Discussion With Ufc’s Firas Zahabi on Randomness, God and the Universe

Mohammed Hijab


Channel: Mohammed Hijab

File Size: 46.64MB

Share Page


WARNING!!! AI generated text may display inaccurate or offensive information that doesn’t represent Muslim Central's views. Therefore, no part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.

AI Generated Summary ©

The speakers discuss the concept of "has nothing to do with faith" and the importance of science and its opposition to faith. They also touch on the "one and naughty days" concept, which is a reflection of reality and is a way of knowing the future. The speakers emphasize the importance of science and its opposition to faith, and discuss the "monster behavior" of the universe and the "monster behavior" of the universe. They also mention the "immediate" and "monster behavior" of the universe, and encourage people to be mindful of their genetics and environment.

AI Generated Transcript ©

00:00:00--> 00:00:41

Salam Alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh I'm here with Rob Zombie, the mastermind fights, but also, but also the logician, right? Also the people that know about this, but he's, he's the man who has the ability to theoretical and conceptual knowledge of the philosophy and logic and these things. So we're gonna actually discuss randomness. Because it's really a very powerful thing. We, for those who don't know, I have a degree in philosophy as well, I graduated according philosophy, and this was many years ago, and for over, I would say, 20 years, I've been studying philosophy very, very closely. And, you know, I hear the modern day conversations and whatnot and Mohammed become friends,

00:00:41--> 00:01:10

we've had a lot of nice discussions as well. And, and there are so many great thinkers in history, you know, so many great thinkers and, and really, the knowledge is out there. It's just a, it's a very difficult tedious type of knowledge to get to, because you have to read a lot of books to get to this type of knowledge, and to try to encapsulate all this, and of course, you can never have more than 1% of knowledge. So today, what we want to talk about today is really a very, very important epistemology epistemic epistemological, excuse me.

00:01:13--> 00:01:39

idea that's so profound, that we have to put it in a simple, simple way for people to understand. And this is actually very important to the discourse because like a lot of people are, especially with like atheists and theists discourse, they bring the idea of randomness. So if you ask a lot of people now, atheist to otherwise do, how did the universe come into existence? They'll say, well, the universe was a random generation it came, we just came into existence by by random gender by way of random generation.

00:01:40--> 00:02:05

And, and the fine tuning that we see around us is also a random generation. Or if they don't go through that route, they'll say, well, it's random. And they use that vernacular, it's used in a vernacular kind of like to, to explain processes that can't be explained. Really. Right. And a common misconception is, well, we have to understand there are three fundamental ways to know something, yeah. Can we turn off the thing in the back?

00:02:07--> 00:02:40

section? So there's three ways to know something, okay, know something I put in simplest terms possible. We can know something mathematically, or logically, we can know something scientifically or empirically, okay? And we can know something intuitively. Okay, so these are the three basic ways now, putting all that aside all the jargon. I like to start with thought experiments because thought experiments make complicated and lessons as simple as possible. Okay? So we're talking about it earlier today. And Hammad wanted to record it. So I think it's a great idea. Let's record it and share it. So this question asked you before, yeah, so you already know the answer to it. Okay. But

00:02:40--> 00:03:11

the question was, if I were to flip a coin, I'm gonna flip a coin. What are the odds it lands on heads? Or 50% 50%? Is the odds it lands on heads? Yeah. The actual, actual answer, okay, if you want to know the truth, and I'm expression, like uses capital T, not everyday truth, but the truth, the actual truth, literally, literally speaking, the big T, you know, actual truth reality, the odds are one and infinity.

00:03:13--> 00:03:28

And when we say this, people are gonna be like, doesn't make any sense. So it's a very normal reaction. Now, the reason why it's one infinity, is a little bit complicated, but the truth is one and infinity. Now, the reason why we say it's 5050 is because of our prior experience with coins.

00:03:30--> 00:03:43

Has nothing to do with logic. So for instance, if I wiped your memory, here's a thought experiment, I wipe your memory, you have all your intelligence, you have all your faculties, and I flip a coin in front of you. But this time, it's the first time you see a coin being flipped.

00:03:44--> 00:04:12

And the coin, I flip it and it turns into a butterfly, it wouldn't be more surprising that it turned into a butterfly than if it landed on heads. Because you have no memory of the first thing I've first encounter with that first encounter, like for instance, a child who sees a flame for the first time, right? He has no idea what's gonna happen when he touches it. As a matter of fact, you can tell him 1000 times what's gonna happen, he still doesn't understand you. But when he touches it, now he has an experience, he has a history with flames.

00:04:14--> 00:04:32

And this is a very profound point because science, science, this scientific method we have today is really the observations of patterns and regularities found in nature, patterns and regularities found in nature. Yeah, these patterns and regularities found in nature

00:04:34--> 00:05:00

is what we call the site science. So for instance, when I flip that coin, I do it enough times. it lands on heads and lands on tails and lands on heads and lands on it years developing a history of development developing a, you're noticing a pattern going on. It never turned into a butterfly. It never disappeared. It always did the same thing. It either landed on tails or landed on the head 50% of the time, now that you've had this history,

00:05:00--> 00:05:09

With coins, you have this pattern that you figured out, you say, next time you flip it, I predict that the future will behave like the past.

