Is this the meaning of life?

wanderingmind

Life is a vast sandbox RPG with an infinite 'world map'
Your whole life is spent gaining experience points, completing challenges and trying to get as close to 100% completion, realising 100% is impossible because of certainly in-game one off choices and therefore must decide what the closet to 100% completion is to you this time you play. There are Easter eggs, bonus levels that both affect the outcome of the game and those that don't, and ultimately at the end of the game you die, and all this points are lost.
Maybe you respawn in a way that some level of attainment is important, maybe its a one time around map, but either it doesn't matter, cos the new game isn't based on any of your 'save points', a new character would play the same game a new way from an infinite amount of start points, story arcs etc...
This means life it pointless, yet this pointlessness is the point, the aim of the game is only to play the game, you decide right and wrong, sometimes a group can agree on these ideas and thus create groups and scoieites and civilisations, but it all boils down to each person in that group choosing that similar path for their game.
I also define 'self' or 'I' as a continuous chain of 'save points' or 'continuous psychological states'.
I am not referencing some kind of destiny here, just the acceptance that sometimes one can create a isolated 'fate' where one keystone choice will inevitably lead to an outcome unless certain other choices are made.
(I am also not talking literally, as in I am not referring to this idea that we live in a (or somebody's?) simulation, that is a different idea, my sandbox RPG is metaphorical.)

Banno

Is this the meaning of life?

No.

180 Proof

Life is a vast sandbox RPG with an infinite 'world map'. Your whole life is spent gaining experience points, completing challenges and trying [ ... ] and ultimately at the end of the game you die, and all th[ese] points are lost.

This means life it pointless, yet this pointlessness is the point ... — wanderingmind

Ludic fallacy. A simulation =/= the simulated. :yawn:

(Oh, and what Banno said.)

Possibility

↪wanderingmind

Suppose the aim is not for you to reach 100% experience points, but for anyone to reach it. How does that change how you play the game, the types of society/civilisation groups you form, and how you communicate?

wanderingmind

So perhaps my initial theory was too reductive.
I use the open-world RPG concept for a simple, ready to understand model. I am not suggesting we are in a simulation, only that reality and life are similar to the ideas in these expansive RPGs.

I do not suppose that the idea of 100% is attainable (at least in one life-time), but if I understand the main thought behind your question

↪Possibility

I do not suppose that I am alone in experience, nor that people in my life are just 'characters', but in fact we are all 'player/characters'.

Again 'game' was a poor word choice perhaps. What I was trying to drive at was there may be a point or an actual 'root story' to life, as in video games I tried to compare to, however we can not know if we are following the 'correct path' to it.
However, lets say I spend my whole life getting rich. If succeed, on my death it wont matter. I may not succeed and you may call that a waste. But as with any life in this reality the time-line is linear so the only real terms of the 'game' are: Start, Play, Finish.
Death is end of your 'go', but death is not an acceptable aim for the 'game' Pre-mature death for instance would end the game, but not without forfeiting future experiences and old-age death is not a static point in a timeline as birth is, since 'old age' has been pushed back from say dying at 80 being considered very old, to 110 being very old but not unusual in some places.

I am not claiming this way of looking at life is flawless, and I hope through discussion it could be moulded, and improved, but by living this way I am freer and happier.

schopenhauer1

I am not claiming this way of looking at life is flawless, and I hope through discussion it could be moulded, and improved, but by living this way I am freer and happier. — wanderingmind

So a question I am posing in a couple threads similar to this kind is: Is a world that isn't a utopia worth being born into?

So in your video game analogy, is a video game where you, the player (this is no abstraction, but your very physical being), can be harmed and suffer, something worth playing? What happens if the character (you) can experience eternal joy or fulfillment without having to play any game? What if you can play a game where you can dial-in or dial-back the hardness as you go?

Both of these scenarios are not this game (this world). We also cannot escape the rules of this game (the constraints of this world). That being known, is this game worth being played, just because it's the only game in town? Being a non-utopia, why should this be something another person should be forced to play (lest the decide to hit game over before the end)?

wanderingmind

I firstly question the paradox that is a Utopia. How would one know they are existing within Utopia, without experiencing non-utopian life, in order to understand what Utopia is.
Therefore one can exist within a percieved personal Utopian sphere, wherein other people may not consider it to match their idea of Utopia.
This personal utopian sphere fits is also impermenant and in constant flux.

wanderingmind

I have been spending a lot of time getting to understand my ideas, and welcome any and all challenges and questions, in the spirit of shared experience rather than trying to tear each others perceptions of reality down.

A Seagull

the aim of the game is only to play the game, — wanderingmind

Yes life is a game.

schopenhauer1

I firstly question the paradox that is a Utopia. How would one know they are existing within Utopia, without experiencing non-utopian life, in order to understand what Utopia is.
Therefore one can exist within a percieved personal Utopian sphere, wherein other people may not consider it to match their idea of Utopia.
This personal utopian sphere fits is also impermenant and in constant flux. — wanderingmind

None of this would matter, because obviously if you were in a utopia, you would need to know exactly what it is you need to know to know you are in a utopia (or not, if that's part of what makes it a utopia). I am talking THE perfect world for each and every individual.

But you see, the point is we are not living in a Utopia and therefore, why is bringing more people into a non-utopian world worth it? Even if a real utopia cannot be played, this doesn't negate that indeed, this world is not it and does not need to be played in the first place.

schopenhauer1

↪wanderingmind

Just a helpful suggestion- if you click and drag a text and then let go, you will see a quote button appear. Click the button and it will automatically quote the text you highlighted. When you post your comment, there will be a notification for the poster you quoted so that they can see that someone responded to them. When they quote you, you will also see a notification. This allows for easy viewing of who has responded.

wanderingmind

None of this would matter, because obviously if you were in a utopia, you would need to know exactly what it is you need to know to know you are in a utopia (or not, if that's part of what makes it a utopia). I am talking THE perfect world for each and every individual.
But you see, the point is we are not living in a Utopia and therefore, why is bringing more people into a non-utopian world worth it? Even if a real utopia cannot be played, this doesn't negate that indeed, this world is not it and does not need to be played in the first place. — schopenhauer1

I am not sure I understand the relevance to your point?

1) We are not, by your admission, in a Utopia.
2)To know you are in Utopia you must know what is missing (for example, suffering)to know it is Utopia.
3)To know it is missing is to know it exists, and to even comprehend suffering is opposed to the idea f Utopia.
4) I agree that one could fashion their own personal Utopia, and stated as much.
5) What is the point of living in a non-utopia?: There is no point, but also no apparent choice for any alternative, therefore the point is to see how far you can go before you die.
6)Bringing more people in, by which I assume you mean reproduction, is a choice, one that forms the vast network of choices and 'paths' a 'player' my choose.
7)Why would you even want to live in a Utopia if everything was perfect as it was, why you need to bring more people in, they might ruin it? If they were meant to part of Utopia they would already be there?

Just a helpful suggestion- if you click and drag a text and then let go, you will see a quote button appear. Click the button and it will automatically quote the text you highlighted. When you post your comment, there will be a notification for the poster you quoted so that they can see that someone responded to them. When they quote you, you will also see a notification. This allows for easy viewing of who has responded. — schopenhauer1

Thanks :)

Is this the meaning of life?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions