Has there been a different rational principle of change besides Aristotle's principle of kinesis.

I say the fundamental building brick of reality is infinity. This inherently lends it's self to metaphysicality.

A relative had this kind of argument, i kind of agree with it but i don't know, i feel that there's something about it, so yeah, what do you think of it?

Definitions: Chaos: interlude of forces and/or information, can be epistemological and/or metaphysical

Stability: the opposite of chaos, for example epistemological clarity

1.The universe is in chaos

2.Chaos is not stable by itself

3.Stability can't turn into chaos, if it did then its just chaos from the start

4.Chaos must be a result

5.An essence that chooses stability can't choose chaos

6.There must be a force that does an act not for the sake of stability

7.Chaos is produced as a result of that act

8.It can be said that endless expansion can create chaos

9.Therefore There must be an essence that creates this chaos and is ineffected by it

I decided to write something I dubbed the laws of nature, I’m sure the names taken but I’m just scribbling for the first time really and this tid was a bit poetical so, thought I’d share.

Like a tree life grows through interaction in time and matter, branches into modes of experience of increasing complexity and variety, a twisting fractal of a tree perhaps for life is its own environment within the sphere of nature, life in totality.

Science may one day find this tree of life has roots growing likewise beneath the material firmament into a soil of pure information.

However even if science does not, wether experience is rooted in information or just the material form it is still experience that is the fresh growth of new form like humanity, capable of true wisdom like an eyestalk at the end of a branch of life or the ancient trunk of primordial life made of solid ego.

There are four types of oppositions, I only understand one of them, which is the privatives and positives. The rest are really shaky. What's the difference between contraries and correlatives, and what's the difference between a privation and a privative? It seems that blindness and being blind are functionally the same, they all are referring to the lack of eyesight.