alkan

But if the Universe continues to expand will it not ultimately break down into the atoms that constitute it and thus be unable to coalesce to collapse for another Big Bang to occur?
 
Time can slow down but reverse?

And, by the way, @Avalon, I don't think you can say "must" as in "must slow down" in this context. At the moment our notions of "must" are constrained by our understanding of the physics involved. Once we admit we don't understand the physics, "must" goes out the window.

Yes, the concertina effect. But what happens to Time in that context? Time is inextricably linked to the Universe and only exists, as we know it, within it and is directed by entropy. If entropy is reversed, does time run backwards?

I know about the disappointment of being a mediocre musician. When I was 13 or 14 years old, I first heard the 3rd movement of the Moonlight Sonata. And I determined that someday I would be able to play it. Of course, it's a virtuoso piece. A few years ago, I decided to give it a try, even though it was beyond my skill level. Even, though, ideally you should possess the required skill level for a piece, I thought, "Why couldn't I use the process of learning the piece to acquire the necessary skill?" I worked on that piece for years. Some people even thought it was good. More perceptive listeners said, "You know, it's not bad." But it took years to get to "not bad." So I decided to content myself with learning easier pieces that I could learn to play really well.

@pepa_e_mango asks if "we" have a purpose and the answer that appeals to me most is "no" unless we formulate one for ourselves but we could still be that random accident within a universe which is itself less accidental. But how would we know? As @Avalon has said, the Universe has a "direction": outwards or away. Does that imply a destination or is it merely going towards a state of greater randomness? In that case, going back towards a pre-expansion state would seem to defy the second law of thermodynamics - not that anyone has suggested it would apply in such a case. But that would indicate that the Natural Laws as presently formulated that @Avalon refers to are local and temporal and not in any sense of the word, Universal.
 
As for the suggestion that @beachboy makes, if we did have a purpose, I could certainly see the value in defining it, but I would ask who set the problem? I am quite comfortable in believing that we do not have an externally-imposed purpose. The idea that a powerful and beneficent god created a set of beings whose purpose is to praise their creator just seems impossible as @pepa_e_mango has said. But I think the phrase "meaning of life" may itself be meaningless.
 
I have enjoyed all the responses so far.

If human beings have a "purpose" in the universe, it is unlikely that we are capable of figuring it out, since we don't even know if the universe has any purpose. It has taken millions of years for the process of evolution to create a human mind capable of understanding very much about itself, much less about its place in any larger scheme. In fact, the very concepts of abstractions like purpose and meaning have been generated by human minds, and may be irrelevant to the reality of what exists. We can't even get our minds around meaning without the use of that slippery thing called language, which doesn't exist separate from the electrical connections in our brains.
 
Do other forms of life wonder about their purpose in the universe? I can tell you something about the purpose of bacteria in my existence, but I doubt that a bacterium could tell you much about me. much less about our relationship. If I have a purpose in some larger being (call it the Universe, if you like), I can't tell you what it might be. So, like other human beings throughout history, I assign a meaning to my existence, even though it is based, consciously or unconsciously, on meanings that I have been introduced to by my subjective experience, which is necessarily different from every other person's experiences. And I am happy enough to live with that subjective belief about my purpose or meaning, even if I suspect that I probably have no ultimate meaning or purpose.

Perhaps saying we needed the right set of circumstances to develop life is the wrong way of looking at it. The kind of life form with which we are familiar developed from those particular circumstances. If the conditions are different, perhaps a different life form could occur. I think it is extremely unlikely that "we" are alone in the Universe, using the widest possible interpretation of "we". Or to put it another way, will we recognise the "others" when we meet them?

The question is unanswerable in a definitive way but opens the enquiring mind to infinite possibilities.

Interesting points raised by all. I don't look to religion for answers to these types of questions; it seems odd that an almighty being would create living organism for the sole purpose of venerating Him (or Her). Besides, who created that almighty being in the first place.
Anyhow; I also don't want to confuse purpose with meaning. The meaning of life is different for each person whilst our purpose is more mechanistic. If we are part of a system in which energy is conserved, we could have just as easily exist in any other form, maybe dispersed atoms floating about, and still serve the same purpose and fulfill the first law of thermo.

And the combination of variables didn't lead inevitably to the evolution of life, it favored it. Which means that the same combination of variables could occur on some distant planet in some distant galaxy and it might not lead to the evolution of life. The universe is so immense that it is likely that life has evolved elsewhere in the universe.

