I would've asked for clues to be revealed once intelligence in the universe evolved to a level capable of handling the probably complex science involved in making some headway — TheMadFool

I totally agree with you, and I also agree that we might not even be far enough along to be able to grasp the clues, if any, that may have been left for us. But its fun to think about and I don't think it rules them out -- maybe we'll come to decipher a code left in our DNA, like the article suggests.

You're assuming that a causeless cause is possible, simply on the basis that anything exists -- this does nothing to refute the claim that all events must have causes, thus that the universe must be a causal loop.

The fact that anything exists still follows a causal loop model, where causal loops as a whole are not create and do not have a first cause - they simply exist. But causality still obeys a logical consistency within the loop (i.e. no event without a cause). So the fact that anything exists cannot necessarily be attributed to a causeless cause as you suggest, and shows that there's still an important distinction to be made between infinite vs finite causality that cannot be waived off as a false dichotomy.

So what you may view as a causeless cause is what I view as the causal loop as a whole -- which is above causality itself.

Did you read the article? That very topic is talked about.

Just as anything falling into a black hole falls forever from its point of view (ignoring death and spaghettification), anything falling back in time to the big bang could also fall forever.

I'm not entirely sure that's true -- I thought that's just a mathematical artifact from relativity which doesn't necessarily apply to reality. Isn't this why relativity and QM cannot be reconciled -- since relativity breaks down at the smallest scales into infinities? I could be wrong, but that's how I understand it.

The transactional interpretation is certainly interesting! Need to read up more on that.