5 ms·

> My question was explicitly about cases when you have no benefit whatsoever in this life. I’m sorry, I didn’t get that from your post. Can you give an example

> My question was explicitly about cases when you have no benefit whatsoever in this life. I’m sorry, I didn’t get that from your post. Can you give an example case where I’d have no benefit whatsoever? > Yes, how else can you argue about "the meaning of the universe" otherwise? Can you please define “the meaning of the universe” for me? I stated previously that I hold no beliefs about that, and that is primarily because I don’t understand what you and others mean by that phrase. Other than stating I hold no beliefs about it I have not been arguing for/against it, again, because I don’t know what it means for the universe to have a meaning. If you believe the universe has meaning, can you please first define what that means, and then cite evidence in support of it?

fsflover 3y ago
> I’m sorry, I didn’t get that from your post. Sorry for being unclear. > Can you give an example case where I’d have no benefit whatsoever? Let's say you donate money to African children or survivors of an earthquake, or partiipate in a project that will not have any results in your lifetime (like Voyager maybe?). Or you go to a climate demonstration while being old, without any chance to see any consequence of it. > Can you please define “the meaning of the universe” for me? I guess there can be no scientific definition here. But imagine there was someone who created the Universe and tuned it for humanity to appear and develop, in a hope of having a good companion. In such case, the meaning of the Universe would be to eventually give a companion. Or maybe, there was nobody, but the Universe still appeared in such a way that more and more complicated structures are created infinitely. What is a purpose of a living cell? It is to collect, process, and transfer further information about the environment (to survive). Same for human DNA, and maybe for humans, too. We can process information much more efficiently with our tools already and enter the informational age - maybe for a reason? To me knowledge is the meaning of the Universe/humanity, and only knowledge will reveal if there is something more here.
- angoragoats 3y ago
  > Let's say you donate money to African children or survivors of an earthquake, or partiipate in a project that will not have any results in your lifetime (like Voyager maybe?). Or you go to a climate demonstration while being old, without any chance to see any consequence of it. For a lot of these types of things I could argue that my children might still benefit even if I wouldn't (e.g. the climate change thing). For others, I'd argue that I maybe I have an innate desire to want to see the human race continue. Call it a biological instinct, maybe. > But imagine there was someone who created the Universe and tuned it for humanity to appear and develop This is a huge leap so I'm not really that interested in considering it unless there is evidence. > Or maybe, there was nobody, but the Universe still appeared in such a way that more and more complicated structures are created infinitely. What is a purpose of a living cell? It is to collect, process, and transfer further information about the environment (to survive). Same for human DNA, and maybe for humans, too. Yes, maybe. But this seems to be veering off-topic from my original question about what does it mean to ascribe meaning to the universe. Are you equating the purpose of life (human or otherwise) with the meaning of the universe? Sorry if I'm not understanding but this still seems very hand-wavy to me and I'd like to understand exactly what it is you're talking about before trying to argue for or against it.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    > For a lot of these types of things I could argue that my children might still benefit even if I wouldn't But why would you care if you won't be here? It won't change your life, will it? I see no logical reason for such sacrifices (apart from a belief in something higher than us: life after death / higher purpose or similar). > Call it a biological instinct, maybe. This is the key. I guess, it's also the answer to my above question. It effectively means that this is a random choice, based on a gut feeling, and that most people (who do not have such instinct) will choose a different, more logical and beneficial, behavior. > Are you equating the purpose of life (human or otherwise) with the meaning of the universe? I tend to believe that yes, they are connected (not necessarily for humans: possibly aliens, too). I make such conclusion from the complexity considerations, as I explained above. Of course, there is no rigor to such conclusion, otherwise it would be ordinary science and our discussion would be unnecessary: this all would be just a fact. However, it shouldn't even matter if purpose of life (human or otherwise) and the meaning of the universe are the same or not. My line of thought is that if you believe that there is a meaning of the Universe, then you have a logical reason to behave with a long-term view. And otherwise you don't, do you?
    - angoragoats 3y ago
      > But why would you care if you won't be here? Because I would like for my children and their peers to not live in a world ravaged by climate change, disease, and war. > It effectively means that this is a random choice No, not random, a choice honed by thousands of years of natural selection. > that most people (who do not have such instinct) will choose a different, more logical and beneficial, behavior. Do you have evidence for any part of this statement? > My line of thought is that if you believe that there is a meaning of the Universe, then you have a logical reason to behave with a long-term view. And otherwise you don't, do you? I don't see how this follows at all. For one, all of the reasons I've previously stated are, in my opinion, solid reasons for behaving with a long-term view. Secondly, I still don't understand what you mean by "meaning of the universe," and your possibly-maybe equivalence of it with "the purpose of life" has left me at least as confused as was before. Edit: this might have been obvious from my prior posts, but it might be worth stating explicitly that when it comes to all of this stuff, I'm a naturalist, and more specifically I tend to agree with the methodological naturalist way of thinking. So statements like: > Of course, there is no rigor to such conclusion, otherwise it would be ordinary science and our discussion would be unnecessary: this all would be just a fact are tough for me to wrap my brain around. To me, "ordinary science" is *all there is*, and I would expect that if there were some higher being that created the universe, we would see evidence of that being and it would be described in studies that would use data to assign good candidate explanations (not "facts") to what we observe. But in the thousands upon thousands of years that humans have believed in deities, no one has yet done this to my knowledge.

