There is no meaning to life

[Sy Borg]

Deciding that what's happening at this moment as a measure of progress is a newbie error, failing to take into account what every teacher knows - progress is not linear. Growing complexity is inevitable until major systemic breakdown, eg. the expanding Sun will boil off the Earth's oceans in a billion years' time.

[psyreporter]

Do you believe that there are facts in the world that differ from truths in that they remain the same in time?

I don't believe that there are facts that remain "the same in time," no.

Facts are different than truths, though. Facts being states of affairs in general, truths being a property of (or more specifically a judgment about) propositions.

You mentioned in an other topic "Facts obtain whether people exist or not. Propositions do NOT obtain whether people exist or not."

What could make a fact otherwise than truth if it is not a belief? I intended to indicate then that merely a belief in uniformitarianism is at the basis of the idea that facts are outside of the scope of other propositions.

Truth conditions of a perspective on reality are questionable just like the truth conditions of a proposition. In the case of facts, a truth condition is that facts are synthetic propositions predicated by existence in the real world (i.e. your argument: facts obtain whether people exist or not). Before one could consider this condition one will need to accept a certain truth about "reality" which is questionable.

Why would one be able to argue that the states of affairs i.e. "reality" is real or definitive? One could only use empirical evidence for such a claim and that implies that it is not known what causes reality to exist, by which it is to be implied that one cannot know if reality is real or definitive and thus it is not possible to claim that facts obtain when people (as an observer) exist or not.

And would that be the foundation for the idea that value is subjective?

Value is subjective because value is something that persons do as a mental phenomenon. There's no evidence of value occurring elsewhere.

When you would abolish the idea that facts remain the same in time (i.e. a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism), then, the simplest pattern will contain the essence of value

Do you mean that one can make a value judgment about "the simplest pattern," or are you saying that things like "patterns" literally have value in them somehow?

The simplest departure from pure randomness implies value. This is evidence that all that can be seen in the world - from the simplest pattern onwards - is value.

One is then to question the origin of value, which is valuing, and the origin of valuing, which by simple logic cannot be value.

which implies that the meaning of life (purpose) is something other than the creation of an individual person.

It would if meaning (which I'm guessing you're associating with value here?--you switched from talking about value to talking about meaning) is literally in things like "patterns" (we'd have to define just what counts as a pattern or not outside of people interpreting things that way, but we can ignore that for now), but you've shown absolutely no evidence that meaning (or value) literally occurs in things like patterns. You're simply making the claim that it does. What is evidence that it does in the face of skepticism about the same?

A pattern is bound by observation because it can only obtain significance by observation. Without significance, no value. This implies that the observer precedes any value in the world.

If the origin of a pattern would not be observation, the pattern would not be significant which would mean that any possible origin would need to be value, which is impossible by the simple logical truth that something cannot originate from itself, which means that the origin of valuing cannot be value.

The origin of valuing cannot be value but it is necessarily meaningful. It is what provides significance to the idea of "good".

Therefor, a meaning of life is applicable on a fundamental level, before any value.

When one looks at valuing by an individual, one looks at a manifestation of the origin of valuing that by means of memory has accumulated to the complex meaning of value in the human sphere.

If we're just saying that valuing things, as a brain/mental phenomenon, is something that is the result of a long chain of evolutionary steps, then sure. But what's the relevance of that?

Before physical sense is possible, valuing has already taken place. This is because the environment is valued relative to an observer.

What's going on on a deeper level

Just what are "levels" and what makes them "deep" or "shallow"?

"deeper" would mean a mental processing of fundamental ideas that can provide one with identity, motivation and a feeling of purpose/fulfillment.

When one uses value in the world as "meaning", what will happen when that value is lost? For example, when life may appear unbearable, how will one possibly find motivation to overcome the problems?

Overcoming problems is essential for progress in life. The fight to overcome problems makes humanity stronger. In my opinion, humanity should be driven to the extreme (by culture) to "not give up" and in order to enable success on that regard, it will be important to discover the meaning of life that makes motivation possible BEFORE value.

