It is indeed a pleasure to watch so many beautifully produced programmes highlighting the wonders of the universe. Recently I was viewing "Stephen Hawking's Universe" on Channel 4 and found it fascinating (especially the last episode on the origins of creation).
The Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago has now become so commonly accepted as if it is an established scientific reality not to be questioned.
However I always like to take a wider perspective than mere conventional acceptance of present views. Just look at how our worldview has changed so much from even 100 years ago! Is it not reasonable to assume that perhaps even greater changes will take place in the next 100 years making much of what is presently gospel truth seem naive and even foolish!
So even if the Big Bang remains the accepted orthodoxy, I am sure that the manner in which it is understood will have changed considerably.
Indeed it seems to me somewhat ridiculous to attempt to describe in detail what happened during the first nanoseconds of the Big Bang for the simple reason that the linear notions of space and time on which this is all premised clearly could not have existed within the context of the Big Bang itself.
Our very notions of space and time (including the more relativistic notions of Einstein) are always premised on the clear separation of observer from what is observed. Therefore the very registering of space and time requires that the (internal) observer in some way be detached from the outside system (that is observed).
Now clearly in the context of the Big Bang such conditions would not exist, for the evolutionary potential which it contained for eventual emergence of psychic observers (of a physical universe) would have remained indistinguishable from the physical.
Put another way in attempting to travel back in space and time to the supposed beginning of the physical universe we are likewise - though not always realising this fact - attempting to travel back to the beginning of the psychological universe (for clearly our wonderful capacity for conscious investigation ultimately emerged from this initial state).
However once again we can only give a clear meaning to space and time (through detachment of the psychological from the physical aspect) and in the context of what we call the Big Bang this would be clearly impossible. So in attempting to give a linear history in space and time to our universe we are attempting to act as outside observers of an initial event (which clearly is not tenable in the context of that event itself).
Now I would accept that the birth of space and time coincides with the birth of the phenomenal universe. However in this emergent state circular - rather than linear - notions would be more appropriate. Thus any notions of forward movement for the universe would have to be countered by corresponding notions of backward movement. So the best we could say therefore is that the universe emerged out of the present moment which is continually renewed. Furthermore properly understood the very notions of space and time that we use are ultimately purely relative with respect to the present moment. So once again though space and time measurements have a certain validity when we abstract one part of the system from its environment, in the context of the overall universal system they are rendered ultimately paradoxical and meaningless!
Indeed this raises an even more fundamental problem in that the very way we scientifically attempt to interpret the universe is deeply flawed.
This is due to the failure to properly distinguish wholes and parts. Because science is based on mere quantitative type analysis of reality it thereby reduces the qualitative dimension (which is of distinct holistic nature) to the quantitative.
This thereby leads to the notion of one universe composed of many constituent parts.
However when we properly allow for the qualitative dimension, interpretation is much more subtle. Here we view the universe as the intersection of the one and the many.
In other words each part contains the whole (as an individual universe); equally the parts are contained in the whole (as the collective universe).
So what we refer to statically as the universe is in fact a dynamic interaction of many (micro) universes with the one (macro) and equally the reverse interaction of the one (macro) with the many (micro) universes!
And as I have stated on many times to talk about this in correct scientific terms we must incorporate the true holistic meaning of what is real and imaginary (in mathematical terms). Thus from one perspective we have the interaction of many real (individual) universes with the one (collective) universe that is - relatively - imaginary; equally from the other perspective we have the interaction of the one (collective) universe that is now viewed as real with the many (individual) universes that are - relatively - imaginary. Thus the one and the many have both a real and imaginary identity that keep switching through dynamic interaction.
I would also see the very notion of the Big Bang as deeply problematic for the concept of strings.
From the accepted linear viewpoint of the Big Bang, strings could not have existed before this event. Therefore once we accept this we are left with the problem of how they have emerged. And if science attempts to give a phenomenal explanation to this, then clearly it is pointing to something that is even more fundamental than strings.
One alternative would be to accept that strings are created - literally - out of nothing. However scientists would be loath to accept such an explanation which would be inseparable from saying "God created the world".
Of course the best solution - as I have suggested - is to abandon the very notion of strings as having any phenomenal identity. As I would explain it, strings possess merely the inherent potential for both the linear (independent) and circular (interdependent) aspects which necessarily underpin all phenomenal existence.
However properly incorporating such an explanation ultimately requires modifying the very nature of science.
In other words science does not entail mere rational interpretation of reality (at a conscious level); rather it entails the dynamic interaction of both (analytic) rational and (holistic) intuitive processes that operate in both conscious and unconscious terms.
So correctly understood all phenomena (as actually manifest) are in continual dynamic interaction with a fundamental holistic ground (as potential for existence).
So ultimately there is no scientific hope of appreciating the mystery of the origins of our universe without formally incorporating the role of the unconscious in interpretation.