00:05:10--> 00:05:48

This is a scientific method. Scientific Method is a faith that the future will behave like the past. It's a faith is based on faith. That's really profound because a lot of people, a lot of people that talk about science, right? I mean, I think that the antithesis of science is faith. Correct? If you don't have faith, right, science is the opposition of faith is, knowledge is pure knowledge. And what you're saying is actually, science does require some kind of faith in science is a type of faith. No, I'll give you an example. For those of you who are jumping out of your seats and are furious. Me and Hammad are lovers of science, we love science. It's just but it's just one way of

00:05:48--> 00:06:08

knowing something. It's not the Absolute Truth. If you only use the scientific method, you will not get to the capital T, the truth, okay? Like I tell him how much science is popular because it fills our bellies with food, it puts gold in our safes, it allows us to conquer our enemies. It's a very practical

00:06:09--> 00:06:22

practice. It's very practical method of getting a bottom line. And it's important. That's what we love science. We love our smartphones. We love our modern medicine, we're not against that. Yeah. But when it comes to capital truth,

00:06:23--> 00:06:52

we have to inquire into other realms, we have to use logic and intuition as well. It's a more complete understanding of what reality is. Now if people are not interested in reality, the capital truth, just turn off this video and go watch Kim Kardashian video, maybe there's something else you know, go get a finance or whatever. But this is a this is for people who are interested in realities itself. And philosophers over many, many millennia have discussed what is reality. It's a fascinating topic for those who are interested, know

00:06:54--> 00:07:28

what we're saying about randomness. shifting the coin, so we flip the coin. So we're flipping a coin, we create a pattern regularity, then we develop a faith that this pattern regularity will stay up. And one very common example, one classic example. Is Aristotle, brilliant man, one of the smartest men that ever lived. Yeah. And he would see the sun go around the Earth every day. And his ancestors told him that the sun goes around the Earth in their lifetime, and that their forefathers told him that the sun goes around the earth. And that was a scientific observation, observation because of the nature done by countless people. He said, Look, the sun goes around the Earth, its

00:07:28--> 00:07:28


00:07:30--> 00:07:37

Fast forward. Many years later, some philosophers and thinkers started saying no, no, no, no, no, no, wait a second we object.

00:07:38--> 00:07:58

We think it's the earth going around the sun. Turns out, it's an optical illusion. Those thinkers were correct, Galileo and the bunch. There's many there's actually many great thinkers in history who suggested that maybe the earth is going around the sun. It's the opposite. It's an optical illusion. Regardless, a scientific fact was overturned. Now scientific facts are overturned

00:07:59--> 00:08:21

throughout history. Why? optical illusions, faulty patterns, we made a mistake, we thought a pattern was such that it wasn't. Like for instance, we used to think that all flamingos are pink. And then we went to Australia and we found black flamingos and we turned out, hey, flamingos are pink because of the food that they eat. Another scientific fact overturned. A scientific fact can never actually literally, literally be

00:08:23--> 00:09:02

a fact that people commonly understand the word fact, okay, Fact is, what the consensus is what the experts today agree upon. That is a scientific fact is not the same as a mathematical fact. Yeah. So opponent of induction comes into the problem of induction. So a fact in science is really a hypothesis, a very agreed upon hypothesis. Now, this is not an attack on science. Again, we love science. Okay. Nothing wrong with science. Science is a beautiful thing. We're just being honest about science. And what is its what are its strengths and weaknesses? is science absolute, meaning they follow the scientific method, I will know the reality of the world as it is. What is your

00:09:02--> 00:09:39

opinion on this? Well, because of the problem of induction. So as you've outlined, currently, the problem of induction indicates that with the Flamingo example, I think David Hume used the swan example. It's like it's not rain, Swan, Flamingo except Yeah, so the idea of like, having all of the the sample group, the sample group can't be fully represented. And for that reason, we cannot assume that everything can be analyzed or and generalized. That's one thing. And the other thing is that, like you were saying, kind of links into what you were saying, David Hume also mentioned his point, which is the idea of history repeating itself, we have to have the faith in that that's a

00:09:39--> 00:09:56

presupposition in all of science. And you always have to have that faith. Yeah. And David Hume was very open about his phenomenal philosophy said, Look, science is the faith that the history history will repeat itself, and the future will behave like the past. If the future for whatever reason, doesn't behave like the past.

00:09:57--> 00:09:58

You know, and you know,

00:10:00--> 00:10:32

Karl Popper, he did an either beautiful experiment to try this to try to fix the issue. Okay, maybe that maybe that we're sidetracking want to talk about randomness. But we all know Karl Popper created falsification for those of you out there who are familiar with Karl Popper. But even that doesn't get around the problem. It makes it better. It brings us closer to the truth, but it doesn't get around the problem. So science is not absolute. Okay, so that's number one. Yeah. Do scientists like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss? Do they know this. They know it the D, in my opinion from hearing them talk. They're there. They don't understand deduction and intuition. They don't

00:10:32--> 00:11:09

understand the other types of logic. And I've heard them say, very illogical things. And then David berlinski, a philosopher, a PhD. When he commented on Richard Dawkins, he says, look, you Richard Dawkins is a crummy philosopher to use his words. And he even said, he's a reptile of a human being, you know, I mean, and he's a PhD in mathematics and philosophy. He understands logic and reason and he understands science very well. Yeah, he's a, he's a very learned man. And I put a hold him to be much more learned than a Richard Dawkins, like Kant says, and this is this is carrots words, not my words. He says, look, sciences are not necessarily smart. They follow a formula. They follow a

00:11:09--> 00:11:54

method. Yes, they're smart to interpret the data, etc. The average physicists IQ was about 130. Yeah, the average IQ was 130. Now, it's no No, no. 130 is very high. 1111 132 is genius. Okay. All right. They're smart people. But if we're talking about the giants of intelligence, okay, there they were, you know, we have some people, we estimate that by consensus, and that psychologists will estimate their 200 or 170, or once like, this is another world, okay. 140 is another world. 150 is another world and there are people today alive, that score 190. I mean, this is another world of IQ. But IQ is not necessarily fully IQ, like I was talking telling you today, IQ would be like your

00:11:54--> 00:12:33

athleticism doesn't mean the best athlete is the best fighter or the best boxer. He has the potential to be really good at the sport. But you could be a lesser athlete and have a better jujitsu or wrestling ability than a better athlete. It happens all the time. Okay, so let's not put IQ Above all, it's not it's a factor. And many studies have proven that over and over again. But I don't want to go into a tangent. We're talking about randomness. randomness, I think is the most misunderstood concept in the history of Western science. Okay, and a man by the name of Laplace, I believe was Jean Pierre Laplace. He was a physicist in the time of Sir Isaac Newton whose successor

00:12:33--> 00:12:57

to Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Isaac Newton completely out shined him. We all know that name, Sir Isaac Newton. Laplace did some phenomenal work. But he was just the Scottie Pippen of Michael Jordan, you know, Scottie, Pippen was great. Yeah, but Michael Jordan was just the greatest of all time, right. Okay. And, and we can argue that quite easily Actually, we can argue that Isaac Newton was the greatest scientists of all time, scientists of all time, not philosophers, but scientist.

