Thanks. I suspect that the idea of "nothing" that supposedly provided the condition for our universe is misleading. To speak of "nothing" in that case is to speak of some supernatural mystery. It might as well be God, but this would be a God of the gaps. So I'm not sure whether the initial point of cosmic creation is much of a special case. Roger Penrose's cyclical model of universes dissolves the mystery to some extent. But sure, presently we know a lot more about cosmic evolution than creation.
You might be conflating "intuitive" and "visionary."
Elsewhere I elaborate on what I mean by "unnatural" in my humanistic dualism. I mean "anti-natural," not "metaphysically supernatural." So I'm distinguishing between wildness and artificiality/civility/domestication. Something can be anti-natural in that cultural sense while still being metaphysically natural (given its physical roots).
Also, elsewhere I question the concept of "laws of nature." There are patterns in nature, to be sure, but "law" has too many social connotations to be adequate to nature's wildness.
I meant to be talking about white holes only to illustrate the concept of pure wildness, not to conjecture about the far future. But indeed, make of them what you will.
