Meaning of the universe

Do every post.

These have all proven you a PUNK!

that life, intents to continue?

that life follows the rules of how mass and energy associate? (just not the ones created by ignorance)

That conclusion you just made proves quite positively, that you do not comprehend the causality of how evolution works.

The life must have an intent to survive the 'changes' of an evolution.

that is representing YOUR LIFE..... (as it has nothing of intent/purpose)

but anyone of science sees that sexual combining of life, has a specific intent; for the life to continue (into the next generation)

Most every item of INSTINCT proves that INTENT. (life: purposed to continue)

Are you suggesting instinct is not bound to the intent to survive?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, you have proven nothing.
You repeat the same inane statements with no actual evidence and ignore completely everything that doesn't agree with your limited view.

Ah, you see: life may intend to continue, that is not the same as being purposed.

More of your crap.

Specious nonsense.

Intent is NOT the same being purposed.

One more time: "instinct" is not the same as "intent" which in turn is not the same as "purposed".

See previous comments.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

that your an idiot.

That has been proven!

what limited view? (that you are an idiot; that's global to most everything you post)

I said life has purpose

not being purposed ........... (that is your trolling punk ass doing what is not allowed on the forum; changing other peoples posts to fit your ignorance)

Now if 'being purposed' in a context of the life having purpose; then i can see the analogy fitting. Life has a purpose, being of instinct, to live (continue).

So it is your ASSuming that changed the context. (the typical troll)

an instinctive life is naturally following the rules reflecting that "intent" to continue as if PURPOSED.

your stink (opinion) has no purpose/intent of life :shrug:


not a single question have you answered,

and not a single item based on the thread

and nothing in all your posts to back up any claim you make;

you a troll offering no meaning of the universe

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The fact that you ignore reality.

Wrong:
Another lie from you.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2345269&postcount=37

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2345409&postcount=41
It seems you're incapable of being truthful.

No: individuals have a purpose.

Wrong again.

Instinct is not intent.
Life is not purposed.

Should I?
Is it necessary that I do more than point out your stupidity and falsehoods?

 

Mod Hat:

Bishadi,

First, desist with the name-calling and general abuse.
You should know better by now.

Second, Dywyddyr has addressed each of your points in a reasonable manner.
The same cannot be said for you. Blind repetition does not make any point worth considering.

 

Well, how can they have a objective meaning to themselves? There are no themselves as there are no 'self' in there

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

so to speak. However if they evolve into being aware then they are meaningful to themselves. Even things that seem unimportant, like a rock, have meaning to us and thus there is meaning to them, just not subjectively - but objectively to us and to anything other aware of them.

You could have all the love in the world but if you don't do anything with it then it is meaningless (although it has meaning to you) as love should be shared. Does a rock feel love? If so then love has a meaning to that rock (but only if it is aware of course).

I think most animals are aware, but smaller life like insects may not be aware. This doesn't mean that insects have no meaning to us, and that they should all be killed or something, it just means that they don't have any knowledge of that meaning and is thus meaningless to them!

True. But love is a nice feeling to all!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Objective is something that can be seen by all. Subjective is something that can only be seen by oneself.

That is pretty much how I would define objective and subjective.

I don't know if I understand everything you said correctly, but surely not everything is instinct? Then there would be little meaning to the meaning. I think I need more meaning than that to feel satisfied.

I wouldn't argue that everything is instinct, though science might since they only take on a objective view, that which can be seen by all, that we have more than instinct is a subjective view, as it is only experienced by oneself, don't know why they always have to think that it is a illusion or trick, it all happens in reality anyway.

It's only a trend, in the future your paradigm might become the trend or my paradigm. That of course depends on how popular certain beliefs are. Currently anything that goes against science seems impopular, even things that people are too uneducated to understand like quantum physics, try explaining that to the average person and they will laugh at you, call you a wizard and throw you out the window

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, we can learn alot by looking at how our own life relates to reality. Everything seems to follow the same basic principles.

Actually it all depends on the starting conditions, if life has started (a single cell that can divide) then it is not destined to continue if there is a malfunction in the DNA that causes it to be weakened each generation. Or it could divide too fast so that all nutrients are consumed, in which it would die too. We only know that it succeeded here on earth if we are to be honest.

