General relativity is certainly a very beautiful theory, but how does one judge the elegance of physical theories generally? - Roger Penrose

It is hard to see how one could begin to develop a quantum-theoretical description of brain action when one might well have to regard the brain as "observing itself" all the time!

Do not seek for reasons in the specific patterns of stars, or of other scattered arrangements of objects; look, instead, for a deeper universal order in the way that things behave.

[T]here's a version of this a version of this idea which John Wheeler has promoted, which is that in each of these cycles, since nobody really knows what goes on at the crunch, bang stage... you can... invent any physics you like, and one idea... is to suggest that the... fundamental constants of nature might get changed every time you go through one of these cycles... [T]his might help to explain... puzzles that... the constants have to be just such and such in order that life should exist...[etc.] I always have trouble with many of these arguments. It's not at all clear whether you need them or not. They might be true but we don't know. It may be that these numbers are fixed and they might change through each cycle...[etc.] but our current physics... doesn't allow this kind of thing. These are singular states according to classical theory. Maybe if we had quantum gravity... one could imagine such a scheme...