in my continuing quest to kill physics, let me speculate about what has gone so terribly wrong and led to routine claims such as these.
reality is observer-dependent
the principle of non-contradiction is false
the universe has every possible history
truth is what works in prediction
and so on. not that every physicist accepts these particular claims, though they are all asserted by hawking, e.g. but it is also the style of the claims: metaphysical, entirely non-empirical, sweepingly philosophical, wildly paradoxical, and so on. i am going to flatly assert this: no experimental data and no mathematical equation can serve as any evidence at all for any of these claims. you did not get to these claims scientifically; you could not have, and that is obvious.
i am going to speculate that a lot of the super-genius physicists of the twentieth century had a philosophy course or two before they decided on their major, and i am going to speculate that these were often taught by last-gasp german neo-kantians or late blooming hegelian idealists. these were big metaphysical doctrines that they brought to their research.
then they presented their research as supporting these claims. on a generous reading, they are trying to express difficult science and reaching for big metaphors or something. and what i'd suggest there is: go back and develop another vocabulary, one that more literally or flatly or without hyperbole expresses what you're observing, perhaps. gravitate toward the minimal rather than the maximal formulation, the clearest rather than the coolest statement; surely this is what your own supposed method would supposedly suggest?
but they were also creating a sensation. every kid who has been exposed to these interpretations of quantum mechanics has thought that is so super-cool and trippy! and the claims cannot be challenged, because you supposedly have to be a mathematical super-genius even to understand how they got there. but i would propose to demonstrate this, more or less prove it every which way: they didn't get there at all, couldn't have.
really it is quite amazing how smoothly this has apparently gone down for a century; when fichte made such claims, schelling refuted him 48 hours later. but plenty of people who could not possibly believe this stuff or even understand what it would mean to believe it, just start nodding along as soon as you say 'physics'. the super-specialization of the hands-on scientists and the genius image of the high-end theorists kind of stupefy dissent: they know what we cannot. it is a bad epistemic situation for people like hawking: there really isn't enough of an external intellectual community to put a check on the flights of fancy.