The way I used the word epistemology refers to a way of evaluating knowledge, that of the logical paradigm. It is often used in this manner because, as you said, epistemology is the study of the origin of knowledge.

I only wish science were more relevant in today's culture. South Korea, at one sixth of America's population, is producing an equivalent amount of hard-science specialists. No matter what your standpoint on religion is, that's pretty sad.

I and many others have theorized that there are laws of physics that govern the laws of physics. Take for example the beginning of the universe. To cause the Big Bang would require a theoretically infinite amount of energy to accelerate matter to a speed much, much faster than that of light, so matter would expand and the very forces that govern our present-day universe would become distinct. Time itself would be circular in such a situation. In a closed universe, time can be taken to be circular anyway. On the other hand, it's possible that the universe has never existed as a point, but that seems pretty convenient: holding to our current views of time and probability, why would the universe be any more likely to exist in this state than any other?

According to Feynman's sum-over-paths approach to quantum mechanics, a particle not only traverses multiple paths to a destination, it traverses every possible path at once: the path we actually "see" it take is based on the probability that it will take any particular path. This is similar to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, in that it cannot be predicted where a particular subatomic particle will be at any given time by any known method. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics extends this to say that it cannot be predicted by any method. So, consider this:

What if the universe itself operates the same way, and we're a possibility? It would definitely lend some new food for thought, especially regarding spacetime and relativity.