Causality Does Not Exist at Quantum Level | The Evidence Course | Session 3 / Part 3 (2021-08-25) #

0:00:14 muhammad so the other contention that
0:00:17 some people or some atheists uh raise
0:00:20 to the arguments that we proposed
0:00:22 is is this idea that we are assuming
0:00:25 causal principles and causality is not a
0:00:28 necessary reality
0:00:30 that exists on a quantum level and
0:00:33 therefore if it doesn't exist on a
0:00:34 quantum level how can we be 100 sure
0:00:37 exists on a macro level meaning on the
0:00:39 the big level
0:00:41 uh the level that we exist and that we
0:00:43 can see
0:00:44 so i remember one time one one person he
0:00:47 he made the point that
0:00:49 you know it could be theoretically that
0:00:52 as you go and reach out to grab a cup
0:00:55 that your hand could go straight through
0:00:56 the cup so i responded and i said well
0:00:59 imagine if you were to walk in the
0:01:01 middle of the road and you saw a truck
0:01:03 coming towards you would you think at
0:01:05 that moment in time theoretically the
0:01:07 truck could go straight through you or
0:01:09 you're gonna try and get out of the way
0:01:11 as fast as possible from that
0:01:14 but we want to dive into a little bit a
0:01:16 little bit more detail regards to what
0:01:18 how we can understand and how we can
0:01:20 approach this discussion and really the
0:01:21 approach of this discussion shouldn't
0:01:23 really be approached from well actually
0:01:25 quantum level does have
0:01:27 you know causal principles i suppose
0:01:28 that is one argument that you can use i
0:01:31 go into the science of it in order to
0:01:33 refute the science that they they
0:01:35 provide or they counter with
0:01:37 but i think the problem with gaza
0:01:39 quantum mechanics is that it's a complex
0:01:41 issue it's an issue which is
0:01:43 counterintuitive it's not what we expect
0:01:45 to see and because it's not what we
0:01:47 expect to see in our general experiences
0:01:50 you know it can be quite confusing quite
0:01:52 difficult to understand what's actually
0:01:54 occurring upon quantum on a quantum
0:01:56 level
0:01:58 what is quantum mechanics all of these
0:01:59 things so rather what we're going to do
0:02:01 is approach this from a more of an
0:02:02 epistemological point of view meaning
0:02:04 from the point of view of a rational
0:02:07 thinking human being and and from how we
0:02:09 understand ideas and looking at
0:02:12 where this then discussion about quantum
0:02:14 mechanics fits in
0:02:16 so what do we mean by the quantum
0:02:18 quantum level or quantum mechanics
0:02:20 quantum mechanics deals with the very
0:02:22 very small
0:02:23 so we're talking about the subatomic
0:02:26 level type particles
0:02:28 and the behaviors of things like
0:02:29 electrons photons and
0:02:31 and the interactions even of atoms but
0:02:33 it's on the very very small level and on
0:02:36 a quantum level there are very weird you
0:02:39 know
0:02:40 observations that are seen
0:02:43 for example i'll just give you an
0:02:44 example of this
0:02:46 so imagine again a pool table
0:02:49 with all the balls racked up
0:02:51 and imagine you hit
0:02:53 all these balls
0:02:55 with your white cue ball
0:02:57 so if the pool table is a normal size
0:03:00 then theoretically
0:03:02 you can work out what's going to happen
0:03:04 to all of those pool balls where they're
0:03:08 going to be what position they're going
0:03:10 to land in etc so longers we've worked
0:03:12 out all the variables
0:03:14 like for example the variable of each
0:03:17 weight of each ball the size the
0:03:20 position the friction of the table that
0:03:22 exerts itself on each and every ball on
0:03:25 the pull table
0:03:26 and if i knew the direction and speed of
0:03:29 the white ball as i hit it so if i knew
0:03:33 the white board the speed the direction
0:03:36 and if i knew everything else all the
0:03:37 other variables regards to those pool
