So what is the meaning of life? [Archive]

KelvinG

3rd July 2005, 08:57 PM

Good question.

What if there is an afterlife, but it's really unpleasant and painful (not unlike Hell, as some religious types believe in). And it's eternal to boot. Absolutely pain, suffering and misery for the rest of time. I don't like the sounds of that. But, isn't it a possibility. Even if you accept that idea that there is an afterlife can you offer any proof that it isn't totally horrific, beyond anything that we can imagine. Isn't that a possibility. Most believers assume that the afterlife they will experience will be happy, pleasant and fun. Uh, why make such an assumption? Maybe this plane of our existence is as pleasant as it ever gets.
And if you don't believe this is possible, then I just use the classic believer line "You can't prove me wrong!"

Now, if this is what the afterlife is like, what value does your life have now? Does if have less or more value than if there is not an afterlife at all and the materialist view is correct.

ReFLeX

3rd July 2005, 09:31 PM

I was thinking about starting this thread this morning, and here it is...

Dr Adequate

3rd July 2005, 09:43 PM

Life (noun) : A collection of chemicals which (given the right environment) catalyse their own synthesis.

I thank you.

Or maybe you mean the meaning of life, rather than the meaning of "life". After all, that's what you said.

In which case, I ask what is the meaning of a cloud, a mountain, a tree? Words and sentences have meaning. Things don't: they are not utterances.

Asking "what is the meaning of life?" is a category error.

triadboy

3rd July 2005, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Robin
So come on, what is the meaning?

The sound of one hand clapping

Robin

3rd July 2005, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by triadboy
The sound of one hand clapping
As I remember Bart Simpson found the answer to that question.

Dr Adequate

3rd July 2005, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
I turn around, and it was raining. I like this one the best.

Robin

3rd July 2005, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Life (noun) : A collection of chemicals which (given the right environment) catalyse their own synthesis.

I thank you.

Or maybe you mean the meaning of life, rather than the meaning of "life". After all, that's what you said.

In which case, I ask what is the meaning of a cloud, a mountain, a tree? Words and sentences have meaning. Things don't: they are not utterances.

Asking "what is the meaning of life?" is a category error.
Thank you. Actually I think that when they say my life can have no 'meaning' they might mean 'purpose'.

Dr Adequate

3rd July 2005, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Robin
Thank you. Actually I think that when they say my life can have no 'meaning' they might mean 'purpose'. Yes, but they don't say so. If I could make everyone in the world say exactly what they mean, I should die a happy man. Which is why I point it out when they commit category errors.

Iacchus

4th July 2005, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Robin
I am constantly being told that life can have no meaning for me because I don't subscribe to some or other belief system.

So presumably the people saying these things know the meaning of life, if they are sure their life has meaning? So come on, what is the meaning? What, aside from the fact that you ascribe that which is totally arbirtrary to the meaning of existence? Perhaps we should begin by saying there is nothing arbitrary about our being here? By the way, everything has meaning, if it exists in relationship with something else.

Huh-What?

4th July 2005, 01:46 AM

To live. To be.
Why must there be purpose beyond this?

Lord Emsworth

4th July 2005, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
By the way, everything has meaning, if it exists in relationship with something else.

OK, now we have something a and something b that have a relationship. And the meaning of the compound of something a and something b?

Iacchus

4th July 2005, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by Huh-What?
To live. To be.
Why must there be purpose beyond this? To get past the notion that the Big Bang was all there is? ... i.e., that there was nothing to spur creation into existence.

CFLarsen

4th July 2005, 01:58 AM

To have a machine that goes "PING".

Iacchus

4th July 2005, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
OK, now we have something a and something b that have a relationship. And the meaning of the compound of something a and something b? Can we have meaning without a sense of order? Of course not. Whereas meaning is merely the study of the relationship derived from this sense of order.

CFLarsen

4th July 2005, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Can we have meaning without a sense of order? Of course not. Whereas meaning is merely the study of the relationship derived from this sense of order.

What is "order"?

CFLarsen

4th July 2005, 02:48 AM

Take a look at this image:
http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/kitten2.jpg

Not much "order", is it?

