Prof. Dr. Mir Faizal | Gravity, Gödel & God | MindTrap with Mufti #22

[Music] oh salaam-alaikum folks in Al hamdulillah wa kafa salat wa salam o allah rasool allah mustafa ala i Baddeley dinner table all remember who that method will be at Medina tava were bad for Salaam Allah heal people we have an amazing steamed guest tonight somebody incredibly distinguished expert in his field of physics somebody who

leads and is the director of a quantum Research Centre in Canada dr. Mead Faizal I'm just bringing his page right in here Allah Allah Salam alaikum doctor me Faisal welcome to my trap and shook her and for coming on tonight taking your valuable time out so pleasure pleasure is really nice talking to you we've been doing that for some time now are I people those of you that are not familiar with with dr.

Muir he has published over a hundred hundred publications in reputable journals 150 150 sorry I almost deleted 50% there I mean more than 50% since the hundred fifty right so I apologize 150 in publications in reputable journals for physics globally throughout the world some breathtaking kind of theories some

research that is challenging that is consolidating that is just amazing and we've got him on tonight also well what we would really like to look at as well is dr. Mead believes that much of quantum or certain aspects of quantum physics does extend to arguing for the existence of God and we'll speak about that and also some of the challenges of quantum physics or specifically quantum gravity we'll take a look at that and how can this tie into our understanding of the quran and by extension our lives as

human beings so dr. Mele raha I'm just going to just make it just just give a quick shout to all the people watching on YouTube and Facebook I'm just checking that there are no issues with I always do an audio check to make sure that there's no issues if there are we'll just rectify them now so if the moderators can just if they're if they're awake that is at this time alright just making sure that the sounds coming through fine right somebody's saying right okay I think on YouTube it

is and I'm just checking on Facebook now that the sound is coming through fine okay cool I take it it's it's fine right so dark take it away tell us a bit about yourself a bit of your background just so because people won't be familiar may not be familiar with you just a bit come on after virus after this you can

have a huge fan club so there's of course on universe at the time of Big Bang I've worked on something called pre Big Bang cosmology universe before Big Bang I have worked on a parallel universes I do quantum gravity and in principle I would describe myself as a quantum gravity pair analyst in the sense I that I have worked on string theory but I don't stick to string theory I worked on loop quantum gravity I worked on different aspects of quantum gravity I also have done groundbreaking work in anything but everything like the many different aspects of gravity my

interest is that I work on many of these theories I see try to see what is common between them because that way we might get to learn something interesting rather than sticking to tests as my theory I don't want to get anything else I mean most he was telling me that he was surprised to hear this but it is true that we have that attitude sometimes developing in science especially in quantum gravity string theories don't want to look at anything else people doing look ordem gravity you don't want to look at everything else but they are field people doing different things want to just look at their fields so I kind of I kind of even borrow techniques from one end to another apply this idea is good here I take it at apply there this idea is good

here I I take it and apply it there so it's a pretty open interval it comes to quantum gravity I do worry but I would not classify myself as a hard question okay you see to a lot of people this is way you know just over the kind of pay grade quantum physics is this something you've always been interested in apart from a German theory quantum physics is simple but quantum gravity is the big question okay okay well I mean isn't there the quote anybody who claims they've understood quantum physics has

an understood nobody understand we know how it works we don't know why it works like just big probably and terms of major main theory we don't understand that we don't have to chat about it but if you assume those foundations to be true we know how to calculate stuff but when it comes to quantum gravity we have very like we have started having fetched understanding of what quantum gravity should or should give us but then this boils down to what we will be discussing today because there are there is at least something we have not but I think where so we will really get to that so what have we really learned in part of

that is there anything that we haven't really learned from all these different aspects of quantum gravity and I think there is like there are two results we seem to become which seem to be true independent of which have close to quantum gravity that you are taking now one is that the entropy there's some it is a quantity called entropy the entropy of a black hole at least to its first order like the four leading order correction is just given by the area of that black hole divided by four now this result is pretty no matter what approach to quantum gravity taking you will get the yuki you will be able to produce this fire of this black hole entropy path but you sang the

sequence you sang this consistency with in in understanding the entropy of black holes yes like the lead there is corrections to this formal of course which comes from quantum gravity but the first order term for the entropy of a black hole is the area divided by poor now this result is almost universal this comes up as people area divided by force you got it gives you that the entropy of a black hole you have corrections which come in after that is logarithmic Corrections the coefficient of is a subject of debate independent but let's

come to something more interesting for me the other interesting aspect of quantum gravity that's almost that's again a universal aspect of point of gravity almost a model independent aspect of quantum gravity is the existence of a minimal length cut off in geometrical space in time you see if you take string theory strings are the smallest structure the fundamental structure that you have you can't move universe low string length scale and there are more stronger arguments to be made for something called t-duality I [Laughter] what you get what you would really be getting is that space and time has a

natural filter built-in cut off you can't have space and time below a certain scale space and time is an emergent theory much like straightest you are you saying space is an emergency prophase this end time because time I could understand that people would say time is by mass even space it is not I mean space-time is just another coordinate to space-time continuum in relativity so this so hard make that distinction but at such a fundamental level but space and time and everything we see around us is an emergent

structure it emerges from something non spaced long time quantum gravity deals with this null space non time structure the question is what this non time not space structure is depends on what model of quantum gravity you are doing but statement about space and time being non fundamental is a model Independence Day this is you know what this is this is how you know if you want to be reminded how dumb you are then you have a conversation we talk to me because you're trying to think yeah you can't get in yeah ha ha ha

I'm sure it's English but ok you have a table in front of you possible ok yes it is here I can not see that but yeah it's certain geometrical structure right ok you d believe the geometrical structure don't write it it is fly it's flat on the sky flash top and then there are then it's curved or is a geometric you could talk of half the table you could split the table and talk half the

table it still has a geometry 1/4 the table it still is at your mattering 1/10 the table it still has a geometric but but the table the geometry of table is not a fundamental reality because it's an emergent structure which emerges from atomic physics right room so what 1/2 atomic life scale the table exists no more and it becomes meaningless to talk of gematria okay okay I get what you're saying yes so you're saying if you see even if we cut the table in half we've still got an atomic structure that represents the table but if we cut the atomic property in half then we haven't

really got the essence of the table and both of them still have a geometry right they have a geometrical structure right of course of course here but you keep cutting and you come to inter atomic scales now if you cut these two atoms apart there is no question of a geometric okay fair enough no matter e breaks and the break of geometry offers because geometric was not a fundamental truth it was an emergent okay so universe

although is the space structure of space and time that we know of is not fundamental cannot be fundamental there are lot of problems with that it's an emergent thing and what we know of using these different approaches to quantum gravity I'm not speaking in you know just confining myself to one approach which is almost a universal statement about different approaches to quantum gravity that we can make is that this structure of space and time should break down at more at least at some at least at a very small length called Planck length that's okay yeah that's the smallest

possible length isn't Langton unit I mean some of my work actually was about this that can you have length bigger than Planck length and if so how would your experiments bound them that that has been ever that has been some work going on and then I did something about lag time also because you know you ought to have flat like you have to have like time and then but basically you cannot in there is a minimum structure to the geometry of space and time at which you're you have Planck time Planck length this minimum structure are there and blow that you you have nothing like you can't have half Planck length half lifetime these things especially half Planck length in the sense that these

things won't exist it's not that you can't measure them they simply don't exist just like your table does not exist at half atomic distances because the geometry of space and time is an emergent structure it's not fundamental yeah yeah bill cool I mean in essence it's like saying 99.999% of everything we see doesn't really exist the fundamental I exaggerated the way I'm saying this is more fundamental this is

we're not talking about particular particle were like you know we're particular nature of certain particles or something we're talking about geometry of space and time and everything exists space and time there put everything by definition is emergent it's not unreality merger just like your table is emergent just like many structures in the universe you see our image so you're distinguishing between unreal and emergent okay realization good floor effect you feel theories which is a nice philosophy we have developed in physics this says that you don't need to know relativity if you want to just build buildings Newton's physics is enough and relativity will exactly predict Newton's

physics at that scale the deviations from Newton's physics will be source like sorry deviations from relativity will be so small that you might very well neglect them so at a certain energy scale you do not see for most phenomena need to know what happens at an energy much higher energy scales basically this people just stay in your lane that's what is that's what dr. Meade is saying that just because basically you're dumb enough to get so dumb you don't understand this the universe will still carry on despite your dumbness calculate

my relativity eight you get such a small correction that you your measurement like you you're it's beyond what your your capacity to major this is so these approximate so this is this is this this statement by the way is formalized in this country called effectively something really nicely into how this all fits with the existence of God we can I think that might be reading to your audience sure a very brief question before we get into that is what I mean it may seem absolutely silly but why is why is this important this quantum gravity

why is that important okay it has new technology can use this answers the like let me be honest I don't know if people sometimes would be honest be honest yeah we love honestly on this show we love it energy scales we are double dealing with it's very hard to even think of ways to test it let alone use it so there is no technological use to it it's just purely knowledge for the sake of knowledge so we can understand the universe at the beginning of universe we can understand the fundamental aspects of space and time we can understand fundamental objects in universe like black holes and we can understand the very nature of reality in a better way

but really realistically I don't think it can have it at least yeah I don't think it really it would be hard to think of a technology values you can learn things from it which can have some technology values that's a different matter like a lot of the mathematics developed in the string theory and in quantum gravity could to have applications for example for graphene sheets that's a different matter I actually wrote a paper on that can you use to simulate I think I think dr.