0:03:39 balls then i could possibly i can
0:03:42 predict where each of those balls are
0:03:44 going to land on that table
0:03:47 and that's
0:03:48 obviously something we can predict and
0:03:50 yes we know that causality is not
0:03:52 something we can empirically prove as we
0:03:54 as we mentioned in a previous video
0:03:57 meaning using science you have to assume
0:03:59 causality
0:04:00 and if you have to assume causality
0:04:02 using science then you cannot
0:04:05 refute the idea of science or you can't
0:04:07 prove it from a scientific basis you
0:04:09 have to assume it
0:04:11 and we also have to assume in science
0:04:13 that there are fixed patterns of
0:04:14 behavior so when we're looking at this
0:04:16 pool table we understand that there's
0:04:18 the effect
0:04:20 which is oh the cause which is the white
0:04:22 ball traveling is going to cause a
0:04:24 various num number of effects and those
0:04:26 effects are repeatable they're going to
0:04:28 be with a fixed pattern
0:04:31 so we can understand that and we
0:04:33 understand that because these things
0:04:36 occur and they are not things that occur
0:04:38 because of the universe
0:04:41 they are the attributes which have been
0:04:42 placed by allah upon the universe itself
0:04:47 and therefore we can as a result predict
0:04:50 things because we assume that allah or
0:04:52 allah has told us that he has fixed laws
0:04:54 within this universe
0:04:57 however let's let's take a step back
0:04:59 from the the macro level from the big
0:05:01 level
0:05:02 and let's imagine this pool table and
0:05:04 shrink it right down to the quantum
0:05:06 level
0:05:07 so you've just got this really small
0:05:09 quantum level size pool table
0:05:13 and suddenly now
0:05:15 if i try to hit the white ball i have a
0:05:18 few problems on this quantum level pool
0:05:20 table
0:05:21 because i can't 100 percent predict
0:05:25 exactly where that white ball is and i
0:05:29 cannot 100 percent predict at what
0:05:32 uh what speed or motion it will travel
0:05:34 at in fact the problem exists on a
0:05:37 quantum level is that with quantum level
0:05:39 particles you know you can only as you
0:05:42 know you have only a probabilistic
0:05:44 assumption of both speed and motor and
0:05:47 position
0:05:48 now on a macro level because i knew
0:05:51 speed and location of each ball then i
0:05:54 can work out what's going to happen but
0:05:56 if i don't know the speed and the
0:05:57 location precisely of each ball then i
0:06:01 can't predict what's going to happen to
0:06:04 that rack of balls on the pool table at
0:06:06 a quantum level
0:06:08 i can't know all of the variables so i
0:06:11 can't predict and determine exactly
0:06:13 what's going to happen and this is this
0:06:16 this understanding that you can you can
0:06:18 never predict both the position and the
0:06:20 speed of a quantum level particle is
0:06:23 what's termed as heisenberg's
0:06:25 uncertainty principle
0:06:27 are the inability to determine precisely
0:06:29 the position and speed of each particle
0:06:33 rather as it mentions this this
0:06:35 principle of heisenberg's uncertainty
0:06:37 principle the more precise your
0:06:38 measurements of the speed the less
0:06:40 precise your measurements will be of
0:06:41 position and vice versa
0:06:43 so some say as a result that
0:06:46 theoretically if quantum level
0:06:48 interactions can't be predicted so you
0:06:51 can't say a is going to hit b that's
0:06:54 going to cause c to occur because you
0:06:56 don't know where a is at any given time
0:06:58 or you don't know its motion at any
0:06:59 given time as well both together
0:07:02 so as a result if they say you can't
0:07:04 predict
0:07:05 yeah a quantum level in interactions
0:07:08 then the macro level can't also be
0:07:10 predicted or determined so i want you to
0:07:12 think about this
0:07:14 if a house is made up of bricks then i
0:07:17 know what the the material of the house
