We don't know how the universe began, and we will never know

The article discusses the limitations of scientific explanations regarding the origin of the universe, arguing that many proposed theories about its beginnings are “ascientific” because they cannot be empirically justified. The author emphasizes that while physicists often invent complex models—such as cyclic universes, ekpyrotic scenarios, or torsion-based alternatives to general relativity—to replace the Big Bang, these ideas fail Occam’s razor by introducing unnecessary complexity without improving explanatory power.

For any theory about the universe’s past, an initial condition can always be mathematically constructed to fit observations, but this does not validate its scientific merit. The Big Bang model remains the simplest explanation for cosmic origins, though it is likely incomplete. However, attempts to replace or refine it with more elaborate frameworks (e.g., geometrogenesis, multiverse hypotheses) often lack testable predictions and can be adjusted to match any observational outcome, rendering them unfalsifiable.

The author highlights that such theories—while mathematically valid—are akin to “creation myths” dressed in equations rather than rigorous science. They stress that questions about the universe’s absolute origin may inherently lie beyond empirical inquiry, as science struggles to distinguish between infinitely plausible but untestable scenarios. Thus, while alternatives to the Big Bang exist, they do not offer scientifically superior explanations and risk diverting focus from simpler models. The conclusion underscores a philosophical limit: some fundamental questions—like “how did it all begin?”—might defy scientific resolution entirely, akin to metaphysical or cultural inquiries rather than empirical ones. Science can explain the universe’s evolution after the Big Bang but cannot definitively answer what preceded it or initiated its existence.