>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 univ

>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.