A Physics-Inspired Approach to the Limits of Revelation

Various religious traditions assert that divine revelation is absolute, immutable, and universal, though they differ in emphasis. For instance, mainstream Islam regards the Quran as the direct and unaltered word of God, preserved in its original Arabic form, while many evangelical Christians uphold the Bible as the inerrant, divinely inspired word of God, faithfully transmitted across translations. In contrast, Eastern Orthodox Christianity often adopts a more mystical stance, emphasizing the allegorical and enigmatic nature of Scripture rather than its literal inerrancy. 

Nevertheless, the principles of chaos theory and linguistic evolution call these perspectives into question. In classical mechanics, deterministic systems can exhibit chaotic behavior through their sensitive dependence on initial conditions, a phenomenon quantified by Lyapunov exponents. In a parallel manner, human knowledge is not developed in a vacuum. Individual experiences, educational backgrounds, and cognitive frameworks lead to divergent interpretations of even the sacred texts. Thus, the process of understanding revelation can be modeled as a trajectory through an abstract knowledge space, where minor differences in perception, historical context, and linguistic change yield significantly different interpretations over time and across different individuals. 

Physics, Chaos, and the Limits of Linguistic Revelation 

If human knowledge follows a pattern analogous to chaotic systems, the very notion of a fixed and absolute linguistic revelation becomes problematic. Mainstream Muslims maintain that the Quran is eternally preserved in Arabic; however, its interpretative traditions have varied markedly across different historical epochs, sects, and schools of thought. Likewise, Christian biblical texts have undergone centuries of translation, redaction, and doctrinal reinterpretation, resulting in enduring theological disputes and denominational fragmentation. 

This divergence does not merely reflect human error; rather, it appears to be an intrinsic feature of language itself. Just as trajectories in physical systems diverge exponentially over time, linguistic meaning is continuously subject to drift, recontextualization, and reinterpretation. The fundamentalist argument—which posits that linguistic meaning can remain consistent within a mechanistically deterministic framework—is challenged by the insights of chaos theory. 

The proposed divergence in understanding occurs in two overlapping dimensions. For simplicity, these dimensions will be presented as orthogonal. Horizontally within a society, each person is unique in a way where the individual has their own path. Even twins’ paths may diverge due to minor perturbations in the environment. These perturbations lead to unique networks of concepts in their minds, where certain words are associated to specific experiences. On the other hand, vertically as collective consciousness evolves over time, the meanings of words undergo changes that are coupled with the type of experiences and the human perception of the world. Thus, the complexity of two dimensions enhances the divergence in textual interpretation, as the interactive nature of the two dimensions produces non-linearity observed in the framework of chaos theory.

The mystical approach partially deal with the issue.

In contrast to the evangelical emphasis on biblical inerrancy, Eastern Orthodox Christianity—and other mystical traditions—advocates for an interpretative approach to Scripture that views it as an invitation to divine encounter rather than as a fixed doctrinal manual. This perspective, which emphasizes the inexhaustible and evolving nature of meaning as revealed through tradition and spiritual experience, aligns well with the notion of epistemic uncertainty inherent in chaotic systems. Furthermore, the divergence of individual epistemic trajectories—shaped by education, cultural background, and existential experience—further underscores the variability of theological interpretation even within a shared linguistic or historical context. 

Eastern Orthodox theology, particularly within the Hesychast tradition, posits that while the essence of God remains unknowable, His energies may be experienced. Thinkers such as Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Palamas have argued that Scripture should be seen not as a static, literal text but as a dynamic invitation into the divine mystery. This perspective mirrors the epistemic humility suggested by chaos theory: if knowledge evolves along unpredictable trajectories, then the pursuit of absolute certainty in theological discourse is inherently flawed. Consequently, mysticism favors an experiential understanding of the divine, recognizing that any linguistic formulation of revelation is limited by human cognition. Although the orthodox approach does not resolve the inherent uniqueness of individual interpretation, it emphasizes the importance of shared, communal experience over a rigid, text-bound understanding of Scripture. 

Implications and Conclusion 

The physics-inspired approach to revelation outlined herein carries significant implications for theology, the philosophy of religion, and religious hermeneutics. If linguistic meaning is as subject to exponential divergence as physical systems, then the assumption of an unchanging, absolute revelation must be reevaluated. This perspective does not undermine the sacred texts themselves but rather suggests that they should be understood as inherently fluid and interpretative rather than as fixed and immutable. 

Moreover, the recognition that individuals develop distinct networks of knowledge—shaped by their unique life trajectories—reinforces the inevitability of interpretative divergence. This framework challenges traditional theological positions that insist on scriptural inerrancy and lends support to the mystical intuition that ultimate truth transcends the limitations of linguistic representation. By framing these epistemic limitations through the lens of chaos theory, this study offers an argument for embracing the ambiguity and transcendence inherent in mystical approaches to divine knowledge, as evidenced in Sufism, and Christian mysticism.