversation. I don't want to take center stage except for pushing some props onto the stage here and there.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

I think shulem is right to advise caution, as the problem with a post-hoc model is that it makes facts largely irrelevant—what matters is only how the story can be reframed afterward. I may have been playing the game wrong, but much like hopscotch, the game changes depending on where you stand. For one thing, I leaned into the game designer as intending more depth than is actually included in the game. So “injustice” may have been the wrong play. “Truth” might be the better Hoppy Taw marker for establishing where we actually are.

What I mean is that there’s a great deal of dependency in any story on perspective. Up close, you might see a six-car freeway collision at 70 mph. A jackknifed Dodge Durango police vehicle, a broken sternum, a fractured C-7, burns and contusions. Step back a little and it becomes “manageable injuries.” Step back even further and it’s not as bad—you’re looking at compression wraps and maybe a hematoma. Same canvas, different distance.

This is where Monet really earns his keep. The closer you look, the more detail gets in the way. But just step back farther and the picture slides into focus. The injuries don’t disappear, nay, there are just refocused, like one of those 3D posters where you have to cross your eyes to see the dinosaur.

The hopscotch grid works the same way. You throw the Hoppy Taw, it skitters wildly outside the line, maybe into traffic. No problem. Simply redraw the chalk so it was in bounds all along and continue play. From the right angle, the toss was clean. The line is now crooked, but only because some people insist on being literal about things like bones, velocity, and impact angles.

From this we can learn that a crooked line is only crooked if you insist on judging it in two dimensions. Once you ditch that limitation, the line performs the function of straightness—even if people were hurt along the way. That harm won’t disappear, it is simply blended into the picture as a minor blemish.

It’s a remarkably forgiving geometry.

[Limnor]

All of that said, and on a more serious note, I’m genuinely enjoying the conversation—these have been deliciously rich offerings for thought. I found this particularly edifying: “How the heck am I supposed to know if stopping that guy with a gun is going to net more good in the world after all butterfly effects are calculated by God that I can't calculate?”

I liked the comparison to the story of the wheat and tares, but would offer a second comparison that seems like a decent candidate for the kind of “outlier events” a power-law or 5D framework would turn to for meaning.

In Luke 13, people ask Jesus about two two events, Galileans massacred by Pilate, and people crushed by the tower of Siloam. Jesus’ response? He doesn’t say these deaths were turning points in God’s plan and in fact He explicitly denies they happened because the victims were worse than others, which seems like a direct rejection of a power-law interpretation of providence.

Summary Conclusion, and in line with the dilemma Gad presents: We don’t need to know the ultimate outcomes to know how to act. Rather, Jesus grounds moral action in simple terms: Love your neighbor, protect the vulnerable, oppose injustice, heal the sick, and stop harm when you can (ok I added that one but it is a value I hold).

You don’t need 5D knowledge to know you stop the man with the gun, don’t reinterpret the murder afterward as “necessary,” nor wait to see how it fits the plan.

Thanks for the game.

[malkie]

All of that said, and on a more serious note, I’m genuinely enjoying the conversation—these have been deliciously rich offerings for thought. I found this particularly edifying: “How the heck am I supposed to know if stopping that guy with a gun is going to net more good in the world after all butterfly effects are calculated by God that I can't calculate?”

I liked the comparison to the story of the wheat and tares, but would offer a second comparison that seems like a decent candidate for the kind of “outlier events” a power-law or 5D framework would turn to for meaning.

In Luke 13, people ask Jesus about two two events, Galileans massacred by Pilate, and people crushed by the tower of Siloam. Jesus’ response? He doesn’t say these deaths were turning points in God’s plan and in fact He explicitly denies they happened because the victims were worse than others, which seems like a direct rejection of a power-law interpretation of providence.

Summary Conclusion, and in line with the dilemma Gad presents: We don’t need to know the ultimate outcomes to know how to act. Rather, Jesus grounds moral action in simple terms: Love your neighbor, protect the vulnerable, oppose injustice, heal the sick, and stop harm when you can.

You don’t need 5D knowledge to know you stop the man with the gun, reinterpret the murder afterward as “necessary,” nor wait to see how it fits the plan.

Thanks for the game.

"We don’t need to know the ultimate outcomes to know how to act."

