Graduate school was the most transformative and intellectually enriching period of my life. Just months before I began this journey, Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time became a bestseller, igniting widespread interest in the cosmos. It was during this time that my fascination with the intersection of science and theology took root.
That summer, I immersed myself in reading on these topics and discovered the works of Prof. John Polkinghorne, a distinguished high-energy physicist who later became an Anglican priest and taught theology at Cambridge. To my delight, I had the extraordinary opportunity to attend his course, Dialogue between Science and Theology.
Professor Polkinghorne’s teachings profoundly shaped my understanding of the interplay between science and faith. In a memorable one-on-one conversation, I shared with him my aspiration to translate his books into Chinese, my mother tongue. To my surprise, he encouraged me instead to write a book of my own—a suggestion that became a turning point in my intellectual journey.
As an experimental physicist, I’m drawn to examining theories at a practical level, seeking ways to test and verify complex ideas. I firmly believe in free will, making choices and decisions daily that affirm its reality. I’ve little patience for philosophical arguments that dismiss free will as an illusion, especially when their proponents live as though free will governs their lives. At the same time, I also embrace God’s sovereignty—His complete and unwavering control over creation, where nothing happens without His knowledge or permission. Reconciling these two truths—human free will and divine sovereignty—has long been a fascinating paradox for me.
With Professor Polkinghorne’s encouragement, I began exploring concepts like free will and prediction through a scientific lens.
Classical theology asserts that God exists outside of time regarding free will and predication. From this perspective, God simultaneously sees the past, present, and future. His foreknowledge of future events is likened to opening a book at the right page—He knows what will happen because, in a sense, it has already been written. In addition, classical theology describes God as static and immutable, attaching attributes such as omnipresence (all-present), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omniscience (all-knowing).
While this framework highlights God’s majesty and transcendence, I’ve found it to be a double-edged sword. It is deeply ingrained in my thinking, but it can also feel discouraging. This view often creates a sense of distance by emphasizing God’s incomprehensibility, making it difficult for people to engage with or even attempt to understand Him.
During this same period, I was introduced to Process Theology, a radically different approach influenced by Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy. Process theology portrays God not as existing outside of time but as experiencing time alongside us—dynamic and changing in response to the unfolding world.
In this view, God is not omnipotent in the traditional sense of absolute control. Instead, His power is persuasive rather than coercive. God works through gentle influence, guiding creation toward its ultimate good rather than dictating its every move. Process theologians argue that God’s limitations are not self-imposed but arise out of metaphysical necessity; the very nature of existence requires this interactional and evolving relationship.
I was very attracted to this idea, but the God pictured is too far from the God I know and worship; there has to be a better way to model how God interacts with the physical world.
Chaos theory wasn’t that popular back then; few people had heard of concepts such as the butterfly effect. The book Chaos: Making of a New Science by James Gleick opened a brand-new door for me. For the first time, things seemed to make sense, and I started to formulate a feedback control model to conceptualize God’s interaction with the world. However, one critical question lingered: How could God predict human behavior while allowing free will?
Years later, my work in artificial intelligence illuminated the missing pieces of the puzzle. AI’s ability to predict human actions based on historical data offered a compelling analogy. If AI can predict our choices with remarkable accuracy, how much more could God—who knows every intricate detail about us—foresee our actions without compromising our free will?
I finally fulfilled his encouragement thirty years after that pivotal conversation with Professor Polkinghorne. I wrote and published my book, a synthesis of decades of thought, discovery, and exploration at the intersection of science, theology, and technology.
Open Theology vs Process Theology
I came across Open Theology shortly after I finished my first book. Some reviewers pointed out that it is similar to Open Theology, which in turn is very similar to Process Theology. Open and Process Theology addresses similar theological challenges but approaches them from slightly different angles. Both emphasize God’s dynamic and relational nature, affirm genuine human freedom, and reject determinism. Central to both perspectives is the idea that the future is open and not fully determined, providing a framework to address the problem of evil and suffering.
Both theologies highlight God’s loving character, asserting that His relationship with humanity is grounded in respect for human free will. God allows history to unfold according to human decisions out of His love rather than exerting unilateral control. This perspective also reinforces the efficacy of prayer, which becomes meaningful in a world where the future is still being shaped and God’s actions are responsive to human engagement.
The Process Theology framework originates from Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy. It emphasizes that God is not omnipotent in the traditional sense of possessing coercive power. Instead, His power is persuasive, influencing the world through love and guidance rather than force. In this view, God’s limitations are not self-imposed but arise from metaphysical necessity—the inherent nature of reality and His relationship with creation.
