I'll try and rephrase your question and then possibly answer it: "How can anything happened in a completely determined system?" It reads that the following is the crux of your argument (which I rewrote for you):
Because of absolute determinism, something like a "law" is observing everything down to
the smallest particle. This means it can know the mind of the smallest particle, and not
that, but also the mind of every particle in the universe at any given point. Hence, two
particles can not "communicate" and create something, because that would go against the
This is extremely reminiscent of Spinoza's account of the universe. In brief, he assumes that there are substances and modes, which are independently and dependently existing respectively. From this, he deduces that there must be one infinite substance (he calls God) that contains all possible things within it in infinite ways (Prop XVI, Part I, Ethics). However, from your cosmological account, it really shouldn't matter from what position we begin in explaining all of existence, since whatever happened happened, and now we're stuck with absolute finitude. So, I will restrict myself to just this claim and attempt to not predicate any particular assumptions for its cause. I will assume that you are personifying "law" rhetorically and not making an implicit assumption for the existence of a God. If you were, then we'd be in a heap of trouble philosophically.
If we are absolutely determined and in accordance to the principle of sufficient reason, then it follows that there is no free will--I cannot freely choose my actions. From your statement,
this means no regard will be shown for "life".
I gather that the lack of a free will implies a lack of moral certainty. Since we cannot choose any of our actions, we cannot be accountable for them? And since this "law" of deterministic finitude assumes the materialization of consciousness, reason, and experience, then all knowledge and thoughts are likewise determined. In all honestly, at this point, I am extremely tempted to work backwards causally to explain from where we originate, but I promised that I wouldn't. Moving on-wards. You did not account for a plenum of matter in the universe, or rather, if every possible point in the universe (including points that contain no matter) are affected. So, I will now consider two cases:
Case 1 (the plenum): If the universe is a true plenum of matter, then we find ourselves in a Leibnizian/Parmenidean system of a monad. Put simply: There can be no difference among everything, since everything is matter. It would then follow that:
it can be a lie, it can be an illusion, it just does not care about providing answers.
Everything we have come to know is an illusion of difference. From this, we have come to the wrong conclusions about free will, "creation", etc.. However, we are all one and imperishable. But, it would then follow that motion cannot be. This was a big problem for Plato. If every point in the universe is filled with matter, then if any bit of matter moves, then there is a difference between the prior position and the current one. But we can't have difference because this would assume that there was a part of existence that the matter could move into and thus contradict both the assumed plenum and the true lack of difference. So, we come to a somewhat paradoxical conclusion that all of existence really has no motion or direction. Everything just is, is one, and is still. If this were the only assumption and there was no account for a beginning of creation, then we could accept pure nihilism. Hmmm.
Case 2 (no plenum): Everything is completely determined, but there are empty spaces in the universe. This case is more aligned with current models in physics than the previous case. Nevertheless, we still have determinism from material finitude. From that we can once again extrapolate various claims of nihilism and meaninglessness. Not very exciting of a framework, huh?
Anyway, your thought:
but i don't think this can be solved
was right. From the conditions you gave were not entirely satisfactory for an certainty of a conclusion. I suggest taking your thoughts backwards causally (what I stopped myself from doing earlier). By working backwards, you'll possibly come to a cause of the existence of everything and thus learn more about the finitude in which you're thinking. Otherwise, we have a nebulous account of deterministic existence, that assumes all things are and are matter, which was historically bonked over the head and thrown into a dream world by Descartes and then later crushed by Kant ("the crusher of everything" -Schopenhauer). So that premise has some philosophical problems too.