@ Eli Y
“The reason I posed this question to the forum is to demonstrate that those on earth can affect the deceased. It is reasonable then to conclude the deceased can affect those on earth and hence, can affect where a person turns a page to a particular igros.”
This is not reasonable. It is actually 5 steps removed from being reasonable, because:
1) You are saying that if A can influence B then it follows that B can influence A. This is a false premise. For example you can mold clay, clay cannot mold you.
2) Even If we where to concede that the deceased can influence matters in this world we would still have to determine that such influence extends to determining the page to which a person turns a page in a book.
3) Even if we where to concede that such influence does extend to determining the page to which a person turns a page in a book we would still have to determine what is an effective median for affecting such an influence.
4) Even if we concede that a particular median is effective we would have to determine that it is permissible.
5) Even if we concede that it is permissible we would still have to determine that it is reliable (see Derech Hashem section 3 chapter 2).
You also wrote:
“Your explanation apparently leaves Hashem entirely out of the path between living an deceased. By adding Hashem into the “model”, Kaddish affects the deceased through Hashem. The Kaddish moves Hashem to ease the cleansing of the soul of the deceased. Unless someone wants to argue that this is a “one-way street” , the deceased can affect the living through Hashem. Hence, a holy soul (eg., Metatron like?) can influence Hashem to act in the world.
How did the answer given leave Hashem “out of the equation”?
What do you mean by “moving Hashem” and “Influencing” Hashem?
Metatron is a malach, why do you refer to a malach as a soul?
“This is a reasonable mechanism that can explain the selection of the appropriate igros as well as other actions and “miracles” we observe.”
The mere fact that a proposed mechanism “can” explain something does not constitute positive evidence of its existence. The conjuncture that a mechanism exists without any positive evidence is not reasonable.