[Aramike]

Only time for a few points:

An we do no know WHY it happened. Neither the Big Bang nor the Ekpyrotic model of explanation tells anything about WHY it happened.

That's my point - our intuitive nature requires a why, a causal relationship. That does not mean that science requires a why.

I think we cannot. We cannot see beyond the distance of light as it has travelled from "there" to "here" since it was created by whatever form of event.

You think we cannot NOW, but it would be foolish to believe that we could not EVER.

And Newton physics versus quantum physics. I would not say the one is right and the other is wrong. Both are covering different parts of one and the same spectrum.

First off, Newtonian physics has been replaced by relativity. Relativity involves the physics of the very large, and quantum physics (the Standard Model) is that of the very small. They don't need to be mutually exclusive (in fact, the Holy Grail of physics is to unite the two theories into the Theory of Everything).

Is it? I am currently runnign through my chapter on gravitation force, and I think it is everything but "weak". It is omnipresent and thus: very basic. Do not mistake it's total value in a given local constellation with its general universal meaning.

You might want to get a new book then.

Relative strength:
Gravitation = 1
Strong Nuclear Force = 10^38
Electromagnatism = 10^36
Weak Nuclear = 10^25

There's a reason the a tiny magnet can pick of a paperclip that has the entire mass of the earth pulling back.

In fact, the relative weakness of gravity is one of the most intriguing questions of physics today, and it was partly responsible for the origination of SuperGravity and Super Symmetry. Furthermore, gravity is not "omnipresent" (general relativity proves this).

By the way, my ideas regarding the counter-intuitive nature of nature are not my own but are generally accepted within the scientific community.

That is not really a philosophical problem of reasonability, is it. what it is is the difference between science and just pseudo-science.

This shows that you missed by point completely. Essentially I was suggesting that a further paradigm shift in science is not only possible, but it is probable. However, there is necessarily a finite albeit quite large amount of data which can be known (else you enter the realm of the supernatural). The positivist (Hawking) believes that nothing can be proven with any sort of absolute. While I understand that approach, I find it to be an unreasonable absolute itself. I believe that any system can be defined absolutely if all data about that system can be known. And while I understand that so-called "measurement problem" would seem to preclude us knowing all data within a quantum system, wavefunction mathematics suggest that we simply need a different mathematical expression.

Ultimately, however the discussion IS philisophical. My position is that we do not yet know if we are capable of abolutely knowing anything. Yours is that we DO know that we CANNOT know everything. Frankly, I find my position more in line with the position you're taking as mine is absolutely void of absolutes, and yours gives an absolute in stating there is none.