00:12:58--> 00:13:38

And Laplace was just off shine. It just happens to have happened to be okay. And Laplace explained something so wonderful. So, so deep, so profound, that that it bears mentioning in this video, he says, look, look at a billiard ball tables. Look at the balls on a pool table. You guys see a pool here? Yeah, billiard balls. Yeah. So I break the billiard balls. Yeah. And there are two people watching the break. One is a physicist, and one is everyday person. And everyday person said, Look, I'm gonna break it, the balls are gonna scatter randomly. The physicist is gonna say, No, tell me how you're gonna hit it, that what angle that what force and I'll tell you where every ball is gonna

00:13:38--> 00:13:39

be. There's nothing random about this.

00:13:41--> 00:14:10

And when you tell them, well, I'm going to hit it this hard. At this angle, he'll, he'll take that table, Laplace will take that table, the physicists will take that table, he'll turn it into a mathematical equation. And then he will tell you where every single bowl is going to be on the table with perfect accuracy, except with a tiny error with a tiny, he'll be off by a very small margin. And Laplace says, I'll be off by a very small margin only because I have to round up the numbers, I have to round off the numbers.

00:14:11--> 00:14:19

He says I don't have a divine calculator. If I had a divine calculator, and I didn't round out perfect. I will tell you exactly to the

00:14:20--> 00:14:34

smallest degree exactly where each ball is gonna land. Now why? He's gonna calculate the friction of the table. He's gonna calculate the ball, the weight of the ball, he's gonna calculate the angle. He's gonna calculate the density of the pool bands, the bands, he's gonna calculate everything it's gonna turn into mathematics.

00:14:35--> 00:14:59

And those mathematics for sure. There's nothing unsure. And Laplace says, Give me an atom in your hand. Give me its coordinates in its velocity. And I'll tell you where it's gonna be in five years from now. Now, many of you might be like, Whoa, this makes no sense. It's perfectly sensible. If you understand physics, you understand that the he is saying something 100% true.

00:15:00--> 00:15:30

So what you're saying here is that randomness is just an excuse for people to describe something which they can't just what they can't explain when something is too chaotic for us, meaning we cannot compute all the factors. We use an expression saying randomness. You know how they say, well, when somebody says randomness, what they're really saying is, look, I am not able to compute all this information, I have lost track of all the factors, the way I express that, as I see the word randomness. Laplace said, when God

00:15:31--> 00:15:53

sees the world, he doesn't see any randomness, obviously, God sees the future past and present at once. He knows every single and he was saying this, because if you understand the divine mind, obviously, nothing is random. There would be no randomness. randomness is a personal experience, and a reflection of our ignorance. So for instance,

00:15:54--> 00:15:55

two people are watching

00:15:56--> 00:16:09

the pool balls be hit. Yes, one of them's a physicist. He's telling you look, the ball is gonna land right here. Yes, the layman is telling you know, it's gonna randomly scattered all over. Which one is correct? The physicist is correct.

00:16:11--> 00:16:33

The layman is incorrect. But he believes there's a randomness to the to the brain only because they don't understand the pattern only because of ignorance. So anytime we see, we say random this, you don't understand the pattern. See, I believe that certain things happen in the universe. Yes, but not at random. I don't accept randomness. Random, this is just you throwing in the towel saying, look, I cannot compute.

00:16:35--> 00:16:49

randomness is an illusion, it's a figment of the imagination. Not according to me. According to Laplace, and physicists who turn philosophers, I believe, if you could reach a certain level of reflection on physics that you become a philosopher. That's what a PhD is supposed to be.

00:16:51--> 00:17:00

You reach this level where now you're not just thinking about the particulars, you are thinking about what we call the universals. Long story short, there is no such thing as randomness. If there's if it's

00:17:01--> 00:17:03

natural selection by means of

00:17:05--> 00:17:16

random mutation. I disagree. If you tell me it's natural selection by by means of mutation, I possibly agree if you can prove me that, but randomness I cannot agree. So this brings us to

00:17:18--> 00:17:33

what would a random world really look like? We go back to the coin experience. Okay, this isn't this is interesting. Yeah. So what you're saying here, just to kind of summarize, tell me if I'm, if I've got this, right. What you're saying here is that with the whole pool example,

00:17:34--> 00:17:56

that if a lay man saw what was going on, right, they would see that there was see that seemingly random experiment, right, because they're just seeing things moving around in a haphazard way. And they're computing that as something they can't comprehend or otherwise wouldn't be able to anticipate in a normal situation. And so they've labeled that as random. They're labeled as random.

00:17:57--> 00:18:32

But what you're saying is, now if you think about it, everything does have a measurement, and has a pattern. And just because we don't understand that measurement, or that pattern, or that law, you could even say, it doesn't mean that that would be random is that I could see you could understand it, but you're not able to compute it. You don't have a divine calculator, right. You're not able to make the equations. Yeah. Because they're too complicated. There's too many things to factor in. Yeah. You might understand the laws of physics thoroughly. But there's just too much information for you to compute. Yeah. So if I make the universe into a billiard ball table, now it's controllable.

