Therefore we can say that universe exists whether humans exist or not. Another way to say this is :

It doesn’t matter if we exist or not, the universe will still exist.

It doesn’t matter if we exist or not.

We don’t matter. — SimonSays

Well thought through and well expressed. And correct, as far as it goes. Mattering is like meaning, it's a human concept that applies to human situations. We matter to me. Even the universe only matters to us and other beings for whom things matter. The universe doesn't matter to the universe.

Of course, if there is a God who transcends the universe, then everything matters.

Thats a little depressing. I personally see intelligent life inherently good (on average), and given time, as society improves, this should tend from good towards perfectly good (in the limit).

If there is a God:

- Under the theist conception of God, he knows and cares for each of us personally. So we matter.
- Under the deist conception of God, he would have a positive, caring view to all forms of intelligent life, despite knowing nothing about the human race in particular. So we matter in a general sense.

There is only one problem with your hypothesis and that is because you are using the human perspective to describe the non-human.

Its the same as saying that the universe is bad because it sent a meteorite to hit the earth and kill the dinosaurs, the Universe is not bad or good, lonely or sad because those are human descriptions of the human condition.

But now.
The same can be said of the opposite of your proposition if we are the ones that decide what matter and what doesn't, we can say that we are the only thing that matter in the entire universe and you can even argue that things only exist because we are there to observe and that brings us to the old question....
If a tree falls on a forest where there is nothing to contemplate its fall does it make a sound?

Mattering is like meaning — T Clark

yes they are similar. It also extends to the concept of there being a reason for our existence. The existence of the universe irrespective of human existence demonstrates our irrelevance.

We matter to me — T Clark

is fair to say and correct. Beyond ourselves however, looking from the outside in, in the broader scheme of all the universe, we do not have claim to any significance. Therefore the concept of our importance internally is negated by the broader concept of our insignificance.

The case accommodating an existence of God is not accounted for here. Too often, God gets inserted to provide an answer we want to hear at the expense of facing reality.

There is only one problem with your hypothesis and that is because you are using the human perspective to describe the non-human. — Filipe

the human perspective has actually been used to describe humans. It is saying that humans and all that they value, is in fact, insignificant or irrelevant with respect to the broader universe of which we are a part. The prior and continued existence of the universe irrespective of our existence is evidence to this. As mentioned earlier, our value we ascribe is negated by the overall case of our irrelevance.

And yes trees make sounds when they fall irrespective of human existence. The laws of physics do not depend upon humans.

Thanks for your replies

It doesn’t matter if we exist or not, the universe will still exist. — SimonSays

The answers people give when asked, "why do we continue to exist" have always intrigued me. I struggled with it myself a lot when I was younger. It is in a way, the first and last existential crisis everyone deals with.

I look at it like this: There may be no "objective" in life, but I do like feeling good. I like to wake up in the morning and feel like what I'm doing is benefiting the human race as a whole. I can't feel that way if I'm dead. I can't feel any way if I'm dead.

If the universe doesn't care about us, I think we shouldn't care about it. Understand it, manipulate it, control it, for sure, but care about it? Why?

I think a fundamental part of our psychology is the need for someone/something to care about us. The need for this in our lives has been exploited by various leaders for thousands of years. In a sense, the facade we construct that is a universe that cares about us is a main component of civilization. A nation doesn't truly die until people stop believing the sweet lies they've been told by it.

I think we could completely bypass this problem by giving ourselves meaning through our strength. We are intelligent enough to build and invent things that make us feel good. Our meaning is to use the laws this universe obeys to meet our every desire. After that our meaning is to meet our every desire. There are no lies involved in doing this because we can only meet this goal by telling and living the truth.

Beyond ourselves however, looking from the outside in, in the broader scheme of all the universe, we do not have claim to any significance. — SimonSays

"Mattering"--or rather valuing things/aka feeling that something matters--is something that people do. So of course nothing is going to matter to anything other than a person. (I'm using "person" in the broad "personhood" sense, by the way. It doesn't necessarily just refer to humans. It could refer to other primates, intelligent/sentient aliens if there are any, etc.)

n the broader scheme of all the universe, we do not have claim to any significance. Therefore the concept of our importance internally is negated by the broader concept of our insignificance.

The case accommodating an existence of God is not accounted for here. Too often, God gets inserted to provide an answer we want to hear at the expense of facing reality. — SimonSays

Yes, God gets inserted into the universe to make us matter, but given the brief tenure of human life in relation to other life on earth and more broadly the age of the universe it's obvious that this insertion is a product of the history of human belief systems. What is God such that he would care about us? What would a God be to us that made a universe where we show up as a mere dot toward the end of the timeline? A heavenly father sacrificing his son? Seems rather incredible.

On the other hand,

I think a fundamental part of our psychology is the need for someone/something to care about us. The need for this in our lives has been exploited by various leaders for thousands of years. — TogetherTurtle

We need to hope for a better future, but I'm not sure that "meeting our every desire" is going to accomplish this. Today's "leaders" are exploiting our need for social acceptability in terms of our consumer status or distracting us with plastic hearts, pumpkins and inflatable Santas or promising us convenience with plastic bottles and megatons of disposables. So far we're wrecking the planet producing, distributing and discarding piles of stupidly packaged tacky merchandise, most of which we don't need.

We need another story - one that lets us feel at home on this planet, this "small blue dot" and encourages us to be environmentally responsible.

What do you mean by "it doesn't matter"?

All existence, all energy, all life is defined by activity, among other fundamental qualities. Activity determines utility. Utility is the very definition of significance. Therefore, it all matters.

What you've expressed is that some configurations are more limited than others. However, everything does according to its capacity and nothing more. Humans matter - not because they will exist a billion years from now, but because right now they are aspects of utility in a certain relation in this existence. That, in itself is significant. Hence, it matters.

We live in a world where those life-forms of hundreds of millions of years ago matter. Can you imagine the industrial revolution without the discovery of oil? And what is oil without the organic life of hundreds of millions of years ago?

Was the food you ate ten years ago insignificant? Where would you be without that food?

People die all the time every day and the universe continues to exist. Throughout human history, there have been plagues, wars and famines that have killed millions of people and the universe still existed. In fact, if every human died, just as the dinosaurs did, the universe would continue to exist.

Therefore we can say that universe exists whether humans exist or not. Another way to say this is :

It doesn’t matter if we exist or not, the universe will still exist.

It doesn’t matter if we exist or not. — SimonSays

Doesn't matter.

Mattering is like meaning
— T Clark
yes they are similar. It also extends to the concept of there being a reason for our existence. The existence of the universe irrespective of human existence demonstrates our irrelevance.

We matter to me
— T Clark
is fair to say and correct. Beyond ourselves however, looking from the outside in, in the broader scheme of all the universe, we do not have claim to any significance. Therefore the concept of our importance internally is negated by the broader concept of our insignificance. — SimonSays

Again - matter, meaning, reason, significance, importance, insignificance, irrelevance, importance - all these are human terms for human situations. Of course they don't apply situations where no human or other sentient being is involved.

The case accommodating an existence of God is not accounted for here. — SimonSays

Yes. I could see that was your intention. That's why I kept it separate.

the human perspective has actually been used to describe humans. It is saying that humans and all that they value, is in fact, insignificant or irrelevant with respect to the broader universe of which we are a part. The prior and continued existence of the universe irrespective of our existence is evidence to this. As mentioned earlier, our value we ascribe is negated by the overall case of our irrelevance. — SimonSays

Earth, our son, our solar system, the Milky Way, other galaxies, the universe - all are just as insignificant as we are. They don't matter unless we are around to say they do. Some would say they don't exist unless we are here. "Existence" is another term applied by humans to human situations. But that's another story.

Activity determines utility. Utility is the very definition of significance. Therefore, it all matters. — BrianW

You wouldn't be able to make sense out of anyone ever saying, "It doesn't matter."

We need to hope for a better future, but I'm not sure that "meeting our every desire" is going to accomplish this. — Izat So

What makes a future "better"? If it isn't us living as happy as possible as sustainably as possible, what is it?

Today's "leaders" are exploiting our need for social acceptability in terms of our consumer status or distracting us with plastic hearts, pumpkins and inflatable Santas or promising us convenience with plastic bottles and megatons of disposables. So far we're wrecking the planet producing, distributing and discarding piles of stupidly packaged tacky merchandise, most of which we don't need. — Izat So

Something is only a distraction if it distracts from something. I don't think the evil lies in the act inherently, it lies in the intention. Owning a factory that produces holiday decorations sold at reasonable prices so that people can have a little fun doesn't seem bad to me. Producing holiday decorations while ignoring the long term effects of your industry on the environment so that those in power can keep a docile population distracted from acts they would normally find repulsive does sound bad to me.

