If we’re going for a Big Thought, how about: Why isn’t the universe entirely symmetrical?
If it began with an entirely simple, single point, then either that point split in an asymmetrical way (which suggests it wasn’t a simple point to begin with), or it began to send out matter differently in different directions as soon as it became unsingular (which suggests an unevenness in what it created to move into (I know there wasn’t space there beforehand)).
In the Critique of Pure Reason, which I’ve been trying to read, Kant has been asking similar questions.
What was the cause of the first cause? Was everything that happened subsequently cause and effect, and therefore inevitable?
My symmetrical question, I suppose, might be answered if there were an anti-universe to this one, occurring oppositely, in every point the same/reversed, at the moment same/reversed. We went forwards in time, perhaps, and it went mirrorly backwards.
Alternately, if it’s all a multiverse of bubbling infinite possibilities every moment, then that initial moment started perfectly symmetrically, with a blooming into possibility of all directions, all expansions, collapses, stabilities and stagnations.
Our universe is balanced somewhere and overbalanced everywhere.
Kant has started writing two arguments in two columns, with two immediate responses also in two columns.
Hence the cause’s causality, through which something occurs, is itself something which has occurred and which, according to the laws of nature, again presupposes a previous state and its causality, but this state similarly supposes a still earlier one, etc.
That etc. is metaphysically agonizing.
God could be hiding inside the full stop.
But this is the kind of philosophizing we’re meant to give up after we’re done with the late night talks of university freshers on drugs.