Thread: My Theory to The Meaning of Life

Aright, you may think I'm nuts, but here it goes; my thought process as to why I believe in what I believe in:




Ask a Question:


What is the meaning of life?



Do Background Research:


-With the observations listed below, it is safe to conclude that there is a process that allows life forms to change and become comfortable with new surroundings.

--Observation, life is mainly built to perform two functions; A, to survive, and B, to multiply.
--Observation, it is possible for a form of life to be ineffective at these two things, this form of life will either become extinct or evolve through natural selection and speciation.
--Observation, whenever or not a form of life is effective or ineffective at these two things depends largely, if not entirely, of the environment around them.


-Observation, there is not yet a clear answer to the cycle of the Universe, or if a cycle even exists. The Big Crunch/Big Bounce theory to the Ultimate Fate of the Universe can be dis-proven due to the fact that an expanding and contracting universe's total size would be smaller and smaller with each cycle, similar to how a rubber ball slowly stops bouncing on a floor. The most acceptable theory thus far is the Big Freeze, the theory that one day particles will spread too far out to interact with one another. This theory is supported by Accelerating Universe, the observation that the Universe's speed of growth is increasing.


-Making Connections, if life is built to A, survive, B, multiply, and is able to adapt to changing environments, then is it possible that life may be able to adapt to the Big Freeze?

--No, because some form of energy input needs to exist in order for there to be an output, and life cannot rely on kinetic energy as a sustainable source due to the fact that eventually all particles coming to them while they are stationary will pass by, leaving the life form with no energy input. The life form also cannot travel parallel to the particles due to the fact that there would be no enery gain. If the Big Freeze is the ultimate fate of the Universe, life will not survive it.


-Alternative Solution, is it possible for life to prevent the Big Freeze, and form a Big Crunch/Big Bounce that will be one-hundred percent the size of the previous Big Bang?

--Supporting Law, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. If a Big Freeze were to occur, particles would still be radiating away from the source of the Big Bang, just at zero degrees kelvin. If life were to prevent the Big Freeze and create a Big Crunch/Big Bounce, then life would have to find a way to concentrate every particle in the Universe to one spot before it's too late.


-Is is possible for life to concentrate every particle of the Universe in to one spot?

--Observations, humans once saw the moon as being impossibly far away. In nineteen sixty-nine, the Apollo Eleven landed on the moon and the first man to step on the moon, Neil Armstrong, did just that.
--Theory, according to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, it took modern homo-saphiens, from the very first point they were created, roughly one hundred thousand years to achieve landing on the moon.
--Educated Guess, we have billions of years left to find a way to start another Big Bang, so it is a possibility.

-Will humans be the species to pull this off?

--Observation, humans have not been proven to be immune to evolution.
--Observation, according to currently accepted theories, humans will have plenty of time to evolve.
--Hypothesis, humans will not be the species to pull this off.

-Theory, will life in general be the functioning beings to pull this off?
--Observation, it took humans many years to realize the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe, and many years later after that to realize the Sun wasn't the center of the Universe either. It seems that the more we dive into science, the more people and life become humbled.
--Observation, viruses aren't considered living, but they are still able to A, multiply, and B, make an attempt to survive.
--Explanation, my definition of a functioning being is an entity that can A, multiply, and B, make an attempt to survive. This allows for a broader window than the current definition of life.
--Observation, people today are making attempts to create artificial intelligence that can think on a human level. These machines will not be considered living, but will still be, by my definition, considered functioning beings. In fact, it is very likely that man has already created a form of functioning being. Just not one that's as advanced as a human.
--Reason, this does not mean I predict Skynet. Artificial intelligence can outlive human beings in a number of different ways, a violent overthrow is just one example. Artificial intelligence doesn't even have to out live us. It could do all the work while we just sit by like house cats in a home.



Construct a Hypothesis:


Life as we know it is nothing but a step towards the next functioning being, and this set of stairs will be climbed up until the last being, that being will then re-enact the Big Bang.



Test your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment:


Cannot be done with current technology.

