In these considerations, he refers to three such visions of the universe, which, although they had the hallmarks of science, also left room for various types of speculations. That's why I call them visions, not scientific theories. This does not mean, however, that I deprive them of their right to be scientific. In fact, they gained this right in their time and still retain it to some extent. However, none of them has the status of a theory to which various reservations would not be made and significant corrections would not be introduced. It applies to both Newton's theory of gravity, Einstein's general theory of relativity and Hawking's theory of a boundaryless universe. My general thesis comes down to the claim that even the most intellectually sophisticated scientific theories are unable to provide definitive answers to fundamental questions about the beginning of the universe and its fate.

The subject of many controversies has been both the understanding of the limits of scientific knowledge and the indication of the “boundary” conditions of orders placed for it. In some cases, we are in favor of widening these boundaries in such a way that they can also include religious and quasi-religious beliefs, while in others we are in favor of narrowing them so that knowledge and faith can be clearly distinguished. In these considerations, I cite examples of positions on both issues that have in the past met with both relatively wide acceptance and serious reservations. It is worth taking a closer look at them, because it turns out that in science nothing is decided once and for all, and what seemed to belong to the past sometimes comes back with even greater force. I show this on two examples of contemporary positions on the issue of understanding the limits of scientific knowledge.