Wow...the incredible expanding cerebroverse...
The issue of backwardness of explanation is not necessarily one of causality or "directionality" of occurrence...only of our requirement that things "make sense". Just because sense can ~only~ be made by looking from today back to the beginning/ending of the initiation of Big Bang doesn't mean that it inevitably occurred in that fashion. Just because we can't formalize the thoughts to explain it doesn't mean that it is a) not explainable, b) pure magic outside the realm of reason and must then be accepted by "faith" c) understandable given our limited comprehension of the "Laws" (immutable) of the universe. Right now, cosmologically, we are still applying leaches to exorcise the evil spirits.
In other words, one man's myth is another man's science (evolutionarily - if it's not a word, it damned well should be!).
Yes. We tell the story of the Big Bang backward because it's the only way it makes sense to us now. It easy to describe the destruction of matter, but impossible (now) to describe it's formation.
Why is a proton what it is and not slightly more or slightly less? All universal Constants seem to be arbitrary. There is a reason for every single Constant's value being what it is, we just haven't figured it out (yet).
Alls I'm saying is that if the beginning looks an awful lot like an ending, why not entertain the idea, for a lark, that it is. Causality then seems less linear and more whole; the only difference being in perspective.
Crazy talk is fun! I'm still searching for some way, any way, of seeing this as testable. While it'll probably never be provable or disprovable, is there any way that this can shed light on some unsolved mysteries? Someone more versed in quantum (sub-atomic) theory than I am might have a clue about how to proceed. I've always been more of a Relativity guy... :)
btw, Tommy, I like the way you think. If yer into this stuff I'd like ya to take a look at my working theory of gravity and let me know what you think of it. HERE is a link to part 4, but all parts are on that page. (Just scroll down to read them in order!)
It gets a little speculative toward the very very end but it's a solid theory, I think, all 'round. I've been developing it over the past dozen years or so. Take a gander if ya like; I'd like to know what you think of it!
The main thing about the Big Bang is that almost nothing existing in our universe applied at the very beginning. It wasn't just an event, it was literally a creation.
I'm also beginning to accept that there are multiple correct answers depending on the science used. I remember an SF story once where a spaceship travelled by staying in place and moving the entire universe around it. According to their science, that's exactly how it worked.
I think Babylon 5 touched on that (in the few episodes I saw) where each culture had it's own methods of spaceship propulsion that were very different from each other.