[Sy Borg]

But there's no reason to believe that. Anything that has a mind--so imagine that an individual microbe does--and thus counts as a person can (at least potentially) come up with a purpose/"meaning" of life, and can't get as much wrong, because there's nothing to get right. There's no objective meaning of life to match or fail to match. It would just be how that individual microbe thinks about things in terms of purpose/directedness/"meaning." Different persons (whatever creatures) will come up with different "meanings," but none of them are greater/lesser than others aside from in subjective assessments that also can not be correct or incorrect.

Read again. I'm obviously not talking about microbial meanings of life (an interpretation so odd that I could not possibly have anticipated it).

We consist of microbial communities. That's what cells are - colonial microbes, whose integration and interdependency has become total. Now we are effectively becoming the microbes. That's evolution.

You're suggesting something like a communal mind? (And you're trying to connect that to evolution?)

It's not a hard line between colonies and organisms. Integration reaches a point where a nervous system (or analogue) forms, and things that happen to cells in one part of the entity increasingly impact on other cells.

Everything is evolution - biological evolution (in the technical sense) is a subset of the evolution (in the generic sense) of everything. Perhaps you would suggest an alternative?

[Tegularius]

If there were a meaning to life there would need to be a goal to which it strives. The only goal I can see life has is to keep going. After that whatever requirements humans may have is clearly up to them even if it means exterminating big chunks of life from the planet.

Who knows! Maybe some advanced life form is going to win the cosmic lottery of successfully maintaining its existence.

[LuckyR]

If there were a meaning to life there would need to be a goal to which it strives. The only goal I can see life has is to keep going. After that whatever requirements humans may have is clearly up to them even if it means exterminating big chunks of life from the planet.

Who knows! Maybe some advanced life form is going to win the cosmic lottery of successfully maintaining its existence.

That is life's meaning, yet not the meaning of life (since it has no meaning).

[Tegularius]

If there were a meaning to life there would need to be a goal to which it strives. The only goal I can see life has is to keep going. After that whatever requirements humans may have is clearly up to them even if it means exterminating big chunks of life from the planet.

Who knows! Maybe some advanced life form is going to win the cosmic lottery of successfully maintaining its existence.

That is life's meaning, yet not the meaning of life (since it has no meaning).

No objections. That's pretty describes its meaning for me as well!

[Terrapin Station]

It's not a hard line between colonies and organisms.

I'd say there is for some things, like minds.

Everything is evolution - biological evolution (in the technical sense) is a subset of the evolution (in the generic sense) of everything

I think we need to be careful making analogies to biological evolution when we're talking about other things.

[Sy Borg]

It's not a hard line between colonies and organisms.

I'd say there is for some things, like minds.

Do you see this situation as permanent? Do you think that minds are special and are thus unlikely to be subject to the same dynamics as physical attributes?

Everything is evolution - biological evolution (in the technical sense) is a subset of the evolution (in the generic sense) of everything

I think we need to be careful making analogies to biological evolution when we're talking about other things.

Unfortunately "evolution" is the best generic word to describe what's happened with the universe from the BB onwards, but that generic word has been semantically co-opted by the specific scientific use in reference to biology. If you can think of a better word than "evolving" to describe the universe's change from dense seas of ionised plasma and black holes through its various stages until reaching today's cosmic situation, I'm all ears.

[psyreporter]

If there were a meaning to life there would need to be a goal to which it strives. The only goal I can see life has is to keep going. After that whatever requirements humans may have is clearly up to them even if it means exterminating big chunks of life from the planet.

Who knows! Maybe some advanced life form is going to win the cosmic lottery of successfully maintaining its existence.

That is life's meaning, yet not the meaning of life (since it has no meaning).

I would not agree with this.

The simplest departure from pure randomness implies value. This is evidence that all that can be seen in the world - from the simplest pattern onward - is value.

The origin of value is necessarily meaningful but cannot be value by the simple logical truth that something cannot originate from itself. This implies that a meaning of life is applicable on a fundamental level (a priori or "before value").

[Terrapin Station]

Do you see this situation as permanent?

Yes, because we're talking about (a) properties that obtain from the reference point of being the thing in question versus (b) properties that obtain from a reference point of being other than the thing in question, and that gap can't be crossed in order to have some communal (some other-than-the-thing-in-question reference point) set of (a) properties.

We're talking exclusively about physical things here.