Yet, it is a small part of this image:

http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/kitten1.gif

Your "sense" of order dependes entirely on where you stand. It doesn't mean that it is right or wrong, only that you cannot conclude that there is any overall "order" in the first place.

Iacchus

4th July 2005, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Your "sense" of order dependes entirely on where you stand. It doesn't mean that it is right or wrong, only that you cannot conclude that there is any overall "order" in the first place. Well surely you must not be speaking of order in the "overall" sense things then, correct? Or, what exactly do you mean by "order?" ... Or, "overall?"

CFLarsen

4th July 2005, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well surely you must not be speaking of order in the "overall" sense things then, correct?

I am talking about the idea of order being dependent on where you stand. You would only have an "overall" view, if you could view everything at all levels at the same time.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Or, what exactly do you mean by "order?" ...

I asked first. What, exactly, do you mean by "order"?

Originally posted by Iacchus
Or, "overall?"

Explained above. Do you agree that there is no order in the first image?

H3LL

4th July 2005, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Asking "what is the meaning of life?" is a category error.

Wonderful. :D

Is that an original Dr. A?

Iacchus

4th July 2005, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Explained above. Do you agree that there is no order in the first image? I don't see any order that makes the first image recognizable as a cat. However, if there was no "overall" sense of order that defines it as a cat -- or, anything else for that matter -- how would we be able to recognize that it was a cat? Or, are you trying to tell us that it's something completely different?

Robin

4th July 2005, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
[B]What, aside from the fact that you ascribe that which is totally arbirtrary to the meaning of existence?
Well don't worry about what you think I ascribe to anything - if you think there is a meaning to existence then what is it?
Perhaps we should begin by saying there is nothing arbitrary about our being here?
OK, but then you should go on and tell me why we are here. If you don't know then how can you say that there is a purpose to existence?
By the way, everything has meaning, if it exists in relationship with something else.
Sounds like you are coming round to atheism there.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

4th July 2005, 06:04 PM

Apparently Interesting Ian has missed this thread so far, because he has not regaled us with the meaning of life.

Ian, don't make us wait too long!

~~ Paul

Dredred

4th July 2005, 06:16 PM

My view is that the meaning of life is living, and if that's not enough for you you can change how you live your life or believe in an afterlife where everything will be nice and easy.

NoZed Avenger

4th July 2005, 07:10 PM

Tangerines.

clarsct

4th July 2005, 07:26 PM

SEX!

Iacchus

4th July 2005, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Robin
OK, but then you should go on and tell me why we are here. If you don't know then how can you say that there is a purpose to existence? What purpose does the leg serve, if not to give you a leg to stand on? :D

Or, what is coherence? Has the Universe always been coherent? I believe that it has. Otherwise it would be like saying the whole thing just appeared from nothing.

clarsct

4th July 2005, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
What purpose does the leg serve, if not to give you a leg to stand on? :D

Or, what is coherence? Has the Universe always been coherent? I believe that it has. Otherwise it would be like saying the whole thing just appeared from nothing.

EXACTLY!

Atlas

4th July 2005, 08:00 PM

The meaning of life is experienced in the richness of the moment.

It is realized in a rich moment of reverie.

Robin

4th July 2005, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Can we have meaning without a sense of order? Of course not. Whereas meaning is merely the study of the relationship derived from this sense of order.
It seems to me that the immaterialists in this forum, like Interesting Ian, are the ones that have been very non-commital about whether there is an underlying order to existence.

In fact they insist that if consciousness depended on some underlying order then we would be machines like a clockwork clock and free will would be impossible. So by your definition it is the immaterialists that cannot have meaning in their lives.

But materialists generally do believe there is some underlying order to existence.

NoZed Avenger

4th July 2005, 09:02 PM

Life is a swirling, sucking eddy of despair filled with brief glimpses of false hope in an ever blackening universe.

Atlas

4th July 2005, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Life is a swirling, sucking eddy of despair filled with brief glimpses of false hope in an ever blackening universe. Ah, those sweet, sweet glimpses of false hope. Of all that you describe, I think I like those parts the best.

triadboy

4th July 2005, 10:29 PM

Life is a riddle within an enigma - inside a question wrapped in bacon.

NoZed Avenger

4th July 2005, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Ah, those sweet, sweet glimpses of false hope. Of all that you describe, I think I like those parts the best.