as many TV series as I've watched you were in as many papers it's amazing no realistically I think to be really honest not to get into so ok but it's it's incredibly I mean for most people it's mind-boggling just to also just a little question just for the audience as well I'll pretend I already know it but

to make sure people may be asking a question when you say quantum gravity are you speaking about a gravity that is different from normal gravity ok you see you for anything when you're talking of mechanics I obviously know but this is for you guys and so when you're talking of one part you know when you're speaking about Newton's laws are you talking about something difficult for topic and well in a way yes you know we know I mean in the sense that at the energy scale at with Newton's laws or Valley you could get the same result from quantum mechanics but it would just give you so small a correction that why

you will see the reason why to block now why why are you doing those definitions so when we talking of classical general relativity classical general relativity is a good movie and it explains universe fairly accurately when those now we have seen there was yeah there are suggestions that it should get corrected if you don't take dark matter I've been working on that in on modified theories of gravity to correct general theory of relativity so we can explain dark matter without need of that metal but anyway if you leave those problems aside let's let's just simple to the simplest model you have high in strength theory of relativity which explains gravity as a curvature of space and time

there are two more candidates scientifically are equivalently good it could also have been a torsion of space and time or it could have been a theory of break or may tricity but just because historically Einstein's theory dominated so let's just stick your Einsteins thorium will deviate I know I I meant like so people generally the standard it kind of model within physics you can have the four forces it's different from that force that's what I'm saying the four forces when we are taking Einstein's theory of relativity we're talking of a classical yeah theory the other theories we have a quantum theory for them we don't even have a quantum theory for something called portability of quantum gravity in which you just

take a small perturbation of einstein's theory a small change in the geometry of space and time and try to quantize that that the graviton it's the graviton know something as simple at the graviton we can't even quantize that problem I mean that's like the simplest you could do you could take a fix-it background in place and then you just put your beta base and try to quantize that you're not even able to do that into something called non renormalized ability the idea is that when you're doing yeah any other quantum field theory you get infinities infinities papa but then there's a nice

way to deal with these infinities you just throw those infinities away in a nice quaint fundamental constants of you can't do that with gravity the infinities be popping up and the theory cannot predict anything beyond the energy scale at which it has been tested so this theory is called a non-normalizable so something and and this is just when you're taking you know space and times as space and time is fixed and just make smooth change in it you can't even develop it in one of the theory of that what you can do is you can do classical of that so in regimes where quantum effects can be neglected general relativity gives a fairly accurate result so so the again going

back to that just like quantum mechanics would reduce to Newtonian mecca and in mechanics for a single particle our whatever our two theory of quantum gravity is should reduce to Einstein's theory of relativity at scales at which Einstein's theory of relativity has been tested hmm amazingly said so okay so I'm sure you all may absolutely understood that and if not then you need

to do some more research you do Harlow right so okay so we've got quantum which basically it's a more up - up to higher spec version of of gravity okay so now that gravity descent time quantum theory describes what what would be actually like but this is an emergent theory

quantum theory would describe from what space and time would emerge from the real theory only okay so the actual essence from which it's emerging I always like this analogy let me give you this analogy give us an analogy absolutely like one of my favorites well big date motion I did take a spoon take a pan and bend it force is proportional to bending business convention Hookes law you pimping you put more force more bending more force more money more force more money depending it at a certain stage the pen breaks now if you're simulating it on a computer a small

amount of force after this will give you an infinite amount of bending now you would not think that this is a real thing in nature you would think that the law that I was having before this force proportional to bending was an emergent law which emerged because of atomic physics and as I said the place where murdered and broke or this spoon broke this law no longer holds and it does not hold because this was not the most fundamental law for the universe that force is proportional to panting it was an emergent I'm in the same way and this infinity that you would get is actually called a singularity you're in you're in

in your equations you would actually get a singularity okay now when Nativity described it kind of describes universe fairly nicely at most energy scales there are certain problems generally it's a good description of that our universe but it completely fails at the very center of black holes and at the beginning of you you get a singularity no voice sorry just just to be uh if it can be said quickly that is when you said at the beginning of the university it collapses why why so at the beginning of of the universe just from you you get

your Einsteins field equations plug the solutions at the beginning of the universe you get a singularity and at the center it's a mathematical thing you understand the center at the center of the black holes you get make so absolute sense oh this is the whole idea this singularity and then there are sure that the singularity is not just and it's not just a random artifact of your solutions it's actually built into general relativity that the singularity should occur so you can't just deal away with them but but the important thing is what have what these singularities should really indicate or what do these singularities what these singularities

really indicate is that general relativity is and is an approximation to some truth you're in quantum grab some true theory of nature's just like Hookes law broke down when the pen broke general relativity played down at the beginning of universe and at the center of black holes because those points really cannot be described using space and time space and at the space-time approximation to nature breaks down ok ok is not description nature at those points we need to discourage and just like atomic physics is more fundamental than Hookes law generous this quantum theory of gravity whatever it be string theory do quantum gravity whatever it would be more fundamental

than the space-time description so now okay you know having this feel this vast knowledge with you how do you link this in to the existence of God because you you have found yourself being drawn closer ever so closer to the if I can use the term certainty or having reinforced your faith through quantum physics especially through quantum gravity where as one may assume that one would assume the public generally

assumed that as people become more and more enveloped in science they become more distance from God I so I'm we're intrigued by this dog what's this about them okay I think that's a nice thing but let's start again with basics you know like then that can we know absolutely absolutely because we need to obviously explain to people that you know these you guys wouldn't know anything if you don't explain it to you

approach so when we are talking about existence of God I think you see the Phenom left let's let's let's look at this question does God exist this question is a bit ambiguous and this in this question can cause potential problems that I'll tell you one because you're merging two questions together the question of existence and the definition and there are so many definitions of God that some of them are mutually inconsistent with each other so if one of those definitions is true then other other one of them by definition can be false so this question is really ambiguous you might run yourself infinite loop you might prove one God and then

somebody might be one definition of God I would say and then somebody would come up and say that this this has a problem if this definition has the problem and you would run into an infinite loop no no I will modify this definition here so so and there is a related problem in physics it's called gauge fixing you see there's a strong theorem in physics that when you have unphysical degrees of freedom you your theories can develop in consistence okay I think I'm I think it would be nice I mean I will be trying to work this out in a more formal logical structure but it would be nice to do that then I think this is true that if you have lot of degrees of freedom you can play around

with it then you can possibly get into inconsistencies and this this is this happens in something in at least all the forces that we know of it that when when we try to quantize them not all the degrees of freedom in those forces are physical and these unphysical degrees of freedom lead to inconsistencies unless we do something called gauge fixing so we need to fix a gauge we need to fix certain definitions before we can do anything with them the definitions we fix it there there can be arbitrariness a little bit of arbitrariness in that we fix certain definitions and then we know we kind of understand what we are dealing okay okay sure sure here we have we also have a similar problem we have

we have I think a lot of in unphysical degrees of freedom when we are talking so let's try to gauge fix this boat lift let we have a problem of existence and a problem oh we have a problem of existence and a problem of definite so let's fix the gauge fix the problem to a problem of existence and then we can only argue about definitions and then need to become a model the existence of God just to be clear the existence of don't we're talking about yeah I would be fine the existence of Lord this way listen to my definition nicely so my definition of God would be as the most fundamental as the most fundamental of aspect of reality which by definition

cannot not exist and from and everything that exists follows from this and it does not follow from anything else more fundamental if it does then that more fundamental thing is God at this is adequate so the most fundamental aspect of reality I would call it God I'm not giving you information because if it was a harder is this is this similar in some ways to what people like till it called the ground of being and maybe some Muslim theologians have used the term word you will do that this that which is

but terminology this definition good food yes and it's nice that you brought Oaxaca silver do that because I wanted to bring it at the end so it's all not but why by the way giving you new information but this is just a tautology this is just a fixing of definitions because a materialist could come up and say well that's fine and matter is the most fundamental aspect of reality that's a 19th century this anybody who does not not even quantum priority anybody who is not a quantum field theory in curved space-time could say matter is the most fundamental aspect of

reality but but so anybody like everybody and almost anybody can fit with this definition I don't think there's a problem with the definition that you would assume reality to some certain realities to be more emergent than some other realities and then you would define the most fundamental aspect of that reality as Gilad this is not giving you information because even materialism fit Center's definition of course it's just making the problem more billable you can now deal with this problem in an honest way because now the question does God exist has shifted has gave engaged fixed to the question what is the most fundamental aspect of

reality now this is a more easy this is a easier person to deal there you see you you fixed by definition the question of existence you said well for me God is the most fundamental aspect of existence now I now I have to only deal with work that yeah so this is a myth so this is exactly like we do in physics you gauge fix your definitions and now we know what we are talking about otherwise it becomes really difficult to sometimes know what you know it might even happen that at least that piece will have to word lab some I might have some overlapping views and then it becomes

really confusing because each time you're defining something and then throwing it and it becomes an infinite loop so people don't know what they're talking about so let's let's start with this so the question of does God exist the question does God exist actually after gauge fixing the problem or like with gauge fixing existence by definition by total logical definition has reduced to the problem of has reduced to this question that what is the most fundamental aspect of existence so now we're really dealing with a very very precise for them then what is the most fundamental aspect of existence so now let's go now now we get back to this content discussion on quantum gravity

actually we should have nature of this conversation is also like in the quantum world it just pops up anywhere we can't really be so suit no we like I said that space in time surely I mean 19th century materialists would say particles are the most fundamental aspect of reality you don't even need quantum gravity if you do quantum field theory in curved space-time party the description of universe in terms of particle is not a good description in many even if you so your space-time is a fix it classical structure but your fields are quantum on

it and in certain quantum like in certain kind of space times you cannot I mean it would not be better to describe universe in terms of particles so materialism is gone pretty early but then what what are we left with we are left at least if you're just doing quantum field theory in curved space-time you would be left with certain algebraic structures and an underlying space and time but the by the time you come into quantum gravity you realize that space and time itself has to be fun it doesn't matter whether you are taking string theory or loop quantum gravity or feel and do it apart

Euclidean quantum gravity or you can you can see Cosi Cosi Cosi lossy cool the admission that space-time cannot be fun ok and and there is this philosophy which has come up because of this it's a scientific statement but also was article statement in the sense that bit is not from it but it is from bit it means substance bit means information so information is not from substance but substance is from information the laws of physics are more fundamental than

physics the laws governing this universe are more fundamental than the universe the universe does not the laws don't exist because of the universe the universe that's incredibly fascinating because if information is at the source and central to everything and it proceeds matter itself then information by its very essence is something that is suggests intentionality suggests all these things

so we come to this thing that universe I mean this can we are given the existence of singularity that the center of black holes that big bag is enough to see that you know what space time cannot be the fundamental structure it's an inverted structure that no matter what approach the quantum gravity universe seems to have an inbuilt like the space and time in has this breakdown structure it breaks down at a second and so it emerges from some free time free space structure which is a purely information theory theoretical structure this is a purely if you would like an axiomatic mathematical structure which is just a logical structure so substance that you see around you is an

illusion more fundamental than that is mathematics you fundamentally just a mathematical structure now when you come to and that's so far it's physics now let's see was just gonna say but isn't the problem there which or were you thinking of bringing that up anyway the problem there that the mathematics themselves can't be justified by themselves is that the you know the

problem you see then we come to the problem so we have the most fundamental structure of what the universe is essentially a mathematical structure at least can there had to be a fundamental structure in itself containing all its consistencies that cause containing all its descriptions is almost like the journey of day cards but kind of more a deeper level isn't it so can can that happen well it's it's interesting but I'll try to again simplify because it gets a bit abstract

here not that abstract pretty simplify it look they will help me do that not for your assistance talk thank you the problem is you can't and why can't you do that the reason for that is simple because apparently as it turns out there are two income two theorems in mathematics very fundamental theorems which have shaken the foundations of mathematics and they're called poodles so gödel's theorem the moments in qoodles theorem people yeah yeah so buddha's theorem number one state that given any axiomatic structure you see in mathematics what do you start you'll

start from some statements you know from intuition or you can guess them to be true there they can't be proved to be true their actions and everything else is proved using that at your master so given any actor the bare minimum like you would think that given some some simple mathematical structure like number theory you can at least describe all come from all properties of numbers using an achromatic structure at least that's what l but what but one gödel actually demonstrated was that given any actual metric structure there will be certain properties live love properties in that structure if you if those algorithms are true then there will be certain properties which will be true