Open Theology, on the other hand, is based on traditional biblical theology. It seeks to reconcile the open nature of God while preserving a more traditional understanding of God’s omnipotence. It posits that God voluntarily limits His power to allow for genuine human freedom. This self-limitation expresses God’s love, enabling humans to make meaningful decisions and fostering an authentic relationship between God and creation.
“Let the same mind be in you that was[a] in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death even death on a cross.” Philippians 2:5-8
The concept of kenosis, derived from the Greek word for “emptying,” plays a significant role in Open Theology’s exploration of God’s nature. In Philippians 2:5-8, the Apostle presents a powerful image of Christ’s humility and sacrificial love through kenosis—God “emptying Himself” to become human, a servant, and die on the cross for humanity.
In Open Theology, kenosis is a theological foundation for understanding God’s relational nature. God’s self-emptying love is seen in the incarnation and His ongoing interaction with creation. This kenotic view of God reflects His willingness to limit Himself, respect human autonomy, and work within the unfolding of history, all while remaining profoundly engaged and loving.
There are many instances in the bible where it was said God changed His mind or regarded His decision.
“And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him to His heart. So the Lord said, ‘I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.’”- Genesis 6:6-7
For example, Genesis 6:6 depicts that God regarded making humans and wanted to use the flood to wipe them out.
“I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.”– I Samuel 15:11.
And in I Samuel 15:11, God regrets that He made Saul the king of Isreal.
Open Theology uses those instances as evidence that the future is not a fixed, predetermined timeline but an unfolding reality shaped by human decisions and God’s interactions with creation. God is self-limiting and making Himself vulnerable to respect human decisions. When you allow people to choose, they don’t always choose wisely, which can grieve God and cause Him to regret his decision. Classical theology argues that those passages that depict “relents” or “regrets” are using human language to help us better understand God’s actions. The passages do not imply a literal change in God’s eternal plan.
However, Open Theologians criticize this approach, calling it intellectually dishonest. They argue that you can’t take the Bible literally when it fits your beliefs but dismiss other passages (like those about God’s regret) as symbolic when they challenge your ideas. Instead, they see these verses as evidence of God’s dynamic and relational nature.
Let us review my feedback control model and see how it can contribute to this debate.
Feedback Control Model
Chaotic System
Before the 20th century, most physicists embraced the concept of a Newtonian Clockwork universe. This perspective portrayed the cosmos as a colossal clockwork mechanism, where a thorough comprehension of all physical laws suggested that events were predetermined. The prevailing belief was that by knowing the precise locations of all particles in the universe, the future could be accurately calculated.
In scientific terms, a chaotic system is one that is highly sensitive to initial conditions, meaning that small changes can lead to vastly different outcomes. This sensitivity is often referred to as the “butterfly effect,” where a minor event, like the flapping of a butterfly’s wings, can eventually cause a significant impact, such as a storm in another part of the world. Systems that are governed by precise deterministic laws can exhibit unpredictable and seemingly random behavior due to their sensitivity to initial conditions.
The complex interplay of factors and the amplification of initial differences over time contribute to the unpredictability observed in chaotic systems. Notably, even in the classical physics regime, the act of measurement can influence the system being measured. Quantum physics introduces an additional layer of uncertainty, revealing that certain quantum events can occur without a discernible cause. Since it is impossible to determine simultaneously what all particles are doing, the future remains open and unpredictable. This departure from the Newtonian clockwork model underscores many natural phenomena’s intrinsic complexity and nonlinearity.
The theory of chaos presents a persuasive case for the presence of free will. Even though the equations governing physical laws are precise and widely accepted, the future remains undetermined. Despite the strictness and determinism inherent in these laws, there is an intrinsic openness in the world that resists absolute predictability.
God the Super-Predictor
The ability of tech companies to predict human behavior through analysis of online activities offers a striking comparison to the scope of God’s predictive capacity. While these companies achieve remarkable accuracy through algorithms and data, God’s understanding transcends such methods, as His knowledge of you is infinitely more complete. This invites deep reflection on how God’s comprehensive knowledge encompasses every aspect of an individual’s life and informs how future events unfold. This perspective provides a balanced view of free will and divine predestination. God’s omniscience enables Him to foresee the future based on an intimate and exhaustive understanding of an individual’s past and present choices. God’s knowledge of the future does not negate human free will in this framework. Instead, it harmonizes with it, as His foresight is rooted in perfect understanding rather than deterministic control.
This model eliminates the need to involve God’s transcendent nature beyond time and space to explain how He can determine and know your future. However, this analogy does not address the issue of whether God knows your future or merely has a good prediction. In my second book, which I hope to publish later this year, I used the analogy of parallel universes to model how God sees the future. All the possible universes and all human decisions are visible to Him.