Personally, I favor the swirling and sucking.

Iacchus

4th July 2005, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Robin
But materialists generally do believe there is some underlying order to existence. They just have a hard time understanding how it couldn't just mysteriously spring up of its own accord.

Robin

4th July 2005, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
They just have a hard time understanding how it couldn't just mysteriously spring up of its own accord.
So presumably immaterialists know exactly how it sprung up, but for some reason are keeping this to themselves.

Robin

4th July 2005, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
They just have a hard time understanding how it couldn't just mysteriously spring up of its own accord.
I certainly see that this is just not possible. It must have been created by some even more complex thing that mysteriously sprung up of its own accord.

Iacchus

4th July 2005, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Robin
I certainly see that this is just not possible. It must have been created by some even more complex thing that mysteriously sprung up of its own accord. Exactly. Has the Universe -- or, that which gave rise to it -- always been coherent? Or no? Does coherence "induce" coherence? Or, does it work the "other way" around? ... i.e., in mysterious ways.

CFLarsen

4th July 2005, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
I don't see any order that makes the first image recognizable as a cat. However, if there was no "overall" sense of order that defines it as a cat -- or, anything else for that matter -- how would we be able to recognize that it was a cat? Or, are you trying to tell us that it's something completely different?

Read what I said: It's part of a cat. The part is unordered, in fact all parts are.

Yet, they add up to something you see as ordered.

If it depends on where you stand, can you then really talk about "order"?

Robin

4th July 2005, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Exactly. Has the Universe -- or, that which gave rise to it -- always been coherent? Or no? Does coherence "induce" coherence? Or, does it work the "other way" around? ... i.e., in mysterious ways.
Well I don't know if coherence induces coherence or the other way around (incidentally the "other way round" would be "coherence induces coherence").

But you answer everything with a question which means that you don't know any of this either. So you are in the same boat as me - you don't know. Does your life have more meaning than mine given that all we have is questions?

Answer - no your life has no more meaning than mine. But not knowing is a lot of fun if you enjoy trying to find out.

Iacchus

4th July 2005, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Read what I said: It's part of a cat. The part is unordered, in fact all parts are.

Yet, they add up to something you see as ordered.

If it depends on where you stand, can you then really talk about "order"? Are you suggesting that there is "no order" within the individual cells of a "live" cat? What exactly are you trying to propose here?

Iacchus

5th July 2005, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by Robin
Well I don't know if coherence induces coherence or the other way around (incidentally the "other way round" would be "coherence induces coherence").

But you answer everything with a question which means that you don't know any of this either. So you are in the same boat as me - you don't know. Does your life have more meaning than mine given that all we have is questions?

Answer - no your life has no more meaning than mine. But not knowing is a lot of fun if you enjoy trying to find out. It's funny, but the only choice we have by saying the Universe cropped up out of nothing, is to say that the Universe behaves in mysterious ways, indeed! :D In fact, it almost sounds like a good excuse for starting up a religion! :D

Robin

5th July 2005, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's funny, but the only choice we have by saying the Universe cropped up out of nothing, is to say that the Universe behaves in mysterious ways, indeed! :D In fact, it almost sounds like a good excuse for starting up a religion! :D
Everything is mysterious - until you find out more about it. It seems like an even better excuse to do some scientific research!

Iacchus

5th July 2005, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by Robin
Everything is mysterious - until you find out more about it. It seems like an even better excuse to do some scientific research! Exactly. I honestly don't believe it's possible for something to "crop up" out of nothing. Do you?

Robin

5th July 2005, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Exactly. I honestly don't believe it's possible for something to "crop up" out of nothing. Do you?
I don't know if it is or isn't possible. But if a universe can't crop up out of nothing, neither can a God. If a God can have 'always existed' then some non-intelligent, non-purposeful cause for the universe could have 'always existed'.

Iacchus

5th July 2005, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by Robin
I don't know if it is or isn't possible. But if a universe can't crop up out of nothing, neither can a God. If a God can have 'always existed' then some non-intelligent, non-purposeful cause for the universe could have 'always existed'. How could anything exist without "coherence?" It's either coherence all the way up, and coherence all the way down ... or, the total lack of coherence thereof.

kuroyume0161

5th July 2005, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Exactly. I honestly don't believe it's possible for something to "crop up" out of nothing. Do you?

