Meaning of the universe

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

wrong answer.....

Universe is not thinking; mankind is.

The knowledge of mankind is evolving; to define life (the meaning of).

From philosophies, religions and even sciences are and have all maintained and underlying concept of 'defining the human experience' of life.


Prove me wrong!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Says who?
I've read a similar thought about self-consciousness by Robert Laing, but it was simply about humans; extending the idea to something like the universe, on which there are multitudes of metaphysical and physical theories seems illogical. Also, though the idea is wild, how can you move to the next sentence without eliminating the possibility of the universe being self-aware? What if (big big if here) the gaia theory could be extended to the whole cosmos, and it could even be proven that the universe behaves as a conscious living entity?:bugeye:

What if there are other things aware of the universe? They would all, by your logic, be the meaning of it to themselves... but then suppose they met.. hence they would know there are other things aware of the universe and hence the self-declared meaning of it. What/who then would be the meaning of the universe? Or would the meaning of it be the fateful meeting of such sentient beings?

Plus, by this logic, all inanimate processes unknown to us right now should be meaningless... There could be some grand, intricate laws governing reality, schematic systems dictating our lives that haven't been uncovered by any human knowledge system.. does that mean they're meaningless? And if they are discovered, would they suddenly become meaningful?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bishadi, you've made a common mistake. You have elevated the human being to an undeserving level. Separate from the universe and to either just below God or as in His apparent absence, to Godlike status.

You say the universe is not thinking. Well that's not quite right. All living things and even life itself is a product of this universe. Its either in the construction of living things or in providing the spark of life. Since we are composed of the same parts that permeate the heavens then it it can be said the universe is thinking....at least through us. We are a component of the universe. Figure out the universe and you'll figure us out too.

 

Bishadi:

Yes, in the long run, the purpose of life would then be to enable eternal life or as a necessary step towards that goal. Since there would be no meaning for the single person if he didn't live forever.

Crunchy Cat:

Yes, importance needs subjective awareness. If existence itself were aware (perhaps self-defined) then of course meaning could be said to be objective, since it could be shared throughout existence - or if there is a higher awareness that encompasses it all.



StrangerInAStrangeLa:

Ehm...yes it does. Since there would be no meaning at all for you if you didn't live forever. At the end you would die, and whatever meaning you had will be gone with you. Only when we live forever can meaning be fulfilled. Subjective meaning for starters.

thinking:

Yes, there is meaning in simply existing, I agree, to experience anything is a great deal of meaning compared with nothing. The Universe is of course about many things, both visible and the invisible. In fact reality encompasses not only the objective, but also the subjective, it all takes place in reality.


It takes awareness for the universe to have meaning, Crunchy Cat used a better word than I did, which is 'subjective'. Meaning is subjective and is only important if you are aware (or if it leads to awareness, or has an effect on anything that has awareness).

Oh, I didn't mean to say that there aren't bad things, as far as we know we are the meaning of the universe, since we are aware, if there are other beings that are aware then we share the meaning with them. The simple 'act' of experiencing things is enough to give us meaning, and to give meaning to the universe. At least meaning that applies to us, but if the universe are aware in some way then that meaning can also be applied to the universe.

Beautiful things does have real meaning, in the sense that there are a reason for them to be beautiful or they wouldn't be. Beauty seldom arises by chance alone.




PsychoticEpisode:

If something is hard to understand then it might seem random.

I wouldn't say that.

Millions? Make that quadrillions. The chance that it was you that got to be must be a value in 1 to the order of the mass of the universe * c ^ 2 or something (should cover all energy combinations right?)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Or it was 1 to 1. Perhaps it isn't the body configuration that selects the soul (in which case there would be a soul for each body possible). That's many souls waiting.

Why couldn't there be rhyme or reason connected to it? Both rhyme and reason are found in basic physical processes. Mathematicians are very happy because of that fact.

The Golden Mean is present in basic physics and is more or less a measurement of beauty. The Golden Mean is actually present in most areas of reality. I don't think there has to be much destruction for the Golden Mean to be present as it is a fundamental mathematical principle, it works like this:

(0) 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377

(each number the sum of that number and the former).

...and rises indefinetly...

If you divide any number with the number before it then you get a approximation of the golden mean. The larger the number, the better the approximation; which is around 1.618.

If each sperm is represented as a soul, and thus millions of souls get lost and only one reaches the egg, then your idea holds merit, but what is it in your view that makes you conclude that this is the case? Obviously now you are your body. But if someone else was your body what difference would it make? What is it that defines who would be in each body?

Think about it, it's not as "logical" as you might have thought.

Would "in want of knowledge" be necessary? What if the universe wasn't aware, but something higher than the universe?


Nyr:

I say so. But it is self-explained really, so it doesn't matter who says it.

For something to be meaningful, it has to be related through awareness as meaningfulness is a subjective feeling. Not less real though mind you.

I did bring that up. You are right of course, then there would be meaning. However either way we are part of the meaning of the universe. If we are the only being aware in the universe, then we are the meaning of the universe as we can appreciate it.

