>>509940567
I see what's going on. You think it's a scientific question that is satisfied by some observational data, but it's actually a philosophical question and only satisfied by an explanation that accounts for what exists *necessarily*. Something cannot come from nothing, therefore what exists either has itself for an explanation, because it exists necessarily, or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist necessarily, then it must have recourse to something that does in order to explain its own existence. That's why saying it's aliens or it's cosmic computers doesn't explain anything because those things don't necessarily exist unless you can show how they do.