Resolved; quantum mechanics do not refute the first premise of Kalam

It has been claimed by sceptics of all different stripes that quantum physics has shown that something can come from nothing. Mainly they use what are known as quantum fluctuations to build their case. Quantum fluctuations occur when energy particles pop into existence out of empty space for but a fleeting moment then disappear. At first glance such fluctuations do seem to be coming from nothing, but a closer look reveals this is simply not the case. See quantum fluctuations arise out of the quantum vacuum, which is not nothing at all, but is rather a complex structure of interconnecting vibrating fields of energy. Energy particles pop into and out of existence randomly out of this vacuum [1]. Robert C. Koons, professor of philosophy at the university of Texas puts it this way; "Others have used the creation of virtual particles from the vacuum as evidence that things can begin to exist without a cause. If the energy involved is small enough, and the period of existence is short enough, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows particles to emerge from "nothing" and to disappear shortly thereafter. However, this argument fails to distinguish between something containing no energy or particles and sheer nothingness. In quantum mechanics, the vacuum is not a nothing. It is the indeterministic cause of the temporary existence of the virtual particles."[2] Stern Gerlach experiment; A more challenging issue arises in the Stern Gerlach experiment. The Stern Gerlach experiment involves certain properties of an electron called its "spin". At any angle or along any axis an electrons spin is either spin up or spin down. A Stern Gerlach device measures this spin, and can be rotated to measure such spin at any degree from 0 to 360. In the Stern Gerlach experiment 2 of these devices are set to measure an electrons spin at two different axis 90 degrees from one another. Now the probability of the second device measuring the same spin of the 1st is precisely 50%. But the controversy lies in whether or not this is an objectively indeterminate or subjectively indeterminate event. A subjectively indeterminate event is such that the even is determined but our knowledge and awareness of the event is limited so that the even appears indeterminate. Objective indeterminacy on the other hand suggests that there in fact is no explanation of said event. Thus if the spin of the electron is objectively indeterminate then it is uncaused. I would argue that the event described in the Stern Gerlach experiment is only subjectively indeterminate. There are a number of ways this could be the case. The first of which is that there is a hidden variable in the electron itself causing it to spin up or spin down. This theory is described briefly on Maverick Christians (a student of philosophy in Minnesota) blog; "For example, if an electron has a F property then it has the property that determines a ï¿½€œspin upï¿½€ï¿½ result if measured on the F axis. One version of hidden variable theory says that locality is trueï¿½€"which in this case means that a measurement on electron #1 has no physical effect on electron #2 (the denial of locality is called nonlocality). The conjunction of locality and hidden variable theory is called local hidden variable theory. So how does local hidden variable theory account for the electron spins always being opposite when the entangled electrons are measured on the same axis? By having the potential opposite spin results ï¿½€œbuilt-inï¿½€ï¿½ in advance. So if electron #1 is F L R , then electron #2 would be Fï¿½€"Lï¿½€"Rï¿½€" to guarantee that if the electrons were measured on the same axis the spin measurement results would be opposite." [3] For a more scholarly source and a more detailed description of a hidden variable theory see; http://arxiv.org... A second possibility which is much more philosophical in nature is described on this website (for the sake of brevity I won't explain it here); http://telicthoughts.com... Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics; Where as most hidden variable theories depend on a concept known as locality (the principle that only particles near one another can affect one another) Bohm's theory shows how much of quantum mechanics can be deterministic without locality. For an interesting analysis of the theory as well as some objections and responses to it see; http://plato.stanford.edu.... If you were attentive you noticed that I seemed to grant that quantum fluctuations occur without explanation, even if they do in fact come from something. So are quantum fluctuations objectively indeterministic? Perhaps, as of yet no probable theory has been formulated to render such an event determined (but note, its still possible). But lets grant that quantum fluctuations are in fact spontaneous, do we have grounds to reject the principle that everything that begins to exist has a cause? Hardly, what we would have in that case is an occurrence of an event with all the necessary physical conditions to make said event possible but do not guarantee the event. Thus quantum fluctuations are very much still caused in the sense that there was the potential for them to exist, there simply wasn't a mechanism to direct its occurrence. I for one, fail to see how this shows that it is possible for something to begin to exist without any necessary conditions.[4] Of course these are just some of the theories posited to interpret the quantum realm. But I think this establishes fairly well that quantum mechanics does not necessitate that one abandon causality. Furthermore I'm shocked that skeptics take this route so readily. If it is correct that the universe came from nothing and that sub-atomic particles come from nothing then it becomes inexplicable why only sub-atomic particles do so, it also seems unknowable whether something is truly determined or if it only appears to be determined, is it not possible then that everything we see is uncaused and that the external world is thus nothing? How could we know if one event only appeared to be causing another event when really one followed the other without explanation? To reject the causal principle, it seems to me, is to effectively destroy epistemology and science in one swift motion. The curious thing is most skeptics I know are very passionate about science, so why would they adopt a theory of reality which at best severely inhibits science, and at worst renders it completely useless? I can only explain it as desperation to avoid an undesired conclusion, or shear ignorance, or perhaps there is no explanation at all. 1. http://abyss.uoregon.edu... 2. http://www.doxa.ws... 3. http://maverickchristian.blogspot.com... 4. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...