MODERATOR NOTE : Welcome to the forum, Bob Sherly. I am moving this thread to the "New Hypothesis" section, since as it is stands this has little to do mainstream astronomy/cosmology. Feel free to continue discussing your ideas there, and enjoy

Originally Posted by Bob Sherly

Aright, you may think I'm nuts, but here it goes;

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Bob Sherly

-With the observations listed below, it is safe to conclude that there is a process that allows life forms to change and become comfortable with new surroundings.

Yes natural selection.


Sorry this seems like the rantings of a madman unable to make the distinction between a philosophical and a scientific question; no matter how many scientific terms you use it won't work. Purpose appears to be a human concept by the way, humans are not built to do anything they just do it.

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by Bob Sherly

Aright, you may think I'm nuts, but here it goes;

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Bob Sherly

-With the observations listed below, it is safe to conclude that there is a process that allows life forms to change and become comfortable with new surroundings.

Yes natural selection.


Sorry this seems like the rantings of a madman unable to make the distinction between a philosophical and a scientific question; no matter how many scientific terms you use it won't work. Purpose appears to be a human concept by the way, humans are not built to do anything they just do it.

they are built for eating and matting

Originally Posted by Bob Sherly

What is the meaning of life?

What makes you think that there is a meaning?

The Big Crunch/Big Bounce theory to the Ultimate Fate of the Universe can be dis-proven due to the fact that an expanding and contracting universe's total size would be smaller and smaller with each cycle, similar to how a rubber ball slowly stops bouncing on a floor.

Wrong.
A ball slowly stops bouncing because it transfers/ loses some of its energy - since the universe is, so far as we know, a closed system there's nowhere for that energy to transfer/ be lost to. Ergo it will be preserved and each bounce will be exactly as large as the preceding one.
And even if it were true that the cycle would "eventually" stop is no indication that the hypothesis (guess) is invalid, let alone "disproved".

As for the rest of it... similar flawed assumptions and wild guesses.

What Dyw said.

Basically, even entering into this question requires the assumption that there is a meaning to our existence. That requires a purposeful creation, which is not possible within our understanding of how humanity came into being.

You can craft your own purpose to life, but to suggest that you are part of one greater than your own implies an intelligent creator and you won't find many people here willing to buy that for $1.

Why another big bang?
I dont like the idea of robots/cyborgs to take our place by simply (A) surviving and (B)multiplying. Misuse of Darwin's theory.

Hi Bob, welcome to the forum. Does the following sum up your thinking accurately.

Structures within the universe become progressively more complex leading to intelligent life. Further evolution, additional emergent properties and a long enough period of time may lead to entities capable of initiating another Big Bang (or of retroactively initiating our own).

If that is an accurate summary then I have one statement and one question.
Statement: interesting, but not original. Also lacking significant evidential support.
Question: How do you reconcile the teleological implications given the preferred absence of teleology from the current methodological naturalism of the scientific method?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Question: How do you reconcile the teleological implications given the preferred absence of teleology from the current methodological naturalism of the scientific method?

John, I have no idea what this means - I would have to look up half of the words you use in this sentence in the dictionary first

Sorry Markus. I should have put some numbers and few Greek letters in it.

Teleology is the concept that things happen for a reason. For example that the human species was destined to evolve. That the emergent properties we see in the universe and its increasing complexity was in some way ordained, or pre-programmed.

Teleology was central to the work of early scientists since they felt they were exploring God's handiwork. Along the way science changed its approach, adopting methodological naturalism. The naturalism requires that the universe is understandable and that what occurs has a logical, consistent and natural explanation. The methodological part means that this is taken as a working practice. We cannot, as yet, demonstrate it is true, but we work on the basis that it is. By implication this eliminates any teleological thinking.

Bob's proposal seems to argue for an underlying purpose and I'm curious as to how he squares this away with current thinking as to how science should be conducted.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Teleology is the concept that things happen for a reason. For example that the human species was destined to evolve. That the emergent properties we see in the universe and its increasing complexity was in some way ordained, or pre-programmed.

Ah I see, thank you John. As an example, Teilhard de Chardin's "Omega Point" immediately comes to mind, then. I am not sure if I can share this particular point of view, but at least I know now what teleology means

they are built for eating and matting

ahhhh, so that's where rugrats come from.