00:18:32--> 00:18:59

And now you can compute. Yeah, now, what Laplace was saying is, look, all the chemicals in your brain the chemical reactions or thoughts, these are all little billiard balls, so to speak. It's an expression we use. Yeah, it's matter of pushing on matter. We say in physics, they say in physics, that the causal line is complete. What does it mean that the causal line is complete? Meaning that everything that happens in physics, everything happens in the world you're living in today?

00:19:00--> 00:19:21

was little tiny billiard balls, so to speak, hitting one another is an expression. Okay, we use that okay. is to say that it's an interesting way of putting Yes, it's to say that the dominoes let's say you have 100 dominoes, right? And yeah, your number the dominoes one to 100. Yes. And then you saw a gap. You saw a gap. So no, Domino 5556 57 is missing.

00:19:22--> 00:19:31

And you knock down Domino, one and hits Domino. 54. Yeah. And then Domino. 5058 falls over and there was a gap.

00:19:32--> 00:19:58

there saying there's no such gap. The dominoes are perfect. We can compute there's nothing there's nothing mysterious about what's going on. Physics is there we can read the situation clearly there is this Laplace was saying there is no randomness whatsoever that the the dominoes are there, we can calculate them. The reason we cannot calculate them, we cannot calculate the weather or whatnot, is because it's too complex for us to compute all the factors

00:20:00--> 00:20:04

Hypothetically, theoretically, it is 100%. possible.

00:20:05--> 00:20:13

So, so you were asking about the world if it was actually run if it was actually ran, right? Yeah, so and I flipped that coin. Yeah.

00:20:15--> 00:20:55

One time, we will turn into a butterfly, one time we turned into a bird, one time will turn into an ice cube one time, it would vanish. It would act randomly, completely haphazardly. That would be true randomness, the fact that it lands on, you know, there, they make little robots, you know that, to prove this, I sent you this video. Once upon a time, I don't know, if you remember, there's actual robots that can flip a coin with 100% accuracy. Because you know, they're flipping weapons, they flip a coin. And you can set the robot to flip the coin to heads or tails, and it'll flip it 3040 times in the air. And they know, the machine knows how much the coin weighs. It knows that

00:20:56--> 00:21:39

knows how to bring it throws the coin in the air, and the coin will land on heads 100% of the time that 99.9 these machines exist. It was to prove the Laplacian theory. That look, these robots are flipping coins and these coins are landing on heads, not 99.9 100% of the time. 100%. Wow. Now, what does this mean? This means what's the what are the implications of this? It's huge implications are huge. Yeah, the implications are that randomness does not exist. It is a figment of your imagination. So what instead exists? What, what is the opposite of random this order? yutan. Board, okay, there's nothing but order. So he's saying that there are laws that are ordered and

00:21:39--> 00:21:42

predetermined look, as stated in the universe?

00:21:43--> 00:21:46

Look, every pattern in the world,

00:21:48--> 00:21:49

every scientific law

00:21:52--> 00:22:01

that matches question, can you put science in a test tube? No, you cannot put science in a test tube. Science is not a thing, a material thing, right? It's something a construct of the mind.

00:22:02--> 00:22:20

When you look at the universe, and you talk about science, you're talking about an activity inside your mind. Yeah, you're talking about because you cannot waste science, you cannot hold science. You cannot scientifically test science, the method scientific method, we cannot scientifically test it. It is a mental construct. It's a type of thinking.

00:22:21--> 00:22:57

When you say science you are admitting to order. You're saying look, I see an order. If you said I don't believe in science, you would be saying I don't see an order, I see no patterns. And I see no regularities in nature. I see pure randomness. Now, if me and you lived in a universe, that every time you push the brake in your car, the car would do anything, but brake would do a random activity. And every time you'd say a word, that word would come out completely different than the time before and everything was random, you would say, look, I see no sight, you wouldn't know nothing about science. Yeah, that would be a truly unscientific world, you would have no concept of

00:22:57--> 00:23:13

science. Could you imagine a world like this? No. It's a little bit of the Alice in Wonderland, you know? Yeah. Things are popping in and out of existence. And they're trying to create some type of randomness. True randomness in that story. It's a bit of a little bit of random I've ever thought about

00:23:14--> 00:23:30

it. There is some there is something special to Alice in Wonderland, a story for another day. Yeah. Could you picture a truly random world where things pop in and out of existence? Like, for instance, when they discovered the quantum world, and they reported it to Einstein he famously said,

00:23:31--> 00:23:53

God doesn't play dice dice with the universe. He was telling them look, it seems random, but it is not. Once we learn more about quantum physics, it wants you're seeing something so preposterous. God doesn't play dice with the universe, there is no dice in the universe. The dice is just a reflection of your ignorance. Now, if I roll the dice, that's a great example.

00:23:55--> 00:24:12

If you told me exactly at what force and how you started with it, if I had all the information, I turned it to math, I could tell you exactly how the dice is going to land. There is no randomness. So how does this link to the whole theism atheism? theism debate? Well, this is the

00:24:14--> 00:24:52

the nucleus of the right. Picture me a random world? before we answer that question, picture me around. So it would be one that you described one. So one, maybe one that doesn't even exist, the one that doesn't exist yet. Picture one try. So maybe things are just popping in and out of existence. Okay. Give me an example. Like you say, so, for example, it's hard to envision Yeah, it's just something which things are moving all the time just, it's very hard to imagine there will be no like, you wouldn't even be able to talk in a truly Yeah, there would be no conversation because patterns and regularities, languages, patterns and regularities everything is patterns and

00:24:52--> 00:24:59

regularities, your whole existence, you would go mad if you didn't have patterns and regularities, these patterns and regularities

00:25:00--> 00:25:17

The opposite of randomness when they say the world came to be that becomes the there's a dozen now we're starting to do Snow Queen induction. When the world became to be they say, look, there are so many universes that this one landed the way it is. Yeah. at random this

