Does Quantum Physics Prove Uncaused Events Could Happen? (Kalam Cosmological Argument)

There are a growing number of atheists and skeptics who think that quantum mechanics proves that something could pop into existence out of nothing, or that uncaused events could happen. This would obviously refute the causal principle. Oddly, these skeptics don't seem to realize that the moment you refute the causal principle it's impossible to do science. Also, William Lane Craig and Doug Geivett explain that in quantum physics there are different interpretations of physics in the quantum level. In fact, the scientist who think that quantum physics refutes the law of causality are in the minority.

[fatheremmons]

Geivett did a pretty good job sorting the questioners choice of words in order to put him straight.

[Georgeo]

Self caused literally means caused by itself. In our case that self is not us, but our actual decision. In other words, self caused means that the decision, and not us or our human will, is causing itself. To the extent we attribute a "self-caused" decision to ourselves, we've introduced causality, with it's prohibition of free will.

[Georgeo]

I explained that describing a decision as non-material will not exempt it from causal law, and provide a defense of free will. What would you like proof of? That nothing can happen outside of the universe? That's a priori. That there is only one universal causal chain? That's also a priori.

[Tomishiyo]

That's a question that I think requires more deeper tought. All the science philosophers I've read claims that causality is a statement of scientific method. If we take Hume definition of cause, with only ask for a nomological relationship between two events, time priority and space contiguity, then to state that quantum mechanics ask for incausality is an absurdity. But it is true that there do exists some events in quantum mechanics that are related without a necessary and suficient condition.

[Georgeo]

Saying some events are not cause, and are random, doesn't help free will because an uncaused decision cannot be logically or scientifically attributed to anything or anyone. If solutions come to you randomly, and you choose one, that choice would have to be either caused or uncaused, and neither prospect allows for a freely willed decision.

[Georgeo]

Even with misapplying causa sui to the decider rather than the decision, as you seem to be doing, without a cause or a reason, the decision becomes random, not freely willed.

[Georgeo]

There are only four conceptual possibilities that relate to the free will question; causality, acausality, causa sui, and ex-nihilo mechanisms. Each make free will impossible. Free will is not simply the ability to choose, but rather the ability to choose independent of factors that lie outside of one's control, like the principle (and implications) of causality.

If you're defending space-time causality, the causal antecedents to every decision must regress to before the decider's birth.

[Georgeo]

Causa sui means self caused. If a decision is self caused, we cannot reasonably attribute it to anything other than itself, (such as a human being or a human will).

While it may appear that challenging non-physical causality opens a door to free will, it actually prohibits the prospect even more strongly. Again, if a non-physical decision is not caused, it certainly cannot be attributed to a human being or human will.

[Georgeo]

There's no need to prove determinism to refute free will because the only conceptual alternatives to it would be events happening without a cause and events happening self caused. These prospects make free will even more impossible than does determinism. Defending non-materialism doesn't provide an opening for free will because decisions occupy a precise moment within space-time, and are therefore subject to the state by state universal evolution within which every event is subsumed.

[firstcauseargument]

Craig did not speak on physics in this video (only Geivett did). Nor did Craig speak on time. We're talking about quantum physics. If you hate Dr. Craig so much leave that some place else for you to troll at. I'll unblock you the moment you can control yourself.

[Georgeo]

I think we're are talking past each other. Are you defining indeterminism as an event like a decision as uncaused? If so, our human will can't be causing the decision. That leaves us back to determinism. If events like decisions have causes, there must be causes to those causes, and the ensuing causal regression must span back to before the "decider" was born. That is why we don't technically "choose, " we manifest the result of this causal chain that began long before we were born.

[Georgeo]

You need to define your terms. How are you defining indeterminism? Because thoughts occupy a a precise location in the universal timeline, they are part of space-time, and are thus completely governed by physical laws like causality. Also, because the universe evolves causally moment by moment, there is only ONE universal chain of causality that subsumes all specific events within it, and does not allow for events to happen outside of it.

[trihard]

his example is flawed

if horses pop to existence that doesn't mean they have no cause
that means we don't observe or know the cause yet ..

[Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Interesting video!
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!

[Georgeo]

I'm not saying that the decision causes itself.

I'm saying that applying causa sui to human decisions results in that very stupid prospect. Trying to refute causality will not help the case for free will because the only other alternate mechanisms - acausality, retro-causality, causa sui and ex-nihilo do so as well.

You may CHOOSE something, but that's not the point. The point is that you don't FREELY choose what you choose something. In other words, the choice is not truly up to you.

[firstcauseargument]

LOL! You call Craig ignorant and yet you made the claim we don't know what happened before the "Big Band"? You haven't studied contemporary physics, have you?

[Georgeo]

Indeterminism is an expression of ignorance of the causes involved. Everything, except the logic-transcending "first cause" has a cause.

[Georgeo]

First, prediction is inconsequential. Perfect prediction is impossible with both determinism and indeterminism.

If you're saying a human decision is not determined, you're saying it is uncaused. As such it can't be attributed to anything or anyone. No free will there.

I addressed your non-physicality assertion in my last comment.