The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanations of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be, 'Seek simplicity and distrust it.'
I like that. But simply allowing my train of association to chug along its own tracks, this thought about science brings me to the issue of cosmogony, and the issue of the apparent demise of the old steady state theory of the cosmos.
The great motivating factor of the theory was the immensity of infinity, the infinite expanse that opened in the past and presumably too in the future. The contrary Big Bang theory, with its definite moment of beginning and its threat of a heat death of the whole-she-bang, cuts one off from that lovely prospect. Also, relatedly, the Big Bang is sometimes defended as a way in which something might have come out of nothing, and THAT is a strongly counter intuitive notion, which inspires a counter move in some minds.
Yet the steady state theory may be too simple a way to get the various conceptions it offers. There may be another way, a more complicated way, which passes through the Big Bang theory rather than denying its validity. The error of Hoyle and the others then may have been that they failed to distrust the simplicity of their beautiful hypothesis.
If what looks like a black hole from the point of view of one universe is in fact the big bang of another, then the universe (understood as a particular continuum of space and time) is one of many in the universe (understood as the totality of that which is the case). Call the latter the multiverse for convenience, and you can credibly posit an infinite duration for the latter, measuring either backward or forward.
Big Bang and Steady State have their reconciliation.