00:25:20--> 00:25:29

this universe didn't land that random it landed exactly precisely because of patterns and regularities

00:25:31--> 00:25:44

this entails heavily god it doesn't deal god it basically says, look, God created order in the universe. This is what is known as top down, not bottom up, bottom up is by trial and error. top down is by design. Now,

00:25:45--> 00:26:12

I don't hold the same views as the mainstream design believers. Okay, that I maybe should not have used that word because people don't associate me with the people who the way I see if you look at the Quran, for instance, is some beautiful verses is a beautiful beard beautiful verses that I don't know in Arabic. And I wish I could do them justice and tell you them properly. But God says the night and the day, that pattern of night and day. That's a sign for those who think

00:26:13--> 00:26:58

that pattern the sun, if it was random, it would blink in and out of existence, it would change change temperature, it would change color, it would do all sorts of crazy things. It's not in photos and exact measurement. Exactly. Exactly. The crisis. This measurement shows what color we husband that the sun and the following exact measure measure. Really? Yeah. To say it's to say it's random for us to make yourself the center of the universe. Wow. Yeah. Because you're seeing the world through your own eyes. And you're being self centered. You're making the world all about me, I'm the center of my universe. It's a type of egoism. The world I'm the measure of all things like there

00:26:58--> 00:27:24

were there was the the Sophos they say manage the measure of all things. This in Islam is the polar opposite of Islam. I will tell you, man is not the measure of all things. The truth is above man. So me, Socrates had a great dialogue in the book of goregous, with the Sophos, and he kind of shut them down to kind of give them in my opinion, the deathblow man is not the measure all things, there is an independent truth, outside of man agree to it or not, as you

00:27:25--> 00:27:40

saw, Socrates does it beautifully in the book of glorious, I won't go to it. Maybe later, if we have time, this would be a tangent again. But there is no randomness, there are only patterns and regularities, these patterns and regularities are not,

00:27:41--> 00:27:42

are not

00:27:45--> 00:27:47

logical in any way.

00:27:48--> 00:28:04

They're not necessary in any way. They're not necessary in any way. There's no logical reason for them to exist in the way they do. There is no logical reason for them to exist whatsoever. There was a logical reason Yeah, when I flip the coin in front of your eyes, you would know before you've ever experienced one you wouldn't know.

00:28:06--> 00:28:25

Yeah, I've deduced we don't deduce the our experiences we discover our experiences. It's a bit complicated, it's a bit sticky. But if you meditate on you think about it, you'll realize there's no such thing as randomness, and the only thing left is order. When you look at science, science is not out there.

00:28:26--> 00:28:35

Science is an internal experience, you are noticing these patterns and regularities. Now, a scientist will say no, no, no, look, there were so many Earths out there

00:28:36--> 00:28:55

at random to throw that word in. And one of them so happened to be close enough to the Senate didn't burn, like close enough that it didn't freeze far enough away that it didn't vertical something and freeze. I will agree that there may be many Earths somewhere to close somewhere too far. And one of them was the Goldilocks, right the right amount.

00:28:56--> 00:29:09

But I would agree that it was random, I will agree. Like Leibnitz would say again, none of these ideas are mine. Okay, I don't want to take any. Please don't don't. If you agree with me, don't give me any credit that you disagree with me please. No, you're disagreeing with the giants of philosophy and science.

00:29:10--> 00:29:20

Leibnitz will tell you this is Leibnitz was often the top five of the greatest news of all time, and all the lists are the consensus. He's the man who invented who discovered

00:29:22--> 00:29:57

excuse me, a calculus and the binary code, your computer, this phone, it's all working because of lightness, okay. And he's a brilliant, brilliant human being brilliant philosopher. We'll talk about it many times in their discussions. He said, Look, this world is the perfect world. Why I won't get into it completely. But he's saying look, there could not have been this world was made this way. It was contingent. And he was a theist. He had a great argument for the contingency argument, contingent. Yes, is contingent, but because God made it this way. It's the there wasn't a it's not a random effect.

00:29:58--> 00:29:59

These patterns and regularities are not

00:30:00--> 00:30:02

Random. They're illogical.

00:30:04--> 00:30:15

They're completely illogical. There is no logic to them. There's no logical way of explaining why they exist. There is no, that's a better way to say it. Maybe Allah has his own logic for how it created the world.

00:30:16--> 00:30:20

But there is no way of deducing them logically is impossible.

00:30:21--> 00:30:34

randomness is a figment of your imagination, because if I increase your knowledge, randomness will disappear. So the most worthwhile explanation is to say that this universe had these laws

00:30:35--> 00:30:59

placed within them by a higher metaphysical agency. These laws don't exist. They're patterns and regularities. And we project laws. These laws are just our way of talking are just a way of bookmarking the patterns. Oh, right. All right. Yeah. But the patterns I'll give you a for instance, Isaac Newton, one of the brilliant most brilliant men in history said, Look, here are the three laws of motions. I've discovered them.

00:31:00--> 00:31:25

Turns out, they're wrong. Did you guys know that? Well, yeah. His theories on gravity were wrong. He thought gravity was a pulling force. Yeah, gravity is a pushing force, Einstein. And one day we'll discuss how Einstein figured that out with a thought experiment, we're doing a thought experiment. Einstein, one of the great kings of thought experiments, how he figured out is a beautiful story, how he figured out that gravity is a pushing force, not a pulling force. He also did Isaac Newton.

00:31:27--> 00:31:41

When they asked him, How do you feel to have done Isaac Newton? Oh, he gave me a beautiful answer. He said, If I see forest because I stand on the shoulders of giants, meaning Sir Isaac Newton's work may pave the way for my work. Because Isaac Newton was wrong about gravity.