but which cannot be proved to be true so just to simplify this for people what we're saying is that for us the way we understand maths we understand several things as a given like we just know and a simple like an example of an axiom like you said like two parallel lines can't meet all these whatever their structures that we understand from mats inherently now those structure those kind of rules that are unwritten within our minds can't themselves be justified like we can't is this this is what we're

saying isn't it this is go dolls example like something simpler simpler than that even you know this means that back I go towards the more complicated things you know it's they taught them what is simple treason Johanna they don't suit me so take any set of rules which are which you presume to be true there there are certain things which in that system in that for example you you you can have an animatic structure you can have certain additives which can give you a number then there are certain statements in number theory which are true but cannot

be proved to be very important example of what over use simplest example would be what like even in in language you would have things like I mean the formal examples would be more complicated but simple examples would be like a statement this statement which is true cannot be proved to be true using that other statement and that other statement would state that this statement is true ok so no sure statement using the you know you this statement cannot be proved to be true so if it is then this statement is you know this statement

which is to cannot be true true to be true if it is fast then this statement is wrong but if it's true then it can never be proved to be true Froy okay because there's nothing inherent in it to verify algorithm you can't run a machine learning process you can't learn okay and is this this old this is pretty straight but let just take it like this let's put a simplified version of it that if you have certain rules some things can you cannot derive all the properties of mathematics works on certain rules geometry works on certain

number theory works and circuits you there are certain property when you specify two other rules certain properties necessarily are true but they cannot be proved to be a museum with you so I mean couldn't this by extend by extension be extended to other things like within there are generally in fellow I feel like a priori arguments that this certain things we know to be a priori oh no Angie magic structure by in itself has been generalized a lotta but this Buddha's theorem has had implications in computer science it has had huge implications I think it was of people

that yes it can have huge implications I mean just it whenever you want it's like you know two wrong movements in a scientist life is at least personally I would say are when you understand quantum measurement and when you understand Google to be more precise you understand that you K you understand what is actually what is there about quantum a tournament that is so hard to understand and then when you understand gödel's theorem amazing by God like whatever is happening here that's like

okay so that big a shocker but the second theorem is so second theorem says one of those things which cannot be proved to be true is the consistency of that strong minimum what we mean by that just to simplify is that this will always heal this result yeah and and that and that it will always can even if it does do it now but will it always continue to do this for example a statement like X is true and use a

different set of rules set of you know different approach using the same set of rules and arrive at X's paths this would this would not make sense then because because if you do this if you allow that then there is something called what it's some kind of explosion you have that you you can do anything a bit like the brains right now everybody trying to make sense that you have certain things in any idea Matic structure that you cannot do people might think then okay it's okay we will just L that as another idea you can but then you will still be left the things that you cannot do you can added that other thing when you will still be left with things that you

cannot do and this will go infinite the other problem that you would have the other problem that you would have is that this basically would mean that and the second thing is then one of those things that you cannot do is the consistency of catchment hmm okay it's okay one of the things that you cannot actually preach the fact that this structure is consistent which is like the bare minimum requirement to have a mathematical structure of course of course so but then the question is how are we humans in any case able to know these for the state that's we are able to know it prove an understanding not throw an elbow knee this is roger

penrose argument and I would even extend it a bit more that very move the very fact that we start with certain axiomatic statements we know these a dramatic statements so some kind of into to understanding rather than an elbow yeah is this not what is generally the response that this is a kind of like in intuitive knowledge as opposed to what they sometimes call in Arabic the you know Phil but he the kind of body yet that people tend to you know like in the past they argued like how do you know the whole is greater than the you know the sum of its then then it's part like they say that even a child that hasn't

learnt anything would know things like this that this is intuitive knowledge like a priori as opposed to a posteriori knowledge yes in other words you can start from some a geometric structures but the important thing realize here is that you can start from different antibiotics drop so you can have lots of different a geometric structures and they can give you different results and that's fine but at least they will give you consistent results to take you all understand that now yeah so simplify so you would always have statements that cannot be proved to be true but we need as humans knowed them to be true and

Roger Penrose actually makes this argument that there is something non algorithmic about our consciousness because of which this happens but I would even extend the argument you say that at least even the existence of axiomatic structures by themselves are something we we have never you know how do we even come up with an axiomatic structure is this understand you know it is not a it's not possible to even think of an algorithm to produce these a geometric structures just because you know the algorithms work on these a geometric structures these animatic structures cannot be derived for them and certainly their consistency cannot be derived from anything else from Prasanna from from those it can be drawn from a bigger set you can't cross you know so you can take a bigger set through the consistency

here but then you would be to its own consistency so what are you saying where are we getting these from this is the follow the direction consciousness somehow works in a non algorithmic way do generate these atoms and isn't that also was Sir Roger Penrose is but he's applying it to human mind I just take it one step further and I say well humans do mathematics but when we know universe is mathematics so if if the only way to prove these Guderian statements are true

is and non algorithmic human consciousness so the only way to know that these statements are true in any case would be what would be this would require consciousness at the most at the most fundamental level so so from it too big but for the consistency of bit consciousness this would be my argument and since all the by bit the bit in the yet people the bit God by definition as the most fundamental aspect of reality then by definition the most fundamental aspect of reality this is now just totally legally creating them it is consciousness so the most fundamental

aspect of reality is consciousness and this consciousness we define as word because see when we say this is the supreme consciousness oh this is not you're not equating that with human consciousness I'm not I'm just I'm just borrowing the fact that humans can do mathematics and thereby repair consciousness as a non algorithmic process and argument of Penrose and applying this argument to the fact that universe fundamentally is mathematics and thereby for its own consistency would require consciousness as you know you you know she was here maybe maybe I want to say this Terron is that you know some some

physicists that have argued that the universe is mathematical when you look at it when you look at the structures the laws the forces is mathematics sorry it is mathematics they've said that this sure so they've said that this leans towards or it demonstrates or reflects to them that perhaps it is if it is like that maybe it is just a kind of like a simulation or a hologram because that's what you would expect to see if it was

mathematics which it is we'll come to that abstract because sometimes people might find it hard to understand this so the second argument which is watered down with version of this first are now now is for all of you to start listening

because I don't think this formal argument because also do you see what formally we have demonstrated formally liquid well demonstrated in that argument is that you know universe as we season Oparin see something more fundamental than this apparent see is information and something more fundamental than information is consciousness and so everything we see is an emergent phenomena from consciousness this goes back to multiple versions daily modules sometimes people misunderstand it as pantheism it does not mean that everything is God it means nothing except God exists there's a big

difference between that does mean except God exists okay this is what you the innocence not mean everything is God it means nothing except for it's it's the real existence is only that of God everything else is any much okay how is that distinguished from everything is good then how do you distinguish the you are waiting the most fun mental aspect of reality to an important signal it's it's completely different everything is you see and the fact is that everything you see does not even hate that it does not have a real existence the real existence is that of

God it's like this table does not have a real existence a real existence is that of atomic physics the atomic physics doesn't have a real existence the real existence is that of a particle physics particle physics doesn't have a real existence a real existence is that of possible if string theory is true of strings but string theory would you say this is monism mystic philosophy but I would say similar to Adi Shankaracharya definition of Brahma okay yeah definitely definitely the way the Vedanta or you can take it in terms of Advaita Vedanta you can take it as Brahman in terms of avital Raju's as you

can take it as you know as d+ au jus definition of allah or if you want to say it in a Christian context you would equate it with God the Father the ultimate reality from which everything else proceeds but that's a separate expression altogether see we in Christianity I said God the Father because Christian theology we can have a separate sir professor talk to me it has a whole discussion on Christian concept of God and how it's sometimes often misunderstood but yeah it's properly

correctly represented in current in life but let's come to this let's come to our basic discussion here so let's come to the simplified version of what would be a simplified that's what everybody's been sitting here waiting yeah a simplified version kabocha terminology was from Brahma and now I will argue for each and then I how are you distinguishing between Brahma and Asheville oh the Brahma in ultimate

reality that you know right yeah like a not a Brahmin yeah yeah the linguistic human reflection of that video so the idea is that when this ultimate review very reality reflects on finite human mind it appears as so issue it is a linguistic approximation of Brahma linguistics I can say that power again I just do because I have because I have seen with I mean I've read up in the past where they've said things like you know Brahmin and you've got a permit MA and you've got like this is a triple

kind of perspective I think one of the nice profound things I mean you know I always say if you want to see where you can find a really good profound philosophy I'm not talking of Scripture philosophy you would possibly find it in Hinduism and where you can find the most strange most stupid idea you know it so we sadly classify it as a really but in this Dhamma game we'll discuss in this one next time let's talk about this

let's come back let's come back let's go back so coming back like let's take the naive creationist argument I think creationists on that case is because evolution is obviously true I mean anybody who does not think evolution is who is either totally ignorant or totally or is lying but I mean in present day I don't blame people or fast because they did not have this knowledge yeah but people anybody living today to doubt the theory of evolution is either insane or he's totally ignorant or he's a liar I don't think I don't see any other possibility or sometimes they are manipulated to uncondition to believe

and they lack a personal kind of daily ignorant sane or liar about evolution does not even understand ABC of science but let's so so so creationist me nutcases nutcase complete nutcases evolution I mean evolution is true I always say this evolution is true and it's trivially true you don't even need to argue for it it's like it's with the house being built out of bricks slowly not suddenly emerging out of it as a

spontaneous house you don't that doesn't happen who says build slowly and a complex life can only evolve simple but let's then which can evolve slowly through abiogenesis from nonliving matter but let's come to this thing let's come to this simple creationist argument on design that they like to make so the argument they make is that look at I it's really complex and it would require some amount of intelligence and then people come up and you can rightly come up and say that this can easily be explained through process of evolution but even I like to formalize everything so that we know what we are talking

about otherwise basically that's the best thing that's the best thing that you talk either when you're formalizing it this is how it's gonna be helpful to so many people yeah at least we know what we are talking about otherwise we don't even know what we are talking about so so what what does this design what does this really this thing really mean so I'll tell you what it really what what it would mean what we are really saying is this because when we're dealing again with God or with atheism God is supposed to have infinite intelligence and atheism is supposed to have zero in television like in a theistic view of nature nature is supposed to have a zero

intelligence or reality behind nature is part of zero intelligence when you're dealing with zeros and infinities things become complicated human mind is not especially infinity and bi and even zero in minutes so let's assume that I've never that's amazingly said actually because I never release the Infinity thing I've always grasped I mean I've always known and people the human mind isn't designed to deal with infinity but zero that's an interesting one I'm intrigued I'm intrigued that zero and infinity they're just the same but then they both number

that's all I always did stressing infinity just a member okay so let's come to so let's assume for the sake of argument this universe is simulated because that will even with some preconceived notions and now we can ask the caller with let's ask the question formally what could you say about aliens which can simulate an eye well you would not say they're stupid you would say they're clever so they are fine intelligence not intelligence more close to infinity then close to zero what would you say about aliens which can simulate an evolutionary process leading to the function of five you would say they're really really clever what could

you say aliens which contaminate a universe with law right force of chemistry leading to the formation of an right class you know trying conditions on certain planets which would lead to the formation of a hyper-intelligent what would you say of aliens which can simulate from simple theories complete universes in which right laws of chemistry would develop in which right laws of physics were developed which was stimulated by hyper hyper intelligent what would you say of aliens which could write a program which would codify a fundamental law of physics in such a way that this would development into a multi universe many and many of these universes would have right laws of chemistry which would apply it also

biology which would lead to the right laws you know evolution forming and hi extremely intelligent incredibly intelligent light upon light is not reduced by evolution is not reduced by chemistry is enhanced by chemistry chemistry is not it reduced by physics its enhance its neuronal on you and the source of all that new neuronal on oh and yeah the lovely Laura he Manisha

