science probably can never answer

Depends what you mean by "science". Recent moves in cognitive science support the philosophical view that "thing-ness" is predicated on the co-existence of an observer who does the "thing-ing". If on the other hand you wish to answer the transcendent question of "why there exist observers and observed" you are getting into the metaphysics of ontology.

Does science have to account for every interpretation of it? There are people working on the idea of time travel. But it might still turn out that the whole idea of traveling in time is a by-product of a misconception of time. We choose the questions, and to some extent that means we chose the answers.

Butweve defined "nothing" to include various forms of matter before the BB. Its really not "nothing" its the raw ingredients of everything else.

The question Why is there something rather than nothing? presupposes the existence of something, thus making the phrase "rather than nothing" meaningless. We have another thread similar to this, on the question of the objectivity vs. subjectivity of reality. Imagine the world without cognizant beings. Would its reality in that case be as problematical as a "thing" not in the absence of "thing-ers".
To me--at this moment at least-- "thingness" (like reality) is dependent on its properties for its experiential reality. Imagine an apple absent all its possible "properties". What would an "apple" be without its shape, color, taste, chemical composition, nutritional value, etc. etc.? It's "it-ness) would be no more than an abstraction, a vacuous "thing", and this abstract "thingness" would be a purely human construction, a construction lacking all properties except, perhaps, its (conceptualized?) spatial extension.
Perhaps the same applies to "Reality". Any definition of it presupposes its existence (How similar is this to Anselm's Ontological Proof for the existence of God?) But, like, our apple Reality's existence may be problematiccal without its properties. In this thought experiment it would be little more than a purely philosophical entity of which its experential value is no more than what humans construct, and the artificiality of such such constructions is evidenced by the variety of forms it takes across the range of the world'scultures.

The following is a thought experiment that has just sprung from my head with very little censorship. Please do that for me.

The question Why is there something rather than nothing? presupposes the existence of something, thus making the phrase "rather than nothing" meaningless. We have another thread similar to this, on the question of the objectivity vs. subjectivity of reality. Imagine the world without cognizant beings. Would its reality in that case be as problematical as a "thing" in the absence of "thing-ers".
To me--at this moment at least-- "thingness" (like reality) is dependent on its properties for its experential reality. Imagine an apple absent all its possible "properties". What would an "apple" be without its shape, color, taste, chemical composition, nutritional value, etc. etc.? It's "it-ness) would be no more than an abstraction, a vacuous "thing", and this abstract "thingness" would be a purely human construction, a construction lacking all properties except, perhaps, its (conceptualized?) spatial extension.
Perhaps the same applies to "Reality". Any definition of it presupposes its existence (How similar is this to Anselm's Ontological Proof for the existence of God?) But, like, our apple, Reality's existence may be problematiccal without its properties. In this thought experiment it would be little more than a purely philosophical entity of which its experential value is no more than what humans construct and attribute to it, and the artificiality of such constructions is evidenced by the variety of forms it takes across the range of the world'scultures.

because nothing can do nothing more than nothing

There is difference. Time travel is part of science, and to be specific, part of certain physical theories in physics about space, and time, while my two questions are meta questions about science. It is true that some questions about say the nature of time can become meaningless as we know more about time, but how does development in science lead my two "meta scientific questions to become meaningless?

It is a non starter if you doubt the existence of things. The existence of things must be taken as basic, and un-analyzable. If you don 't you might be into idealist philosophy, and I have no interest in exchanging views with you.

What about "stuff"?

Science can't and will not account for every interpretation, because that's impossible. Many things in life are based on subjective judgments, and that will never change. It's the human condition, and the limitations placed on our physiology.

what limits are placed on the Brain , what physiolgy ? non-sense

the Brain has grown bigger and more efficient

Appreciate your the strategies presented. One thing I additionally consider is always that credit cards giving any 0% rate of interest typically bait customers in actually zero rate, immediate acceptance and simple online balance transfer promotions, nonetheless avoid the main component that can useless your own 0% easy neighborhood interest rate as well as putsuper slimone out in the terrible property quick.

The physiology called chemicals that acts on the brain. It impacts our emotions, memory, judgments, ability to learn, awareness, the conscious and the unconscious that drives our actions.

All these variables impacts each individual's life. That's the reason why the choice made by the individual can be limited by their physiology. Genes and environment also influence the individual.

of course

but there is no reason to limits on our Brains capacity to understand things better in the future

You wrote,

That goes without saying. Humans ability to record and advance in technology will ensure our understanding/knowledge of our environment in more ways.