Before the Big Bang? Addendum (Origins)

by dhw, Friday, August 19, 2016, 12:28 (3016 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: I don't think anyone would disagree that further discoveries need to be made. And I hope nobody will disagree that until they are made, there is absolutely no guarantee that they will confirm the current pattern, let alone constitute an “integrated quantum plan” which “strongly suggests” that there is a God. You are putting carts before horses in exactly the same way as Dawkins does in describing his atheist approach: “If there is something beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” (God Delusion, p. 15). He hopes his materialistic pattern will be confirmed (and lots of past mysteries have indeed turned out to have natural explanations, thus confirming his pattern “so far”), and you hope your own pattern will be confirmed (though only bits of it have been confirmed “so far”). No harm in hoping, and you may be right, but BBella's alternative (above) remains just as feasible. -DAVID: Point accepted, but I'll take my approach over BBella's.-Of course you will. Dawkins would take his approach over yours. For both of you, that is a matter of faith, not science, though I doubt if Dawkins would agree even on that!-QUOTE: 'What these null results — these non-discoveries — are telling us is something phenomenal and profound: that physics isn't over and done, but rather that the hints of what comes next REQUIRES LOOKING FAR, FAR DEEPER than we're presently looking. That means higher energies, LARGER TELESCOPES, MORE PARTICLE COLLISIONS, MORE SENSITIVE DETECTORS… and quite likely better, newer ideas than the ones we've been pursuing fruitlessly for so long.” (My bold)
"In other words, when you spend a lot of time and money finding nothing, you have the perfect justification for asking for MORE TIME and MONEY to (maybe) find something."-DAVID's comment: Just my point. Up to this point the findings fit together neatly. We have no idea what is out there to find next.-The bold is just my point. Clearly this author does NOT believe the current pattern makes “perfect sense” or represents an “integrated quantum plan”. If you are fruitlessly pursuing confirmation of what you regard as the correct pattern, it is “quite likely” that the pattern is not correct.