0:07:19 is it's the bricks so
0:07:21 what they're saying here is that the big
0:07:23 world the world that we live in is made
0:07:26 up of quantum level interactions
0:07:29 if there are a cause of means that don't
0:07:31 follow causal patterns on a quantum
0:07:34 level
0:07:35 and the big the macro world is built
0:07:37 upon the the quantum level interactions
0:07:40 then i can't predict
0:07:42 you know even on the macro level because
0:07:45 if this is a causal and this is what
0:07:47 makes up the rest of the universe then
0:07:50 the universe ultimately must be a causal
0:07:52 or doesn't follow causal principles
0:07:55 and some scientists also give
0:07:58 give other examples or implications of
0:08:01 this idea
0:08:02 of uh you know a causal uh quantum level
0:08:06 a causality for example the famous
0:08:08 uh physicist known as lawrence krauss
0:08:10 and also self-declared anti-theist they
0:08:12 don't even consider himself an atheist
0:08:14 he actually calls himself an antitheist
0:08:17 he states that the nothingness of space
0:08:20 causes
0:08:21 particles to pop in
0:08:23 in and out of existence so when you have
0:08:26 no space you have a vacuum
0:08:28 yeah
0:08:29 in a vacuum you find that there are on a
0:08:32 quantum level there'll be particles that
0:08:34 will pop in and out of existence virtual
0:08:36 particles
0:08:38 and again
0:08:39 what he's attempting to do is he's
0:08:41 attempting to say well if that can occur
0:08:43 on a quantum level why couldn't this
0:08:46 occur prior to the universe that the
0:08:48 universe didn't exist it existed or some
0:08:50 empty space and the universe or suddenly
0:08:53 on a quantum level the univ singularity
0:08:56 appeared and from the singularity there
0:08:58 was a big bang
0:09:01 there's far more details in this that i
0:09:04 haven't really gone through you know
0:09:05 huge amounts of details on quantum
0:09:07 mechanics but really what we're really
0:09:09 asking is is a question about how do we
0:09:12 approach this from a
0:09:14 you know epistemological angle from
0:09:17 point of view of ideas how do we the
0:09:19 methodology of our thinking so
0:09:23 however when we talk about quantum level
0:09:25 having no causality as some claim
0:09:28 what they're actually saying
0:09:30 is that quantum level interactions have
0:09:34 no materialistic causation you can't
0:09:36 work out why
0:09:38 in a deterministic point of view
0:09:41 why this is occurring yeah why one level
0:09:44 interaction is taking place with another
0:09:45 level interaction precisely in a
0:09:47 deterministic fashion
0:09:50 so this is the first thing that they're
0:09:52 they're they're
0:09:53 they're really saying regards to this
0:09:56 so the question then becomes okay how
0:09:58 does claims that on a quantum level
0:10:00 having no causality or some claim
0:10:01 actually refute our argument for the
0:10:03 existence of god
0:10:05 does it does it refute our arguments for
0:10:07 the existence god if there's no
0:10:09 causality on a quantum level there's no
0:10:11 causality on the macro level then does
0:10:13 that mean that we cannot ask the
0:10:14 question what caused the big bank that's
0:10:16 effectively the argument
0:10:18 well firstly no we can't use that as an
0:10:21 argument about a causal levels a
0:10:23 causality on a quantum level
0:10:25 firstly as we've mentioned in the
0:10:27 section in section one on science and
0:10:30 scientism we said that science is
0:10:33 predicated on the belief in causality
0:10:36 you have to assume causality for you to
0:10:38 engage in the scientific method
0:10:41 even when we detect virtual particles
0:10:43 popping in and out of existence we are
0:10:45 detecting them using machines also that
0:10:48 rests on causal principles so you're
0:10:50 trying to detect
0:10:52 you know a particle that's come out of
0:10:53 non-existence yeah or come out of you
0:10:56 know space you know vacuum of space on a
