Some would say that no longer requiring such absolutism of knowledge has been one of the major achievements since Parmenides.

Obviously the literal reading is no more but has the deeper problem of 'being' actually been understood or are we just much better at 'explaining it away'?

The crux of Hawkins theory is exactly that problem. How does 'something 'come into existence' from nothing? The answers 'seem' to lie somewhere in understanding 'quantum observer theory' and discovering 'dark matter or ante matter'. Which to me seems to take us back again to search for the single particle of matter and the need to open ourselves to some form of dualism.

I'd say that nothing is explained in a "deep" or "ideal" sense of explanation. Maybe there is progress in recognizing the futility of absolute questions. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" By the considering the form of what I'm tempted to call any possible answer, the "why" involved begins to smell lyrical rather than functional.

Anyway, I think most of us just turn toward the technical/practical problems where a certain kind of progress is undeniable. And even the pure problems we leave behind, profound questions or confused pseudo-questions (according to mood or perspective), can themselves be described as status technology. "I'm the noble sort of mind that thinks beyond utility, so give me some food and a quiet room, please."

Wouldn't you say that the problem with the 'big bang' theory is Parmenidian? How did all of this matter come into existence from nothing?
We start to look again at 'matter' and try to discover 'anti-matter' as an answer, how can this not be seen as a return to dualistic principles?

In trying to solve this ancient problem we are pushed towards quantum physics to give us answers, but quantum physics requires an 'observer' as a causal influence which would seem to take right back to that other ancient, unanswered question about the existence of God.

Where is the progress since the first philosophers asked the same questions?