00:31:43--> 00:32:07

We still use this physicists still use the three laws of motion because they're so useful. However, they're not fundamentally true. Another scientific fact that we have to revisit nothing wrong with it, I praise them and he's a brilliant man. However, these laws of physics were just bookmarks. Yeah, for patterns and regularities. However, his explanations for pattern regularities were wrong. They weren't they were illusionary Einstein figured out the true.

00:32:09--> 00:32:11

Cause the seemingly true

00:32:12--> 00:32:14

it's kind of like the sun going around the Earth.

00:32:16--> 00:32:54

There wasn't there was an illusion there. And Einstein proved it. Okay. He proved it with a thought experiment. He said, What if the sun disappears? It could but what happened to the fire sign and prove something? Exactly, exactly. So these are the laws of physics are just bookmarks. They're just our way of saying, Look, here, these patterns. Let's give it a name. Let's give it a label, because they also they indicate the existence of a higher metaphysical being. Absolutely. It's the greatest egocentric, it's the greatest egotistical statement to say something is random. Well, why? Because you're saying that the world is us how I see it. And because my ignorance is here, the worlds here

00:32:54--> 00:33:09

that cannot see any further, a great question I want to ask you, is the highest mountain you've ever seen? This is a great question. I'm forgetting who said it's such a beautiful question. Is the highest mountain you've ever seen? How do you get the highest mountain that exists?

00:33:10--> 00:33:11

How do you know that?

00:33:12--> 00:33:44

You can imagine possibly, you know that your experiences are not the end all be all. It's a very humble answer. To say, you know, maybe not. But the man who says the highest mountain I've seen is the highest mountain there is. He's thinking an egocentric position. He's saying I'm the measure of truth. Right? Right. Right, right. That's a very good way of putting it is it is a beautiful way, when somebody tells you something is random, and they refuse to let go of randomness. They're telling you Look, don't tell me I'm ignorant. It's a personal issue, and philosophy, why people don't like philosophy. And I remember reading one of my textbooks, he was saying, look, philosophy

00:33:44--> 00:33:45

is you looking in the mirror.

00:33:47--> 00:33:51

And he was saying, if you don't want to know that you're ugly, don't go look in the river.

00:33:52--> 00:34:23

Don't go look in the river. That's how people used to see the reflections. If you want to believe you're beautiful, don't look in the river. Because when you look in the river, you can see reflection in philosophy. When you study philosophy, you realize how little you know No, I start so sorry. Socrates said it so well. Knowledge is to know the extent of your own ignorance. randomness is a reflection of my ignorance. I know that randomness when I see something random, this I know, it's not the truth, capital T. It's my level, the highest mountain that I've seen is not necessarily the highest mountain, you know, the highest mountain we have observed as a human species on Mars.

00:34:23--> 00:34:35

It's bigger than the state of Texas. So if you stood on the highest mountain Earth, you see, proclaim this to be the highest mountain you'd be wrong. We know of a higher, much higher mountain. They say that mountain is so high, if you were standing on it, you wouldn't even know you're on the mountain.

00:34:37--> 00:34:48

So randomness is is a figment of your imagination. All we know is order. And the story about the multiverse would still not escape the problem. You know, some people say, oh, there's a multiverse.

00:34:50--> 00:34:59

You still have not understood determinism, determinism. If there was a multiverse, then there is one multiverse it would never change. You can never escape.

00:35:00--> 00:35:40

determinism, we will do a video i'm sure when the only determinism, determinism and philosophy is the one thing we all agree on. I don't care who you are atheists, theists, logician. We all agree on the terms in philosophy, we say you either agree with determinism or you don't understand it. That's the two positions. When I would go to school, some people would be upset with determinism that there's no randomness. People would be furious. you'd understand they would fail. The teacher would give you a zero, you didn't understand. determinism is a very important topic. In Islam, people Muslims might not know this, we are hard determinists in Islam is hardcore, determine we have that

00:35:40--> 00:36:05

balance between free will and determinism. It's, it's what Hegel would call an apparent contradiction. Yeah, you know, I mean, we'll talk about anything you want. Yeah. Listen, determinism. Even when you move your own hand, physics will explain how you move your own hand. Remember, we said the causal line is complete. Physics tells us that every action in the history of the world is due to two things, your genetics and your environment?

00:36:07--> 00:36:12

We'll get to that after. It's a very interesting question. Very interesting question. But to keep things super simple.

00:36:13--> 00:36:29

If I observe every behavior you've ever done every action, it's a result of two things, your genetics, and your environment. So for instance, keep it really simple here. Simple as possible. You go into a restaurant, there are two flavors,

00:36:31--> 00:36:33

vanilla or chocolate, go ahead choose.

00:36:38--> 00:36:39

Choose a flavor

00:36:44--> 00:36:45

nilla or chocolate?

00:36:47--> 00:36:50

Vanilla, okay. Why did you choose vanilla?

00:36:51--> 00:36:59

two choices, and I just chose one of them. Okay, you just chose one of them. I'll tell you, there's an explanation. You chose vanilla because your taste buds.

00:37:00--> 00:37:23

They have a chemical reaction that's more pleasurable than when your taste buds touch chocolate. Yeah, and they're this way, because of your genetics and your genetics, you didn't choose them. Hence, you didn't choose vanilla, your genetics chose for you because you always follow your greatest desire, and you have no choice in the matter. Every human being always follows their greatest desire, and they don't choose what their greatest desire is.

00:37:24--> 00:37:29

Now, maybe you would have chose strawberry, but your environment only allowed you two choices. But

00:37:31--> 00:38:04

then that we traced back the choice to environment. It's always nature or nurture, nature or nature. And then in science, and in philosophy, we have something called epiphenomenalism epiphenomenalism means that because of determinism, this little example I gave you, because of Laplace, the billiard ball theory, because everything is pushing everything else, physics is a causal chain. Yeah, and your genetics were given to you, because of your parents, you didn't choose your parents, and so on and so forth. And you were born in this country, and this is your environment, and you didn't choose your environment, all these things are out of your control. And your behavior is based on these two

00:38:04--> 00:38:08

things. And these two things are out of your control, therefore your behavior is out of your control. Yeah.

