what is the meaning of life?

Thanks for that cicerone.

The universe doesn't seem pointless: clearly, intelligent life was brought into it by its very basic fabric. This life has the potential to become godly -- omnipotent and creationary. It's entirely possible that the universe is the result of such an omnipotent act of intelligence. Omnipotent merely referring to the power to create universes. This would affirm the existence of God; God being the result from an ancient evolution in another universe, sustaining creation by producing a new universe, namely the cosmos we're in.

We would then live and be responsible for the survival of existence itself, where the challenge would be to prevent universes from naturally decaying, by forming new universes in a furnace of creation. This would be the extrapolation of our present level of technology billions of years from now. Our present ability to create tiny black holes in laboratories may be indicative of this.

Sir Martin Rees, notorious astronomer, talks of the same in this rather stunning monologue.

0 Replies

I just love it, when I don't recognize the name of someone who is "notorious". When that happens, I feel closer to the meaning of life. Names/labels have been left behind, just as a snake sheds its skin. Egos have been denied footholds, and that could cause a brief feeling of "pointless" existence. Sensing the interconnectiveness of an energy lifeforce may not provide a pointed existence. To have a point, one would need a non-point. Somewhere in the middle, perhaps, the meaning of life is found. I like the image of the snake who is swallowing his tail. I think that image comes from a Chinese philosophy.

0 Replies

You got me there.

0 Replies

truth
Your prose is magnificent, Wolf, but what kind of machine would the intelligence of other universes have to make that could create universes, by means, I suppose, of Big Bangs and the like? You DO think big!
Peace and Love notes, in Nagargunian style, that to have a point one must have a non-point. True, since one implies the other. But while I do like her suggestion that the truth--if such exists--is most likely found in the middle (The Middle Way of Buddhism?), I suspect that we humans and our concerns are not the point of reference for the universe. Meaningful and non-meaningful are OUR concerns, OUR constructions, something that applies within the universe only in the sense that we are part of it. But we are only an infintesmally small part of it. My point is that--and this is only a guess, Frank--The Universe (vaguely conceived) is BEYOND our question of its meaningfulness.

0 Replies

JL, I certainly hope so. To know the meaning of it all would really be a bummer, wouldn't it? Smile

As far as my extrapolation is concerned: I don't find it that far fetched. If we can create mini-black holes in our labs, after a measly 100 years of modern science, what will we be able to create in a billion years?

0 Replies

If we knew all the answers, life would be somewhat boring. c.i.

0 Replies

truth
Wolf, what would we be able to do in a billion years? First of all, we would no longer be the kind of creatures we are now, I think. And who knows? If Karl Popper is right we cannot, in principle, know what the future holds for humankind, in terms of their behavior. This is because behavior is based on knowledge and we cannot know about future new knowledge, otherwise it would be present knowledge. Ergo Futurism is just for fun. Sorry, BoGoWo.

0 Replies

JLN, What makes predicting the future fun is when some of that stuff we thought impossible turns into reality. Wink

c.i.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

I suspect that we humans and our concerns are not the point of reference for the universe. --The Universe (vaguely conceived) is BEYOND our question of its meaningfulness.

I agree that this seems most likely. We have to remind ourselves we're NOT the center of the universe. The only place where we humans end up being important is in our heads.

We may perceive some universal laws, but what does that have to do with the meaning of life? If you learn exactly how a car runs, does that explain why it's traveling in a certain direction?

0 Replies

Just as nature, or if you will, the universe has no outside, it has no inside. It is not divided against itself, and cannot therefore be used for or against itself. There is no inherent opposition of the living and the non-living within nature; neither is more or less natural than the other. The use of agricultural poisons, for example, will surely kill selected organisms, it will arrest the spontaneity of lving entities-but it is not an unnatural act. Nature has not been changed. All that changes is the way we discipline ourselves to consist with natural order. Our freedom in relation to nature is not the freedom to change nature; it is not the power over natural phenomona. It is the freedom to change ourselves. we are perfectly free to design a culture that will turn on the awareness that vitality cannot be given but only found, that the given patterns of spontaneity in nature are not only to be respected, but to be celebrated.

0 Replies

Dys, WOW. That is the first serious post of yours I have seen and I am just awestruck! youse has an impressive noggin, to say the very least - this is NOT veiled sarcasm, sometimes it's hard to tell on A2K, I definitely agree with all that you wrote, that is, if I actually 'got' it all ...

0 Replies

Quote:

All that changes is the way we discipline ourselves to consist with natural order. Our freedom in relation to nature is not the freedom to change nature; it is not the power over natural phenomona. It is the freedom to change ourselves. we are perfectly free to design a culture that will turn on the awareness that vitality cannot be given but only found, that the given patterns of spontaneity in nature are not only to be respected, but to be celebrated.

Very good, dyslexia. In this description, you have united the interconnectedness of all phenomena, the power and purpose of free will within this as arbitrator and powerful regulator, and I think we're even pretty much approaching the meaning of life. The meaning of life was under our noses all this time: to live.

Not to be taken for granted. We're being tested as we speak. And it's precisely our interconnectedness, the power of our free will, and our respect for life that will decide if we shall overcome.

0 Replies

I'm curious to know by whom we are to suppose that we are being tested?

0 Replies

truth
I suppose, Setanta, we are tested by ourselves. Dys, good points; I particularly appreciate the point that there is neither outside or inside of the universe (if there is no outside, as I've argued, there can be no inside--ha!). And Piffka, I do agree that we are only important in our heads, but that's enough I should think. Twyvel might tell us that there is neither inside nor outside our heads. By the way, does anyone know what's become of him?

0 Replies

It is nonsense to contend that we are tested, by ourselves, or an outside agency. The precise point of what Dys has written is that we must apply a standard to our relationship with our environment. If, in fact we are tested--this is a matter of individual perception, and one is consonant with what Dys has expressed about that standard in the conception thereof. For those legions of people for whom what he has expressed is unknown or who are unwilling or unable to see themselves in nature in such a relationship, the issue of "testing" does not exist. Such universal statements as "Not to be taken for granted. We're being tested as we speak. And it's precisely our interconnectedness, the power of our free will, and our respect for life that will decide if we shall overcome." are meaningless without a conception of, a will to, and a means to make it universally understood that such an ethos is proposed and desireable. And in the event, there will remain many who, for whatever perversity of personal will or incapacity of personal comprehension--will never be tested.