0:10:58 quantum level you're using machinery
0:11:01 that actually detects this
0:11:02 so you're not you know you're not
0:11:04 actually going outside of the causal
0:11:05 principles you're still using causality
0:11:08 even in the scientific method
0:11:11 the other thing is this
0:11:12 if we conclude some scientists or
0:11:14 certain atheists try to use this
0:11:16 argument to say ah
0:11:17 there is no causality because on a
0:11:19 quantum level there is no causality and
0:11:22 that's what science has proven then what
0:11:24 they're doing is they're creating a
0:11:26 circular or self-refuting argument
0:11:29 if science adopts the principle of
0:11:31 causality and you conclude that there is
0:11:34 no principle of causality then you have
0:11:36 you have actually refuted the scientific
0:11:38 method itself and if you refuted the
0:11:40 scientific method you've also refuted
0:11:43 its conclusion
0:11:46 secondly causality is a necessary
0:11:48 component to make rational thought
0:11:51 this means causality
0:11:53 is an is is an idea that we gain prior
0:11:57 to experience we use causality in order
0:12:01 to interpret and explain experience and
0:12:03 we discussed this
0:12:05 in when we talked about the rational
0:12:07 method
0:12:08 so we don't experience causality and
0:12:12 include and conclude causality exists
0:12:15 but rather we need causality to think
0:12:18 because the fact that we think
0:12:21 that we have concepts then we know
0:12:22 reality exists because we know reality
0:12:25 exists and that reality caused our
0:12:28 thoughts then as a result causality
0:12:30 exists it's a very basic argument so
0:12:33 even if we grant that quantum level
0:12:36 interactions have no materialistic
0:12:38 causation or no materialistic
0:12:41 explanation that's the key thing here
0:12:42 materialistic explanation
0:12:44 then that doesn't deny causality
0:12:47 altogether
0:12:48 rather only denies the
0:12:51 is materialistic or part of the universe
0:12:54 so if something's occurring and you
0:12:56 can't explain what the cause of that
0:12:58 thing that's occurring that's caused its
0:13:00 effect
0:13:01 then it doesn't mean that causality
0:13:03 doesn't exist it just means that the
0:13:04 causality cannot be explained by the
0:13:07 universe
0:13:09 and this is similar to how imam ghazali
0:13:13 he explained that there are no
0:13:15 materialistic causation so imam khazadi
0:13:17 held a theological position called
0:13:20 occasionalism
0:13:21 and this this position basically said
0:13:23 that there are no secondary causations
0:13:25 so
0:13:26 it only go into too much detail but
0:13:28 effectively what he was saying is that
0:13:29 if you strike a match it's not your
0:13:31 striking that's causing the fire but
0:13:34 rather a loss panel does place the
0:13:36 attribute of the fire and your striking
0:13:38 in that situation is incidental it just
0:13:40 happens to occur side by side and it
0:13:43 also happens to be that allah made it
0:13:46 that the universe operates according to
0:13:48 the system but he didn't have to operate
0:13:50 according to that system so the ultimate
0:13:52 cause within the universe on every
0:13:54 single event and every single effect
0:13:56 that we see is allah he's the primary
0:13:59 cause this is what imam khazali when he
0:14:01 said there's no secondary causation he
0:14:03 wasn't denying causality they were in
0:14:06 fact affirming that the only cause is
0:14:08 allah and they said you have to still
0:14:10 affirm causality
0:14:13 and this is similar to the point als we
0:14:15 raised in section two about how
0:14:16 attributes are not necessary for objects
0:14:19 hence the attributes were also
0:14:20 determined by allah
0:14:22 so even if they say that on a quantum
0:14:24 level there is no determinism
0:14:27 or no material materialistic explanation
0:14:30 for the position and particle
0:14:32 of the peculiar behavior of the quantum
