I believe science people today have two big cognitive problems that prevent them from evolving: the limits and the absolute.

Limits.

They talk about the cosmos as an infinite space, but what they actually think is "something really, really, really (as many times as you like) big. The problem here is that they still treat everything as finite. Even the universe. The big bang giving birth to our universe? The universe wasn't born. It has infinite existence in the past and future. And it's always changing. The big bang cycle did gather, on gravity basis, the matter in this area, then blew it outwards. It'll happen again. But this was a local phenomenon. The universe is full of big bangs, with "coagulation points" determined by the bigges concentrations of matter (mass). Dilating spheres of matter and energy meet, creating new points where these converge and gain more density than the surrounding space - and so, new contractions begin, with those points as seeds for the new big bangs.

Limits also affect the thinking when we discuss "parallel universes / realities". The trend is to imagine those as separated by shifts in an extra dimension, one we can't perceive from inside ours. But try picturing this: the universe is INFINITE, so the same thing can and does exist in an infinity of copies and variants. There's another me writing this text, but having... one extra white hair in his beard.  There's another you doing whatever you're doing now, in a house identical to yours, breathing in sync with you. Everything exists in an infinite number of copies, and also in an invinite number of variants, each of them in an infinite number of copies. Parallel universes as we see them today? Certainly! The only thing between you and your closest perfect copy is a space so vast, you can't imagine it. And that's only your closest perfect copy on a perfect copy of your planet and in peerfect sync with your time! Travelling between "parallel niverses" means just moving through space so that you land in a version that agrees with your temporal perception.

Absolute.

In an age where scientists accept relativity as a basis for all scientific thinking, one idea os completely wrong and out of line: the existance of absolute values. Like the speed of light (that's the one i've heard about a thousand times). There's an entire system based on this. They even explain time based on the absolute character of c. What is forgotten is that reference systems are arbitrary and any phenomenon can be analyzed only in the context of such a system. Everything we know is based on conventions, yet we pin one thing and say "that one's absolute". Really?!? Like... time dilation, people?!?

Time is a convention. It's the reference system tha allows us to compare change in different systems that aren't necessarily related otherwise. In conjunction (often) with a spacial reference system, it allows us to link separate components that don't interact directly in a manner we can perceive. That's all. Time doesn't flow faster or slower when you travel very fast or stand still, because time is just a measure of change. And change is measured in a reference system chosen arbitrarily. What happens slowly for a human happens extremely fast for a rock. From a shooter's point of view, the target stands still and the bullet is thrown at 1100fps towards the target. For the bullet, the gun pushes the universe backwards and the target with it - at a speed of 1100fps (if the bullet knows hot much a foot per second means). And the mountain where all this happens doesn't even know that the shooter, the bullet and the target ever existed. So... when you think "this is absolute", maybe you should add "in my reference system".