I know you dislike Stenger, but without doubt his book that opened me up to "point of view invariance" demonstrated that all physical laws can be derived from the singularity. The only thing unexplainable is the singularity. (To be clear: You are correct. But we do know quite a bit!)

I'm delighted that Stenger helped you. My problem is his dishonesty, the multiple incorrect statements in his books that are pointed out in the critical reviews. I believe so many mistakes are deliberate because he is a raving atheist, worse than Dawkins. No one can be an intellectually positive as those two in an area whwere all belief must be taken on faith.

Great Sci Am article. Raises the issue of we have no idea why constants have the values they have, and there is evidence that the fine structure constant may vary slightly across the universe:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=inconstant-constants-jan-12&WT.mc_...

Please remember, we have no knowledge where the laws of nature came from, either, just that we find the consistencies that make underlying laws obvious.

Constants are typically relationships derived because "they have to be there" in order for the equations to work. They can be anything from errors to physical realities, depending on how experiment pans out.

I know you dislike Stenger, but without doubt his book that opened me up to "point of view invariance" demonstrated that all physical laws can be derived from the singularity. The only thing unexplainable is the singularity. (To be clear: You are correct. But we do know quite a bit!)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=inconstant-constants-jan-12&WT.mc_...

Please remember, we have no knowledge where the laws of nature came from, either, just that we find the consistencies that make underlying laws obvious.