The laws of the universe does seem to favour life, in a very striking manner also. The striking pointers to life could just be because there is life here though, which scientists call the anthropic principle. This would in my eyes either involve a extremely unlikely coincidence, a multiverse (many universes) or a creator.

 

I've always found the use of "have," like meaning is a property, to be unfortunate. Meaning is given.

I have a rock at home which has significant meaning, to me, because I give it such meaning. To any one else, it would just be a rock.

So the universe has meaning as long as we care to give it meaning.

 

The odds that something which already happened, happened, are always 100%.

We only can know about a universe in which we already exist in.

The odds of spontanious generation of life are infinitely greater than the odds of spontanious generation of gods.

 

The meaning of the universe is this: the universe has meaning.

Why does life exist, and are we just a fortunate accident in the universe? Can we believe either that we aren't or that we are or might be inconsequential?

 

I see.. I think I get what you're saying now, and can agree a bit more with it. Still, I'm not that much of an idealist to completely agree with it. On a personal, individualist level, I understand and agree with your subjective meaning of meaning.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But I guess I'm too hardwired into looking for objective truths that as long as meaning doesn't have an objective existence outside of our awareness, I won't be satisfied.
Each to their own, in the end.

 

What's more amazing: the universe or life? Can we say with certainty which of the two were here first? I think the general consensus would be that the universe preceded everything and life was born from it. Yet if not for the universe life could not manifest itself, almost paradoxical, as it suggests life may have been waiting for a universe.

Either way a universe has no meaning, just as a shoe would have none either.

 

a weee different but it seems an objective reality would be equally true to all mankind?

the association of mass and energy, follows the same rules we can observe in instinctive critters. That means the principles of how mass and energy work are consistant with what is observed, rather than contradictory as currently described within today's subjective paradigm.

ah... but you and everyone can 'experience' and evolution by watching a single embryo develop or even a butterflies life cycle.

But not everyone can experience space bending or black holes or all the dark junk that is governed by the assumptions of science rather than objectively derived.

ie... the law says hot will go to cold, but the cause is not understood. Same with gravity; not even Newton defined it.

Well then observe how knowledge has evolved. From the idea that god raised the sun to the rotation of the earth. A change of thinking not a change of the laws. The laws are always repealed once causality is understood.

So QM is not objective, per your definition? Where as i would say science as a discipline must be objective (capable of evolving) even if the change breaks every law.

Exactly.

So what we experience must have causality applied rather than learning irrational beliefs (god 'created' by magic or 'uncertainty rules the entropic system')

Both have errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs

but to remain focused on the integrity of applicable experience, then overcoming the 'laws' imposed by beliefs; can return reality to the path of truth

the division was before the malfunction; so that 'intent' exists......

IF it caused a weakening condition, it will be extinct but the chain WE live in, still lives

so the 'life' of the mass does continue (all life that we know of proves this FACT; pure evidence)

could? but didn't, hasn't.......

A multiple celled life, sure but the aminos are all over the universe. (base building blocks)

what to observe is the laws of how mass and energy associate are not miraculous interactions of chance so much as the energy between the mass associates and combines to increase the total potential of the associating bodies. (that ideology is how life exists)

This is evidenced in most everything called life or even the gathering of mass for stars to exist; the energy is doing the bidness of life; not the mass itself.

the antropic principle is directly derived from a man noting that random could not do the yob

In 1961, Robert Dicke noted that the age of the universe as seen by living observers cannot be random.


that is step ONE; the objective reality behind the fact


the laws of physics are the errors incorporated into the existing opinions of science

and Observing GOD as some separate 'thing' pulling strings, while a bad guy is pulling the others; is just as foolish

both are not observing the causality of the bottom line

 

just as a shoe has meaning, when you need a shoe because you only have one, and hopping across rocks or hot sand is a bummer, so does a universe; with or without a shoe in it.
As long as there are observers of meaning(fulness) there is meaning.

When humans stop observing (in a meaningful way), there will be no human meaning in the universe and we won't know what shoes are.

 

I want to try to satisfy you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, an objective meaning is what you are looking for..