I think it's correct to say material things make us happy. Evolutionarily, it makes sense that having many resources would help an organism survive, and things that help an organism survive make an organism happy. Of course, holiday decorations aren't going to help you fight off wild animals or collect food, but they are certainly a sign of status. Even less intelligent animals collect objects for no other reason than to climb the social ladder.

As for pollution, I think the main reason we don't recycle literally everything and shoot what we can't into space is that efficiency gives average people time to think. I don't think it's too far fetched to think that we can make all of our current industry sustainable, or even move it off-world later down the line. (maybe you disagree with the idea of space colonization, so if you want to discuss that, you can just send me a PM. I don't think it ties into the discussion enough for us to go off on a tangent here). I think we can do these things, but I don't think we will if things keep going as planned. It leads back to the control idea. We come together for social acceptance, that need is inevitably exploited by leaders because of our desire for wealth, the leaders tell lies to reinforce our desire for social acceptance.

None of this is to say that anyone is actually even acting with evil intentions. I think everyone is just doing what they think is right. Good or bad don't really factor into it, I think we just created and developed civilization too fast to evolve alongside it. We're intelligent enough to create civilization, but our instincts haven't gotten to the point that they can be beneficial instead of detrimental. Fear of other tribes and what lurks in the shadows is useful when you're a hunter-gatherer, but it'll hurt you when negotiating with other nations over trade laws and ownership of territory.

Poetic, but actually this is kind of contradictory.

First of all, you got the conclusion ''we don't matter'' from a cosmic standpoint, yet the cosmos is not a sentient thing, so talking about how much we mean to the cosmos is as pointless as talking about how much we mean to rocks, given that both the cosmos and rocks are not sentient things. As such, it doesn't matter that we ''don't matter''.

However, what you said can be intended as a good reminder to people who still buy the notion that the world is intended for us and that there must be some ''hidden plan'' for mankind.

I don't see how that's the case, unless you can demonstrate that God himself matters, or that he thinks that we matter.

I'm reading the Three Body Problem now. It's good.

I read it as a teenager and it only gets more and more mind-blowing as time goes by. Also, prepared to be awestruck at the third book!

:cool:

so we only matter if the universe depends upon us? Could you be more anthropocentric?

"matters" is transitive in as much as if it has any sense whatsoever, it requires something or some person to attach to. Matters to whom? While stars shine and planets revolve and rotate irrespective of our existence, if there is no life there is no mattering. It matters to trees if there is water because without it they die. I'm unable to ascribe mattering to the brook itself. When we talk about the mattering of a reservoir's fill level, the mattering relates to the people served, not the water or boundary that composes the reservoir.

Given this, what matters to me and the mattering of things that matter to me, is relevant as long as I live.

It's not so much as it doesn't matter whether life exists or not. It is that mattering makes sense in the presence of life. Otherwise, the concept is incoherent.

If this is accepted, constructions such as '...matters...exist or not', resolves to the coherence of the concept in the presence of life and incoherence otherwise.

For me, "We don't matter", rather than depressing, expresses the rather straight forward appreciation of the nature of mattering. It gets its 'emotional baggage' not from the mattering going away as the reason why mattering is no longer coherent.

We don’t matter. — SimonSays

Let's say that's true. Then us knowing this or thinking this wouldn't matter either. Whatever happens in the mind of creatures that do not matter, would matter even less then them or also zero.

So why bother arguing that it is the case? What difference does it make if we go around thinking we do matter, which might be more pleasant? Why begrudge people an idea that does not matter? Why write a long post, that does not matter`? If I though nothing mattered, I can't see why I would ever go online to write an argument. Unless this was the most fun I could have. Or unless I wanted people to suffer like I am.

It seems strange to read such a full description of the epic journey through evolution we made to get here and then I see you state it doesn't matter if we are gone. You could of summed the whole thing up by saying, 'the universe (not conscious) will carry on regardless of us'. Which nobody would deny. Pointless.

