The brief 'answer' I'd theorize is 'fractal emergence', (the longer versions of the theories arise from a complex interconnected group of mathematics concerning multiple dimensions, chaos, superstring, fractal and emergence theories). Emergence theory is technically speculative, (pends verifying evidence), but is based upon existing tangible evidence and 'mathematical proofs' to support the viability of such theories...
I'm impressed, falcon9. Are you a physicist, a fan of TED TV or simply well read?
Let's go with well-read, (since I only watch movies on TV and don't know what "TED TV" is plus, I don't really count taking college-level physics while in the 11th grade of high school after mathematically-demonstrating the the prof teaching the 101 course to students older than I was incorrect regarding singularities ... for some reason, he wasn't pleased that a 'younger' student did so).
Yes, theories are speculative but are supported by evidence to start those theories on their paths. I much rather base my view points/opinions on logical theories rather than blind faith in anything.
I'm glad at least some people can tell the difference between religious
speculations based upon "faith" and rational theories based upon reason. Realizing that fractal emergence theories are complex, it doesn't surprise me when religious adherents opt-in for a 'simplier' explanation, (the "g-ddidit" theory), which has no rational basis.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Scriptures, n. The sacred books of 'our holy religion', as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based."
-- Ambrose Bierce