Allah guides to his light it's a very beautiful verse that said do you remember that notice of my words he will earth the whole yeah right okay well yep for muscle only yeah let me bring it up right so don't ya miss read it yeah yeah get that verse because I think that's really appropriate you will end us with you you know when you look at that verse in this context you can see the beauty of yep

that's people Allah Akbar Allahu Norris a Marathi will earth Matalin URI he kamischka Tim feeha Misbah that it is like a mish cat mish cat is something which are kind of like an indent that people would put lamps in like into a wall or they would put something miss Burrell Misbah he has of Georgia that this lamp has in it and this is obviously going back to how they designed lamps back then that this has within it a kind of glass or a bottle or a container and as sahaja to Kanako

Kubuntu reunion yoga dementia gelatin mo Baraka that this glass lamp is as though it is a kind of like a planet like although it's like a cosmic planet Allah saying you coddle that has been set aflame I mean Sheraton Mubarak attends a tuna that from an olive branch that lash our tayeton will have our beer is neither of the West nor of the East he occurred to say to who you be that it's the the kind

of fuel in this lamp seems to almost come a light while olam t'aime says who now even if a it has not been put a light by fire that that is the power of this kind of fuel that neroon Allah nor yes the lovely newly he mania sure well durable all I'm Darlene astrologically Shane Eileen that this is light upon light and Allah guides to his light whom He wills and he sets examples or parables for people if only you know to understand but Allah has

knowledge above all things that's a beautiful verse this is such a beautiful verse because if you see what is happening is that light is being reflected first initial deflection secondary Willet reflection and then the light is like the light is there even if it's not a place even if nobody is noticing it God is always there but what we are really viewing is God like the emergent realities that reflected realities we are seeing the structure of I but the structure of I is not it's not more and then there is ulama and it's out of spontaneous creation there is a bigger reflection and that is the theory of evolution and then there was a bigger reflection which is the laws of physics

and there is a bigger reflection which is the eighth and then there is a bigger reflection and it all and the source of all these reflections is God and God is like light upon light if you see universe is just light upon light structure upon structure there is no inconsistency there is no lack of structure the problem with naive creationist argument is that they assume a structure and then they will do darkness you don't see darkness this light upon light evolution is another light of God it is the hand of God that is so amazingly said there I have to say

I'm that that was so articulated with great profundity honestly and it really hit a mark that's amazing Sao Paulo and then let's come to this thing you see you you were asking me again lenola so this would be the second thing so so no no no we have one problem so some before somebody can make there's only one floor left in this argument somebody could say well maybe our universe is simulated by aliens ok so this also we have to deal with that one problem but apart from that it's very clear that the logic behind this universe if it wireless simulation

it would be stupid to say that these aliens were stupid or zero intelligence because I don't even know what zero intelligence would produce randomness complete randomness but it's more like the structure represents infinite intelligence rather than zero intelligence but what if this universe is a is simulated by L so what if this universe a is simulated by aliens the argument you ships through universe beam these aliens are situated if the universe B is also simulated then the argument your ships the universe II and even if there are in finite number of them so what infinity is just a number you can make back infinity into 0 and 1 you know there are that many numbers between 0 and infinity as there are between 0 and 1 I can have a one-to-one

map and still we will be left with the same people there you go you know but here professor the question would be that people could ask and they do ask that look if you're saying that this has to go back to the ground of being is God then you know it goes back to God then what does God go back to is that not part of the same process see what I said was that's why my definition of God was as the most fundamental of aspect of reality which

by definition does not not exist and everything else exists because of that so again the same argument you can have a circular loop if God is not the most fun if the God we have defined as so a God jima and if you have defined as the most fundamental aspect of reality it turns out that's not the most fundamental laws what prop reality it just doesn't change the are you made it just shift 200 you have you'll run the whole loop you just get to another bird and the and you can make you can get an infinite regression of God that's fine you would still end up with the maximal element because infinity is just a number you can have a one-to-one map between that and I think that is how the you know our structure and one and the limiting case would represent board

that's fine you can have infinite regress doesn't change anything and I was gonna say I think that is because classic many Muslim theologians did use this argument of saying Allah one of his attributes how they define God in the books of theology was that he is washable who jeweled that he is the fundamental essence of being and I believe personally that people like Paul Taylor Tillich and other people later on in the 20th century they took this maybe from the Muslim argument saying that the ground of being now because if God is the

mental because you if you juxtapose that with the Aristotelian kind of causation it's going back to causes its depth in some way different because it's a bit more linear so people are saying well okay I mean it's still linked but here it's from these things are emerging it's not like it's not like kind of something like a domino effect that God is that yes yeah yeah I don't like that that argument of first cause and actually you know if you'll read about if you google

my name you might get you might try to deep you fight ideas without even trying to understand what I am saying the reason is because I have argued strongly that we should have a physical basis for a big bang when I was asked does it does board it did God create the universe or God or was it created to Big Bang my standard response has been God made universe through Big Bang and God has done this everything is done by God there is no everything is done like

drinking tea you mean in the God is the most fundamental aspect of reality but the real question that you see this is important since now you're brought you see but then that's going to bring questions like which I know we want to clarify this point that we're making but that's gonna bring questions of freewill into the argument because we can come to that sure sure Big Bang is a

materialistic explanations for it you saying physical consistent interpretation because see what Quran is something very beautiful and it works on the minds of scientists as we are know doing science then we don't believe there are inconsistencies in nature if you believe there are consistencies in nature than science is dead yeah but then why do we believe that they're like let me make this argument nicely why do we make why do we believe that there are no inconsistencies in nature movie my charge is going low what shall we do should we have you got a

charger close by I tell you I want to go get your charger and I'll just have a few words with the people until you bring it back that's and after I get my chart that I also want to talk about what we were talking about before I want to make this distinction between each bar and Bramalea because that will pick a lot in absolutely no room okay fry so people [Music]

see you like my graphics Bieber's right so what is going on people what is going on Ravens see each other in different colors Odin God exists in us so for some reason today the facebook comments don't seem to be they don't seem to be coming through I don't know what kind of a flaw is going on so I'm blinded about what me Facebook

Kent they are saying but I could see the YouTube lot all right so this is definitely very fascinating and and the reason I wanted to get professor dr. Muir on on the show is because this despite it being incredibly profound and complex and complex but these are arguments that really do that they can I mean if you do understand them or you can even relate to part of it it can shape so much of your understanding of

this world so right I feel that Professor is yep just he'll be back with us shortly so I I do and by the way when you're stuck on certain things here do go away and research them on your own as well and remember most the best learning takes place as proactive personal learning that just google questions Google you know subsequent questions just let it you know go down a rabbit hole of learning and that's how one can really amassed so much knowledge professor I'm momento welcome back of

rye are we good to go so before we get into these questions of free will let you know what determinism I want to clarify something because this is something what what makes a big confuse like this creates confusion there's a difference between the two there's a difference between God and linguistic identification of this is very very different so there is one what does that mean for people wandering so this one thing is that there is God ontologically and ultimate reality and second thing is that we are trying to describe that reality in

language by definition this definitely this description or at least by Quranic definitely this description cannot be accurate because quran says no region can comprehend and but this comprehension is what all visits so any linguistic approximation of divine is only an approximation and my personal interpretation two verses like you know Alif LAAM Meem we do not have grammatical meaning yeah I call it a self-correcting code for Quran in the sense that it is a correction against fundamentalism that don't take language don't absolute eyes the language you know what do you call a self-correcting code yeah correcting codes so I call it a self-correcting

code against fundamentalism because you can read these these verses don't have meaning in grammar so they don't have generally meaning in terms of you know in terms of fixing meaning but they are not having a meaning has a deeper meaning and the idea is that even Quran is only a linguistic approximation of the divine don't absolute eyes this linguistic approximation and make it into an idol of divine take it as a linguistic a problem and I will tell you how beautifully Quran actually talks about it it says lazily Malika shaver wasn't even possible there was nothing like yeah there is no

method simply toot of him and he sang that verse for people lasik of Italy shake what was Simeon apostle is Allah explaining that there is nothing like unto God yet he sees and and he is all this verse in detail what's happening here language works by method language works by simply children because that's how we have you all to use language we have evolved to make similitudes of things and that's how linguistic structures work God because language cannot comprehend forward and there is no similar tutor for yet then the second part of the verse

says there he is hearing and seen let's even under understanding this word hearing and seeing a little for what is hearing sound waves enter your here and your information content of the external world boosah light waves enter your eyes and your information content of the external world goes up it is impossible for God's information content to go up because you already has perfect information so what do we really mean when we are saying he is hearing and singing that is what this is there you know on some level these things are common sense on some level but you just never think of them in that way like you

know what you've just said now in on so now when I'm thinking about I'm reprocessing it on many levels it's kind of common sense but I've just never thought of it like that amazing Wow yeah what it really means is this thing you see born for example God's perfect knowledge is something so perfect that you can't even describe even God's knowledge let alone God's being and you cannot psychologically relate to God but when you're praying to God when you are you know remembering God you imagine God to be seeing you you see when you are doing something you imagine God to be seeing you when you are praying to God you might afford to

be hearing you and this is your psychological aid you see this is your this is your psychological aid this is all the attributes of God mentioned in Quran are your psychology you can take to relate to the divine are humanly divine is beyond description this is basically your journey to God and not God's journey to you divine this is the best approximation you can do because how can you otherwise relate to a to to an existence which is perfect in knowledge and it's so absolute that is so transcendental then there is no way you can psychologically absolute relate to it so what you do is you you take

human attributes that have developed through process of evolution and you project its absolute ization onboard this definition of God as active as a perfection of your you know your psychological aids and human attributes that we have associated with certain virtues is called ishvara mean into terminal so this is the gesture just to repeat that just so this this thing this thing this rather this being this idea of God that we when we approximate God in language this psychological aid that we are using is

called as issue in borders by Salima cliquish i which beyond any description where there is no methalone is what is called brahmana yeah i had that's what I had kind of read and I've read another definition as well that when is to do with the kind of cosmos than just being in terms of the cosmos its but then this is now let's come to this idea so we

