Thanks. Of course, I'm not a theoretical physicist, but my understanding is that there's currently a dispute about the scientific status of much of that physics. There may be too much mathematical description or modelling and not enough evidence or testing. That's largely the fault of the exotic nature of the questions that are being asked.
Another question is whether those mathematical stipulations are virtually theological or religious, or at least metaphysical. Most physicists would say that the models are scientific because the math glues them to ordinary, lower-level science. The math allows scientists to branch out, to see what models of far-flung physical conditions are consistent with terrestrial observations.
I'm not sure I understand the point of your gestalt analogy. What's the perspective that cosmologists are missing? In any case, I think I address a similar paradox in "Atheism and the Endlessness of Explanation."