Natural selection is a random process. It doesn't have a direction or goal. That's a problem with the way evolution is talked about when it's being taught in schools. Evolution/natural selection is not going in a particular direction. We can only see the direction ex post facto its going by looking how it got us to where we are now. We have no idea where it will take us from here. And because evolution is a mindless statistical process, evolution also has no idea where it is taking us.

Particle physics indicates that this is indeed so, eg tachyons. (But semantically, you could say that light in a vacuum travels faster than the speed of light in water!)

Humans seem to be wired to need meaning. The fact that we need to impose order on the universe doesn't mean that there is an inherent order to the universe. The Existentialists hold that the universe is random and meaningless. Any meaning is something that we made up. I can live with that - that there is no supplied meaning to life and that it's my job to find my own meaning in life. There are all kinds of groups and organizations that are willing to supply the lazy with canned meaning. There are those who are fine with providing their own meaning.

You make a very good point about the animals, and I considered them. In my, admittedly broad-stroke view, the savagery within the balance of nature in the animal kingdom eerily parallels human nature. Perhaps the Deity viewed us collectively as life on earth. As for us being alone in the universe and making assumptions about the intentions and wishes of the mind that created it, at the present time, assumptions are all that we have.

Like @Avalon, I find the broad question very interesting. Can I ask you though, as you bring up the Bible, whether you count animals as a "life form"? Since God's anger was directed at Mankind, to consider destroying the animals for the sins of Man seems a little harsh. Of course one could argue that he owns his creation and can do what he wishes. But that means the sins of Man fall on his shoulders as he owns them as well. And, perhaps also we have to ask, if we are alone in this unimaginably vast (and getting vaster by the second) god-created Universe, how likely is it that it would have been created just for us. And if it was, how can we possibly make assumptions about the intentions and wishes of the mind that created it?

Perhaps saying we needed the right set of circumstances to develop life is the wrong way of looking at it. The kind of life form with which we are familiar developed from those particular circumstances. If the conditions are different, perhaps a different life form could occur. I think it is extremely unlikely that "we" are alone in the Universe, using the widest possible interpretation of "we". Or to put it another way, will we recognise the "others" when we meet them?

I lived in Prague for 4 years. It is indeed a wonderful city, with beautiful buildings and sites, a true jewel of Baroque and Art Deco architecture. It was spared from destruction during WW2 because it was occupied by the Nazis since day one. The only bomb that fell in the city was accidentally dropped in 1945 by Allied planes, who were on their way to wipe Dresden off the map.
 
I agree that the Czechs can seem unpleasant when you first meet them but, once you get to know them, they are very nice people, especially if you try to say a few things in their truly impossible language. One should understand that their society is very homogeneous and they sort of instinctively mistrust foreigners: after all, throughout their history they have been subdued and oppressed by their powerful neighbors, be it Germans, Austrians, or Russians.
 
And then, the boys are gorgeous. I miss Prague.

Those photos are making me feel very nostalgic.

https://www.czechia-heart-of-europe.com/prague
 
Besides BelAmi it must be a wonderful place!

Many of them would seem to be non-gender-specific unless you know the background. But presumably that was true of all names when they were first introduced.

Many of them would seem to be non-gender-specific unless you know the background. But presumably that was true of all names when they were first introduced.

That's always been a problem, unless one is a versatile top.

Well yes. He created a fantasy for himself and when the practicalities of real life prevented him from living the fantasy, he retreated from the real world rather than give up the fantasy. (This is almost exactly how you could look at his architectural creations.) I don't suppose that that is a technically sound psychological description but it is how I think of it. The investigation of his death was somewhat blurred by the need for discretion but he seems to have killed someone and then committed suicide. Before the last few days though he seems to have had lucid times when he was conscious of the pain of the struggle.

Because I was living in Prague when I picked it. I left the city a year ago and still miss the boys!

His unhappy personal life is well documented, his sensitivity to Wagner and his own form of creativity make him fascinating. We also should perhaps admire the technical skill of the men who built Neuschwanstein in spite of the huge difficulties created by the site and the whims of the inspirer. And remember too on this day the servant who died with him. All right, a slight euphemism there.
https://dryaskulk.tumblr.com
Two other buildings which may have had some influence on the Sleeping Beauty story. Tyn church may have had some influence on the Disney design, and Usse, lost in its dreaming woods, may have helped with the formulation of the original story (or someone thought that was a good marketing ploy).