We don't matter as universe will continue to exist whether we exist or not. Maybe universe doesn't cares about us but we do care about our own selves. What matters is our soul. Maybe our soul doesn't belong to this physical universe but was originated in a metaphysical realm and longs to go back there as no physical thing was ever able to satisfy our soul for a long period of time. So if you look at things this way, its the universe that doesn't not us(our souls).

We don't matter as universe will continue to exist whether we exist or not — Sheik Yerbouti

WE don't matter to whom. The verb 'matter' in this sense, has to do with someone or some entity that is capable of caring about or being interested in the life of us (or whatever it is that matters to them). There are obviously people to whom nearly all of us matter.

Again - matter, meaning, reason, significance, importance, insignificance, irrelevance, importance - all these are human terms for human situations. Of course they don't apply situations where no human or other sentient being is involved. — T Clark

Well, that's every situation I or anyone else will every encounter. So everything that I will ever experience or encounter or go through will matter, at the very least to me. The situations that don't matter to me and anyone else, well, they don't matter.

Earth, our son, our solar system, the Milky Way, other galaxies, the universe - all are just as insignificant as we are. — T Clark

Or significant. Again it depends, as you seem to be saying, to some sentient beings. The only way we can say the sun, earth, etc., is insignificant is if we are referring to the attitude of, say, a civilization many galaxies away. It's all insignificant to them, so far, anyway.

But to say something is insignificant with reference to a sentient being seems to me to be confused. My house is insignifican to a rock in the grand canyon. I think that is nonsense and implies things that are not the case. If the earth is insignificant, who is it insignicant to?

I could see saying that things are not longer significant or no longer matter if there is no one there who finds them significant or that they matter.

I think matter is used here to convey the meaning how significant we are. To whom? Maybe to the universe. Yep there surely are people to whom we matter and to us they matter. What i meant to say was that our souls are significa t than the universe that surrounds us. Free reply to reply or criticize.

I think it's correct to say material things make us happy. Evolutionarily, it makes sense that having many resources would help an organism survive, and things that help an organism survive make an organism happy. Of course, holiday decorations aren't going to help you fight off wild animals or collect food, but they are certainly a sign of status. Even less intelligent animals collect objects for no other reason than to climb the social ladder. — TogetherTurtle

This is an interesting view. Less intelligent animals do it, so that’s what we should be aiming for? Is this what evolution has led us to?

I often wonder why we find value in pursuing such transient notions of ‘happiness’. Things that might help an organism survive make an organism ‘happy’ for such a short amount of time. In case you hadn’t noticed, ‘survival’ as a life goal is a rort. Like Sisyphus, it’s a fruitless exercise. ‘Nobody gets out alive!’

We’ve been working so hard to maximise our power, influence and control because we think it helps us to survive, but we’re never really successful at that in the end, are we? Even if you consider ‘survival’ value as either population or total mass of a species, we’re still outdone by the ants, of all creatures.

It’s time to recognise that we’ve been climbing a ladder that goes nowhere. We think the only things that matter to me are what is valuable to me, but that’s not quite correct. Because I can recognise that something matters to me because it’s valuable to someone who’s valuable to me, even if that something holds no value in itself for me.

What matters = subjective, decided by the individual, the nuances of the argument also matter or don't matter, decided by the individual. Without individuals = "matters" incoherent.

This is an interesting view. Less intelligent animals do it, so that’s what we should be aiming for? Is this what evolution has led us to? — Possibility

I think it's more accurately put as, Less intelligent animals do it, so that's why we do it. If something works, and better than anything else, that's what you do.

I often wonder why we find value in pursuing such transient notions of ‘happiness’. Things that might help an organism survive make an organism ‘happy’ for such a short amount of time. In case you hadn’t noticed, ‘survival’ as a life goal is a rort. Like Sisyphus, it’s a fruitless exercise. ‘Nobody gets out alive!’ — Possibility

We find value in happiness because it makes us feel good, and we want to feel good. If dying made us feel good we would want that. However, natural selection favors those who survive, and therefore a reward is given when we do.

I think you're on to something about the duration of the happiness we sometimes get, but that isn't always true. People who enjoy being married and having kids are usually happy with that for a lifetime.