00:38:10--> 00:38:14

Yet, in epiphenomenalism, they tell you when you reach for a glass of water,

00:38:15--> 00:38:44

they say your your desire to reach for a glass, your your your your will, you know your your free will, the thing you're telling me about you, when you reach for it, it was irrelevant. We knew you were going to reach for that glass of water, we could calculate, we could look into your mind and calculate all those billiard balls, we can know your genetics, when they will compute your genetics will say, Well, how many jobs gonna walk in this restaurant at five o'clock? He's gonna sit here, he's gonna ask for a different flavor. We're gonna tell him nobody's gonna end up choosing vanilla. We could predict everything.

00:38:45--> 00:38:46

And it would be right.

00:38:47--> 00:39:13

Now, where does that leave freewill? Because I've met said, Excuse me, lightness said that contradicts my experience. I'm not this robot. Because it would be basically you're a robot, or that life is a roller coaster. kind of thing. Like you're on a track. Yeah. But what what physics is saying is look how many job you are exactly like a robot. If we know your algorithm, we know exactly what decisions you will make.

00:39:14--> 00:39:20

Anything we would say is random. This is really a truly a limit of our thought, ability to think, to compute.

00:39:21--> 00:39:25

If we had a divine calculator, we would know exactly everything. Okay.

00:39:26--> 00:39:39

But when I sit down, I feel like I'm having a choice. Now, how do I know that? I feel like I'm having a choice. What method Am I using? Am I using a scientific method? a logical method meaning mathematics, or am I using intuition?

00:39:42--> 00:39:59

intuition, intuition. I feel like this story you just gave me is BS. I don't believe this robot theory. I you know what, I chose vanilla AI. And my intuition is just as true or if not, it's actually more true. I'm more confident because I'm feeling it directly. All your science

00:40:00--> 00:40:07

is an interpretation of patterns of regularities, you have a faith based system system that the history, the future will behave like the past.

00:40:09--> 00:40:39

How did Leibnitz melt these two together? He said, Look, Hegel would say that's an apparent contradiction when things seem they cannot be reconciled, but they can be. It seems it cannot be reconciled. But it can be, but they can be so Leibnitz. Of course, Leibnitz comes to the rescue quite often, and the history and philosophy of many great thinkers that I don't want to just give like this as a, as an example, Leibnitz coined it beautifully. And I always like to quote the person who quite pointed very beautifully. Because, you know, in, in Islam, we say, you're determined.

00:40:40--> 00:40:50

The Sahaba even asked the Prophet if we're determined why salani was so he said, I'm a little Do you know, do I make action? man asked him? Should I tie my camel? Or should I just take care of it?

00:40:53--> 00:40:53


00:40:55--> 00:41:00

there was a harmony. Yeah, there's a harmony. So lighten it says this is a picture of two trains right?

00:41:02--> 00:41:10

There on twin tracks, they're not connected together at all. They're just synchronized. They're operating independently, but they're synchronized. Okay, so

00:41:11--> 00:41:25

these two trains, if you looked at them from a bird's eye view would think they're connected. You get closer to them and you see No, they're not connected. They're in a harmony together. Live in it says this look, when I reach for a glass of water and I drink it live in it says,

00:41:26--> 00:41:27

My Will

00:41:29--> 00:41:36

my this, this part of my body that's not part of the machine. Your your consciousness is not part of the machine.

00:41:38--> 00:41:54

Remember, we talked about in another video about if I walked around your brain, I would see all the machine machinery of your brain, but I wouldn't see your consciousness I wouldn't see your first person experience. Yeah, I wouldn't see all the thoughts you have. I wouldn't see the what it is to be you that you only know it intuitively. We don't know that scientifically.

00:41:55--> 00:42:09

He said, Look, that intuition that part of mine, that spirit, that consciousness, that immaterial part of me, that metaphysical part of me is in harmony, my arm is moving. And my will. It's just not moving. They're just in harmony. They're in harmony.

00:42:10--> 00:42:12

And I bring that water and I drink it.

00:42:13--> 00:42:24

Or they eat that ice cream or whatever you did. He says that harmony. We asked him well, how does this harmony come about? He says, God, God basically saying to us, he took the greatest pool shot in history.

00:42:26--> 00:42:45

Okay, everything is harmony. Now in Islam, this is perfect. Because anything outside the will of Allah. Yeah. But same time there is the whole idea of free will as well. This idea of free will. Yes. But there's a there's a condition. Yes, it has to be through if I go to shoot you and gun jams.

00:42:46--> 00:43:17

My will was to kill you with but a lot of them will it? There wasn't the harmony. But yet still no contradiction. Yeah, contradictions cannot exist. Yeah, that's how we know truth exists. People say truth is relative No, if truth was relative contradictions would exist. We know contradictions. Do not ask an interesting refutation of relativism. Absolutely. One day we'll do a video on just the book of goregous. From Plato. Yeah. I know you'd like Plato. And especially as we look, I think this is a lot to think about.

00:43:18--> 00:43:30

It is a lot but I don't want to leave you off the hook just yet. Yes. I want to I want to cap it off. Okay, good. We've been talking for hours. Okay. This is this is like, this is like our we're about 45 minutes in though. Yeah. This is like our seven for us. Okay.