A general rule I try to apply to my life is:

Do what you believe is best, based on the information you have at the time.
Avoid feelings of regret if better information becomes available later - you would have used it iff you had known, but the fact is you didn't.

I'm not claiming to be perfect (!), or that I always apply this rule, or that I regret nothing. But I mostly have a clear enough conscience that I don't spend a lot of time beating myself up over "bad" decisions. I usually sleep OK at night.



If I'm ultimately judged by a god and found wanting, I'll be hard pressed to say what I would or could have done differently in order to merit a better outcome.

[MG 2.0]

One, maybe two players have left the game. More Hoppy Taws are now available. Any new players?

Does having to look through the lens of “post hoc” make ALL the difference in how we play the game? Or decide not to play?

Are we dealing with absolutes? No one has thrown the Hoppy Taw onto the ‘Agency’ shape of the hopscotch grid yet. Would someone like to? And then take the jump?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Oh I’m happy to keep playing—as long as the chalk gets set down after drawing the lines and before the jump. The post-hoc lens does make all the difference, because a game where the grid is redrawn after every jump isn’t really a coherent game at all.

So sure, let’s throw the Hoppy Taw onto “Agency,” but only if the square stays where it is before the jump. Otherwise we’re not exercising agency so much as narrating it after the fact, which is a different game entirely.

[Rivendale]

God allows evil for the greater good is essentially the crooked lines metaphor. Mountain meadows was justified by some intricate least sum algorithm but this was a long time ago.The victims, on the other hand are either rewarded later or partially to blame. That seems to be a def con one.

Def con two? How about the Mark Hofmann bombings? God's collective mouthpiece on Earth are led on a couples ruse where the leaders dance a tango with Mark leading to extremely jagged lines and a ragged line of misery.


Def con Three? The Lafferty case. An example where prophetic 5d chess leads to individual claims of prophetic retribution. Victims in the wake are collateral damage for one JAG of the line.

Def Con Four. Natural disasters taking out thousands and millions of lives creating a fractal jagged line with no explanations.

Def Con Five. The Holocaust. The greater good is allowed because of this which paves the way for seismic jagged lines viewed with a smile.

[Limnor]

If I'm ultimately judged by a god and found wanting, I'll be hard pressed to say what I would or could have done differently in order to merit a better outcome.

This resonates with me, malkie. I think the apostle Paul would agree. Paul said something like gentiles without the Law are judged by conscience, which I take to mean God “judges the secrets of the heart,” not just outcomes, and certainly not retroactive justification.

[MG 2.0]

Limnor seems to be saying that by changing perspective and scale you can re-describe the same painful facts so that they “slide into focus” and the harm becomes a “minor blemish.” “God writes straight with crooked lines” claims that when zoomed‑out, the apparently crooked line functions as straight within a larger providential pattern. Power law would dictate this I think.

I don't think there is really any argument that we can always reframe events post hoc in a more flattering geometry.

But is there a clear distinction between this and the claim that God guides history?

It seems as though internal logic would require one addtional step beyond what has been said. That is, specifying criteria under which redrawing the lines would NOT be allowed, or would count against "God wanted this," rather than simply noting how permissive and forgiving the geometry is.

I think Limnor essentially is supporting the claim that God can write straight with crooked lines. Once you allow higher dimensional or zoomed out (Monet) framing, crooked lines are very easy to see as straight, which is is the claim under dispute.

I'm just throwing this out there for analysis by other and adding fuel to the fire and meat to the bones. I'm not necessarily saying that I'm preaching 'gospel truth'. Just throwing stuff out there.

Limnor, I'm glad you want to keep playing. I'm interested in reading what and how agency might factor in to all of this.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

It appears we are now in agreement. After careful review, my objection to the claim that crooked lines can always be reframed as straight has been helpfully clarified to mean that I actually support the claim that crooked lines can always be reframed as straight—provided we zoom out far enough.

This is excellent news. What I had mistakenly thought was a concern about unfalsifiability turns out to be an endorsement and reinterpreted as confirmation.

Of course this raises an interesting question about criteria for when redrawing the grid would “not” be allowed. But until such criteria are specified, we can safely proceed on the assumption that every landing was perfectly in the center of the square we intend to land on.

Agency remains on the board, of course, just not before the jump. First we land, then we discover what we meant to do.

Happy to keep playing. This chalk is very flexible.