One has to be careful about tossing words around carelessly. They are pointy and heavy and usually end up sticking in the wrong end! ;)

What I mean is that 'nothing' in science almost never means 'nothing'. As a matter of fact, I don't remember a scientific theory wherein the universe came from literally 'nothing'.

It is the same problem people have with black holes. Einstein never said that a black hole, beyond the event horizon, was 'undefined'. What he did was the maths and found the answers to the equations as 'undefined'. Undefined here is a mathematical result, not a description. His equations continually ended in infinities (another mathematical quantity) which pointed to the fact that beyond a black hole's event horizon, we cannot derive theories and laws (and for all intensive purposes, we cannot observe to make such models).

So, 'nothing' is a vague, ambiguous quality. Many hypotheses describe the 'universe' as always having existed, just in different states, or having formed from a previous universe, or seeping out of higher dimensions. None of these mention 'ex-nihilo' popping into existence. Not even the current theory of its origin, Big Bang, posits nothing and then a universe. It posits a very compact universe in a state of equilibrium suddenly (and, yes, unexplicably to our current knowledge) losing this equilibrium or homogeneity to become what it is today.

So, the origin of the universe as we know it is, yes, a mystery. Not a 'religious' mystery, but more like a 'detective' mystery. A religious mystery is inexplicable and is supposed to remain that way. Understanding the 'mystery' in this sense is to ponder it internally or externally by revelation. A detective mystery usually becomes explicable once enough evidence has been gathered and analyzed. Understanding stems from piecing together the puzzle pieces and applying hypotheses to them.

H3LL

5th July 2005, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Exactly. I honestly don't believe it's possible for something to "crop up" out of nothing. Do you?

I'm a bit vague on this one, someone may clarify, but wasn't it Hawkins that suggested that energy, in all its forms, all have their positives and negatives. As a result, the sum total of energy in the universe is zero.

You can't get closer to nothing than zero IMHO.

kuroyume0161

5th July 2005, 12:56 AM

If you take the difference in number of all men and women and it results in 0, does that mean there are no people?

Note: A sum is the opposite of a difference, but equivalent if the quantities in question represent positive and negative numbers.

So, no, zero doesn't equate to nothing here. It equates to an equilibrium of somethings. ;)

I once again restate the first paragraph of my last post.

kuroyume0161

5th July 2005, 01:25 AM

Just to clarify that further with one more example of how zero is not 'nothing' in all cases, but can be in others or in the same case depending upon what is being evaluated.

Suppose you have some object that you can command go up or down by discreet units (sort of like an elevator moving from floor to floor). Let us further suppose that the object starts at unit = 0 and that you issue a set of up and down commands wherein the object starts at unit = 0 and ends at unit = 0, but travels inbetween. We'll give 'up' commands the value of +1 and 'down' commands the value of -1. If you were to sum these, the result would be 0.

There are two ways to look at the result. The first equates zero with no motion (nothing). In particular, it equates the net or resultant motion with zero. This means that during all of the motions, the resultant vector displacement is zero. But the object definitely moved in response to each command, therefore there was motion and it can be shown how much it moved by summing all of the up and down commands as directionless displacements. All depends on how you look at it, doesn't it?

Iacchus

5th July 2005, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
All depends on how you look at it, doesn't it? It all depends on how you look at "what?" Careful now ... ;)

CFLarsen

5th July 2005, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Are you suggesting that there is "no order" within the individual cells of a "live" cat? What exactly are you trying to propose here?

I am saying that your perception of whether or not there is "order" is entirely dependent on where you stand.

If you were standing very close to a huge blowup of the cat picture, you would only see the fuzzy, non-ordered part. You would then have no option than to conclude that there was no "order".

But there is.

H3LL

5th July 2005, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
If you take the difference in number of all men and women and it results in 0, does that mean there are no people?

I don't think Hawkins was counting things or measuring motion. When a particle and its corresponding anti-particle meet, they annihilate each other. There is nothing.

Better brains than mine may be able to clarify (and if it was Hawkins), but your lift and people analogy seems inappropriate.