Of course we would have to share the meaning with them and them with us. It's called love, we do this all the time with other people that also have meaning. Of course sharing meaning is pleasurable for both parts and I don't think any sentient alien would refuse to do so.

If they have any effect on aware beings, then it is meaningful, this I explained in the OP.


Now I'm going to sleep

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

it's late here in Sweden...it's been fun thinking and pondering this...now I can continue in my dream lol!

 

Cyperium:
Hmm.. I actually don't agree with your basic premise; that there is a subjective meaning to the universe. I read the arguments you made to Glaucon, but to be honest, I'm not convinced by those either. I don't find it logical that you can assume that an innate, deep meaning exists to anything, and that there are higher purposes to our lives and actions. Still, to clarify your point, what do you exactly mean by meaning? That it has a purpose?

I personally feel that whether or not there is a meaning to the universe is relative; there is no true answer to the question, but everyone may have different views and perceptions regarding it. Some may be idealistic, some may be nihilistic, and some can take an agnostic view. But the reality, IMO, lies in the mind of whoever cares.

 

Existence isn't aware though, so we're back to importance being utterly subjective.

 

We don't know if dogs are aware, so lets say that they have no importance too, in fact, we don't even know that our fellow friend is actually aware so perhaps I am the only one with importance in this regard. However to "not know" doesn't mean "to know that it isn't".

In other words; all I'm saying is that IF existence is aware (perhaps that is why it is existence) then the argument holds water.




To Nyr:
I have to think about that for a while. I'll be back to answer it later.

 

Then why even have a quadrillion sperm when all you need is one? If it goes the wrong way or hasn't got the strength or cannot survive the womb's hostile environment then humanity is in trouble. There are plenty of sperm for one reason: to ensure continuation of the species....not for waiting souls.

What you are intimating is that a soul awaits a pair of two lucky gametes. It doesn't matter if a man produces a gazillion living sperm or to what ovum a woman produces for fertilization.

The only math that matters is that one sperm gets through. Even that is not guaranteed at the best of times. So here's more math for you: have lots of sex if you want kids and hope your sperm count is high. Even that is no guarantee unless both you and your girlfriend(wife) are fertile.

 

So if ......(big IF) ............ mankind and every soul ever born has and wanted to comprehend life (how, why, etc) then could it be pretty easy and fair to 'believe' that life and that quest towards understanding be the ultimate goal?

IF, all mankind is or has been on that 'quest' could EACH be equally on the same journey, knowingly or not? (pursuing the meaning of life (the universe)?)

 

We do know that dogs are aware because they exhibit the behaviors that aware life exhibits.

Objectively they don't (nothing does). Subjectively, they may have importance to other life forms.

We do know that our fellow friend is actually aware because he exhibits behaviors that aware life exhibits.

Awareness doesn't give you objective importance (which is a non-existent thing). It gives you the capacity to assign subjective importance to something else. A carrot can be important to you. A dog can be important to you. Water can be imporant to you.

If existence were aware, it might not find you subjectively imporant and you might not find it subjectively important. Awareness doesn't make the thing that's aware objectively important (that non-existent thing again). It gives the thing that's aware the capacity to assign subjective importance. But my question is, why even consider existence being aware when it's clearly not?

 

Nature works through these principles. If the universe were perfect then we would need only one sperm, that sperm would be perfect and would find the egg, but the universe isn't perfect, but not being perfect doesn't mean that it has no meaning and we still have no clue as to who it will be become and why. I mean, how come the particular shape you have are you?

I'm not suggesting that a sould 'waits' (as if it were aware of it) but the effect is the same. There's no soul sitting in oblivion waiting to be born. But still, the effect is the same, since you didn't exist before you were born you could be said to have metaphorically waited.

Indeed there is no guarantee. But I was born, in retrospect it could have been guaranteed but no way would no one bet for it before it happened. Unless it would be me whatever sperm it was (just not the same physical characteristics, perhaps not even the same gender).

 

It is no way guaranteed that there is a subjective meaning to the universe, since that would require the universe to be aware. Of course there is a objective reality in which everything happens, where everything is relative to one another. In some way there has to be a reality in which everything exists. There is also subjective reality that lies in the eyes of the beholder, so to say, it is required that a subjective reality has to be aware (there is no subjective reality without awareness), but no way that we know of can we determine if objective reality has to be aware in the same way, or if it just is.

We may all hold different views on our personal meanings, but I argue that being aware is meaningful on its own, at least to oneself, cause we suffer the consequences of relating to the world (for good or bad) as such it is of importance to us whether we like it or not (and even that is reflective of meaning).

 

And what are those behaviors may I ask? That they make sounds if they are hurt or happy? Could be in favour to them, as such it isn't evidence of awareness as these traits could have been selected through evolution without any awareness supporting them. You have to agree that self-awareness has always illuded scientists.

That they look in the mirror and recognise themselves are also a pointer to that they have awareness, and don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that they haven't got awareness. However, I would be hesitant to call it absolute proof.

