I read the posts of others and the topic seems to be interesting. In question it is clearly written without invoking any prior idea. Also @GN pointed out the same,
So the question itself is abstract. Now the statement is “X made Y”.
By virtue of the English language, “make” means the following,
So I can say X can create or can construct something that is Y.
About the argument who is greater: The creator (X) or the creation (Y)?
The answer is it depends and cannot be answered without having any prior knowledge about the entities. Even we can consider the case that, it is mother who brought up the son but it is the son who used to take care of the mother in her old age. So who is grater among X and Y is completely situation dependent.
So I can see a cyclic argument in the question, “Does everything require making or maker”?
If I say, X made Y; Y made Z and continues then someone will ask definitely, “Who made X?”
So, here I can invoke the concept of Mass and Energy transformation. If X is an object which was there at the first place and created all the things, then it was made by Energy. (Note: In this case I assumed some prior knowledge though)
Now, who made energy? So according to energy conservation law, energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be transformed from one form to the other. Hence yeah here energy is that entity which exists without maker.
Its my understanding of the answers of questions asked by @karnamdpdurga. Every comment and suggestion regarding the same are always welcome to enrich the discussion.
By bringing in the principle of conservation of energy, @Smitra2021 could help us resolve one of the issues of infinite series of questions “who made this, and who made that earlier one?” wrt to the Creation (the world we are in). Let us call this stance, the energy-as-source- proposition.
@Smitra2021, in our discussion around this issue, we were are also trying to pinpoint the beginning of time, in a way. One stance, emerging from a complex systems perspective, is that everything is just a change in the state of matter, and there is no beginning and end, but a continuous change.
I see, what you provide – the energy-as-source proposition-- as a possible alternative to think and resolve this infinite series issue. Let us continue your line of reasoning. How do you account for say time in this? Is there a beginning of time? Or do you say there is no absolute time and time is always fixed to or wrt the observer?
Do you see what I ask? Else, please ask me to clarify further! Also, I request you to listen to the recordings of the sessions, I will try and pinpoint exactly the relevant sections. But you can quickly browse through from session-8 onwards.
@karnamdpdurga according to me, time is like a stream, which flows infinitely and once it is passed there is no going back. So we can think time as a real number axis. The choice of zero is in our hand, but where we choose to have the zero, the rest of the numbers are fixed. So yeah there is no absolute time and it is always depends where you choose the zero or starting point. Even before the creation of earth there is galaxy and other things. So it is very difficult to account for the oldest event to start a zero of time from there as it may be our limitation of knowledge. Even let us assume we know the oldest event or the starting point of time, then what was before that? Did nothing exists then? We don’t know the answer. Again limitation of our knowledge.
So, yeah if I need to define time, I will define is as a real number axis where we can choose the zero independently and the rest will follow from it.
