We do not know whether the universe has a purpose.

Was the universe created or is it just there? Most religions have answers in their Book, but these answers are not in line with our scientific findings.   

Introducing esoteric historical explanations of the universe would introduce uncontrollable elements of metaphysics in the discussion. We want to respect the mores of physicists who may wish to keep metaphysics out of the discussion. Nevertheless, with the introduction of the theory of Quantum Physics, it became unavoidable. There are serious scientific suggestions now of what might happen in between two subsequent Planck periods while this cannot be observed and thus is not open for objective validation.  

It is also a metaphysical problem to accept Point Particles as having no spatial extension. We observe as human beings the impact of manifestations. We relate these manifestations to point particles. We observe these manifestations compounded in objects around us and are barely able to imagine that these objects are constructs of massive numbers of fundamental point particles. Therefore, what is the nature of a point particle? More of this type of questions are open.

In this study, there are references to subjects that are in a sense also metaphysical of nature, similar to the nonspatial character of a point particle. Such references will be entities, causality, free will, free energy. These notions will require a specific declaration of assumptions and first principles as recognized in this study.

The term entity will preferably be used rather than a point particle. The term entity is meant to avoid the idea that we encounter ā€œparticles.ā€  In this study an entity is something that exists by itself: something that is separate from other things and can be observed by their spatial manifestations.

If for any reason, a reader still would like to avoid the word entity due to an ontological argument, he or she can use the term virtual part or point particle.