made a very big distinction between God as the ultimate reality where which cannot be described in language and as linguistic approximation to God in man yeah and from the so from the Islamic so for those of you either just to clarify for you when you've got the ultimate one ways when a lie speaking saying leisa commit Lee Shaitaan what was the meal ba see you've got that pure that the absolute the categorical you know divine which is then incomprehensible so you've got that aspect which you were saying in in a Hindu reflection in some ways is

really Ashford the terminology used and no sorry sorry ace prominent is Brahmin sorry sorry I'm and yet you've got other verses of the Quran that are speaking like and a las hand is above their hand and allies like this and Allah which yeah which is us really as a tool for us to kind of familiarize ourselves with Allah and that in other traditions like the Hindu tradition is evil so okay whatever which one is God the Father

this one issue the ultimate the categorically divine okay okay so even in in Christianity I won't say that this description is even that explicit but the most fundamental aspect of divinity or even its subsequent issuer approximation you can do with God the Father I mean then with the the word becomes something like Quran but that's a Motors Ali debate but we won't get into that next but let's come to this let's come to this interesting point now we come to the question of freedom but you are asking freewill determinism

problem of evil how do I do now that is no no it's no no when you make that distinction sorry thing we did we answer just very quickly did we conclude on that they must be why they must be a physical cause for the Big Bang we concluded on that yeah oh no we didn't we actually were discussing it okay let me come to that one before freedom so so see the way I look at it the way I look at it is if you want to look at it through logically and if I will I want to look at it scientifically and I will show you I will tell you both of you let me start with theology countries politically there is a beautiful verse

in Quran which says you should not find any inconsistency in the creation of a most gracious look again and again do you find any flaw and there is also another verse which says that you will find no change in the Son of Allah Ya Allah o Judah listen it'll light up Tyler yeah yes fortune yeah so let's come to this one let's let's come to this this idea see the ultimate reality is you're like we have seen space and time is only an approximation to reality so the ultimate reality is beyond space

beyond so you would not expect time to be applying to the ultimate reality so you would not see a change in the nature of our atmosphere so given similar situations the ultimate if you know you would have you would expect statistical repeatability in the actions of and then of God from that and this statistical repeatability appears it causes the consistency of effectiveness and this appears to us as lot of because laws of physics fundamentally are derived from statistical repeatability of our universe the idea is Quran provides a metaphysical reason for that static ability of universe is that we

observe universe to be statistically repeatable you throw a stone it falls down you throw another stone it always falls down with the same mass same speed you have the same initial conditions you know your state evolves in the same way and the reason for that is because ultimately everything ultimately everything is just a manifestation of the reality of God but since time does not apply to God you would not see a change in that manifestation so everything would remain unchanged and this is how you know how the universe would remain consistent number point number one point number two is that the there you would not expect you know because time doesn't apply to God you would not expect the nature of God to

change at the beginning of the university would see God would subdue being some flaw and say I need to fix this artificial you see my argument is different from the zalien arguments and a and the D theistic argue but I don't accept death he some I don't accept the Son and the reason is why I do not accept be theism because they make the beginning of universe has a very special point but we know space is tiny just another dimension to space and it's not even that fundamental so why should it don't like and why from personally what is how does it accept miracles for me my denial is not my denial I mean I think causality is an emergent reality of opportunity for all which science is

based but it occurs because there is a metaphysical reason for it with you for causality and that is because God is fundamental if your time so he always show his axe cannot change in time you cannot expect a change in the nature of God so for given a same situation you would expect same results and that is the basis of scientific flow and that is the basis because of which our universe is consistent scientifically speaking again it would be very strange you see how does science work let's go on to how science allows you see you saw that Newton's law for example holds four planets and Newton came up with the law of gravity and it

explained lots and lots of lots of stuff but then you come came to a situation where you know where the my Newton's laws seem to fail the orbit of mercury wasn't explained nicely by Newton's law now there were two approaches you could take you would say why should universe follow a precise mathematical law maybe it only follows an approximate mathematical law maybe there is no precise mathematical no it was a coincidence you could also say maybe this theory became to come you know to computationally competent and I computed property but if you do that if you say well why should universe all my precise law maybe this there is this little consistency nature if you take this view

this would be the death of science then you can't do science because what the view that science takes is that even though we have not discovered this even though we have not discovered this law which explains the motion of orbit of mercury there is always a law if we have discovered an inconsistency it doesn't mean that there is inconsistency in nature this it means that there is a hyper structure of which and this hyper structure approximates to the structure we have been we have been with you you know observing and this hyper structure is more beautiful than for people when you're saying hyper structure you're meaning like a great meta structure

which contains by Newton's law Newton's law can follow from general relativity as an approximation that's what I mean so you believe in the existence of this theory even though you have not proved the existence of this theory you come you know you know it's not that we don't get inconsistent like we have certain theories and there are certain data points which don't pay but you believe that they should fit in a theory that does not exist and this theory should be so beautiful so consistent that ever it should reproduce the theory that were which we know of and it should it should correctly explain these data points but look at this before you have this before you discover the

there is a belief in the existence of mystery there is no logical foundations to that it is just this bleep but it is the belief in this existence of here it is theory believe in the existence of consistency of nature that has led to scientific progress removed his belief science crumbles there is no more scientific in some ways this is very similar I'm just saying or it translates to the argument of saying what how do you justify how do you justify reason always being the ultimate like two to four our understanding and it's because you can't

just because if you if you give a reasonable argument to just a five reason you're just justifying it by itself and and that's obviously so there comes a point where you have to kind of pull it up by its own bootstraps and that's the beginning point coming back in like when we were saying this is

reasonable what we mean is that it's consistent in this given set of yeah I've always this is why I've tried to use the term more reason than logic because I feel that actually logic at the quantum realm collapses as they generally say like things can't be in two places at once so they can't be like this and I felt that I felt that Rize Aristotelian logic anyway I suppose if that's yeah but I felt that where reason is the the ability of a healthy mind to make judgment based on our experience so because our experience teaches us this

we can then make a judgment based on it yeah yeah and there is something called like something where you can have reasonable discussions at Sampath and then there are not pieces which come and sit there either is not corrected sophistication where you can fake debate and that there's absolutely two artists email you when you were saying yes so coming back to belief in the consistency of nature which would lead you to develop I mean Einstein spent so many years developing general theory of

relativity because he believed that there is this consistency I mean I spend so much of my life developing these theories we don't have experimental data points for them just by developing Beauty mathematical beauty and searching for consistency but there is this belief there is this subconscious belief which works on the mind of why I think also it is that there is no inconsistency in the creation and this is why I've argued that this is why when when Allah says about when Allah is is responding to the question that how does creation come about in the Quran he says we'll see rueful are the fun the rule caifa but

alcohol you know you want to know how God began creation why don't you traverse the earth and look around you observe now if if we take Humes and this kind of philosophical argument that we can't really nature I mean just because it happens now you know it doesn't mean it has to happen again really all of the from a religious viewpoint why is God saying that why is he saying look look at this and look at this if if if it changes every decade anyway so yeah yeah I mean this is this belief in the consistency of nature is a fundamental belief whether so more scientists would not linguistically identify it as such but some consciously

this is what works in their mind I mean I will give you a really inconsistent here so stupid it's a more stupid theory that American fundamentalist came up a there I mean if you they were to talk stupid I can talk better stupid I can make theories that everything in the universe were just created two seconds ago with our memories with all the cosmic rays with everything oh yes of course this theory I've come across a disprove it the reason why I would why I would accept Big Bang and proper systematic evolution then this is not because there is anything like there's a missing data point in this theory

because this theory is not beautiful enough and at the sub core at my subconscious I know that universe is created by God most gracious and God most gracious is al-hakim and he is full of wisdom and he would not do something but this argument but this argument which leads to which myth but this argument a copy it's it's not like it can't be kind of I I get the fact that we wouldn't ascribe to it but it can't can it be easily torn apart I mean this thing because I would have thought it's very difficult because it's a kind of

self containing by some scientists like to put it that any theory is good as long as it satisfies data points it's it that's not precisely true I mean you can come up with absurd theories which are ugly and yet satisfied at documents I I mean when I review papers I mean I review other people's work how would I judge whether paper should be published in a really good journal or a really bad you know a lot of published at all if there are two papers so you don't contradict data you know the idea would be that if one theory produces really elegant mathematical structures and is mathematically beautiful I would feel

that this is more possibility to be true than the other one so the way our mind works is this we search for you we have a bias to aesthetics it's always yeah so we search for mathematical yet produced truth as a by-product this is always were this looks a strange opinion but this is actually our like duty in number this is Beauty this is this is this why people want two and three and four wives they they see more beauty in

numbers say justified yeah no my dear you thought I married her you thought I married her fix up no it's just I see the am a overwhelming beauty in numbers you see this three why is that for all my god I'm over well that's beautiful

we'll talk about these issues because one of the things is that you know there are three levels I think that each Islam has to be addressed or any religion specifically some because I don't see some as a negation of other world traditions I see it as a culmination as a summary as the completion of world traditions well III in many extent you know agree with you on that but I don't see as a negation either those who were like it it's it's a completion of what you went before it it's not a negation of would and hence to me that was the

argument of Hartman nabiyeen and that the messenger of God when when people have asked me that look you know oh but does this have to mean these deserve I've said that look even atheists like renowned people who I admire from the literary works like you Val Harare I love his book sapiens but even he in his interviews and I've watched several of his interviews on YouTube when he was asked about world religions can you envisage a new emerging religion and he said look as an anthropologist as a historian as he said that the reality is

that there are they will never be any more world religions like like those unless you mean something different but the world religions have been sealed and the truth is whether people like it or not Islam sealed global faiths there was never to be a global faith that would arise on that level after the emergence of Islam the historical fact in any way that you with that and another way I look at it is that you see human every week we can discuss history Monday I mean I've been doing some work on this but I we can have you say say a feel that you're not doing work on

professional that you can see history as an interaction not divine with humans in the sense that we can come to what how that's a separate matter but you can do that and off short of that was like so divine interacted with human throughout world civilizations and world civilizations are based on these great people who have actually the moral fabric of the civilization who talk of some form of divine and then you you know this this metaphysics of divine and an immediate

application to human human values as translated epistemological in those ages and then Jewish people are special in the sense they form a prototype for this whole discourse Jewish is a Jewish just in case I say Jewish and people think why is he bringing Jews up all the prototype so word of God is given to Moses then there's a systematic interaction the Word of God becomes Jesus so this is different it like the Word of God is given to Moses become Jesus and that anyway Jesus Jesus is the closure of the Jewish prophetic message

but then one thing is left for Jewish profiting messages as as well as the world religions it's the summary of this spiritual interaction of divine with the mankind and that spiritual interaction is summarized in Quran as a state of pure revelation and that just is the last thing that is like the concluding chapter now for us Quran is a living prophet we we interact with it's me I do however I will come to those things again but but let come to these specific things so so yeah yeah we can't decide I'll IQ respected so so just like we

