But — and it’s a big “but” — beyond interpretations of particle entanglement, there is also new research involving the entanglement of moments of time to consider, demonstrated by the work of Caslav Brukner, Princeton’s PEAR group, and others. Their findings pretty much throw local realism under a bus.

Re: Discrete Space-Time: Discrete chunks of space-time can work (i.e., quantum gravity), but this idea is not without issues. While both String and LQG allow for the possibility that Lorentz symmetry might not hold, and that space-time may have some discrete chunks at the Planck scale, such discretization has yet to be proven because of the Planck scale’s infinitesimal size.

Information loss and (current) unprovability of discretization aside, both discrete and continuous features seem to coexist in the observable universe; it’s a matter of the scale of observation. So, in the end, it may not be a matter of either/or, but a matter of multiple scales.

He may be right.

There are alternatives to Big Bang theory which explain the emergence of the universe and go on to solve many of those aforementioned problems with Big Bang. A growing number of scientists — including astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis, Nobel Laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, and physicists James Hartle and Stephen Hawking — don’t subscribe to the Big Bang theory.

The Hartle-Hawking model suggests that there was no first moment of time. Given the premise that space-time is a continuum, their model makes considerably more sense than the presumption that the universe arose with a sudden start at a precise “moment” in time.

In a continuum, there is no “first.”