Subjectively they always have importance to themselves. Objectively they may have importance to other life forms. I would phrase it that way. Subjectively they may feel the importance they have to other life forms and it may be important to them also because of the appreciation often received through others by being important to them. This is of course meaning within a subsystem of the universe and not the kind of meaning that is utterly meaningful in that they live forever. However, if it leads to that goal then the meanings within the subsystem is shared with the meanings encompassing the system of the universe/reality if there is such a system that has meaning, if for example that system has a appreciation for what is happening in the subsystems.

I'm sorry if this all seems cluttered...we are of course talking about philosophy here and not scientific fact, and if for me is very important in philosophy. Considering different scenarios that may or may not be true can be food for thought.

But we can't rule out that unaware behaviours could look the same. If only to gain advantage. Though this was only taken as examples that we just can't know, I do believe my fellow friend is aware.

I have a capacity to assign importance to things around me, but even being aware in the first place does hold importance to me even if I don't consciously assign that importance. As long as I feel something then that is of importance, perhaps we could train ourselves not to perceive that importance but I do believe that it is inherent in us as a default.

Awareness by itself doesn't give me objective importance, in order for me to have objective importance, then that which constitutes things objective (the universe/reality) has to be aware. Otherwise, obviously, I will be of no importance to it.

Why is it clearly not aware? For all I know, I exist because I am aware. There would be no other way for me to perceive the existence of myself. Awareness is the existence of me. Otherwise there would just be a random body going around, there wouldn't be me, to me (now as a hypothetical existence) there would be no difference between that body and any other system of matter, or any other body for that matter.

The reason I have the notion that existence is aware (or something higher of course) is because existence and awareness are so closely entangled within myself, the question if objective existence shares this property is not far reached subjectively.

You also said that if there was a subjective reality to what is objective to us then it might not find us important. True I guess, but if it were anything important to it and if it had any understanding of that (even as a fundamental principle) then it would clearly see that we were more important as we are important to ourselves, something that unaware parts can never be and can only be important to the subjective. We would share the importance property. Which is something that we could both appreciate.

 

Of course there could be a objective purpouse to life that is meaningful to us, there could be a objective purpouse that isn't meaningful to us also, purpouse and meaning aren't necessarily the same though they are close to eachother, of course if we understood the goal of that purpouse (which should be or must be to live forever) then it would become utterly meaningful to us.

Most of us, if not all of us, has at different periods of life asked ourselves the BIG questions, about life/death/living forever/etc.. many times during my childhood I have witnessed how my friends starts to discuss this at pretty much the same time that the thoughts have come to me personally. So life does seem to support this pursuit. That's pretty much what I can say on the matter as it is very subjective. Even IF there is a objective meaning to reality.

 

So according to you 'having meaning' is 'being self-aware in a subjective reality'?

I'd like to think alike, but if that is what you mean, then it's applicable only to objects capable of self-consciousness, like us. That would render all other material objects, from scissors to robots to buildings, and abstract objects, such as truth, wisdom, honest, love, etc meaningless. It can be argued that these are meaningless until viewed in the light of our awareness of them; our connection to them. But that still wouldn't mean that the object is itself self-aware. Also, it would mean that creatures without self-consciousness, i.e. most other living things would be meaningless, or atleast without an objective meaning unto themselves. This, from a rigorously ecological mindset, is egotistical, dangerous, and wrong, and is another reason why I can't agree with you.

But I will agree about one thing - we may all hold different views on our personal meanings.

 

The 'objective' aspect i thought the forum already defined (that ability of knowledge to develop from the standpoint of an opinion; as used in "Objective Reality")

Where as 'purpose' now has a new ideology of this context as it them attribute and intent of the 'life' itself.

Sure most any can experience the ideology and see it from most all life as instinct but within the causality of physics and math defining that aspect to the molecular scale is where the conflict between mind and logic arise.

A philosophical barrier exists between the current paradigm and the reality of the matter.

and what religions have tried to share over time but that comprehension of life itself, logically enabled by the principles of life and the mass/energy association; is that last chapter to mankind (my opinion)

Hence: Life: purposed to continue!

Once started it will continue if the environment allows it.

Think of a bic lighter; once the flame is started unless the environment changes (fuel/oxygen) is WILL CONTINUE. (that is the NEW LAW) (my opinion)

 

How many more times?
No!
You're still peddling the same delusional rubbish.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Prove it PUNK!

I see evolution and observe bilogical systems of life.

Where is your evidence?

If life evolves, then you have clear proof. If you posting opinions that contradict that scientific observation as being fact, then you are incapable of representing what YOU KNOW in fact. (a fucking liar)

 

Error!
You made the statement, it's up to you to prove it.

Granted.
And then you draw the wrong conclusions.

Wrong again.
Evolution is not proof of purpose.

Liar?
Interesting you use that particular word since you have been shown to be a liar on more than one occasion.
For your information there is no scientific observation that shows life to be purposed.
But then again you know so little of real science, merely your personal delusions of it.