Big bang and a black hole?

Sounds like some kind of 70’s porno movie.

The "mainstream“ physicists (not physicians ) and probably also the most "mainstream“ biophysicists would possibly answer your question as follows: The universe is a system of chaos with a small amount of information and thus a great amount of entropy, whereas living beings are self-preservation systems of order and complexity with a great amount of information and a small amount of entropy. This is the reason why living beiings are also capable of doing and making complex things in a very short time, whereas the universe needs a very long time, for example at least 10 billion years for making the first complex living being.

I understand you.

The “small information” of universe was pregnant.
Because was chaos we don’t know who was here lover.
But somehow the “small information” gave birth to
“a great amount of information” . . . . which were adopted
by living beings.
This is the reason why living beings are also capable of doing
and making complex things in a very short time,
===…
Question.
Why the “great amount of information” cannot explain the “small information”
=============…

If 2+2=3, can it have milk?

That is a good metaphor - especially for me, beacuse I like “prenatal” and “perinatal” philosophical issues. Humans have to come into the world somehow, even if their real birth is past.

Yes. One can say so.

I gues you mean: “Why can’t the “great amount of information” explain the “small Information?”

Because the “great amount of Information” is only capable of explaining the medium or averarge issues, but not other issues like the beginning or the end of the “small Information". The “small Information” is possibly too “small” (simple) for explaining it. The example “homo sapiens” makes it clear, I think: Humans often do not have many answers to the simpliest questions of their own dasein. Why are humans in the world?

Humans are not really capable of explaining how, for example, the universe emerged, if it emerged at all.

The humans’ brains are made for surviving.

You certain of that?

We are capable of explain anything we want to explain (it just may not be true).

So, we can have only “the medium or average issues” of information.
=====…

There is no truth, only theories and hypotheses… we go with what works and discard it when it doesn’t.

Pretty much spot on.

“In Physics we trust.” / Tarun Biswas /

Only Physics (physical theories) can logically explain us Nature of reality.
=====…

If, all of the known principles of math and physics break down at a singularity, then all bets are off as to what happens. The best description which could be made that the concept of absolute minimum and maximum can not be represented in those languages (semantic, mathematical), but that transformations and approximations unto limits can still be sustained.
In other words, absolute 0 and infinity are merely ontologically necessary conceptual tools to base these approximations one. Just as of God, having been said, that if He didn’t exist, He would need to be created.

So the ultimate question is, can such approximations be created, and the answer is Yes, as seen in the new
atomic technologies based on atomic structure.

The ‘Fathers’ of the nuclear bomb certainly felt like
God, and wrote to then president Roosevelt of their
fears , when they tried to discourage the development of the bomb.

“Now I am death, the destroyer of worlds” - Oppenheimer

I don’t think the math and physics breakdown at a singularity as the most likely scenario is that a singularity is nonsense.

Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

As to date, analysis of the radiation patterns recorded by the WMAP
spacecraft hints that the universe has a flat topology. This would be
consistent with an infinite physical universe.
/ Cosmology /
===================…

What does being flat have to do with an infinite universe?

There can be no existence without distance (and thus the BB referring to a singularity is nonsense).

Assumed that there is macrophysics, mesophysics, and microphysics, I would say that we can know much about mesophysics, which is - by the way - the main part of physics, but not much about macro- and microphysics, namely something about the beginning and ending of the universe or of the so called „quantum world“. I guess that micro- and macrophysics are nore like metaphysics than physics, because almost everything they deal with is - more or less - theoretical, mathematical, logical, just metaphysical, thus philosophical.

No. If we really were, then we would already know everything.