Taoism is very interesting to study, but it has nothing whatever to do with physics or cosmology.
I think Taoism, as a philosophy, has important insights to contribute to physics and cosmology in elucidating the enigmas of DM/DE, the nature of the universe, human psychology and reality.
Taoism teaches that nature itself is cyclical: there is no starting point, and no ending point. It’s just like a circle. This is what creates the paradox in logic: you can answer question after question until you find yourself back to your original question. That’s because you’ve gone around the circle and found yourself back to the beginning.
Of course it won’t make sense to the conscious brain, because the entire reason for Taoist writing is to transcend the conscious brain and go deeper. You see, the conscious brain is only a recent (and in fact relatively unsophisticated) development in evolution. There is a whole other, highly unexplored, part of the biology that developed right from the beginning, just by the very nature of its inseparability from the universe around it. It is by this that beings operated before the development of the conscious brain, and it is this which Taoists are trying to tap into.
Taoists purposely say things that are paradoxical and downright confusing, but it only seems that way when you’re analyzing the words with logic. If you understand the words at a deeper level, that of your intuition, or whatever else you might want to call it, it can be very profound. Entire philosophies of life can be derived from just a few single words. But insist on analyzing, and it will seem like nonsense.
Taoism starts with a very basic premise, which I already mentioned: that of cyclical growth. Nothing in the universe goes in a straight line, but in circles. If you nail down a starting point, you have trouble finding the ending point. Likewise, if you nail down an ending point, you have trouble finding the starting point. That is the Way the universe works. So what created the universe? What existed before the universe existed? The only thing that could possibly exist is the Way itself.
To nail down a starting point is to limit yourself. To be finite, something must have a starting point. With no starting point, you have infinity. Since you are nothing more than a piece of the universe, and the universe is nothing more than a piece of the Way, and the Way is infinite, not being a piece of anything, that means that you are intimately connected with something infinite! There is no limit except for that which you impose on yourself by seeing yourself as separate and distinct from the Way, the beautiful, yet deceiving, talent of the conscious brain.
The Tao is infinite, eternal. Why is it eternal? It was never born; thus it can never die. Why is it infinite? It has no desires for itself; thus it is present for all beings. The Master stays behind; that is why she is ahead. She is detached from all things; that is why she is one with them. Because she has let go of herself, she is perfectly fulfilled. Tao Te Ching - Chapter 7
Consider this paradox in mathematics:
Using one to one correspondence, therefore there are the same number of even/odd numbers as the natural numbers. This is absurd. Logic has failed when it comes to infinity.
Russell’s paradox and the liar’s paradox also points to flaws in logic.
Here is Russell’s article on vagueness:
The law of excluded middle is true when precise symbols are employed, but it is not true when symbols are vague, as, in fact, all symbols are.
There remains a more abstract class of words: first, words which apply to all parts of time and space, such as “matter” or “causality”; secondly, the words of pure logic. I shall leave out of discussion the first class of words, since all of them raise great difficulties, and I can scarcely imagine a human being who would deny that they are all more or less vague. I come therefore to the words of pure logic, words such as “or” and “not”. Are these words also vague or have they a precise meaning?
Words such as “or” and “not” might seem, at first sight, to have a perfectly precise meaning: “p or q” is true when p is true, when q is true, and false when both are false. But the trouble is that this involves the notions of “true” and “false”; and it will be found, I think, that all the concepts of logic involve these notions, directly or indirectly. Now “true” and “false” can only have a precise meaning when the symbols employed—- words, perceptions, images, or what not—- are themselves precise. We have seen that, in practice, this is not the case. It follows that every proposition that can be framed in practice has a certain degree of vagueness; that is to say, there is not one definite fact necessary and sufficient for its truth, but a certain region of possible facts, any one of which would make it true.