OBJ-009: “Problem of evil: why allow decoherence?”
Target claim(s)
Any claim that God orders/actualizes reality and yet baseline decay/decoherence (“sin dynamics”) is pervasive.
The objection (steelman)
“If God is the ground, orders laws, and actualizes outcomes, why is the system set up to decay into disorder at all? Either God can’t prevent it (not God) or won’t (not good).”
Why it seems compelling
It targets internal coherence between divine capability claims and the observed disorder/suffering of the world.
Reply (logic-first)
At the formal level, the framework must choose (and state clearly) which kind of claim it is making:
- Pure mapping claim: “decoherence” is a physical baseline and “sin” is a relational mapping; the model is not claiming a full theodicy.
- Constraint claim: conditions for agency, meaningful choice, and stable law-governed order may require a non-trivial risk landscape (where decay is possible).
- Intervention claim: if grace exists as a stabilizing input, it should be modeled as targeted restoration rather than global prevention, and must generate testable downstream consequences.
If the framework tries to smuggle a full moral justification without declaring which mode it’s in, the objection stands.
What would change my mind
- A clearly typed resolution: either the model stays as a mapping with limited scope, or it supplies explicit constraints showing why a “non-decay world” is incompatible with its other commitments.