It is important to find meaning in one's life. Whether that is through religion/knowledge/hobbies, a life with a goal (short term/long term) provides direction in this rocky ship we call life.I can perceive that I am dedicating my life to a goal. I can perceive that I have a plan to achieve that goal, I perceive following that plan to achieve that goal, and finally I can perceive accomplishing that goal. Whenever this sequence of events takes place, whether it is for a lifetime ( long term purpose) or for a moment, ( a short term purpose), an accurate purpose of my life existed, at least uniquely in my mind. — A Ree Zen
That "chosen" purpose may work for you as an individual, but most people who ask such questions are assuming there must be a higher, more universal Purpose for the Universe. For example, your short-term purpose for posting this question may be to get feedback to see how your narrow concept of Purpose aligns with that of other thinkers. But, your long-term goal may be to develop your reasoning abilities to the point that you can call yourself a rational Philosopher. Yet both of those intentions are motivated by some underlying emotion : e.g. desire to obtain a degree in philosophy, or to become rich in business due to your purposeful wisdom.I'm in the last camp, where I believe I can choose a purpose. — A Ree Zen
That "eternal basis" and "permanent something" is the cosmic principle of BEING, that I also call G*D, as a sop to traditional feelings.An Eternal Basis has to be so,
For a lack of anything cannot sow,
Forcing there to be something permanent
And partless, from which composites can grow. — PoeticUniverse
Yes. I don't know the overall Purpose of our temporal Cosmos, so my own local personal purpose will have to suffice for my own personal meaning of life. But, as a philosophically inclined layman, I can speculate on that cosmic Purpose, without fear of contradiction. :joke:(Still no overall purpose, just local ones.) — PoeticUniverse
I think to answer the question "What is the purpose of the Universe?" you ought to consider some possibilities of what is behind the curtain:
1) The universe created itself from nothingness. Big Bang led to an ever increasing expansion of the universe. Therefore, in this sense the universe is a non-living entity. A non-living entity cannot have a purpose. (unless you consider human beings who are inside the universe and assign themselves a purpose) Like Ree Zen said, a universe is nonetheless a great idea to study in terms of how something can come from nothing.
2) The universe had an intelligent designer. In this sense, the universe's purpose is whatever the ID assigned it. (or if the universe was created in a simulation)
3) The entire universe is "somehow" a living organism or part of a living organism (like a cell of a larger whole and we just can't see that far). Then it's initial purpose is to survive like all living things.
That seems impossible. — RogueAI
Just remembered something about 'something from nothing' universe: virtual particles can appear out of nothingness and disappear into nothingness. I guess this provides a lot more support that the universe can create itself out of nothingness.
I think you'd have to better clarify the definition of nothingness and the modern ideas behind spontaneous creation from nothingness.
I'd rather not get into that here, but create a brand new discussion on it.
I'll ping you, once I write it.
I guess regarding solipsism and idealism ... there would still need to be a true external world somewhere out there ... but not necessarily the present world.
How would you apply solipsism and idealism as possibilities? I guess I have a few ideas, but I'd have to think about it more.
That reminds of Lawrence Krauss's book "A Universe from Nothing". The laws of nature that allows for virtual particle creation/annihilation are "something". Where did those laws come from? We're not going to cover any new ground that hasn't been covered. — RogueAI
I'm not the one making the strong claim that something came from nothing. I'm just saying that it seems like there's a contradiction in something coming from nothing. — RogueAI
It seems like a contradiction to us because we regularly observe only cause and effect in the universe, at least on the macro scale. I've been thinking about where did it all come from -- what is the first cause that had an effect? Of course, no one knows, but I think we can narrow down the nature of the first cause or the First Thing that ever existed. It either did indeed emerge spontaneously from nothing, or it always existed. Is there any other option? If these are the only two options, then there was no purpose before the First Cause. This means that a purpose for anything had to evolve or develop after at least one thing already existed.I'm just saying that it seems like there's a contradiction in something coming from nothing. — RogueAI
That is just the problem. People think their reason is capable of going beyond itself. Should we go back to Kant and ask him?reason and logic can lead us to an acceptable and perhaps irrefutable answer. — A Ree Zen
Could be. But what is Universe?You are the universe's way of experiencing itself. — griefkebab
Exactly. Because before time (and space) nothing exists! We think in terms of time about things that are outside of it. I wonder how long will we be so blind?there was nothing before which caused matter [or God] to spontaneously emerge or always exist. — A Ree Zen
Not after, but parallel to it. Those are things interdependent - the Universe and the purpose (in general).Does this follow that a purpose or reason for a god or matter existed only after a God or matter already existed? — A Ree Zen
Right. But the Universe itself did not exit prior to mind capable of seeing it.did purpose necessarily not exist until a mind capable of considering "purpose" evolve into existence? — A Ree Zen
I would say it did came from nothing (but not nothing as opposed to something, rather nothing as beyond any dualism), but not spontaneously.I think we can narrow down the nature of the first cause or the First Thing that ever existed. It either did indeed emerge spontaneously from nothing, or it always existed. Is there any other option? — A Ree Zen
It seems like a contradiction to us because we regularly observe only cause and effect in the universe, at least on the macro scale. I've been thinking about where did it all come from -- what is the first cause that had an effect? Of course, no one knows, but I think we can narrow down the nature of the first cause or the First Thing that ever existed. It either did indeed emerge spontaneously from nothing, or it always existed. Is there any other option? If these are the only two options, then there was no purpose before the First Cause. This means that a purpose for anything had to evolve or develop after at least one thing already existed. — A Ree Zen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.