I think the physicists are touchy about our layman's thoughts on this, and they are correct in that there is little to no evidence to support claims like this.

I think the physicists are touchy about our layman's thoughts on this, and they are correct in that there is little to no evidence to support claims like this. However, I too, look at incompleteness, entropy, things like prime number distribution, and chaos, and I can't help but think: it (everything) really does seem to be destroying things only to bring them back again in a novel form. It's intuitive, it's not suggested by evidence, it's based in imagination rather than reason, but I imagine the universe as a matter / energy creation machine in which the forces that tear everything apart seem to be generative. I think perhaps over time we will observe a correlation between the entropic forces at the edge of the universe and the gravitational forces of dark matter in the center of galaxies. I think dark matter is dark because its light hasn't reached us as its trapped by gravity, yet its gravity is there. It's new matter, and we don't know how it got there. I think we'll find the bridge by looking into quantum mechanics, and how particles behave in relation to one another when they're in conditions similar to those described at the point of heat death of the universe, everything broken down, even time. When that happens, what's the difference between any one thing and another? I'm not entirely convinced: "well, nothing at all" is the answer. Do we know nothing at all is stable? The big bang seems to suggest that nothing at all is extremely unstable. I think the physicists are touchy because imagination has replaced reasoning in key areas. Whereas you and I would probably love to be told exactly why we might be wrong about our crackpot musings in a field we upfront claim to know little about.