Humans and life in general...

[alkan]

@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.

[beachboy]

Maybe we set the problem for ourselves before incarnating in physical form.

[alkan]

Maybe we set the problem for ourselves before incarnating in physical form.

But that gets us no further than saying we find it for ourselves and introduces a whole new set of unknowns to boot.

[beachboy]

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

[+ pepa_e_mango]

this is off topic but it's interesting: http://www.newsweek.com/universe-alien-life-intelligence-alone-995181

"Are We Alone in the Universe? Scientists Slash the Chances of Intelligent Alien Life"

[+ Charlie]

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.

[+ Eric Hassan]

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.

 

My thesis for my masters was related to this and incorporated this perspective. I discussed the role of metacognition - the ability to think about thinking - as an important guide for behavior. I think it is simply our ability to ask “what does this mean?” that guides our thoughts: we think there might be a purpose to life because we are able to ponder the possibility. These thoughts, in turn, influence our actions - the OP started this thread and we are replying.

 

My own beliefs are best shared with time, a meal, and a measured dose of your favorite intoxicant. I can talk a lot on this topic! In short, I think our function is to forgive our illusions - the things we’ve made that are not love. I don’t think life has any meaning, per se; you’re free to place any meaning you want on it.

[Rudynate]

My thesis for my masters was related to this and incorporated this perspective. I discussed the role of metacognition - the ability to think about thinking - as an important guide for behavior. I think it is simply our ability to ask “what does this mean?” that guides our thoughts: we think there might be a purpose to life because we are able to ponder the possibility. These thoughts, in turn, influence our actions - the OP started this thread and we are replying.

 

My own beliefs are best shared with time, a meal, and a measured dose of your favorite intoxicant. I can talk a lot on this topic! In short, I think our function is to forgive our illusions - the things we’ve made that are not love. I don’t think life has any meaning, per se; you’re free to place any meaning you want on it.

 

I used to enjoy pondering the imponderable. Now I mostly find it a waste of time. I enjoy devoting myself to becoming the best I can be.

[+ José Soplanucas]

I used to enjoy pondering the imponderable. Now I mostly find it a waste of time. I enjoy devoting myself to becoming the best I can be.

 

And the happiest.

 

However, pondering about the imponderable is fun and an entertaining intellectual game. Specially when you you are enjoying your favorite intoxicant, to quote @Eric Hassan .

[Rudynate]

And the happiest.

 

However, pondering about the imponderable is fun and an entertaining intellectual game. Specially when you you are enjoying your favorite intoxicant, to quote @Eric Hassan .

 

Mostly into "chopping wood and carrying water." Doesn't seem a bit bleak to me.

[Rudynate]

And the happiest.

 

 

Happiness is a by-product of being the best "you" you can be.

[+ Keith30309]

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.

This makes allot of sense.

 

Everyone’s answer is different and that’s fortunate - the tension it creates forces us to question ourselves and introspection is healthy for spiritual growth.

 

Personally, I don’t think there is a meaning of life in the conventional sense of the question. “Meaning of life”, to @Charlie ‘s point, is wholly dependent on language and seems to imply some pre-ordained design.

 

I don’t believe in any deity and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs makes allot of sense to me so I would say that MY meaning is nil; my purpose is huge but ultimately is about bringing happiness to myself and others.

[alkan]

I used to enjoy pondering the imponderable. Now I mostly find it a waste of time. I enjoy devoting myself to becoming the best I can be.

Yes, but how do you decide what "best" means in this context. If, for example, you mean the best human being you can be, which is quite a reasonable thing to strive for, you must have pondered on what it means to be human. If you aim to be the best you can be in certain specific areas, you still will have made certain value judgments about what would be a worthwhile skill to attain. Otherwise you might determine that it is better to be a highly successful bank robber rather than a mediocre musician (this has a certain painful personal application for me).

[Rudynate]

Yes, but how do you decide what "best" means in this context. If, for example, you mean the best human being you can be, which is quite a reasonable thing to strive for, you must have pondered on what it means to be human. If you aim to be the best you can be in certain specific areas, you still will have made certain value judgments about what would be a worthwhile skill to attain. Otherwise you might determine that it is better to be a highly successful bank robber rather than a mediocre musician (this has a certain painful personal application for me).

 

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.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Rudynate

[gallahadesquire]

I did just like to point out two things:

1. The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42. We don't know the question.
    
   
2. “There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
   "There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”
   

- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

[alkan]

Once again I have to say how much I am enjoying everyone's replies with their different perspectives.

 

But can I go very slightly off-topic here although I might blame @Avalon as he brought up the subject of the speed of light? People commonly say nothing can travel faster than light (within an equivalent frame of reference). This is not quite what Einstein says and it implies there is something intrinsic to light which prevents other objects from overtaking it. What is perhaps nearer the mark is to say that there is another natural barrier that prevents faster-than-light travel but that light is the only thing we know of that can approach that velocity. This however brings up a conundrum. Either this natural barrier and the maximum speed of light happen to occur at the same velocity, or light would "like" to travel faster and is prevented from doing so by the barrier. This barrier is usually assumed to be the accumulation of mass and the concomitant distortion of time at these huge speeds.? If light is prevented from travelling any faster by these factors, what happens to the increasingly massive photons?

 

As has been pointed out, the Universe is expanding at increasing speed and the question there is, is the space into which it is expanding pre-existing or being created when needed? I prefer to think that it is not increasing distance that separates the galaxies but Time being created in the gaps. The fanciful extension of this theory would be that there are innumerable galaxies further out already exceeding the speed of light which will never slow down and never become visible to us.

[+ Avalon]

I knew that the universe is still expanding but was unaware that the rate by which it was is increasing. But I'd think at some point it would, must slow down.

 

The universe itself is not eternal but I think that the "stuff" it is composed of is. Matter can not be destroyed. Thus I think one Big Bang follows another forever. The Universe expands and then collapses.

[alkan]

I knew that the universe is still expanding but was unaware that the rate by which it was is increasing. But I'd think at some point it would, must slow down.

 

The universe itself is not eternal but I think that the "stuff" it is composed of is. Matter can not be destroyed. Thus I think one Big Bang follows another forever. The Universe expands and then collapses.

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?

[alkan]

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.

[+ Avalon]

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.

 

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?

[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?

Time is a human interpretation of observed phenomena. If previously unobserved phenomena occur, our definition of Time and what it can do, will be amended. Of course, if you and I are around to observe it, that in itself will be a phenomenon worth recording.

[mike carey]

My own beliefs are best shared with time, a meal, and a measured dose of your favorite intoxicant.

Works for me!

[+ pepa_e_mango]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/opinion/anthony-kennedy-individualism.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytopinion

“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Justice Anthony Kennedy

[alkan]

I don't think I agree with that, though that might be because I don't particularly understand it. (And, though he quotes it with approval, the author of the cited article rather goes against the tenour of what I take to be the Justice's meaning.) After all, the veriest slave is still free to define his captivity however he wishes.