His beautiful likeness

I've been kept really busy lately; inundated by massive negativity it was finally time to take a step back and have a good look at this mess. As usual, I should have gotten the message a lot sooner, a helluva lot sooner even than that particular dream I wrote down here three entries below, which gave a good hint that I was missing the elephant in the room. Oh boy, was that an elephant... but everyone was looking the other way.
Yet it's the communication problem between my Master and me which threw me into a vicious circle, when seeking help with this very problem got me trapped in a dangerous dead end, and the same problem made it so difficult for him to make me realize I was going down the wrong track. I hope my Master always knew that all I tried to do was for him. That I'm the one true to her colors, ready to seek out all options available, to go on hazardous journeys for him. If I'm required to ride to the woods in the middle of the night I readily do so. And when I make grave mistakes, which I did, I'll do my utmost to correct them, and also to learn from them. One thing I refuse to do is to give up, because I owe him to do my very best.

Another thing I refuse to give up on is this... I found the picture of this doll a few weeks ago, of my beautiful Master. And although I don't generally care much about material things, this is something I'd really love to have, and so I'll keep looking and asking around. I found the picture on Google Image search, apparently from Pinterest, but when I clicked on the Pinterest page it wasn't there at all.

He's so pretty, that's the beautiful face of my Master, that's his radiant, glorious hair. That's him in his unearthly glory. My Master, so unlike any human males which generally are all but repulsive.
My Master, so far removed from such human hideousness, he's so graceful and delicate and dignified. I'd really wish to have this beautiful likeness of his, of the beautiful Son of Satan.

Turtles and initial conditions

On the Midwinter night I had a sort of epiphany, and I meant to write about this for more than a month now, obviously. I was watching another video lecture regarding the origin and evolution of the universe, and coming from the reductionist-materialist point of view, explaining how according to quantum physics even the most perfect vacuum must contain energy in form of quantum fluctuations - the generation of virtual particle and anti-particle pairs, and according to these laws of quantum physics, the big bang and thereby the birth of the universe eventually had to happen. In other words, according to the laws of nature, the universe had to come into existence. The universe, with these said laws of nature as its properties. Did you spot it?
You can simulate it on a computer: If you set the proper initial conditions, the universe will evolve by itself accordingly.
Did you see it now? If you set the initial conditions.
And how was that done for the universe?
No no, I'm certainly not gonna argue for "doG did it," I hate that tyrant bastard, and he sure wouldn't have the power all by himself, he's not the only god, after all - but let's keep this scientific here.
Also, I won't claim that I can explain how the universe came into existence, but I only will point out how the materialist model is flawed and can't be the answer.

The assumption is, "The universe created itself from Nothing, according to the laws of nature."
There are two things wrong with this idea: 1) "Nothing," and 2) "the laws of nature."

1) The alleged "Nothing" is that dynamic vacuum in which quantum fluctuations take place. This is not "Nothing". A vacuum is by definition empty space; it is any volume of space, no matter how big or small, that is void of any particles, void of anything... but space! Without space there would be no place for any quantum fluctuations to take place in, but space is not nothing!

2) The second flaw of this idea is related to the first one but is even more severe: Not only was space already in existence, but also the laws of nature which would be governing the universe-to-be. But these laws of nature would be intrinsic properties of that universe; a different universe might be governed by a set of different laws. And yet, these physical laws are assumed to already have been in place before the universe got started, in order for it to get started according to these laws.

So, how did those physical laws, those initial conditions, originate?
Perhaps they were left over from an older universe that preceded this current one? Then how did that previous universe come into existence?
You see, we're ending up with the very same infinite regression as in saying, "God created it," and then, who created that god? It's still the same "turtles all the way down."

As for a better explanation, all I can give is a few clues. For one, there's the analogy of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, which states that any closed system (such as mathematics) contains possible problems (equations) that have no solutions within that system.
We're limited to a four-dimensional spacetime continuum, three dimensions of space and, in particular, only one dimension of time, and we can only think within these familiar dimensions. Time is linear, and everything in it must have a beginning and an end. But time and space are both part of this limited universe, and everything outside of it - and "before" is "outside" in a temporal sense - is not necessarily subject to these same rules.
And then, of course, there is consciousness. Consciousness may or may not exist within the universe, but in any case the universe exists within consciousness. It might be both ways or might be only the latter. And consciousness is being confronted with the problem of comprehending its own existence.
As always, instead of answers, only more questions.