Quote:

Like I said, all science can do is call for a more primitive form that still has no explanation. You're just postponing the question. If there is no reason for this 'deep energy structure' to exist, then why does it? What I'm saying is that nothing really needs to exist at all. There's no reason for it. But it does. You can't postpone the explanation by trying to get more and more basic.



What are you suggesting with this - that science should not try to find answers and explanations by going more and more basic?

Going basic is a science principle. Newton reduced the movement of celestial objects to simple laws of gravity and inertia. Einstein reduced the laws of gravity and inertia to properties of space and time. Possibly a future string theory will reduce the initial properties of space and time to a geometric model, an 11 dimension hyperspace that permanently spawns new universes with different physics constants.

That we don't know the mechanisms yet of the first 1^-43 seconds of the Big Bang does absolutely not mean that we'll never know. And it certainly does not mean that we shouldn't go more and more basic.

Likely we'll find one day that our universe is not a coincidence, but a necessity.