believed in the existence of general relativity as an explanation to or like we believe that there should be a theory explaining our orbit of mercury even if we don't have one because there's this innate thing in us that we should have it like nature should not be inconsistent sure wouldn't you have the same feeling when we come to Big Band I don't think there is a singularity at big bang I think this Big Bang should be completely and perfectly explained by the laws of physics we now can we do that a lot of my work is about that we have do as I told you we have different approaches to quantum gravity each of those approaches can produce

models which can explain big bag none of them but since we did none of these theories are complete we don't have a complete explanation to Big Bang but but we can have models explaining Big Bang I did a lot of work on pre Big Bang cosmology how the clan can you say it's any simple way to explain you know is that none it cannot be translated to simple speak the simplest one is what Lauren's prostate which is inflation that you have an infinite on field Whitaker's because of you know quantum uncertainty you can have small energy

created and then this infinite on will much but you have a problem with that because inflation is this by the way is this ex nihilo this is of nothing missing because I've heard Lawrence Krauss say that on certain in certain lectures that I've heard him say that when we say nothing we don't actually mean nothing we mean like they say you know like now we know if the Higgs field and we know of other things but is this when you're saying out of nothing are we assume in inflation which technically speaking is something called a second

quantize theory you can get creation of energy out of nothing by nothing we mean no substance no it but you crias you may fix it like fix it structure and you can get creation of energy but one of the problems is like with this theory is that it's not x9o in that sense because you pre assume that you know a pre structure in which this hump but then there are theories called third quantized theories which I was not convinced the flood control third quantize string theory is string field theory I just did a paper on that word quantize loop quantum gravity is called group because the group field theory and there's something called mouthfeel by

the way when you guys finish this we're going to send you all a degree in quantum physics and you have many theories of which our third continent in this part is theories you have external you have complete x-men you you start with no time no space just a mathematical structure and then do manipulations in space-time comes up t0 and no time no time no space free time free space and then and then I tell you something interesting I did I wrote well that that has to be the craziest paper I

ever wrote I did something called forth I don't think anything seems crazy to us anymore now I mean we're beyond that level now what you had was I don't think I've ever said this to like some of my work has been translated to popular like what we like prefer popular public especially certain through some articles of physics dot-org and other newspapers but I don't think I've said this before but let me explain so so in third quantization you can have creation of universes from nothing when I did 4th quantization what we had was creation of multiverses from nothing and

then you could have multiverse is colliding with multiverses and annihilating whole multiverse this don't know if I did that interactive multiverse but it's possible but yeah so I did something called fourth quantization pretty full one person asked me that can you enhance the quantization in which you have the structure repeating end time or infinite time I have not built such a structure but in principle you can think of when you say when you say I build these things do you mean you build formulas on computers or you build actual kind of structures on a Coast using software is that what you do mathematical modeling so computer software gets into it but a

lot of it is also analytic lot of it is relations because it's not only Numa like new you can learn some things from your barracks I think I've used a lot of numerical programs with my collaborators but really deep down you use analytical calculations and sometimes think ok mathema into mathematics mathematics works on three levels one is the numerix you see numbers more than that use equations analytically and then more than that you see abstract mathematics so you have abstract mathematics like theory topology and feels like that in which you can make some really powerful general statements so mathematics you know what's amazing is this I think most

of creation he's blind to all of this isn't it is this this is an exclusive world isn't it it's like a I don't think like you could I don't know how you have your daily conversations with people I mean people around you must think oh you see because they say there's a saying that the more you know highly specifically intelligent you are the more dumb you sound to dumb people like that's that's how because two people must be thinking what is he what about you this club is

sometimes the club is so exclus you people working on string theory don't know anything outside string theory and people working on for example loop quantum gravity would not know anything outside that so it's not even X and then these things become so technical that they can't even mutually understand each other and then there are many other approaches to quantum gravity and then they would not know anything as people who do pathology for example sometimes a lot of my work has been to has been just motivated by this way that I tell people from here hey you know you have this nice technique can we borrow it and I get somebody from here you know these guys have this nice technique why

don't you use different groups of scientists that is that is a really interesting but yes so you were saying that to you you were bringing all of this in in saying look there are these presuppositions there are these things they do demonstrate to us through through your calculations as well and you're kind of formulated theories or theorems that look the Big Bang also reflects that there was a kind of

physical predecessor to it if you like like I'm not physical but physics physics related for related two three ways you can do it you can do it as as one of the simplest ways you can do it image do it it is in string theory where you can have two universes colliding in X you see in string theory you don't have four dimensions of space like space-time so three of space one of time you have ten eleven I mention

eleven in M theory so what you have in these dimensions is that you would have these universes which are like brains in these extra dimensions as membranes they would just collide and then you could have creation and that would appear as a Big Mac that would be the simplest explanation that universe would collide and form other universes in loop quantum gravity the universe is expanding it will undergo a phase transition and start collapsing and then it will reach a critical volume and then it cannot collapse below that if the gravity will become repulsive and then it will expand in the in most heard quantized mo models

you can have creation of universe from nothing and in one of the really interesting things I did was you can have creation of universe in this abstract mathematical space which is an infinite dimensional configuration of space of all fields using third quantization and then you can get you can have interaction in them and these interactions can create an entire let universe is just like but there are the many many different ways that's not it's not similar to parallel universes then [Music] the first model we talked about would be similar to parallel universes so like if you see my TED talk to people you have

to check out professors to what happened in that was this is what I described how fans and universes can exist in extra dimensions so in the simplest way you know you don't have two sheets of paper they have like let us imagine them to be ideal two-dimensional sheets they can be parallel to each other on a curve in a third dimension so if you have 10 dimensional space-time our universe can be parallel to other universes in this time by nature sama-sama yeah I mean they've always I feel the Quran always is

I felt that it has so much kind of like amongst it and I'm not saying the majority of it may be a minority but it has in it like this kind of cryptic language sometimes that and amongst that is things like this service um our words and what is meant by this there you know this is the thing you see one of the things one of the ways I what I told like sometimes Muslim doing is the Muslims do is that Morris book I wrote an amazing book on Bible Quran in science subsequently people took that work and they were not even experts in field and they started speaking a lot about and a lot of it did not make sense

but that you know you should really carefully in uttering any sentence like for example the word somehow what in Ferran I have been doing work on it and we can discuss it next time on a talk show I really non-trivial II used I mean it's used for for atmosphere it's used for a spiritual realm it's used for a you know and even in Quran talks of our universe in a multiverse that you somehow it uses from Samoa to dunya when it talks about a physical universe it uses somehow vaudeville earth and heavens and earth and when it uses a you somehow earth is bit and because it can be used for many things spiritual physic our universe or them you know or fourth atmosphere and

when it talks of multiverse it talks of Sabha samehada and by the way that also has certain things in Sufi traditions of going back to Buddhist tradition when you talk of many phases of enlightenment so it's so this is it's it's it's loaded with meaning but sometimes if you have a superficial reading of it it just you just don't appreciate that we can have a complete this week and one daily you know those that naive think that people bring out that for exists just as just a simple example that people might bring out this thing that creation of universe you know put off God says creation of heavens that are in six days and then creation of Earth in two when of course

it's actually stole loaded in meaning but it's just because people confuse the creation of heavens and earth with a separate creation of Earth and with the separate creation of multiverse but if you read it properly like if you as I said make an Al Gore them separate out what each word would mean and separate out what this is and then then see if you can form a correlation this is a very loaded meaning which which we can discuss next time like we can do is my next discussion nicely on what specific verses mean but but for example for this verse I have been working on it for some time before even being able to speak on it what one of the one one thing I would

recommend people not doing is don't speak about things you do not know either borrow from that's fine but don't just just throw out stuff that you don't know because that way you are you may be saying something which is not correct hmm and you may actually be doing more damage to tanks then yeah a lot of this this should not has this medical benefit and then you go on and check it like first of all even you I mean there's argument about if that can be poodle so that I don't see like they were did you get like you have to be very very specific when you do these interpretations very very specific very

very honest right know that it's been you know it's been overwhelming the amount of just the amount of information seriously that's being really poured generously on this episode subhanAllah I think people will have to really take breaks search up word search up concepts and resume you know I wonder a quick question and I know we've been going on for a while and we will conclude because I've been like we have been starting the discussion and getting sidetracked

can I get back freewill predestination and probably more evil because I think that's really going and it would be nice dividing this later you do that really nicely with your videos it is different I will be I will be dividing these in time I was overwhelmed I said to Professor before the before we went live I said I'm overwhelmed that Professor is watching my videos I would not have expected not have imagined that here

we've got somebody so in his world of quantum physics and such you know in that kind of that's to me that's very kind of a very Aneesh elitist kind of world and for somebody from that world to have an interest and watch my videos it's it's a huge it's flattery I'm flattered honestly like I of course I've been deeply touched by Quran and a lot of like Quran has touched me the most the very very deeply and spiritual practices of Islam which are taught about their practices as Javed and he would say our living tradition as as you

would say you know especially not is that zakat this is something you pray but something which you experience something like prayers or fasting and definitely zakat in terms of help these things have really touched me especially the prayers have especially the five prayers are something deeply deeply like if you I'm selling this thing to eat you ask me what is the highest amount of pleasure I have ever experienced I would say you know when you experience Sakina in in Islam Suhaila in Judaism our Holy Spirit in Christianity when I was when you're doing your salat and you remember you you recite Quran and you experience the divine that's the highest amount of

pleasure and you have a very different amount of certainty at that point of course when you go and get that state it remains to you as a memory but that's point it's another level you have no doubt you have complete sir no not even doubt you it's it's a different thing to believe something by arguments and it's a different thing to experience and no it's true at that time you have it you have it you go beyond it's a beyond description you know it the way you know you exist you know this is true but I had read for motivated practices and because of what I had experienced and great respect for Quran but I had zero

respect for early Islamic scholarship I mean I when I read especially a lot of this respect has brought to me if I have some amount of respect now and that would be thanks to move the Abu layth dr. Lesley to you I mean I'm not counting sufi literature like yemeni army at all but a lot of other literature like talking about so i literally like i I thought this is like I didn't have much respect for that but a lot if this if anything of the Abu layth has brought some respect for early

