https://dailygalaxy.com/2020/10/haw...from-before-the-big-bang-weekend-feature/amp/

“Penrose says that although originally very feeble, those emissions would have been concentrated in our own aeon into spots with huge amounts of energy that he and his colleagues call Hawking points. That concentration comes about, he explains, because “the universe loses track of how big it is at the transition between aeons. The Hawking points would then have stretched during the early universe, forming circular patches with a diameter on the sky about five times that of the Moon.”

 

I think one aspect is the (in)ability of humans to conceive the idea of infinity!

“If space is truly infinite,” observes Dan Hooper, head of the Theoretical Astrophysics Group at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in At the Edge of Time, “the implications are staggering. Within an infinite expanse of space, it would be hard to see any reason why there would not be an infinite number of galaxies, stars, and planets, and even an infinite number of intelligent or conscious beings, scattered throughout this limitless volume. That is the thing about infinity: it takes things that are otherwise very unlikely and makes them all inevitable.”
Max.

 

So, what experiment can test those theories?

Several years ago, the then new editor of Scientific American responded to a reader's question about why articles about "intelligent design" were not allowed.* His answer was that the predictions related to that hypothesis offered no means to be tested. In the very same issue, he had articles on blanes and other untestable theories. I dropped my subscription. I had been reading or trying to read SA since the third grade. Needless to say, I did not stop SA without regrets.

 

Yes, that there are scientific publications out there with an atheist agenda is no mystery to me. One of the most shameless is New Scientist. An SA every once in a while publishes an article that talks about theism as if it were a human delusion. As if the alternative has already been objectively discarded. A true scientist is an agnostic, simply because an atheist presumes to know too much, as Carl Sagan once said.

Anyway, the article does mention that certain currently unobtainable (the limit being our current technology) measurements and observations of the cosmos might support or discard said theory.

 

A true scientist is an agnostic, simply because an atheist presumes to know too much, as Carl Sagan once said.

In the strictest sense, we're all agnostic by default. An atheist believes there is no god, just as a Christian believes there is. A scientist can hold either belief without contradiction. Like all humans, scientists have hunches, intuitions, and so forth on all manner of unsettled (perhaps unanswerable) questions.

A mathematician will soberly tell you that we are no where near to proving that P != NP, but ask them what they believe and most will instantly say P != NP. The irony to me is that most atheist scientists would probably be far less surprised to find out that god indeed exists than to find out that P = NP. The latter, if true, could be argued to have more profound consequences for the universe than even the existence of a deity.

 

The brilliant physicist the world forgot.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201501/physicshistory.cfm