Is it necessary to deny physics in order to claim that there is free choice?

Hello Rabbi!
I wanted to ask, the rabbi argued in this lesson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtXD_qOQ9E4 for free choice,
The rabbi presented my understanding as follows:
On the one hand, there is the principle of causality, a rule that stems from information from home and not from evidence.
Opposite him is the principle of randomness, which the rabbi completely rejected.
And on the third side, the choice.
Which stems from some context, but the choice is absolute.
On the conscious level, I choose, and therefore it moves an electron.
So the choice contradicts the principle of causality, not physics.
And the movement of the electron does not contradict the principle of causality, but it does contradict the principle of physics.
And the contradiction is at a local point when the general principle is preserved, and therefore I believe in free choice. [There is still physics and causality, and there is an exception to free choice].

The Rabbi argued that absolutely, if I choose on the plane of consciousness, there must be no physical causality for the electron. Because if there is physical causality, it is the source of my action anyway, not my choice, which has no reason.
My question is, is it possible that the principle of physical causality is still maintained, but at the same time there is my choice that is truly the cause?
That is, our basic premise is causality. And in front of the basic premise of a choice that originates in itself, perhaps it would be possible to draw a picture that in every causality there is some sense of a choice that causes it.

For example, if a stone falls, it falls because of the principle of causality, but perhaps there is also free choice originating in itself {perhaps divine choice} that caused the principle of causality to apply.
By the same token, I do action x that stems from the principle of causality in the full sense of the word, but the more absolute, or prior cause that is the source of causality applies here in this way, and it is my choice.

Perhaps more than that, when I say that my actions are predictable, do I necessarily mean that I did not choose them? Perhaps it is really choice that prevails here, .
That is, does a completely deterministic world necessarily contradict the fact that I actually choose what to do?

Some problems with my words
A. What is the basis for the claim? Answer: That I see the principle of causality everywhere, and that I have a well-founded intuition that every action of mine also involves free choice. And also a more problematic claim that God simply should not be bound by principles, but rather that He chooses to do so freely.
on. How does the contradiction work? Answer: A bit like Kant’s ontology, of the world being finite or infinite, which on the one hand is infinite in my mind and on the other hand is finite in physics. So also on the other hand, in physics and perhaps also in the spiritual world, the world is deterministic. And on a deeper level, the root of things is choice.
third. What is the meaning of my choice if I know what I will choose, {and not that I have to choose, because I don’t, because the principle of choice overrides the principle of causality}.
Perhaps we can answer this somewhat with the opposite question, of what it means that I know what I will choose, if I really chose, that is, the central point is that I want it, and therefore I have responsibility for it, and in addition, I really chose it, and not that I had to because of the principle of arbitrariness, since, as I mentioned, it is possible that what prevails is the principle of choice over the principle of causality.

What I’m trying to gain is that I give room to the possibility that I can explain the entire world perfectly physically, and still claim that all of this physical occurrence is a manifestation of the conscious occurrence of my choice and my life and feelings.

Do you think this is a possible explanation? Can you point out any holes in it? Thanks a lot and sorry for the mess!