I would like to take this opportunity to coin Corrick's Law: That any objection to a 'deep level' metaphysical principle based on modern science talk is to be considered bs until proven otherwise. Too many philosophers - Robert Kane, Quentin Smith, et cetera et cetera indulge in what can only be called Quantum Mysticism.
 
Morriston's example does highlight one issue though. There's is something category-mistaky about claiming the quantum vacuum caused anything - it's rather like claiming that Athens caused the death of Socrates. Strictly speaking whatever the casual mechanism at work is it occurs within the vacuum state but is not identical to it - we might be able to say much more about it until our knowledge of particle physics advances further. Of course there are multiple 'viable' interpretations of quantum mechanics, some of which seek to do away with indeterminacy altogether.
 
Maybe what Morriston's argument is really getting at is that there is something prima facia odd about inter-deterministic causation. To alter his example: if one were to drop ten balls of the same weight and, all other circumstances being equal, they were each to reach the ground at different rates it would be odd to claim there was no casual factor responsible for this difference even if one can pinpoint the cause of their falling.
 
As a criticism of the causal principle I would claim that at the very least it serves as no objection to the PSR, since not only does epistemological incoherence follow from the denial of that principle, but also that to claim no explanation for a theory is to leave that theory vulnerable to any other which does offer one: even a really bad e.g. theoretically vice ridden explanation still does explanatory work whilst positing an absence of explanation is just an admission of failure.
 

AKG wrote:

@Daniel
If there is a category mistake, would that means quantum events in a vacuum are uncaused?

No, as I said it would mean that said statement doesn't pinpoint what the cause is* (and I leave it entirely open that we are ignorant of the cause and will remain so till significant advances in physics shed further light on the matter). The PSR arguments are general against any instances of purported 'groundless' causation however.
 
*Depending on what we mean by ‘Quantum Vacuum’ he might be right in claiming the proposition ‘the Quantum Vacuum Caused X’ is equivalent to ‘the Sky Caused Rain’.
 

With regards again to the 1st way did Aquinas ever deal with the possible scenario of a circle of things actualizing each other with A actualizing B which actualizes C which actualizes D which actualizes A, and thus leaving not outside force to act on this actualization circle which would be a possible objection to the 1st way.

AKG wrote:

With regards again to the 1st way did Aquinas ever deal with the possible scenario of a circle of things actualizing each other with A actualizing B which actualizes C which actualizes D which actualizes A, and thus leaving not outside force to act on this actualization circle which would be a possible objection to the 1st way.

I don't think Aquinas considered it explicitly, but Thomists have certainly done so. The essential point is that even if such a loop is possible, it still requires an external mover/cause; it can't bootstrap itself into existence.

AKG wrote:

Has anyone here ever heard of Anthony Rizzi's "The Science before Science"? If so how was it and are there any versions of it online?

I have it and it's good. It's not available online as far as I know, and I'd be surprised if it were because it's such a recent book.

If it's specifically the Aquinas-y type of prime mover/first cause/necessary being argument you want, I'd (also or instead) recommend Michael Augros's excellent Who Designed the Designer?