Does Life Have Meaning?

[Alyxx Thorne]

Life has no meaning I think.

Would you care to elaborate on why you think so?

[Doom Shepherd]

 

But the test isn't put on a grading scale like the way you seem to show. It's an experiment, almost. The professor keeps track of who got what materials for the test. If he gives someone a bad study guide and they confidently get all the answers wrong because of what they've been taught is right, they get a better grade than the guy given the perfect tools who doesn't even study them. People who are born with less are not expected to succeed fantastically, but they should at least try their best to do so.

 

I've never encountered anyone who believed in the Professor who also believed this, although I've met a few who were too polite to say so out loud.

[Blue]

If life had no meaning, how would we be able to know that?

If we ask "What is the meaning of life" and we expect a lack of evidence to confirm the idea that life is meaningless, that is still an on-going debate between Scientists and Philosophers as to whether that line of logic is 'Proving a Negative' (which is a fallacy) and 'Evidence of Absence' (which is credible, assuming the evidence is carried out by a "Qualified Investigation" (a distinction which is rather ambiguous in this context)).

 

Personally I find it rather curious that When there is this sort of question (What is the meaning of life? Why are we [humans] here? What is our purpose? Why was the universe created?), why would we suppose that it is a question that has no answer? I should think the best line of logic would be to look at the most credible answers and see which one fits the best.

 

Assuming it has no answer without examing possible given answers is not rational, nor scientific.

[alphabetagamma]

But anyway, in theory, if you had the capacity to be able to recognize and identify EVERY atom in this lapse of reality, you could know everything that would ever happen through interpretation of physics and atomic electricity. You might know what would happen in 20 seconds, tomorrow's weather, the baby you will have that hasn't even been conceived, who you will marry, everything.

I've considered this as well, but unfortunately there are a few problems with that theory. 1 you would need to know the exact energy and position information of every particle in a radius of T*C. T being the distance in time from now to when you're planning to predict and C being the speed of light. Unfortunately the more you know about a particle's position, the less you know about its's momentum and vice versa. Then even if you did manage to magically acquire all the data required you'd still have to create a computer that could simulate the universe with 100% accuracy in faster than real time, basically all you have to do is create a computer that calculates at greater than 100% efficiency. Good luck with that.

[Blue]

But anyway, in theory, if you had the capacity to be able to recognize and identify EVERY atom in this lapse of reality, you could know everything that would ever happen through interpretation of physics and atomic electricity. You might know what would happen in 20 seconds, tomorrow's weather, the baby you will have that hasn't even been conceived, who you will marry, everything.

I've considered this as well, but unfortunately there are a few problems with that theory. 1 you would need to know the exact energy and position information of every particle in a radius of T*C. T being the distance in time from now to when you're planning to predict and C being the speed of light. Unfortunately the more you know about a particle's position, the less you know about its's momentum and vice versa. Then even if you did manage to magically acquire all the data required you'd still have to create a computer that could simulate the universe with 100% accuracy in faster than real time, basically all you have to do is create a computer that calculates at greater than 100% efficiency. Good luck with that.

Fluttershy's line of logic does not take into consideration the logistics of comprehending all points in space and time in our Universe because it does not intend to. This is philosophy, not theoretical engineering.

It assumes it is both possible and has been achieved, for the vehicle of the line of logic.

[Jek Jek Roo]

Yes!

PLASTIC, ASSHOLES!

[Vapymid]

But anyway, in theory, if you had the capacity to be able to recognize and identify EVERY atom in this lapse of reality, you could know everything that would ever happen through interpretation of physics and atomic electricity. You might know what would happen in 20 seconds, tomorrow's weather, the baby you will have that hasn't even been conceived, who you will marry, everything.

I've considered this as well, but unfortunately there are a few problems with that theory. 1 you would need to know the exact energy and position information of every particle in a radius of T*C. T being the distance in time from now to when you're planning to predict and C being the speed of light. Unfortunately the more you know about a particle's position, the less you know about its's momentum and vice versa. Then even if you did manage to magically acquire all the data required you'd still have to create a computer that could simulate the universe with 100% accuracy in faster than real time, basically all you have to do is create a computer that calculates at greater than 100% efficiency. Good luck with that.

Fluttershy's line of logic does not take into consideration the logistics of comprehending all points in space and time in our Universe because it does not intend to. This is philosophy, not theoretical engineering.

It assumes it is both possible and has been achieved, for the vehicle of the line of logic.

 

Well, I would argue that the point which ABG has made is philosophical, rather than engineering - which is, basically, that in order to calculate all events and interactions across the entire Universe you must have complete information about the entire Universe at a specific moment and the information processing power equal to or greater than that of the entire Universe, so you yourself have to be greater (and beyond) the Universe, which implies that you must be God to do that.

