You do not seem to understand the idea begin that is for sure.
If you think there is another option please let me know.
@Terrapin Station had a similar view but according to him there are just 2 options to explain the universe: it either magically sprung into existence, or it magically always existed. He reasoned the following conclusion:
If both options for an explanation are considered counterintuitive, then, from the ontological realism perspective, there is a strong clue that something is wrong.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 5:01 pm Those are the only two options, and they're both counterintuitive. Nevertheless, there's no other choice.
Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not. Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be.
Similar to your list the two options of Terrapin Station are based on the assumption that the quality (physical) Being (the concept 'begin') is applicable to the universe on a fundamental level.
The idea is that when non-locality is applicable to reality itself, that the physical cannot be the origin of reality. The concept non-locality would demand an a priori explanation for the concept 'begin' which is logically beginning-less of nature but non-the-less cannot be said to be meaningless.
There has been a debate with @GE Morton about the meaning of the term 'meaning'. It is seen here that meaning can be applicable to aspects that lay outside the scope of the space-time continuum.
Evidence (non-locality applicable to 'kind' in Nature):
(2020) Is non-locality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled only by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nonlocali ... verse.html