The topic does rack my brain a bit. I'm of the opinion that the idea of the universe 'expanding' is simply a place holder for our lack of understanding as humans as to what 'existence' actually is; a baby could realize that there cannot be an expansion if there is nothing to expand
into.
A bit off, but still relevant; I think that further out (like, waaaaaay further out), there may be different sets of rules and different forms of things that we could not rightfully fathom scientifically(though we could imagine), simply because the nature of existence where we are in the universe plays by it's own set of rules. Geez, there could be different life forms created of entirely different elements and different rules to the fabric of space and concepts related to gravity and no-gravity (yet inherently different), and all sorts of strange and bizarre things.
Observably so, it would make sense that space is a vacuum filled with
vacuums, or should I say,
filled-vacuums *avoid the vocabulary contradiction (like gravity in the middle of no gravity, or galaxies), and so perhaps on a larger scale, we exist in a plane with it's own set of rules, where there are other planes with their own sets of rules (warped and deformed by chemical reactions of vast proportions) (think: black hole).
The first cause problem (who caused the first thing to happen in the causal chain) strongly suggests that there cannot be a first cause; And yet everything still exists therefore everything must have always existed. If the universe is timeless and ageless, exists now and has always existed, then there is no first cause or prime mover problem.
^Though this is agreeable,
The notion that things need a beginning and end is a projected bias from human beings onto things.
the idea that things need a beginning and end is not inherently a bias, but rather an observation.
It is not aggravated ignorance in the wake of such topics as these that usher notions of creation and destruction as the only legitimate explanation, but a mixture of innate intuition and a conscious understanding of reality.
The question really becomes: what reason do we have to believe that the universe had a beginning or requires an end?
That being said, all that we understand retains the attributes of creation and destruction. Even things we don't fully understand still retain those attributes; conceptual objects that rip through the fabric of the only existence we know STILL retain the attributes of creation and destruction (black holes).
It is an observable phenomenon that has constantly and consistently been implied in all the aspects of existence that we've come in contact with, whether physically or conceptually. Every single
thing IN existence holds true to the concept, so I believe the question really becomes: what reason do we have to believe that the idea at hand is not
OF existence, as well?
I hope one day we manage to figure out these things and travel to the edges of the universe. Although I doubt that will happen in our lifetimes :c
