>>>The question as I see it is what instantiates a physical object at the most fundamental level (e.g., quantum level or at a more fundamental level). Does a physical object instantiate itself or does it get instantiated from a normative law (or algorithm) of nature?>>Of course, you have never adequately answered on how God and time can be fundamental and still have a beginning.>>Mathematics is a web of algorithms, yet you have given indication that you think the laws of physics are reduced into math algorithms. If so, then wouldn't you be committed to the notion that a math algorithm can actually do something beyond just look nice?>>I enjoy your humor Paul, but what you aren't seeing is that nothing has instantiated your equation.>The question that Stephen Hawking and many others are asking is how the equations of physics became instantiated (or blew fire into the nostrils) of the equations. The answer, I believe, is that some higher order algorithm (God, if you will) is what instantiates objects. This is not your concept of God, however.>>Of course, physical objects are instantiated by other physical objects. The question is what instantiated the first physical object - the universe itself. I believe algorithms do that.>This is what I'm saying. Your originating framework is very complex and anthropomorphic (the biggest sin in the 21st century, incidentally - smile). This is not workable as a cause for something very simple: true statements. P: Yes. I think god is limited, imperfect, finite, and willing and eager to learn. He has accomplished a staggering feat so far although rife with imperfections.
H: These are all very odd qualities to emerge from nothing in a finite past, don't you think?