(M)ost scientists …. separate the problem into two parts. First, there are the laws that tell us how the universe changes with time. … Second, there is the question of the initial state of the universe. Some people feel that science should be concerned with only the first part; they regard the question of the initial situation as a matter for metaphysics or religion.

In a way this attitude is similar to that of those who in earlier centuries discouraged scientific investigation by saying that all natural phenomena were the work of God and should not be inquired into. I think that the initial conditions of the Universe are as suitable a subject for scientific study and theory as are the local physical laws.

[A]t some time in the past (about 13.75 billion years ago), the distance between neighboring galaxies must have been zero. In other words, the entire universe was squashed into a single point with zero size, like a sphere of radius zero.

[B]y predicting that [when] the universe began … the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite, the theory of general relativity predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down, or fails. Such a point is an example of what mathematicians call a singularity.

The unpredictable, random element [of quantum theories] comes in only when we try to interpret the wave in terms of positions and velocities of particles. But maybe that is our mistake: maybe there are no positions and velocities, but only waves.

Scientists measure time all the way down to the picosecond. A trillionth of a regular second. They figure all kinds of things can happen in that small interval. Universes can be born …