A quantum computer uses the strange rules of quantum mechanics, like superposition and entanglement, to solve problems much faster than traditional computers. Imagine if God had a vast quantum computer that could run simulations in different parallel universes. Instead of just guessing what you might do based on what you’ve done before, He looks at all possible scenarios to see how you might act in the future. All these scenarios are just simulations, with only one real universe where we live. In this fascinating idea, God, as the ultimate planner, runs simulations of many possible events, choosing which ones fit His ultimate goals to make them real. This viewpoint suggests that God deeply understands the future, going beyond the predictions of regular AI and knowing all possible outcomes.
I should stress that this is just a model to help people visualize God’s foreknowledge. Our God is far greater than that; He doesn’t need a physical computer to help Him simulate our behavior. He can predict our actions instantaneously without any external help.
Closed Loop Control
In electrical engineering, feedback control systems play a crucial role by utilizing the system’s output to modify the input signal, aiming to align the output with the desired value. These closed-loop control systems are precious for stabilizing potentially unstable systems.
你家中的恆溫器是一個日常反饋控制系統的示例。 如果沒有恆溫器，如果你打開暖氣，家裡可能會變得太熱。 使用恆溫器，當房間溫度達到設定值時系統將關閉加熱器，當房間太冷時將其重新打開。
Drawing a parallel, as discussed in the previous section, God can use your past behavior to predict your future or use a vast quantum computer to calculate your decision.
We also discussed that God can intervene through quantum events that influence the physical world without validating the physical laws that He created. By leveraging your past actions to anticipate your future behavior, God can form a feedback loop to guide your life. This analogy likens God’s guidance to a smart thermostat constantly learning your behavior and adjusting its interactions to steer you towards the intended path that aligns with His purpose.
In control theory, there is a concept called feedforward control. Feedforward control anticipates and preemptively responds to disturbances before they affect system output. For example, when driving toward a curve, you begin to decelerate in anticipation of the turn even before hitting the curve.
Modern control systems often combine feedforward and feedback strategies, leveraging artificial intelligence to develop increasingly sophisticated models and learn from the past behavior. This hybrid approach maximizes the benefits of both control methods while minimizing their respective limitations.
In this framework, divine action functions primarily through feedforward mechanisms, leveraging perfect knowledge of individuals and circumstances to guide outcomes proactively rather than merely responding to deviations.
This distinction between feedforward and feedback control carries significant theological implications. Feedforward control anticipates and corrects issues before they arise, actively shaping outcomes. In contrast, feedback control corrects errors after they occur. With its anticipatory and preemptive nature, feedforward control better aligns with traditional divine providence and guidance concepts. It suggests a God who actively shapes outcomes rather than simply responding to events after they occur.
This model avoids delving into transcendent dimensions, focusing instead on temporal and spatial considerations. It suggests that divine guidance operates as a control system that steers individuals toward their destinies while respecting free will. By integrating predictive elements, the model highlights the interplay between divine intervention and individual autonomy within the context of advanced control systems.
On the contrary, classical theology, when God predicated everything, is an open-loop control system in which the output has no direct influence or feedback on the input. Open theology assert that God knows all possible outcomes of human decision but allows them to unfold freely. Therefore, it is not clear whether open theology is considered as closed loop system. Furthermore, it does not has the feedforward mechanism to allow God to assert His will.
To a certain extent, Open Theology is a closed-loop control system, but it wasn’t clear to what extent human choices affect God’s interaction. It does not have the feedforward mechanism to exert God’s will.
Emergent Properties
The world is a complex system, yet reductionists assert that everything can be explained by breaking complex ideas or issues down into their simplest parts. For example, psychology is reduced to biology, biology to chemistry, and chemistry to physics. While this approach has its merits, it often oversimplifies and overlooks emergent properties arising from components’ interaction. Classical theology, to a certain extent, falls into a similar trap. It seeks to understand God by deconstructing divine attributes such as omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. However, this reductionist approach often leads to contradictions. For instance, how does a wholly just and loving God address human sin?
Complexity science, by contrast, offers a different perspective. It is an interdisciplinary field that studies systems composed of many interacting elements where emergent behaviors arise—behaviors that cannot be fully understood by isolating and analyzing individual components. As Philip Anderson, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and one of the founders of the Santa Fe Institute, famously stated, “More is different.” Anderson’s work emphasized that as systems grow in complexity, they exhibit entirely new and unpredictable behaviors that are not mere extensions of simpler systems.
