Thanks again for the feedback!

The point I was trying to make, but it wasn’t clear I guess, is that you can tell the story from multiple points of view, the two “extreme” ones being: from “nothingness” to “everything”, or from “everything” to “nothingness”. It’s the same thing really. It’s not that time does not exist, it’s that if things happen infinitely fast, then it’s the same thing as if time didn’t exist. But what happens infinitely fast are, for me, the manifestations of certain “key” building blocks of this reality: the photon, sub-particles, atoms, molecules, cells, humans etc… And the rest is just playing around with these blocks.

As for the inevitability of things, the mere fact that we have a “will” to live is already a sort of “proof” of this. Otherwise, we would happily just die. Why bother struggling?

I will admit that the main problem with my “model” is that I am really sitting between allegories and metaphorical speech as in religion and metaphysics and “science”. I use scientific terminology, but in the end, the model I explain is best illustrated with metaphors. So it’s not very wise. Either you’re purely scientific, or you’re allegorical, but trying to mix both doesn’t appear too good, I find. I’ve learned this the hard way. Trying to “prove” that this model is the “truth” with scientific arguments is a dead end. It’s just trying to harness the “dogma” of the day to shove ideas down people’s throats because “it’s science”… Ultimately, any theory or words will fall short of describing infinity and eternity. But we can get just a bit closer then we are now! :-)