I think that was pretty clear, maybe using something like "currently recognizable quantum mechanical matter" might have been a better term than atomic.
The point in the big bang I am referring to is between the "Plank epoch" and the "Grand unification epoch" here:
Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's mentioned that these points are very speculative and our current knowledge of them permits a wide range of theories, eg, I think "brane inflation" must be a superstring/multiverse model. Point being that some of the fundamental laws of physics in our universe that we take to reflect immutable characteristics of what we recognize as quantum mechanical matter may not be fundamental characteristics of matter (or "what matter is made of") but more arbitrary, relecting the state of this "ultimate" matter under certain (arbitrary) conditions or as a consequence of certain (arbitrary) events.
The reason I find that philosophically interesting is it isolates existence as a more fundamental property of "matter" than anything else; "it" may (perhaps: logically must) exist outside the form which defines space time to us. So the "reason" for existence is because existence is a property of what is (matter, in a broad sense). Sort of circular, but I like it because it means investigations/questions about "existence" are questions about the nature of matter, sans metaphysics and misapplications of space-time based cosmology (which lead to non-sensical problems such as "What was there before there was anything?" -- nothing, ha-ha, but I think a more realistic answer is there is/was no such time period).
Matter is existence, existence is matter. I should start a cult. We could sell little Steven Hawking icons and "GOD HATES METAPHYSICS" buttons.