0:14:33 particles or the particular behavior the
0:14:35 quantum particles then that would
0:14:37 reinforce our argument that the cause is
0:14:40 not from the universe itself but must be
0:14:43 determined upon these particles so if
0:14:46 you can't explain the materialistic
0:14:47 cause of why these why this
0:14:50 you know quantum level particles popping
0:14:52 in and out of existence on a quantum
0:14:54 level space in a vacuum of space we
0:14:56 can't explain why that occurs it doesn't
0:14:58 mean therefore causality doesn't occur
0:15:00 it rather means that the explanation and
0:15:02 the causes outside of the physical
0:15:04 universe aye allah
0:15:10 so
0:15:13 so therefore the other the third point
0:15:16 as well is this
0:15:17 is okay
0:15:19 let's say we grant and we accept that a
0:15:23 causal uh quantum level interactions
0:15:25 occur
0:15:26 but now we have to still explain
0:15:29 why on the macro level we see causality
0:15:32 so why is it that the each of the balls
0:15:35 on a pool table and the pool table
0:15:37 itself are made up of a causal
0:15:40 interactions but yet i can predict every
0:15:42 single position of that ball
0:15:44 even though when we start to reduce that
0:15:46 pool table or shrink it down to the size
0:15:48 of a quantum or quantum levels
0:15:51 interactions that we can't we can no
0:15:53 longer predict it so we know that the
0:15:55 big the big world follows causal
0:15:57 principles but if the big world are
0:15:59 following causal principles and it's not
0:16:01 because of
0:16:03 the quantum level interactions then as a
0:16:06 result the explanation of what's causing
0:16:09 the universe to operate according to a
0:16:11 system have certain fixed attributes
0:16:13 that we sense that we see has fixed
0:16:15 patterns that we sense and that we see
0:16:17 then that explanation again is not
0:16:19 because of what it's made up of but
0:16:21 rather
0:16:22 something that is determined by allah
0:16:27 the final point that i want to mention
0:16:28 regards to this is that even when people
0:16:30 turn around or scientists say that oh
0:16:32 you know there's all these
0:16:33 counter-intuitive realities on the
0:16:35 quantum level or in quantum mechanics
0:16:38 really actually it's not uh it may be
0:16:40 counter-intuitive but they still follow
0:16:43 patterns their probabilistic patterns
0:16:45 yeah and therefore you can still predict
0:16:48 in a probabilistic way where certain
0:16:50 patterns or what certain particles will
0:16:52 be what will occur etc
0:16:55 so for example
0:16:57 uh
0:16:58 you know like the like the equation pq
0:17:01 approximates the planck's constants over
0:17:03 four pi which is used in heisenberg's
0:17:05 uncertainty principle
0:17:08 so you know there is still pro there is
0:17:10 some equations that are used and you
0:17:12 don't see we what we don't see on a
0:17:14 quantum level interaction is we don't
0:17:15 see complete a causality so we don't see
0:17:18 elephants being created on their quantum
0:17:20 level you know they're still following
0:17:22 certain patterns regards to that
0:17:25 the other point that i also want to
0:17:26 mention is that lawrence krauss and what
0:17:29 he said about the universe popping into
0:17:32 in and out of existence or popping into
0:17:34 existence from nothing from a quantum
0:17:36 you know quantum singularity has been
0:17:38 the start of the big bang and the
0:17:39 quantum singularity came from the vacuum
0:17:40 of space
0:17:41 and he says that
0:17:43 it is therefore valid to assume and the
0:17:46 science points to the fact that
0:17:48 something can come from nothing this is
0:17:50 what he's saying now obviously the first
0:17:52 problem regards to his question this
0:17:53 this assumption that something can come
0:17:55 from nothing is that there's an effect
0:17:57 but there is no cause that would deny
0:17:58 the axiom of science and therefore that
0:18:00 would deny its own conclusion
