This recognition, that at some point there comes an end to explanation and there is left only assertion, pointing, is too frequently misapplied by Objectivists. Yet, within the past several months, there has appeared a new formulation of basic physical principles which predicts accurately, that is, derives from more fundamental properties, several of the fundamental constants of physics. Similarly, there are theories to relate the origin of the big bang to 'prior' quantum vacuum states. The moral here is simply to avoid surrendering too soon to the unexplainable. We do not know how to know when deeper explanation must cease and we must point to an axiomatic existence.
Science does well to always look further.
This lesson is very applicable, for example, to the rejection by some Objectivists of some of the newer concepts of physical reality because they supposedly contradict macroscopic notions of naive reality. We discussed previously Peikoff's rejection of Quantum Mechanical explanations of physical reality because they 'contradict' the law of the excluded middle. An object may be here or there, but surely not in both places at once. The previous Zeno's Arrow analysis even uses this very dichotomy in the analysis of particle motion qua particle. We are in the presence of a new physical paradigm at the micro level having no counterpart in previously observed macroscopic reality.