Re your name change, are you a Zappa fan, by the way? I'm a huge Zappa fan, and I've actually had the opportunity to work with a number of people who played with Zappa. (Unfortunately I never got to work with or even meet Zappa himself, though.)

[LuckyR]

If there were a meaning to life there would need to be a goal to which it strives. The only goal I can see life has is to keep going. After that whatever requirements humans may have is clearly up to them even if it means exterminating big chunks of life from the planet.

Who knows! Maybe some advanced life form is going to win the cosmic lottery of successfully maintaining its existence.

That is life's meaning, yet not the meaning of life (since it has no meaning).

I would not agree with this.

The simplest departure from pure randomness implies value. This is evidence that all that can be seen in the world - from the simplest pattern onward - is value.

The origin of value is necessarily meaningful but cannot be value by the simple logical truth that something cannot originate from itself. This implies that a meaning of life is applicable on a fundamental level (a priori or "before value").

This makes sense for a layperson unfamiliar with the nuances of particle physics. Alas, various patterns do occur naturally without devine intervention.

[Sy Borg]

Do you see this situation as permanent?

Yes, because we're talking about (a) properties that obtain from the reference point of being the thing in question versus (b) properties that obtain from a reference point of being other than the thing in question, and that gap can't be crossed in order to have some communal (some other-than-the-thing-in-question reference point) set of (a) properties.

We're talking exclusively about physical things here.

Re your name change, are you a Zappa fan, by the way? I'm a huge Zappa fan, and I've actually had the opportunity to work with a number of people who played with Zappa. (Unfortunately I never got to work with or even meet Zappa himself, though.)

So you see humans as they are now as basically the ultimate intelligence capable of evolving from the Earth? Maybe a slight improvement, perhaps a nip and tuck, but - for you - the human mind is as far as it goes? I suppose if there's a cataclysm, that could be the case, otherwise, no way. Logically, minds will emerge with capacities as far beyond ours as ours are from chimps.

Minds aren't any more physical than algorithms. They apply to physical things but they, themselves, are informational in nature. Hive minds are already developing. You see it in the way people parrot the same terms over and over - "elites", "snowflakes", "cancel culture", "PC" - and they parrot almost exactly the same things about them too, over and over, many regurgitating from the same sources. That's surely just the start. When the internet and phone systems are implanted, with the bugs ironed out and with established system, it's easy to see implantees' capacities rise markedly, and uniformly, bridging the gap wirelessly.

[Sculptor1]

Nothing we do matters at all. Our short physical existences are but a micro fraction of the blink of an eye in the face of time. Therefore, no emotion or action can make any true difference, seeing as our society will last at the most only a few million years. Our corpses will have turned to ash, disintegrated, and have been reabsorbed and redistributed by the universe myriads of times, and any insignificant deed will be forgotten. In light of this knowledge, I implore you, what reason is there to exist at all? How can we justify our lives when they are so inconsequential in vast scope of this entire metaphysical plane?

Why would I care about the "face of time"?
Everything I do matters to me. It may well mean nothing to you and in fact I expect that it does not.

[Sy Borg]

Adding to my prior post: I feel okay about being a link in the chain towards potentially higher minds. I like being part of this amazing planet's evolution, in this mind-blowing solar system and galaxy, etc. It would be nice if it was a gentler ride, but perhaps more denizens of the far future will have an easier time of it.

As for "meaning" of my individual life day-to-day, that's mostly just survival instinct and related social instincts calling the shots. Some people lead lives of great influence, changing the course of entire societies, for better or for worse. But most of us are just links in the evolutionary chain, our lives no more or less meaningful than the 90 billion human lives and countless individuals of other species that have been and gone before us.

[Fellowmater]

"Darwin's discovery of evolution showed us a meaningless universe."
— Chris Liu

Darwin investigated the mechanisms of nature. The fact that life in the universe changes over time needs not lead us to the conclusion that the universe is meaningless. It might be meaningless, but at least one species spends a lot of time generating meaning.

"So what should humans do according to this meaning of life? Some things are obvious. For example, humans should colonize outer space..."
— Chris Liu

And, actually, we have. Our planet is in outer space, out on the edge of our galaxy, and we have colonized this planet. There are inordinate difficulties in colonizing distant planets; like, they're not at all suitable for us or they are just too far away.