Through the lens of complexity science, theological concepts can be seen as emergent realities. The cross, for example, can be understood as an emergent event that resolves the tension between divine justice and love. Similarly, the concept of kenosis—Christ’s self-emptying—can be viewed as another emergent property that reconciles the paradox of Jesus being fully human and divine. In both cases, these theological truths transcend reductionist explanations, demonstrating the richness and depth of God’s interaction with creation.
Resolving Free and God’s immutability
The conflict between Open Theology and classical theology can also be understood through the lens of complex systems. Open Theology often highlights biblical descriptions of God “changing His mind” or “regretting His decision” as evidence of God’s dynamic and relational nature. Classical theology, on the other hand, emphasizes God’s immutability and foreknowledge. This tension can be seen as a paradox in isolation, but through complexity science, it becomes an emergent property that harmonizes divine foreknowledge with God’s respect for human free will.
When God interacts with creation, these descriptions of change or regret can be understood as emergent realities that reflect His relational engagement with the world. God’s timeless nature and omniscience do not negate genuine interactions with humanity but instead reveal a complexity in which divine immutability and relational responsiveness coexist. From this perspective, God’s engagement with free will is not static or deterministic but dynamic and responsive, maintaining the integrity of divine nature and human freedom.
In the feedback control model, God considers your decision to formulate His interaction with the world. In this case, the future is a co-creation between you and God, so God can foreknowledge the future while you still have your free will.
Closed Loop Theology
Open Theology emphasizes God’s dynamic and relational nature, affirming genuine human freedom and rejecting determinism. It posits that God voluntarily limits His power to allow for authentic human decision-making, fostering a meaningful relationship between God and creation. This perspective can be integrated into the feedback control model to illustrate further how God interacts with the world while respecting human autonomy, we will call this new extension of Open Theology as Closed Loop Theology.
Dynamic Interaction:
In Open Theology, God’s engagement with the world is dynamic, adapting to human actions and decisions. This is similar to a feedback control model, where the system continuously adjusts based on the results to achieve the desired outcome. In this framework, God uses feedback from human choices to guide and influence future events, ensuring His purposes are fulfilled while respecting human freedom. His involvement is not just dynamic but constant and actively ongoing, not merely making corrections occasionally.
Feedforward Mechanism:
Open Theology can incorporate a feedforward mechanism, where God anticipates potential outcomes based on His knowledge of all possible human decisions. This proactive approach allows God to guide creation towards its ultimate good without coercing human will. By understanding the range of possible futures, God can influence events in a way that aligns with His loving and relational nature.
Self-Limitation and Kenosis:
The concept of kenosis, or self-emptying, is central to Open Theology. God voluntarily limits His power to allow for genuine human freedom. In the feedback control model, this self-limitation can be seen as God choosing to work within the constraints of human decisions, using feedback to adjust His actions while maintaining respect for human autonomy. This approach highlights God’s relational engagement with creation, where His guidance is both persuasive and coercive.
Emergent Properties:
Open Theology recognizes the complexity and unpredictability of human decisions. By viewing theological concepts as emergent properties, the feedback control model can account for the dynamic and evolving nature of God’s relationship with humanity. This perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of how God interacts with the world, acknowledging the interplay between divine guidance and human freedom.
Prayer and Human Engagement:
In Open Theology, prayer is seen as a meaningful interaction between humans and God, influencing the unfolding of future events. The feedback control model can incorporate this by viewing prayer as a form of feedback God uses to adjust His actions. This reinforces the idea that human engagement plays a crucial role in shaping the future, aligning with the relational nature of Open Theology.
Problem of Evil
In Open Theology, the future is not predetermined. God grants free will, enabling evil and suffering to stem from human choices and natural processes. As the future is yet to unfold, God isn’t responsible for evil acts. The feedback control model sees evil as an unintended result of human free will, yet God actively responds to and mitigates its effects. He works to bring good out of evil situations and supports humans in their struggles. With feedforward control, God can proactively reduce the impact of evil. It’s important to remember that our immediate experience of evil and pain is limited to what’s occurred, and we cannot fully comprehend the suffering God has prevented. Because God interacts with the world continuously, He also provides comfort to those affected by evil.
Conclusion
By extending the feedback control model to Open Theology, we can better understand how God interacts with the world dynamically and relationally. This approach respects human freedom while acknowledging God’s guiding influence, providing a balanced framework that harmonizes divine sovereignty with genuine human autonomy. Integrating feedback and feedforward mechanisms and recognizing emergent properties offers a comprehensive view of how God engages with creation, fostering a meaningful and responsive relationship with humanity.