As for survival as a goal, that wasn't exactly my point. We live for the enjoyment we get out of things that make us survive, not the actual surviving. I don't think anyone should care about getting out alive, they should care about what they get out of life.

We’ve been working so hard to maximise our power, influence and control because we think it helps us to survive, but we’re never really successful at that in the end, are we? Even if you consider ‘survival’ value as either population or total mass of a species, we’re still outdone by the ants, of all creatures. — Possibility

I would say humans and ants are equally successful. Every ant does as it is driven to do, and I'd assume they're driven to do it by their tiny brains. Humans do much the same.

The problem I think most people ignore is this- we have changed our world faster than our bodies can adapt. I think an example would explain this best. Let us compare these two groups of people

1
A small group of humans wanders the savannah 50,000 years ago in search of food and water. Since this has been the goal for millions of years, they have adaptations that allow them to be very hostile towards prey or competitors. It doesn't work all the time, (sometimes they get killed) but it never hurts them to have that aggression

2
A small group of humans are working on computer terminals somewhere deep in an underground bunker in the modern day. Suddenly, red lights start flashing and sirens start blazing. An all out nuclear strike is heading toward their nation and it's up to them to decide what to do next. Anger flows through their veins and in a last resort to get revenge, they ensure that no one, not the victims or the aggressors,(or even bystanders) get to live.

I'd imagine in both cases that aggression felt good. It feels nice, at least for a while, to get revenge or release some pent up anger. However, in the second case the aggression also caused death.

Now, another example

1
The same group from the first example above has a member who excels at throwing spears. All of the children look up to him and the elders respect him. This makes him happy until he dies.

2
The same group from the second example above has a member who goes to a chess club on the weekends. He doesn't always win, but he's pretty good and has made some good friends that bring him happiness until they day he dies (maybe in a nuclear holocaust).

The things that make both of them happy are survival oriented. If you have friends and people who respect you, they will help you in times of need. I don't think it's a coincidence that this makes them happy.

So, if the goal is to be happy, and survival brings us happiness, but the things that made us survive then are not the things that made us survive now, what do we do? I think that is the real problem.

It’s time to recognise that we’ve been climbing a ladder that goes nowhere. We think the only things that matter to me are what is valuable to me, but that’s not quite correct. Because I can recognise that something matters to me because it’s valuable to someone who’s valuable to me, even if that something holds no value in itself for me. — Possibility

And what of the things that matter to those who aren't valuable to you?

It isn't that anything matters objectively. We choose what matters and what doesn't.

To go back to your comment before-

This is an interesting view. Less intelligent animals do it, so that’s what we should be aiming for? Is this what evolution has led us to? — Possibility

You are right, for what it's worth (to us) we are more intelligent than other animals. (by our own definition, of course.) However, we can't forget that the only thing that makes us unique is the intelligence. We have all of the same desires and even some of the same instincts that they do. We share a majority of our DNA with every plant and animal on Earth. Biologically speaking, we are animals.

But it is that intelligence that I think can save us from the problem stated above. With everything we know, everything we have learned, we have to adapt ourselves, and doing that will bring us some happiness, I think.

You can't prove that anything matters because the universe isn't human. It doesn't put metaphysical labels on things like "importance" or "value". There is only matter, energy and whatever else out there we may not have discovered. However, things do have value to us, and so I think we should have those things, because the universe won't (or can't) miss them.

For the past several years I’ve been understanding this idea and many others. It’s true we don’t matter but because of this I have put myself into a negative state. I don’t really see good or bad in anything I do. Things have lost their meaning. Since I know and understand me as a human, is just another living creature, I also understand I will die one day. And because we will all die, I don’t have the passion to live and find the beauties of our world anymore. How do I pull myself out?

Non sequitur, likewise the definition of "human" to begin with, based on an irrelevant zoological taxonomy which simply groups organisms on the basis of shared similarities and difference on the biological or physical level, is rather flawed.

Whatever higher traits define and distinguish humans; assuming they existed within some other context, such as a hypothetical android which exhibited the same higher reasoning, intuition, and higher emotions, with the primary difference solely being the arrangement of material particles which compose it on the physical level, wouldn't necessarily matter "less" in terms of said inherent traits, on the sole basis of an arbitrary, constructed title of "human", which is irrelevant outside of said zoological taxonomy and what limited pragmatic uses it has, anyway.