A good question, Rezwits, and the answer lies in recognizing that the starting point is different than what you may consider it to be.
But... you are the master of your mind, so you can decide for yourself if my mind makes any sense or not.
To speed up what I am trying to say, I use analogies. I hope you can digest them well.
--
First one is seeing the material result we live in as the omelet. That tells us two things:
A/ There had to be an egg first,
B/ That egg had to get broken before the omelet could be made.
I hope you see that this is a very interesting analogy in light of your question.
Was there an egg indeed? Was that egg a zero state?
What I can proffer is that we actually only have data about the beginning of Matter. We now say that Matter first came around some 13.8 billion years ago.
Important to note that we have no data -at all- about the beginning of Energy, the beginning of Time, or the beginning of Space. So, anyone saying that all started at the same time when Matter came about has to bring support for that claim, because that is a very large claim. We 'just' have data about the beginning of Matter, nothing else.
In the model I use, the Big Whisper model, all we focus on is the first appearance of Matter.
--
The second analogy I use is that of the broken toy. When the winding mechanism of a toy broke, we know a couple of things right away:
* No Matter disintegrated into dust. All the parts are still there, broken, but each piece is still complete.
* If the toy did not get broken too much, we can still play with it.
* The kicker, though, is that the special trick is gone for good.
From this, we can actually say that the prior state of the universe had a trick up its sleeve and now it is gone.
As an example, we can take the 'unified field of forces' and say that the prior state had that, but today we do not have that anymore.
Gödel already provided this information 100 years ago (but physicists kick him to the side because they don't like anyone saying what Gödel said).
I'll give you the example that Gödel provided himself:
Matter likes to converge, and we see this with a planet and a star -- all Matter wants to be one mass.
Matter likes to converge beyond that as well, and we see with solar system and galaxy that all these masses like to converge, but are in balance and will never become a single mass.
Then, and this moves us away from convergence, anything larger than a galaxy and there is no convergence anymore. We see some minor behaviors that imply some kind of attraction between galaxies, but there is nothing converging overall, except for the galaxies that are merging into one galaxy. All galaxies in the universe will never become one large galaxy. Divergent behavior is seen therefore at the very large scale of the universe, or at least non-convergent behavior.
That means that we have two different behaviors for Matter that cannot be true at the same time and yet they are both true. It is the human brain that has to 'see' how it works. Locally, things work differently than at the large scale level.
--
So, back to your question because why would something like Matter that came from something like 'original energy' move back to a zero state?
That is like saying that when money is spent from a wallet (decay) that the person holding the wallet actually desires the wallet to be empty?
No, we love to spend money, but we don't love to have the wallet be empty. The bottom of a system that is based on money will not have a zero state as the natural state.
And we actually see this at the subatomic level. As you know, the subatomic level is actually quite simple.
We see quarks and electrons, and the surprise it then already that quarks nor electrons are self-based. They don't exist as self-based entities.
Not until we have three quarks combining themselves, only then do we see a neutron or a proton. Only with neutrons and protons do we have a self-based outcome, and it is linear in behavior.
Then, because the proton comes with a positive charge that cannot be left for what it is, only then do we get the negative electrons that negates that charge. Electrons are non-linear.
So here is that doubled reality once again. At the quantum level, we have a charged situation, because proton and electron do not annihilate each other. They just neutralize one another in the big picture.
A charged subatomic reality therefore, but a neutral overall outcome in the universe.
Again, we see two things that cannot be at the same time, and yet the mind has an easy time understanding it because the charge exists only at that subatomic level. Local is different from the overall reality.
So, when Matter desires to get back to how it used to be, the frustrating part is that it cannot go back to how it once was. The toy cannot get fixed because there is no one large enough to fix this broken toy. We just have to play with the remaining toy without the special trick. That's the way it is, and I would say to be alive is pretty special already, right?
The broken parts want to be whole, and we can indeed become whole again but only at the local levels (if we work it the right way). Decay desires to back to how it once was, but cannot fully go where it desires to go. Because it is individualized Matter, it cannot control the whole. It has control over its own environment at best, not the whole. It must be quite frustrating, just like an empty wallet is frustrating.
Thanks for asking, buddy. You have some special mind, and I appreciate you are using those gray brain cells : - )
