I can't answer for the rest of voters, but I can sort-of explain my own decission.
In my opinion, the line between "a question that proposes a new concept or paradigm" and a non-mainstream question is too blurry. You introduce a new concept, "temporally asymmetric initial conditions", and as @knzhou commented, you didn't define it at all. For me, this was an indicator to decide that your question lies past the blurry line.
Another common pitfall of non-mainstream posts is that they tend to be arrogant: they have solved one of greatest mysteries of all times where everyone before has failed, and they won't stop bragging about it. Your question is a very mild case of arrogance, but I definitely did not get a good impression the first time I read it. Now I'm inclined to think that it wasn't intentional, but I'd recommend you to tone it down a bit.
All in all, I must say that I had to meditate my decission because I wasn't sure at all. It seems that the community disagrees with me (since the question is now reopen), so I have to admit that I was wrong, after all. No problem.
Nevertheless, closure is not a death sentence for a question, it is an opportunity to rethink, rewrite and improve it. I still think that your question needs a bit of work, along the lines I've explained above, in order to be a good question. I encourage you to do so.