 

A corollary of that is that no one inside this Universe can ever be able to accurately predict the future of the Universe. In other words it is impossible to calculate the ultimate end-state of the Universe prior to that end-state occurring.

 

All that can be achieved is a rough approximation and extrapolation - the smaller the volume and time horizon of the prediction, the more accuracy (higher probability) can be achieved, until you get to one half of the reduced Planck constant for real-time observation (i.e. with zero prediction).

 

Regards

[Husker]

I suppose I believe that there is a purpose. Just by the odds against us existing at all.

[Michael Archer]

I think that it's up to every individual to decide what's the meaning of his or her life.

[Blue]

I think that it's up to every individual to decide what's the meaning of his or her life.

Is that a truth claim which you assume everyone should adopt first and foremost before accepting any other truth claims?

[Obsidian]

Generally, I think the purpose of life is to reproduce and pass on genes to next generations.

[Vapymid]

Generally, I think the purpose of life is to reproduce and pass on genes to next generations.

 

But for what?

 

What is the purpose of bringing the next generation into life?

 

Regards

[Kirkreng]

That seems to be the biological purpose.

[Blue]

But we are not only Biological beings.

We reason: we want to know How, What, Where, When, Why.

We predict: we enjoy and fear both the past and the future.

We express: Art, Science, Philosophy. These do not exist simply because we have a natural affinity to waste time when not reproducing.

 

Because life (using the metaphor that life is like a test on a sheet of paper) has this blank after the question "Why are we here", it demands to be filled, and I for myself have reasoned that "Nothing" is not an acceptable answer.

 

The answer that has made the most sense for me is that God created the Universe for his Glory.

God very well could have created a toy universe in which all the beings and substances existed simply to automatically give him praise. He could have, but he did not. God created a Universe, with creatures made that were shaped like him, that had free choice and a will of their own, that could decide by their own volition to give Glory to God. Obviously with the more powerful the thing given the ability to self-direct, there is just as much potential for this self-directing power to do terrific Good, or do terrific Evil. Apparently God thought this worth the risk.

[Doom Shepherd]

So why is God here? What is the meaning and purpose of God?

[Blue]

That question does not compute.

It's like Hamlet asking the purpose of the existence of Shakespeare.

[Obsidian]

But we are not only Biological beings.

We reason: we want to know How, What, Where, When, Why.

We predict: we enjoy and fear both the past and the future.

We express: Art, Science, Philosophy. These do not exist simply because we have a natural affinity to waste time when not reproducing.

 

Because life (using the metaphor that life is like a test on a sheet of paper) has this blank after the question "Why are we here", it demands to be filled, and I for myself have reasoned that "Nothing" is not an acceptable answer.

 

The answer that has made the most sense for me is that God created the Universe for his Glory.

 

Okay, I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but how does that relate to the issue of life's purpose?

 

 

That question does not compute.

It's like Hamlet asking the purpose of the existence of Shakespeare.

 

If that was supposed to be a metaphor for humans asking the purpose of the existence of God, then you've contradicted your claims to free will. Hamlet could never ask about the purpose of Shakespeare's existence unless Shakespeare himself deemed it so. In fact, he couldn't do anything without Shakespeare commanding it. Therefore, Hamlet has no free will.

[ProHypster]

I don't think free will was ever the question. Free will is a very complicated subject itself.

However since we stumbled upon it, I believe that free will is a purely sociological term and has no subjective meaning and doesn't exist naturally but is more like the lack of restraint/abuse on a subject.

Just like shadow is the lack of light free will is the lack of restraint.

 

However as science is also starting to study free will I found this:

 

One significant finding of modern studies is that a person's brain seems to commit to certain decisions before the person becomes aware of having made them (see right). Researchers have found delays of about half a second. With contemporary brain scanning technology, scientists in 2008 were able to predict with 60% accuracy whether subjects would press a button with their left or right hand up to 10 seconds before the subject became aware of having made that choice

 

However 60 % sounds really weak.

 

@Obsidian

In his theory life's meaning is to live for god/god's glory.

[Blue]

If that was supposed to be a metaphor for humans asking the purpose of the existence of God, then you've contradicted your claims to free will. Hamlet could never ask about the purpose of Shakespeare's existence unless Shakespeare himself deemed it so. In fact, he couldn't do anything without Shakespeare commanding it. Therefore, Hamlet has no free will.

We are free to choose between serving God or not serving God. By my beliefs, there is a correct answer.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Meaning of life is to have sex. Enough said.