fsflover 3y ago

> I’m sorry, I didn’t get that from your post. Sorry for being unclear. > Can you give an example case where I’d have no benefit whatsoever? Let's say you donate money to African children or survivors of an earthquake, or partiipate in a project that will not have any results in your lifetime (like Voyager maybe?). Or you go to a climate demonstration while being old, without any chance to see any consequence of it. > Can you please define “the meaning of the universe” for me? I guess there can be no scientific definition here. But imagine there was someone who created the Universe and tuned it for humanity to appear and develop, in a hope of having a good companion. In such case, the meaning of the Universe would be to eventually give a companion. Or maybe, there was nobody, but the Universe still appeared in such a way that more and more complicated structures are created infinitely. What is a purpose of a living cell? It is to collect, process, and transfer further information about the environment (to survive). Same for human DNA, and maybe for humans, too. We can process information much more efficiently with our tools already and enter the informational age - maybe for a reason? To me knowledge is the meaning of the Universe/humanity, and only knowledge will reveal if there is something more here.

angoragoats 3y ago
> Let's say you donate money to African children or survivors of an earthquake, or partiipate in a project that will not have any results in your lifetime (like Voyager maybe?). Or you go to a climate demonstration while being old, without any chance to see any consequence of it. For a lot of these types of things I could argue that my children might still benefit even if I wouldn't (e.g. the climate change thing). For others, I'd argue that I maybe I have an innate desire to want to see the human race continue. Call it a biological instinct, maybe. > But imagine there was someone who created the Universe and tuned it for humanity to appear and develop This is a huge leap so I'm not really that interested in considering it unless there is evidence. > Or maybe, there was nobody, but the Universe still appeared in such a way that more and more complicated structures are created infinitely. What is a purpose of a living cell? It is to collect, process, and transfer further information about the environment (to survive). Same for human DNA, and maybe for humans, too. Yes, maybe. But this seems to be veering off-topic from my original question about what does it mean to ascribe meaning to the universe. Are you equating the purpose of life (human or otherwise) with the meaning of the universe? Sorry if I'm not understanding but this still seems very hand-wavy to me and I'd like to understand exactly what it is you're talking about before trying to argue for or against it.
- fsflover 3y ago
  > For a lot of these types of things I could argue that my children might still benefit even if I wouldn't But why would you care if you won't be here? It won't change your life, will it? I see no logical reason for such sacrifices (apart from a belief in something higher than us: life after death / higher purpose or similar). > Call it a biological instinct, maybe. This is the key. I guess, it's also the answer to my above question. It effectively means that this is a random choice, based on a gut feeling, and that most people (who do not have such instinct) will choose a different, more logical and beneficial, behavior. > Are you equating the purpose of life (human or otherwise) with the meaning of the universe? I tend to believe that yes, they are connected (not necessarily for humans: possibly aliens, too). I make such conclusion from the complexity considerations, as I explained above. Of course, there is no rigor to such conclusion, otherwise it would be ordinary science and our discussion would be unnecessary: this all would be just a fact. However, it shouldn't even matter if purpose of life (human or otherwise) and the meaning of the universe are the same or not. My line of thought is that if you believe that there is a meaning of the Universe, then you have a logical reason to behave with a long-term view. And otherwise you don't, do you?
  - angoragoats 3y ago
    > But why would you care if you won't be here? Because I would like for my children and their peers to not live in a world ravaged by climate change, disease, and war. > It effectively means that this is a random choice No, not random, a choice honed by thousands of years of natural selection. > that most people (who do not have such instinct) will choose a different, more logical and beneficial, behavior. Do you have evidence for any part of this statement? > My line of thought is that if you believe that there is a meaning of the Universe, then you have a logical reason to behave with a long-term view. And otherwise you don't, do you? I don't see how this follows at all. For one, all of the reasons I've previously stated are, in my opinion, solid reasons for behaving with a long-term view. Secondly, I still don't understand what you mean by "meaning of the universe," and your possibly-maybe equivalence of it with "the purpose of life" has left me at least as confused as was before. Edit: this might have been obvious from my prior posts, but it might be worth stating explicitly that when it comes to all of this stuff, I'm a naturalist, and more specifically I tend to agree with the methodological naturalist way of thinking. So statements like: > Of course, there is no rigor to such conclusion, otherwise it would be ordinary science and our discussion would be unnecessary: this all would be just a fact are tough for me to wrap my brain around. To me, "ordinary science" is *all there is*, and I would expect that if there were some higher being that created the universe, we would see evidence of that being and it would be described in studies that would use data to assign good candidate explanations (not "facts") to what we observe. But in the thousands upon thousands of years that humans have believed in deities, no one has yet done this to my knowledge.