00:43:32--> 00:43:32


00:43:35--> 00:44:11

I'll give you that example, the pool example. This is more of a theology now. When people say Islam is peace, as long as peace as long as I'll tell you, from what I understand, again, my limit my knowledge of Islam is limited, correct. Okay. But from somebody who studied philosophy for 20 years, and now I'm studying Islam more, I'm seeing some very profound, profound statements that I wonder if you can correct me if this is my interpretation, maybe it's completely wrong. But Islam is, is a practice it's a verb, right? Somebody who's Islam could be better than another's or practice better than others, the verb to practice submission. Yeah, it's a submission. Right? It's, it's actually

00:44:11--> 00:44:17

very intriguing though the name submission. Because I'll give you this example. Imagine you're standing by a pool.

00:44:18--> 00:44:22

And I push you in the pool and you're angry because you're dressed in your clothes and you're in the pool and you're angry.

00:44:27--> 00:44:30

So you're angry, I pushed you in the pool. I'm laughing and you're angry.

00:44:32--> 00:44:34

And now you're standing by the pool again on another day.

00:44:35--> 00:44:41

And you're you don't know I'm behind you. And I'm about to push you in. And as I'm pushing you and you're jumping in,

00:44:43--> 00:44:59

there was a synchrony a harmony. And you learn in the pool and I think I pushed you and you jumped in voluntarily and there's a harmony. Amazing, amazing. There's a harmony there. wills were in tune. Wow. Wow. Did you are you at peace now? In the scenario? Yes. Amazing. The first scenario

00:45:00--> 00:45:08

Not a piece, the second scenario at peace. Now before I let you go and tell you a story about Katie Byron, why I believe that if you if you have a trust and

00:45:09--> 00:45:36

you accept the dunya as it is, you accept your your destiny as it is, you have a peace because you have a trust, any type of turmoil is being at odds with the Word of God, you don't accept the world as it is you don't accept your looks as they are your intelligence as they are, your potential as it is your situation. And as you're angry, you're not in harmony. So there's a woman named Katie Byron, and I'm using her as an example because she's a great bridge from east and west.

00:45:38--> 00:46:14

She was a secular person, a Western thinker. I mean, she's even English, if I remember correctly, American English. Katie Byron, very, very intriguing person. She's considered to be an enlightened being though. Yeah. They consider her like the Buddha is considered to be in like, really, man. So she said that she was going to the madhouse, she went to she was committed. Because her life was just she had depression. And then one day, she said she had an epiphany. She writes books now shelves, people all over the world. So very famous speaker and writer, very famous. She tells people all sorts of problems. She says, look, one day I came to the conclusion that you know what, there's

00:46:14--> 00:46:26

God's business, and there's my business. And I'm never going to object to God's business again. Yeah. So she went back home and she saw her kids socks on the floor, she says that, she for years, she fought with them to pick up their socks. Now she said, You know what, I'm just gonna pick it up.

00:46:27--> 00:47:01

And if her daughter gave her bad news, it would. It wasn't bad news. She didn't interpret it as bad news that is very stoic of her, you know, that's a story for another day. And she became happy and joyful. And she gives you the story about how her grandson once upon a time was dying in her arms. And she didn't let the fact that he's dying, spoiled it. She said, Look, if he lives or dies, that's God's business. The paramedics are doing what they can't can do. Wow, yeah, I won't let this rob me of my moment I have with him whether I have 50 years with him or 10 years you the power this whole minutes this whole philosophy has on your this whole theology this whole precept has, it makes you

00:47:01--> 00:47:20

like I said in another video makes you much more like, willing to give the world will take from the world because you realize that there is a plan. There's a plan, but there was a submission report. Yeah, she yielded to God's business said, Look, God, this, I'll never argue with you again, I'll never, I'll never go against the grain again.

00:47:22--> 00:48:01

If something a calamity happens tomorrow, I will not interpret as a calamity. I refuse to it's your you did this, it's out of my control. So this is it. Whatever is in your control, do it. Be in harmony, whatever is out of your control. Don't say you like it or dislike, be in harmony with it and accept it. This is what I understand from what I've understood myself. And then, you know, again, I'm very beginning. This makes why I would say it's the name of slam is one, maybe one, it makes sense, it's a submission to the will, there must be a synchrony a yielding, yielding, yielding. And again, this is very complicated topics. And I figured that last poll examples, but I

00:48:01--> 00:48:26

think both examples lightnings example. And pools, if you think about them, you might not have understood them straightaway. But if you think about them with a little bit of thought and kind of let it mature and ferment in your mind a little bit, I think it will actually have a real resonating effect on you. So do think about it's really interesting how to put the two things together kind of like free will and determinism and how it can seem like an apparent contradiction. When you do put them together, it can become very, very powerful.

00:48:27--> 00:49:00

But for us, and if you object to any of these ideas, show us one instance of true randomness. Oh, yeah. And that's it. I would love to I would love to learn. Yeah, somebody could show one example of actual randomness of actual randomness. That's not a reflection of our ignorance. Nobody in history has done it so far. Maybe somebody out there will. Who knows I personally believe it's it's logically impossible. Yeah. But again, I've made mistakes in the past and I'm sure yeah, you know, surely gonna leave their comments and definitely try and gauge with us. But like so much.

00:49:02--> 00:49:15

Time Yeah, we haven't have the you know, the effects and the cameras and stuff like that. So, hopefully, you did enjoy the video. Make sure that you do subscribe to frost his channel. He's also as you know, a mastermind in

00:49:17--> 00:49:52

the fight game. And he brings us breakdowns of different videos, training videos, nutrition, motivational videos, you go into lots of different things because he's an all rounder and now of course he's coming in with into these discussions as well. So you can see that he has got that all roundedness in knowledge. So if you are subscribed to TriStar gym is called isn't it? TriStar gym channel? Yeah, there's no philosophy there. It's mostly training and lifestyle and martial arts, etc. Yeah, that'll be that'll be good for your body and your mind a little bit as well. And obviously this channel will try and do

00:49:54--> 00:49:59

a bit of soul, a bit of mind and sometimes from time to time little bodies. Yeah, no

00:50:00--> 00:50:02

Anyways guys, I'll see ya sorry.