Islamic scholarship in my is not I mean I would of course see it as a human attempt to and compile divine but at least I would not see they're all not cases they're very I used to Korean chicken I'm deeply touched and on it for a minute Freehan and previous destination how do i because i think we brought it two times and this would really fit in with what is another way this would so see we distinguished between Ishmael and Brahma

and we distinguished between lines elemental Akash I know Witten can comprehend him there is no similar truth of him and he's a mean bossy here sense so we distinguished between a God in the most ultimate sense and its linguistic identification that we do in religious scriptures and for me Quran is the best linguistic approximation of divine it by itself shows that it's not a perfect linguistic approximation of divine because perfection only belongs to the divine the fact that you have words like Alif LAAM Meem but you don't have meaning means that you cannot take it as an absolute thing if your absolute eyes the language of Quran you you cannot do

it because we would still be left with a residual sentences we don't have meaning and grammar so it this would be a best approximation of divine having said that any best approximation which does not completely explain the system would break down at certain point you see if you free just like Hookes law would break down because atomic physics cannot be completely described by Hookes law when your spoon breaks down the atomic figure would get an inconsistent result any linguist this is very important any linguistic description of their mind will break now I even extended to experiential

approximations them but specifically to any linguistic approximation of divine would break down and this breakdown of language to describe divine would lead to apparent paradoxes now these paradoxes not exist in divine they exist because the tool we are using which is language to describe the divine is not you know divine is far beyond description so we so so we have to we have to understand this difference between divine and the linguistic temperature you know linguistic description of divine now you could ask the question that can you have a better language which would still have

inconsistencies but less inconsistencies then you're angry which you have which we have bought through evolutionary process to describe our world around us answer to that is yes you see let's go to something really simple like the quantum mechanics of a particle system I can't imagine a more simpler system a single particle quantum system you can't know its position and its momentum at the same time it is not that you cannot know it if you know its position properly and you try to know its movement improperly you will get inconsistencies you cannot do that as

soon as you measure its position you will lose all information about its momentum and as soon as you move major its momentum you lose all information of all this is speaking about the spin and the and its position for quantum particle is simple even you can take it as a spin zero particle just the fact that it exists acts at point and has a momentum you cannot know both of these things precisely if you know one it becomes meaningless to talk about it's not that you cannot know it you can't or some aliens with a supercomputer can know or some aliens with a map very great computer can know it it's not that it's that this information does not

exist you can only extract some information from this system and that's it and if you try to extract more information from the system the system will give you inconsistent results there is only a certain amount of information you can extract from this system because fundamentally as I told universe is mathematical so UK so in the logic built in the logic of this mathematics is that you can only extract some amount you cannot extract all information it's very important it's not let me don't have good technology you might have alien technology you cannot still know its momentum it doesn't know as soon as you know its position the information about momentum does not exist and if you try to ask but now if

you try to ask what is its momentum you will get inconsistent answers and this won't be a good description you can only describe the system by impending mathematically this fact that you can't lose quantities precisely okay now if it true for something as simple as a quantum particle surely a physical system a very simple physical system it surely will should hold true for more abstract metaphysical statements so how would I approach this statement is this way is everything predestined yes can you do you have free will myself I have already extracted on information I cannot tell you anything for its like momentum and position do we have free

Billy yes absolutely yes can you is there predestination I've already spoken everything I've already extracted only I can okay okay with the LK replay on this this part this this thing okay so so you understood how a quantum how it becomes meaningless to talk about position and momentum of a consciousness of course of course something happen as a single particle quantum system you cannot do this you were it means that to describe nature you cannot have precise deterministic language in which you continue you pre assume that you can take 100% information out of the system and yet

remain yet the language yet this linguistic structure remains consistent you cannot do that even for a simple quantum particle okay yep that makes sense you can't do like you can't do this for a quantum particle using mathematics language is also a logical system so I'm saying that you can if you apply the same thing to metaphysics what you can say is that yes everything is predestined but now I can know anything about freewill it's like the position and momentum of a quantum particle I have already taken all the information from the linguistic structure that I can and now my language no more information it's just it's not that like the language breaks down if I try to take any more information how

language is not designed to be that much so I can impose this additional restriction on my deterministic language and it becomes a better approximation to divine I still would say that I can't think of it but it would be possible in consistencies yeah you would get because even this non-deterministic language who should not be a complete and compassed divine no vision can comprehend what is that I am oofty that's a beautiful I do trickle up song what were you trickle up saw that no sight Canon can encapsulate

Allah yet he sees all he kind of encapsulates all old sight yeah and language is a language region so that page cannot in comparison like like under completely understand you cannot completely understand God in language so this is the thing so but I would say if you use this non deterministic language motivated from quantum mechanics you can at least explain freewill and predestination nicely because you can have restriction that you can only take restricted information out of a linguistic structure before it breaks down so if it does because everything predestined yes what about your freewill structure breaks do you have free will absolutely do you tend what about

predestination structure breaks is God all hood yes absolutely is God all powerful structure breaks it is all God all powerful yes is God all good structure breaks this is may I've not seen this kind of an explanation it is very erasing credit is the am I correct this is the the Heisenberg uncertainty principle principle applied to language what I am basically closing is that you cannot have deterministic logical system describing something as simple as a quantum particle it would be absurd to think that a deterministic system could a deterministic linguistic system in which you can

take out 100% information can be used to approximate metaphysical looks questions what then I am proposing that if you use this I Heisenberg uncertainty principle in a philosophical way you can you can have this trick to linguistic structure which which would which would be a better approximation of divine and I am warning that even this structure I cannot even though I can't think of it it it will get inconsistencies because language is not nothing can encompass the divine language definitely cannot hand capacity why that is very well

explained that but I mean that buddies and III fell a very it's a valuable input to the discourse of Allah within Muslim theology because it's it's something that we are you know we have struggled with as a as a as a Muslim Ummah really when you read the books it's always just because they're just saying things which are inconsistent and they'll say something now they'll begin the paragraph with one sentence stating something and then there was completely

contradict finish yeah solution for many things take Russell's paradox I think it was Russell who made it right that can God lift a stone can God because told that cannot live I would break this paradox into two things cannot lift any stone the I cannot make any stone yes yeah a stone can he live - those already extracted on information systems becomes inconsistent language that you see only God is worthy of worship and only God is perfect anything besides God is not

perfect and our problem is we create idols from you know from the from his creation and try to make them perfect as God sometimes idols can be physical sometimes they can be ideas and sometimes they can be language itself I'll tell you something which strikes me very as something interesting and I will tell you this I mean it's again from Quran so Quran says that we shall show you our signs within yourself and in the horizon till it becomes known to them that this is the prophecy absolutely I can not tell you to be in luminoled hawk exactly so there can be signs which can be within ourselves which are spiritual

experiences there can be signs that you can discover as a scientist which are in the horizon which in the structure of the universe and what of them are called ayah but Quran also calls itself I and Quran also causes that Sun and Moon or ayahs of God don't you salute the Sun or moon to see to table so these are pointers to God pointers to divine Sun is a pointer moon is a pointer universe is appointed our spiritual experiences are a pointer Scripture is a pointer Quran is a pointer but we do not do salute to any of them we do stitute to Allah we such perfection only in Allah and it is the idolization of these the ayahs which creates problem if you if

you idolize SIA do you make an idol out of it you can make Idol outer Suns and moon and star becomes a Sun worshipper or a moon worshipper you can become an hai you can make Idol out of the rational structure of universe and that and then you would become an idol worshiper you can make it become an you can make ideal out of your own spiritual experience and that's sometimes how son many Sufis get deviated and you can make an idol out of the sign of Allah which is Quran and that is what happens to religious fundamentalists so all of us but we worship none but God and that I think that is thus Amazings Hanh Allah very well very well said by

the way so yeah okay I think in terms of free will in terms of you know destiny that discussion in terms of how we how do we view the verses of the how we view Scripture in in in our real world as part that we should see as almost like an interacting entity that's what we which is a signifier two words two words

got ya rather than me become and in these verses like Alif LAAM Meem so profound because you see the profit is the problem of religious fundamentalists they absolute eyes the scripture yeah and and the and the problem this is the problem but when you have verses like this which don't have meaning in grammar then they don't have meaning but they're having they're being meaningless is there meaning for example if I tell you that I give you certain instructions to reach a certain destination first instruction is MCT what you won't understand from this is that i don't i

should not become too literal literature about these instructions then I will lose my way yeah I mean you recognize right away there's a symbol symbolism here to some extent language because say if you take a Sun of the interpretation and absolute eye is everything amazing here too in a professor that is amazing that is amazing I've just taken a look some people had put some was the thing about the questions that there is no

yeah that's that's fine I thought there were certain questions linked but no I think they're still trying to digest what's being said but yeah so okay and what he said was what the description you're having of God is I can't be constructed it's not be constructible but this is not the God that Jews Muslims and Christians were like that's not my concern my concern is you know I I don't have allegiance to people I have

like we search why why is it why is it not the god of of of the scripture I would say you see when we take okay like if I may make it explicit ology of Muslims Christians and Jews they do you see I like to stand it the standardized version okay because I do that everything you're saying is inclined with the scripture is in line with the Quran but it may not be in line with some people's kind of perspectives that's different but so so so for me you see this is the thing that

God there is a question of revelation of God which occurs which you know which is one thing which is the foundation of religion but then of course that there is a human development of Scripture I mean revelation is in itself very interest and Quran produces Quran has such a nice explanation to what revelation is I don't think anybody can again discount what quran says about revelation I mean like maybe I can tell you a bit about how I look at revelation and then you can give your take on it oh sure you see Quran says we have revealed to the honey to make its homes

we have revealed to the honeybee this is really important so what what is Quran talking about here you see when we if I when we as humans deal with anything when we are even dealing with when we're building our thought process well what our thought process the main logic works is that it works on such an axiomatic knowledge but there is no way for us to get this equity yeah so we are getting this random automatic knowledge and it is just it's not algorithmic early generated in every way this is just coming oh speaking of intuitive kind of knowledge that we have all this

into not all this intuitive knowledge that we have all this axiomatic knowledge that we have essentially is what represents revelation but then you would say what is specification special about Quran because all humans are most humans haven't you of course speciality of the speciality of Quran is what Quran says itself that it does not mix with the desire lower desires of Prophet and it is not from the share the images you see you can have intuitive you can have this knowledge this knowledge coming in from and then this knowledge now we are talking in abstract terms so what these terms mean I have not defined what it should have been means I am NOT

difference and what and yes you find hopefully we can define these terms better in our next episode let's just say that our sources of information never mind of what they are how they were we may like what part of consciousness we will come to that and that's an interesting discourse by itself but let's talk in terms of the way we will talk in terms of Chrome computer program that this is a program this is another wireless in that program so your your food the knowledge that you're getting from God is continuously mixing with your lower desires and with what is being revealed by sharing you need it you need some kind of a scale of

pure revelation from God to distil what is purer and what is unpure and quran claims to be that pure revelation that is one so i think a revelation is a continuous process but this pure state of revelation has been preserved for us in of course and this is how I take revelation so we have a pure state of revelation and God has had this interaction through human history but its subsequent development is a human interval the details of Islamic pick are human and divided ideals of course of and fitting of the amulet like as much

as I'm touched by Quran ie sometimes end up like some of the it's not like product of the area sometimes it's like what are they really talking about yeah true I mean sometimes the commentators absolutely absolutely agree some people have asked if they could post some maybe some very quick questions I'm just trying to see where the questions are because I can see loads of just random conversations people asking let me see

