4 ms·

The answer is indeed 42, and Adams left it a dimensionless number because each of us ascribe the "unit" that makes the "number" - our life - have a meaning, if

The answer is indeed 42, and Adams left it a dimensionless number because each of us ascribe the "unit" that makes the "number" - our life - have a meaning, if we so choose. > I'm hopefull that neuroscience holds better answers. It will not find the meaning of the universe in our head. The best it can hope to answer is which part of the brain makes us look for answers. It is hard for most people to accept that sometimes there is no answer, we are hard-wired to look for patterns and reasons. Hence myths and religions. But our very emergence as a species is nothing but the product of a soulless, relentless evolution.

posterboy 10y ago
>It will not find the meaning of the universe in our head I was just hoping, for example, neuroscience would find out what is even ment by "meaning of the universe", because foremost, as Adams alluded, that doesn't make much sense to ask for. This is pretty simple, as you noted, because the Universe is an (the) infinite limit in the mathematical sense, that by definition doesn't have any externalities. So, as far as I can tell, the singularity is a fixpoint. Neuroscience might explain how we come up with that and rephrase it more poignantly. As I said, that question seems to be mostly an exercise in phrasing and might not become a huge revelation. In a sense you are both right, you can keep asking for ever, but the answer will always be the same: "a rose is a rose is a rose ..." What I just wonder is, how that actually refers to ourselves. "We are what we are" is not exactly a satisfying form of self-awareness. In differential equations that is called a stationary solution. Rephrasing the question could show a different mind frame concerned with, well, notable differences. What I really don't know is how emotions play into the development of reason, e.g. the fear of pain and, by extension, to die. Your last paragraph is vexing, but I am rambling, too, so who am I to criticize.

posterboy 10y ago

>It will not find the meaning of the universe in our head I was just hoping, for example, neuroscience would find out what is even ment by "meaning of the universe", because foremost, as Adams alluded, that doesn't make much sense to ask for. This is pretty simple, as you noted, because the Universe is an (the) infinite limit in the mathematical sense, that by definition doesn't have any externalities. So, as far as I can tell, the singularity is a fixpoint. Neuroscience might explain how we come up with that and rephrase it more poignantly. As I said, that question seems to be mostly an exercise in phrasing and might not become a huge revelation. In a sense you are both right, you can keep asking for ever, but the answer will always be the same: "a rose is a rose is a rose ..." What I just wonder is, how that actually refers to ourselves. "We are what we are" is not exactly a satisfying form of self-awareness. In differential equations that is called a stationary solution. Rephrasing the question could show a different mind frame concerned with, well, notable differences. What I really don't know is how emotions play into the development of reason, e.g. the fear of pain and, by extension, to die. Your last paragraph is vexing, but I am rambling, too, so who am I to criticize.