There is a philosophical point I enjoyed, which doesn't generalize at all but is still interesting, about the idea that the past is a good guide to the future. (For example, "How do you know the sun will come up tomorrow? Well, it always has in the past.")

Someone pointed out that the relevance of the past to the future is a pure assumption. Even the usual argument that an otherwise unmotivated heuristic is valid -- "it's always worked in the past" -- can't legitimately be used for this point, since it assumes the truth of the question under consideration.

This is actually an interesting point. Because ‘space time’ is something.

We have no idea what it even means to be outside of our expanding spacetime into that ‘nothingness’ because time doesn’t even exist there, so we couldn’t compute a thought if we travelled there anyway to attempt to grok what the hell was going on.