Things like the beginning of time? This open access paper doesn’t fill us with confidence but the basic idea is fun:

One of the major issues in general relativity that separates it from other descriptions of the universe, like quantum physics, is the existence of singularities . Singularities are points that when mathematically described give an infinite value and suggest areas of the universe where the laws of physics would cease to exist — i.e. points at the beginning of the universe and at the center of black holes…

The authors used the tools of QFT to construct a mathematical object that can signal the presence of singularities in experimentally measurable quantities. This object, which they have named the “functional winding number” is non-zero in the presence of singularities and vanishes in their absence.

This approach has revealed that certain singularities predicted theoretically do not affect quantities that can in principle be measured experimentally, and therefore remain harmless mathematical constructs.

“If our formalism survived scientific scrutiny and turned out to be the correct approach, it would suggest the existence of a very deep physical principle, so the choices of physical variables are rather unimportant,” Casadio concludes. “This could be consequential for our understanding of physics, even beyond the subject of singularities.”

SciencePOD, “A quantum approach to a singularity problem” atPhys.org(December 10, 2021)

So, from their perspective, science can address singularities by invoking “a very deep physical principle.” Like God?

Certainly not randomness.

This is so mind-numbingly obvious that I almost wonder if it’s a hoax paper.

Easy example: The tangent of an angle goes to infinity at 90 degrees. This doesn’t bother shafts and arms and legs and planets, which merrily continue rotating past 90 degrees. Shafts don’t dissolve, legs don’t jump into an alternate universe.

As to: “so the choices of physical variables are rather unimportant,”

Very interesting mathematical conjecture.

And not that I hold out too much hope that this very interesting mathematical conjecture will ‘survive scientific scrutiny’ and, (after decades of trying by the best mathematicians in the world), finally bridge the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics,,,

,,,, And not that I hold out too much hope that this very interesting mathematical conjecture will ‘survive scientific scrutiny’ and, (after decades of trying by the best mathematicians in the world), finally bridge the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, but what he left unstated after he stated, “so the choices of physical variables are rather unimportant”, is ‘rather important’ to take note of.

Specifically, after he stated, “so the choices of physical variables are rather unimportant,” he should have continued his statement and stated, “but it is the choices of mathematical axioms that are rather important.”

And herein lies the the rub for Atheists Naturalists, the free will of an immaterial mind is necessary to choose and/or create new mathematical axioms,

As James Franklin challenged Atheistic Naturalists, “the intellect (is) immaterial and immortal. If today’s naturalists do not wish to agree with that, there is a challenge for them. ‘Don’t tell me, show me’: build an artificial intelligence system that imitates genuine mathematical insight. There seem to be no promising plans on the drawing board.,,”

Since free will is necessary to create mathematical axioms, then it necessarily follows that It is impossible to reduce free will to some ‘deterministic’ mathematical axiom and/or equation.

And although it is simply impossible to reduce the free will of an immaterial mind to some deterministic mathematical equation, it is also very interesting to note that, none-the-less, free will figures centrally in our understanding of quantum mechanics.

As the late Steven Weinberg, who was an atheist, stated in the following article, “if we regard the whole process of measurement as being governed by the equations of quantum mechanics, and these equations are perfectly deterministic, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”

In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because, via their free will, “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.

For prime example, Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.

Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

Moreover allowing free will and/or Agent causality into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level has some fairly profound implications for us personally.

Specifically, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders,,,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”

December 2021

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-time-for-american-thanksgiving-stephen-meyer-on-the-frailty-of-scientific-atheism/#comment-741599

Of supplemental note, the free will of God, (and also, to a certain extent, the free will of humans), happened to be a necessary presupposition that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe: