I like much of the thought in this post, but have a couple comments.
A backward flowing waterfall would violate the law of gravity, so saying no laws of physics are violated is a bit of a stretch.
The last sentence leaves me a bit flat; I'm not sure what you're after. Questions only resemble questions, but only mimic them. I don't understand what this means. It also sounds a little self indulgent.
Despite the fact that our concept of time and causality breaks down at the Big Bang, asking what happened before is a meaningful question. To arbitrarily claim there was no before because we can't see past what we call t=0 does not mean there isn't a t<0. I agree that it would likely be something very different than what we know; however our inability to understand this doesn't mean there is no before. I think it is important to consider, but we may never know. The questioning and pondering may ultimately be fruitless, but I can't support describing the question as meaningless.
A backward flowing waterfall would violate the law of gravity, so saying no laws of physics are violated is a bit of a stretch.
The last sentence leaves me a bit flat; I'm not sure what you're after. Questions only resemble questions, but only mimic them. I don't understand what this means. It also sounds a little self indulgent.
Despite the fact that our concept of time and causality breaks down at the Big Bang, asking what happened before is a meaningful question. To arbitrarily claim there was no before because we can't see past what we call t=0 does not mean there isn't a t<0. I agree that it would likely be something very different than what we know; however our inability to understand this doesn't mean there is no before. I think it is important to consider, but we may never know. The questioning and pondering may ultimately be fruitless, but I can't support describing the question as meaningless.