The meaning of life

What is the meaning of life?

A very good film by Monty Python.

With an intermission where the question "Where is my fishy?" gets asked.

cthia wrote:What is the meaning of life?

42.

The only way we can get a solid answer for this one is by a communication from the creator.

The two primary questions I prefer are:

Why is there anything, rather than nothing?

Is the basis for everything impersonal, or personal?

But what is more achievable is better methods of testing ideas. For the second above, I note that the only source we know about for information, rather than just random data, is personal intelligence. Positing any other source goes beyond our available knowledge. Any form of life we know about has large amounts of information, in the form of functional instructions for construction, maintenance, and operation of that life form.

Which is better, to consistently apply the best test methods we know, or to speculate without at least trying to apply them

If there was nothing we couldn't ask the question, so only where there is anything can the question be asked.
The basis is impersonal. No individual is so important that the cosmos would apply differential physical rules to them.

Daryl wrote:If there was nothing we couldn't ask the question, so only where there is anything can the question be asked.
The basis is impersonal. No individual is so important that the cosmos would apply differential physical rules to them.

Can you point to any known source of functional data that doesn't start with personal intelligence? The theory that personal is a by product of an impersonal universe goes back at least to the Babylonians - look at the Babylonian creation myths, which assume the universe to be already existing.

By basis, I mean that which/who produced an low entropy cosmos with not just complexity, but functional complexity. Cthia undoubtedly knows much more about information theory than my layman level. (C., please suggest a good laymen's level book!! Or even an article with references!!!! Pretty Please) But as I understand it: impersonal doesn't produce signal, which includes rules that work; but noise, which degrades the signal. The question is whether the impersonal cosmos is an intended product of a personal: "In the beginning, God . . .."

In other words, we know of no way workable rules can come from an impersonal cosmos.

IMHO the first point is why the multi universe hypothesis was made: since our cosmos started with low entropy and high information level, those who worship time-plus-chance suggested that it must be balanced by many cosmoses with low entropy and/or information level.

DDHvi wrote:

Daryl wrote:If there was nothing we couldn't ask the question, so only where there is anything can the question be asked.
The basis is impersonal. No individual is so important that the cosmos would apply differential physical rules to them.

Can you point to any known source of functional data that doesn't start with personal intelligence? The theory that personal is a by product of an impersonal universe goes back at least to the Babylonians - look at the Babylonian creation myths, which assume the universe to be already existing.

By basis, I mean that which/who produced an low entropy cosmos with not just complexity, but functional complexity. Cthia undoubtedly knows much more about information theory than my layman level. (C., please suggest a good laymen's level book!! Or even an article with references!!!! Pretty Please) But as I understand it: impersonal doesn't produce signal, which includes rules that work; but noise, which degrades the signal. The question is whether the impersonal cosmos is an intended product of a personal: "In the beginning, God . . .."

In other words, we know of no way workable rules can come from an impersonal cosmos.

IMHO the first point is why the multi universe hypothesis was made: since our cosmos started with low entropy and high information level, those who worship time-plus-chance suggested that it must be balanced by many cosmoses with low entropy and/or information level.

I've recommended this many times with good reviews, as a layman's text with excellent scope.
http://jpkc2010.nudt.edu.cn/xxlybmjc/ji ... mation.PDF

cthia wrote:What is the meaning of life?

I would say that depends on the scope of the question.

From a biological standpoint it is to procreate and provide the best possible chances for your offspring to survive.

From a philosophical standpoint there are as many answers as there are schools of philosophy.

From a religious standpoint it's to follow rules laid down by your god(s) so you will be accepted into whatever afterlife your religion describes.

From a political standpoint it's to be a good, obedient citizen and contribute to the states welfare.

From a corporate standpoint it's to be good little worker so your company can pay dividends to its shareholders.

In the end there is no definitive answer except what you yourself believe.

Joat42 wrote:

cthia wrote:What is the meaning of life?

I would say that depends on the scope of the question.

From a biological standpoint it is to procreate and provide the best possible chances for your offspring to survive.

From a philosophical standpoint there are as many answers as there are schools of philosophy.

From a religious standpoint it's to follow rules laid down by your god(s) so you will be accepted into whatever afterlife your religion describes.

From a political standpoint it's to be a good, obedient citizen and contribute to the states welfare.

From a corporate standpoint it's to be good little worker so your company can pay dividends to its shareholders.

In the end there is no definitive answer except what you yourself believe.

Is this a foray into life's purpose?