0:18:03 and its methodology but really we need
0:18:06 to ask the question what does he
0:18:07 actually mean by this when scientists
0:18:08 from certain atheists really push these
0:18:10 ideas what do they really mean by this
0:18:12 professor michio kaku who's professor of
0:18:14 theoretical physics physics at city
0:18:17 university in new york
0:18:19 he states he says or he asks how can it
0:18:22 be that everything comes from nothing
0:18:25 yeah so how can it be that everything
0:18:26 comes from nothing and his solution what
0:18:28 he says is that if you think about it
0:18:31 for a while you begin to realize it all
0:18:33 depends on how you define nothing
0:18:36 professor kaku tells us goes on to say
0:18:39 he goes i think there are two kinds of
0:18:41 nothing
0:18:42 first there is something i call absolute
0:18:44 nothing no equations no space no time no
0:18:48 anything that the human mind can
0:18:50 conceive of just nothing
0:18:52 then there is a vacuum which is
0:18:55 uh nothing
0:18:56 which is nothing but an absence of
0:18:58 matter so he's saying there's two kinds
0:19:00 of nothing there is an absolute nothing
0:19:03 where there are no equations and then
0:19:05 there is an absence a space which has
0:19:07 absence of matter yeah a vacuum that has
0:19:10 absence of matter and he goes that's
0:19:11 another kind of of nothing so professor
0:19:14 kaku he goes on to say so for me the
0:19:16 universe did not come out from absolute
0:19:18 nothing
0:19:19 that is a state of no equations no empty
0:19:22 space no time
0:19:24 it came from a pre-existing state
0:19:27 also a also what they call a state of
0:19:29 nothing
0:19:30 yeah where quantum mechanics the laws uh
0:19:33 of the nature laws of the universe loads
0:19:35 of quantum mechanics the equations of
0:19:37 quantum mechanics they they actually
0:19:39 still operate
0:19:41 our universe did in fact come from an
0:19:44 and he mentions an infinitesimally tiny
0:19:46 little explosion that took place giving
0:19:48 us the big bang and giving us the
0:19:50 galaxies and stars that we have today
0:19:53 similar
0:19:54 philosopher david uh albert who's a
0:19:56 specialist in quantum fury
0:19:58 he offered a a critique of krause's book
0:20:02 in the new york times book review and
0:20:05 he said
0:20:07 and this is his quote where for starters
0:20:09 are the laws of quantum mechanics
0:20:11 themselves supposed to have come from
0:20:14 modern quantum field theories our points
0:20:16 out have nothing whatsoever to say on
0:20:20 the subject of where those fields came
0:20:22 from
0:20:23 or of why the world should have
0:20:25 consisted of a particular kind of fields
0:20:28 it does or why it should have consisted
0:20:31 of fields at all or of why there should
0:20:34 have been a world in the first place
0:20:36 period clay case closed end of story so
0:20:40 when lawrence krauss and other prominent
0:20:43 atheists attempt to argue that the
0:20:45 universe came from nothing they don't
0:20:47 really mean nothing but some kind of
0:20:50 nothing some kind of something
0:20:52 so even professor hawking who claimed
0:20:54 that the existence of quantum gravity
0:20:56 would make the universe inevitable again
0:21:00 he's assuming that there must be a
0:21:02 quantum gravity to exist prior to the
0:21:05 universe so really science does not
0:21:07 point to absolute nothing producing some
0:21:10 something rather it points that
0:21:13 something is still dependent and
0:21:14 contingent and even if they were to
0:21:18 claim that something is a causal
0:21:21 something did not ex you know came in
0:21:24 from nothingness what they are denying
0:21:26 is materialistic causation
0:21:28 and will still be valid to say not just
0:21:31 valid but it'd be necessary logical and
0:21:33 rational to say there must be an
0:21:35 independent unlimited creator to have
0:21:38 determined its existence
0:21:40 outside of the physical natural causes
0:21:43 of the universe