[Skybird]

The saying amongst physicists is that if you claim you understood quantum physics, you indeed illustrate by that very claim that you have not understood it at all. Quntum physics are so absurd and alogical and anti-intuitive, that you cannot think of it as something that is understood in the ordinary meaning of the term "understanding". I think our thinking and imagination reach their limits there, and our mathematical descriptions remain to be lifeless abstractions that again have no real meaning for us in the world that we experience.

A universe that fluctuates between two Big Bangs, expands and collapses and there goes Big Bang again, just is a theory that shifts the need to explain what was before the Big Bang, at the infinite. Sorry, I am not sure if I put it into correct words.

Hawkings and others tried to attribute characteristics to a nothingness that actually by being attributed with these feature s is no real nothingness, but is something. They think they have solved a basic dilemma and have shown the omni-valid potence of physical sciences that way. But that is wrong - they still speak about an existing something that way.

You could also try to escape the dilemma by trying theoretic construction moving from the universe to an multiverse, universes that exist in huge or infinite numbers inside an even greater entity that I just labelled multiverse. Like solar system exist inside galaxies exist inside local groups exist inside superclusters exist... Or subatomic particle exist inside electrons and neutrons exists inside atoms exist inside molecules exist...

But two wuresiton remain even then: "Why is all this, why is there this entity I cvall myelf witnessing and reflecting this all?", and "Where does the multiverse exist, what is beyond it, where doe sit come from?"

Theories like entropy and Big Bang all represent structures by which we organise our insights and current observations as best as we can. But we should be always be aware of what I already express in the formulation: "we organise them, we are the ones doing an active act of creation there, we create the structure by which we filter our future perceptions and organise the memory of our past perceptions. Whether these laws are valid in every corner of the universe, whether it even makes sense, in a dimensional meaning, to make a statement like this, we cannot say.

I must admit that by all my sympathy for the scientific method, I think it is too careless and undisciplined in the reach it claims validity for. An intelligence of a totally different kind than ours, able to think in more than three dimensions, may come to totally different models of a functioning science, mathematics, time and cosmos. And we would be unable to recognise it as such.

Arthur C. Clarke once said that a foreign equivalent to what we call technology, from a certain level of superiority on would necessarily appear to us as either pure magic, or would bypass our perception completely, like the ant does not recognise the scientists' intelligence observing it, manipulating it and studying Ant City.

All this is fascinating firework in our minds. Distracting us. excites us, entertains us. But in the end, considering the real questions of our lives, and deaths, it seems to be what in German would be called breadless art. And it does not seem to turn us into better humans. Nor do we know of any other species or intelligence on Earth or elsewhere caring at all for our hobby that we take so serious.