When men and women meet they don't usually annihilate each other.

Mind you, it's one heck of a contraceptive idea. :D

Iacchus

5th July 2005, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I am saying that your perception of whether or not there is "order" is entirely dependent on where you stand.

If you were standing very close to a huge blowup of the cat picture, you would only see the fuzzy, non-ordered part. You would then have no option than to conclude that there was no "order".

But there is. Or, perhaps I would conclude that everything is as it should be. In other words, "in order."

CFLarsen

5th July 2005, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Or, perhaps I would conclude that everything is as it should be. In other words, "in order."

How so? You admit that the fuzzy picture has no "order"?

Iacchus

5th July 2005, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How so? You admit that the fuzzy picture has no "order"? With respect to what? If there was no "difference" between things, what would there be to "order?" And, if there was nothing to differentiate between, where would we find "meaning?"

Dredred

5th July 2005, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If you were standing very close to a huge blowup of the cat picture, you would only see the fuzzy, non-ordered part. You would then have no option than to conclude that there was no "order".

But there is.

I'm wondering what you mean by 'order'. Your defenition seems to be "recognizable as something we know". Is that right? Then what do you mean when you say: "There is order"?

Dredred

5th July 2005, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Dredred
I'm wondering what you mean by 'order'. Your defenition seems to be "recognizable as something we know". Is that right? Then what do you mean when you say: "There is order"?

Larsen, never mind my last post. I just went back to the start of this thread and saw that you yourself where asking for a definition of order and used the cat-pic as example. Sorry..

kuroyume0161

5th July 2005, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by H3LL
I don't think Hawkins was counting things or measuring motion. When a particle and its corresponding anti-particle meet, they annihilate each other. There is nothing.

Yet there still exists energy in the universe. ??? If there was truly nothing with respect to energy, then there'd be nothing at all in that respect - energy would not exist.

Hawkins was measuring overall resultant energy. This follows from the "Law of Equilibrium" in the grandest sense, I suppose. Therefore, my examples were appropriate. Crude, but appropriate.

wollery

5th July 2005, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Yet there still exists energy in the universe. ??? If there was truly nothing with respect to energy, then there'd be nothing at all in that respect - energy would not exist.

Hawkins was measuring overall resultant energy. This follows from the "Law of Equilibrium" in the grandest sense, I suppose. Therefore, my examples were appropriate. Crude, but appropriate. It would have been a better analogy if you'd included a counterweight required to raise or lower the elevator. That way the mean distance travelled by the elevator and the counterweight is always zero.

kuroyume0161

5th July 2005, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by wollery
It would have been a better analogy if you'd included a counterweight required to raise or lower the elevator. That way the mean distance travelled by the elevator and the counterweight is always zero.

Yes, that is better. It was early morning and I was just about to go to bed. The idea was to counter the fallacy of the argument generally and quickly. If I'd had more time, then more perusing through my books would have been performed. In any case, it still shows that zero != nothing. Because a mathematical result equals zero it does not justify the conclusion that it signifies its non-existence. The fact that we can continue on and on with similar examples and analogies, alone, shows this.

Dr Adequate

5th July 2005, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by H3LL
Wonderful. :D

Is that an original Dr. A? I can't have been the first person to notice it.

I guess that's why professional philosophers never use the phrase "the meaning of life".

If you mean, did I think that up all by my little self, then yes I did, and way before I knew the phrase "category error".

Are you really two hot blonde chicks, or is your avatar misleading?

Dr Adequate

5th July 2005, 10:20 PM

The thing about the total energy of the universe.

(1) No, Hawking didn't think of it. I can't tell you off the top of my head who did, though.

(2) A gravitational field has negative energy (I can prove this if anyone's interested). The fact that the universe has, in total, zero energy, is a result of the fact that the negative energy of the gravitational field of mass/energy exactly balances the positive energy of that mass/energy.

For further information, learn physics, and then tell me about it.

Robin

5th July 2005, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I guess that's why professional philosophers never use the phrase "the meaning of life".

Except of course that professional philosophers very often use the word 'meaning', or 'meaningful', or 'meaningless' with respect to life and experience (or at least words that get translated into those words) - check the page on existentialism on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.