Consider the boolean expression: "This statement is false."

If it is true, then it is false.
If it is false, then it is true.

In order for this statement to be valid, it must be both true and false at the same time. This is a superposition of states. We live in a universe that allows such statements to be made. And it must allow them for quantum-level reality to function and in turn for large-scale material to exist. Basically, this statement partly defines the limits of deductive reasoning, which therefore cannot be sufficient to understand the universe we live in. It doesn't point to supernatural forces, rather it suggests emergent and conspicuous complexity.

Consider the distances between stars. Stars in our part of the Milky Way are so far apart that it is reasonable to state that no starship could travel that distance undamaged, no matter what speed it travels at. To further reinforce the point, consider the distances between galaxies, galactic clusters, and finally the distances between the local group, and more distant groups which seem to be accelerating away from us due to some unfathomable cosmological phemonemon. Are we destined to travel to the stars? It doesn't seem reasonable that we are. Then why do they exist? Surely a universe that spawns life such as ours would support a viable path or vector of evolution. There should be nearly infinite graduations of hominids beyond us, more improved -- indeed many improved people have already been born, they only need time to proliferate and overwhelm the rest. But where are we heading, if not to the stars?

Consider the Drake Equation, which attempts to predict the number of civilizations in the galaxy. Intuitively reasonable estimates range from "a few to many", but seem contrasted against the obvious total lack of any actual evidence indicating any civilization but ours exists in the entire universe. We might not detect life less advanced than ours, so there could be many planets out there incubating plant and animal life, but with no technology yet. If there were, that would suggest they might eventually evolve technology. There ought to be many detectable civilizations. But the sky is silent. Where are they?

Might I suggest they ARE there, but we cannot detect them yet. Rather, they have transitioned, in some fashion, beyond our ability to detect them. Interstellar travel may not be our destiny. The universe may be more complex than that, and more interesting than merely exploring the stars.

All it may take is profound invention. The universe has supported our evolutions and innovations so far. We will think of something, and one of these days we will discover that something profound is allowed by the laws of nature. That's the path we'll take.

A contrarian might argue these statements as a form of 'fatalism', that I am suggesting we are pre-destined to follow the path already defined by the set of physical constraints, or laws of nature. That we were not knowledgable of these laws until recent history doesn't preclude fatalism, but the variation of the characteristics of life might. You might see it as a 'superhighway', there are many ways to get there, maybe even change lanes a few times, but if you keep driving your chances of getting there are pretty good -- accidents happen of course. The fatalism is defeated by not knowing the destination, or the best means of getting there. Perhaps evolution is infinite, there is no destination, and we are simply meant to improve and improve and improve with no end. Does that suggest that the universe is infinite in size and also in complexity? Well, we don't know the answer to that either, do we?!