if I can see some quick questions and maybe we can just you can maybe rappy-doo like a rapid round and we could and then inshallah wrap this up let's see what our people if you I can't see the quote I can see saying give him our questions ever I can see you and give more questions but I can't seem to see the questions here I can just see we do that isn't a question why do we need to believe that everything is predetermined why do we need to believe that okay why do we need to believe everything is predetermined

that's a good question like one of the thing is that what do we mean by everything is predetermined because scientifically speaking scientifically speaking so so again we have to break it down in terms of what we mean by predestination scientifically speaking even if we know the initial conditions to the of the universe or even if we know the conditions of universe thank you even if you know the position of all the atoms right now or all the possibility for bitching about the universe that you know right now can you uniquely determine the future of the universe the idea is not precisely because of quantum uncertainty you

cannot do that but then the question is what do we mean by predestination we are not talking about because isn't the scientific view a heart fatalist kind of wait no with with quantum mechanics you can kind of know you can no probable statements which are most probably true but definitely you cannot you know if you if you want to say that it can you know the precise position of every single atom in the universe after even a even given all the possible information right now of course you can't because because of simple Heisenberg uncertainty you can't even do it for a single part

so we definitely when I am saying determinism I definitely do not mean the laplacian okay but now let's take it one step further when we are talking of information and knowing information we are talking of a structure in space and time determinism means what if I know universe at a point in time at time t1 I can i living inside this universe should be able to know it at point-p - that is impossible but then if we are talking of pre - I already argued in the beginning that space and time is an approximation to something more fundamental so this four fundamental aspect of reality surely cannot even

like cannot have this constraint of time put on it so in that structure of course in that sense there is perfect knowledge of em and then we you know in this bit not from the 8th from the 8th quantum mechanics would prohibit you from knowing it but from a big perspective from the fundamental you know fundamental and pneumatic law perspective you would have perfect knowledge and then which we argued that the fundamental behind this fundamental you to go Dania limitation work was pure consciousness and then definitely here the knowledge would happen I so so in this sense in the sense of knowledge if

you want to make it simple yes God knows everything but even from a scientific perspective we cannot know everything about the universe it's a put it simply I do want to clarify two points we should not be misunderstood when because I had I had to struggle with them when I say God is you know when I say move the most fundamental aspect of universe is God or most fundamental not you know most fundamental aspect of reality is for in other words this consciousness what I should be rather more careful and I should say the best possible linguistic description of the most fundamental aspect of reality is that it is conscious compared to that it is

compared to it being unconscious because really when I when I am saying conscious I'm still making a similar toot see I'm making assembly code based on my consciousness and there is no sense and just to be clear okay you hear when you're saying consciousness you don't do you mean by the the consciousness of God oh yes you mean the consciousness because I I would because I kind of subscribe to this understanding of non-local consciousness but you don't solve just being clear on that yeah okay i make i only use human consciousness as

an analogy to argue for divine consciousness so I do mean and I make a stronger point here I say that when I am saying that God is conscious the most fundamental aspect of reality is consciousness I I would be more more careful and say it's a better it's the better linguistic approximation for Brahman or the ultimate divine or less elemental Akash I is that it is conscious then it's unconscious because even when we are saying consciousness we are making a myth on our consciousness and it's not that God is not calling we've got his unconscious but God is so beyond conscious it is just like God it's not that God cannot see or hear of

course God can see or hear but like his knowledge is already perfect he's already one last comment again I would like to make with determinism and freewill one of the real problems that you might get anything I will simplify it again and we can have a better discussion next time but let me give you the simplified version of it somebody asked me do you think prayers can change your physical world okay do you think God can listen to your prayers and my response was board has already listened to my prayers in the initial conditions of BIGBANG you're like where do you think the noise of the Big Bang was

coming from that was in my prayers made into such a hyper consistent structure that you know this is really interesting that universe is made interest you see we have an off more ality that you know we which Quran talks off like when people were doing bad God punished them and then somebody would say that's not really like you would see the other aspect of reality and say this is all physical phenomena you know with the volcano just blew up not because these people were doing evil but because of natural forces within the earth but I think what the way I look at it look at this whole thing is that there is a hyper consistent structure there's a

complete consistency of physical law and there is a complete consistency of moral law and both of them occur in us in such a way in such a hyper consistent structure then one thing complements the other you know these people do evil things just the air and volcano when the volcano is about to burst and it's like okay new rule on our nude life kind of aim in nodding as articulately as you've said it in physic terms but I've said very similar arguments explaining how these things how these naturalistic kind of supernatural events took if I can call them supernatural just like people I've said that that these

things coincide and that the this kind of hyper structure that you're speaking of you know just fits that description just perfectly yeah so okay I there's a quick question here and then inshallah we'll try wrapping this up one two quick questions people have put here they've said one question is by Abdul Rahman for yet does the professor believe Allah has a location of course has no location I don't even believe location is absolute

as I said emergent property ain't they by definition the most fundamental aspect I don't even believe locate physics yeah I believe you can do physics without location I do that I mean in third quantization you took my professor himself does physics without location see kokujin oseco I mean it would be absurd to think about it I don't know where this idea okay question

place and time is such such a treeview really like our scale dependent statement to make a basically it's stupid in the words of Takashi six nine right so another quick question the it states I'm just trying to see the possibility of finding anything faster than the speed of light good one we have not found anything faster than the speed of light in bosonic string theory we have certain fields like tachyons but they are not supposed to be physical but

in case okay let's put it like that in case you do find something faster than the speed of light can we explain it I think we can what we would require to do is we would like what we would need to break some symmetry at ascetic scale which is called Lorentz mentally he if you do break Lorentz symmetry you can have faster than speed of light I have a collaborator once I wrote one paper with him his name is John Moffitt he was the first student above the salaah he has worked on this faster than speed of night agonies I almost but that's like the theory was that there was the light had light moved faster than itself than the present

speed at the beginning of the universe I almost ended up writing a paper on that but we did not finish the work with somebody else I was trying to do I was trying to do some things something called wheeler duet equation with us faster than speed of light I don't remember why I didn't finish that work but it's like some you know you start many works and the new sometimes end up not finishing the calculation but ever and I also have worked on these faster than speed of light theories I almost ended up writing a paper on it maybe you just reminded me let's just see any other quick questions here let me just

see people unfortunately today the Facebook for some reason feed the comments weren't coming through on here so but the YouTube comments are still so these are Christian idea is like God lives in heaven long okay we were we were determined to have free will I'm not sure the poor a question mark I'm not really sure if that makes a question but I'm sure you've answered that as it is how do you prove the Kaaba is the center of the earth through quantum physics I'm not sure that really is a

question for quantum physics but do you feel the question oh here's a you've got what would you you know the center of the earth is the pore of the earth earth is a sphere a point on the earth cannot be Center gamma is just please toward is a house towards which we towards which we worship and it's a Qibla it's not the center of the earth so this here's a move another really important point here you see when you hear a statement like this

Kaaba is the center of the earth for example let's take this statement per se and you keep repeating these statements without verifying these statements very fanned by verification I don't mean going back to Islamic websites and seeing if an Islamist you like if an Islamic website you know says verify these facts either you understand them and see this is the logic or you go to a neutral scientific site and go back to that and then that should be with that scientific site should refer to a paper published in a pre Review Journal don't quote these facts seriously they do a lot of harm take some time verify it and know what you're talking about

otherwise you just people and then you know what happens when you Quran it's a beautiful structure in itself but when you come up with these kind of things where people are drawn away from Islam because they these people just speak anything sure there's a quick question here and then I will have to wrap this up I know it's gone on for so long and we've taken up so much of your precious time today professor but there's a but there's an interesting question I thought this is relevant so alas this somebody has asked that your thoughts on Donald Hoffman's interface theory that we basically I mean which is

for people it's it's speaking more about that a bit like how you're saying about that we our consciousness isn't designed to perceive things as they actually are reality but I kind of it's an interface for maybe what reality I think that's how I've what are your thoughts on this theory consciousness yeah as I said like I've talked about what consciousness I mean things that I want to infer from human consciousness I think we should have a proper and bigger debate on what human consciousness is maybe in a separate section I would like you leave me at your moment and pacifically then as I told move you have written one

paper already on human consciousness and that has been accepted in every reviewed journal but I want to complete that argument before I comment on it you seem I forget I also want to make it clear what how I was you see if I'm making a philosophically human if I'm making if I'm presenting a known fact if I'm making it philosophically influenced I'm happy to do that if I am making a statement for which I need to have scientific you know if I'm making a new scientific statement I will not be responsible and make it in public till I have published it in a preview pre refereed refuted scientific journal because that way that's at least that said that is given and then there's a

scientific methodology damn it sure so about human I would prefer to leave this discussion till at least I complete my present work on this I mean for for what it matters my perspective on that from what I've understood of it is that it's not problematic at all and makes to me you know makes great sense to me in saying that human consciousness the objective if objective reality whatever is may not correlate with our perceived reality piece I don't really see a problem in that sense in that statement but maybe there's more to the argument

right so right professor shukran it's been an absolute pleasure having you today on mine trap you know I'm just really unpacked so much for us I mean we've gone through right from you know quantum gravity to Gordon's kind of theorem and and the issues that that kind of and that arise from that and how we link that into consciousness and that then moves on into the ground of being the ultimate consciousness in your as you've explained being God the fundamental the very fundamental essence

of being you know at it's very at the ultimate you know even it doesn't go beyond that is God and then moving forward into revelation you've kind of spoken revelation tying that in and then explaining also free will using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle it's it's been overwhelming it's been amazing I'm really grateful once again the he'll say inshallah mccoyryan that you've really given us the time and I do hope insha'Allah we can do this this is just the beginning of many great interactions to come in Charlotte

I am hoping for that too it was a pleasure mostly talking to you I've been following your videos for me I'm flattered is for our viewers or people who watch this that may have an interest in the areas of physics or especially quantum physics quantum gravity that may wish to reach out to you connect with you professor what would you is there a suitable Avenue to take if that if somebody wishes to reach out to you what should they do email me I'm not on any social media I don't even know how it

works and I don't professor is on social media but in a different universe in a parallel universe he isn't killing slaying the social media account but in this universe he's not my name you will get my email I see that's Google yeah if you need to so there you go people if you need to reach out and dude look out for those of you that are academics look out for

professors professors kind of writing these publications in in these reputable journals of physics shocker and once again people thank you for really you know this has been a well worth while but a and a very lengthy session it's been incredibly worth it but people have you know people have really despite it being quite late in the UK they if they're still awake they're still learning I love it guys take very good care of yourselves and and you always know where to reach out to me social

media is the place Instagram Facebook that's it I'm gonna bring up you see after understanding things like quantum you know loop quantum gravity understanding all these things the thing that Professor was struggling with was how do I reach out to mostly Abel a despite me being on all social media it's amazing isn't it that the universe balancing out god I love it man people once again professor much love and

people take very good care of yourselves for salam o aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato he is at the page to subscribe to you as always click the notification bell on youtube people over and out much