What was before The Big Bang?
How has life started?
How did intelligent life start?
In philosophy there are two polar extreme views:
a. Nothing exists (reliably) outside our personal imagination.
b. Everything is real in the physical world, but our personal consciousness is just a small reflection of this reality.
My question applies to the second point of view.
The child is father of the man;
And I could wish my days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety
As you can see (and feel?) above, the true poet is delicately balanced:
The poem — here its the great English poet William Wordsworth — will repay study in more detail. For here I will choose few parts, starting with a different one
A slumber did my spirit seal;
I had no human fears:
She seemed a thing that could not feel
The touch of earthly years.No motion has she now, no force;
She neither hears nor sees;
Rolled round in earth's diurnal course,
With rocks, and stones, and trees.
The closing of the first
The Clouds that gather round the setting sun
Do take a sober colouring from an eye
That hath kept watch o'er man's mortality;
Another race hath been, and other palms are won.
Thanks to the human heart by which we live,
Thanks to its tenderness, its joys, and fears,
To me the meanest flower that blows can give
Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.
A more direct answer to your question would be from Jung:
He who looks outward dreams;
He who looks inward awakens
IOW meditate!
(whatever form or system makes sense to you)
Since some literalists want a more literal answer:
A good 3 centuries ago, Kant settled what he was confident enough to proclaim was his ‘Copernican Revolution:’ It is the representation that makes the object possible not the object that makes the representation possible:
Nothing which is intuited in space is a thing in itself, and space is not a form which belongs as a property to things; but objects are quite unknown to us in themselves, and what we call outward objects are nothing else but mere representations of our sensibility, whose form is space, but whose real correlated thing in itself is not known by means of these representations, nor ever can be, but respecting which, in experience, no inquiry is ever made.
Immanuel Kant — CPR
So what things are in their fundamental reality is either:
In Kantian language we are ever stuck in the phenomena — ‘the representations of our sensibility’, the phenomena, we can never know the noumena.
In that sense Kant (like Plato) prefigures (your favorite!) the Matrix: Being wired in(to) the matrix it is a hopeless exercise to struggle to get out... except on its terms.
This harks back to all the multitude of eastern teachings which in different ways assert: He who chooses God chooses because God chose him. vide.
I remember a conference from the physicist Lawrence Krauss that can exemplify a true fact we could never have known about, were the circumstances different.
He spoke about the expansion of the universe and how it's accelerating. At some point galaxies will drift from one another so fast the light they emit won't be able to reach each other (basically, space will expand faster than light can cross it).
This means, astronomers of this era won't be able to see other galaxies, they will think the universe is made of but one such structure, and there's a whole lot of things they won't be able to understand about the universe (including the fact that it's expanding).
It raises the question: what other fundamental phenomenon are we unable to observe because we are in the wrong place or time, if any?
I dont see any plausible way to rule it out, so in general I think the answer to the question in your title is "Yes".
The three questions you provided are ones where our current state of knowledge (and even our reliable methods of building knowledge) can only speculate on those answers. There's no reason to expect that in the future we will come up with a foolproof method of verifying past events. Therefore, there's no reason to rule out the possibility that we will never answer those questions.
There's also more trivial reasons, like those mentioned in the comments. It is possible for all humans to be wiped out in practically any time frame, before we could answer those questions.
It is also possible that the answers to those questions cannot be comprehended by humans, so in that case it also wouldnt be possible for us to answer those questions due to fundamental limits of our comprehension.
You could probably come up with more reasons, but really it only takes one for the answer to be "yes".
Stuff that is real but is unobservable is not really reliably real, e.g.
An outstanding characteristic of modern physics is the application of the principle that only that which is observable is significant. ... the followers of Einstein maintained that if the physical world were regarded as including entities or conceptions which were unobservable either directly or indirectly, there was no criterion for distinguishing the real from the unreal. (Nature, 1937)
So what we can reliably talk about tends towards the limits of knowledge and reason. Admittedly this is unsatisfactory as regards for instance, knowing what is in unobservable space. Nevertheless, all is not lost. Since it can be demonstrated that the contradiction of causality and spontaneity confounds reason, the accessible starting point is necessarily moved back to personal existence which brings the perspective into its proper orientation. From there we can comprehend finitude, beginnings and endings.
Re. "truths about the origins of our reality will never be discovered?"
Thus one might consider, "how has reality originated for me?" Childhood.
