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.