In most cases the feeling that you are meaningful to someone else is enough meaning for someone to be satisfied, and it could count as an objective meaning as other people can identify with it and understand that you two lovebirds are meaningful to eachother, come to think about it, why can't it count as objective if both of you feel the same way?

On a second note, all things come to an end. It wouldn't really be meaningful if it came to an end would it? You could go and see her grave, but let's face it, she's gone. This is why we grief, because someone that was fully alive and unique are now gone and nowhere to be found, you could find someone similiar to her but it wouldn't be her, it wouldn't be the one that found you meaningful and it wouldn't be the one that you found meaningful (that you loved, in other words). Some people would die for love.

So, in order for love to be really meaningful it would have to last forever. Not just 'til death do you apart. You would have to come together again.

Of course this holds true for all relations we have with people, including family and friends.

The subjective becomes objective when it is shared with others. Love could be seen as objective meaning. When love is shared it creates a special bond that both of you feel. True meaning would only arise if it were forever though, but love itself (at least to me) seems to hold that promise. That's my thoughts about this.

 

existence

 

We exist because we are aware that we exist, if I wasn't aware of my existence then there would be no 'I' and I wouldn't exist.

We know for certain that self-awareness is real, and that it exists, hadn't we been aware we would find no evidence for it and we have no idea on how to use logic in a way that self-awareness arises. I'm a programmer and as such know that there are things that we just can't do simply by applying logic. We can't program something to be random, and we can't program something to be self-aware, there's just no starting point for such ideas. One way to make something truly random is by extracting it from reality, we could measure radioactive decay (which is random) and apply a formula to the results in order to make use of it.

Scientists often say that self-awareness is arising from complexity. That is one way of seeing it, but I think rather that self-awareness arises from the recognition of reality, that when a system measures reality in such a vivid way then the system becomes aware, it becomes self-aware because it mimics reality. But there is no one that knows reality as good as it knows itself.

Obviously there is a very intimite link between self-awareness and existence itself.

If existence is aware, then that could in my book count as God and hence God might be required for reality, its existence might be that it is aware.

Also, the point is that we as a physical system are self-aware, and I see no reason why other systems cannot be. I've also noticed that there are similarities between the structure of the universe and the structure of neurons in the brain. So why can't it be that light travels throughout the universe and interacts with this structure in a way that makes awareness or 'thought'. Light does carry information about where it came, and what has interacted with it along the path and could very well make subtle differences where it ends up. The scale of it would be enormous of course, and the time it takes to reach the galaxy clusters that make up the macro structure of the universe is huge also, but still this difference in time between the smaller structures like galaxies and solar systems etc. could just be varying stages of awareness where information is handled where it is needed.

 

Do rocks, for example, exist or since they are not aware of their predicament they don't exist. Does meaning exist anywhere outside of human gray matter? Do cats or single sell organisms, for example, seek meaning in their cats/microbe lives or the quest for "meaning" is a byproduct of self-awareness?

As far as present human brain/perception/etc. development goes, Universe is meaningless, deal with it. Ok typing tonnes of BS on the subject beyond our reach is one of the ways to cope

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, there are two sides of reality, as I see it, the subjective and the objective. When I say that we exist because we are aware, then I mean that we exist subjectively because we are aware. If we didn't have awareness then there would be a body, but it wouldn't be important to anything as it isn't even important to itself, and it is only important to itself if it has self-awareness.

Objectively the rock does exist even if it doesn't have awareness, but subjectively it doesn't exist (it has no self).

Self-awareness is very effectively the existence of us, it isn't just that we feel that we exist or that we know that we exist, it is that we exist - self-awareness is that we exist by the very nature of self-awareness itself. We could rather use the term self-existence and it would be the same thing.

I see no reason why objective reality would have no subjective side to it like we do. It might be defined by itself like we are.

 

I shall assure you that cat's body is really, really important to a cat. I'm not sure whether a cat is aware of his existence, but he's aware of the fact that his body (fur and butt especially) need to be cared for. The existence (the one cat might be unaware of) is also extremely important to a cat it will fight and run to preserve his unaware existence.

Who is the judge of what is objective and what is subjective, may I ask you? Keep in mind the possibility that Matrix is real and the rock is an electrochemical illusion in your brain.