Big bang only makes sense to a particular energy/time/space limit. All the energy that came to be all the universe already existed. What happened 'before that' doesn't even make sense. I was told that 'creation' type language is a misunderstanding of the big bang.
Is that not still the way it works?
The quantity of nodes in a branching tree of causal events can grow larger without time or space if there is no reccurance for any given state to be compared to another.
From the "gods eye view" the tree "grows" even if there's no internal information which can be used to recover any space/time prior to reccurance.
We have wiggle room for planck epoch because that time was after singularity, meaning that we have information from that time (however little of it is left).
Closest we got to science here is by extending the time and space axis across the diagrams point of origin. This is where idea of singularity being in heart of higher level universe black hole (or past universe’s collapse) comes from. Its inpossible to verify black hole idea due to deletion of information, but collapse/crunch should be observable in distant future of the universe. Perhaps dark energy still has some tricks up its sleeve?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology#Emp...
The fact that Penrose’s work is possible and ongoing is proof enough that scientific discourse on the matter is open and possible.
Science never has final say on what’s impossible. Until (if ever) we have a grand unified theory that perfectly coheres all we find and ever find, you cannot claim to know of an impossibility.
For example, an easy proof you’re wrong would be simulation theories. In that case, the Big Bang is just a sub-simulation inside a bigger universe. Can you prove we aren’t in a simulation? If not, then you cannot make any claim about how it’s not scientific to talk about before the Big Bang. We just don’t know, so taking the positive is an error.
In context of scientific debate, no Simulation theory exists. Only hipothesis, and a very weak one, considered it’s not falsifiable. Hence its treatment as curiosity and thought experiment by scientific community.
Your hypothesis needs to meet some requirements in order to be scientifically viable to research. You cannot throw out scientific method out of window because it appears „close-minded” to you.
Until proof appears that singularity is not errasing information, scientific approach is to find a proof that there’s no singularity as threshold between old and new universe within a cycle. And argument for that is currently based on interpretation of some features pf cosmic background, which is scientifically debated.