Let us take this idea. When matter first sprang, much of it disappeared. The claim is that matter and both antimatter collided and cancelled much of it out. Another thing to think on is simply that much matter simply ceased to be over the years.

The matter and energy that remains is that which insists on being. It combines, uncombines, and expresses itself in different ways. But at its core, it continues to exist, and express its existence in different ways.

You are not separate from this. You are made up of this matter and energy for a short period of time. You have the special expression of self awareness. Much like a person born to wealthy parents, you won the cosmological lottery. So if you are to follow what you are made up of, you should exist. Be what you are. Express your uniqueness and being while you live. Do not cease if you can help it. That is your purpose, and nothing more.

The Permanent is all that there is,
Its transmutations a temporary fizz.
It can’t have direction, with no inputs,
So, it's super-posed, seeming a Wiz.

The universe just is the purpose of the universe - if one is so callow as to ask such a question in the first place. Purposiveness - being, having, a purpose, intending, all ideas that are an accounting of certain kinds of human behaviour, or animal considered anthropologically. But the universe is neither; the universe is prior and indifferent. If it could speak it might say, "Purpose?! I don't need no stinkin' purpose." But the idea of the universe in a sombrero speaking bad English with a Spanish accent is absurd, and the universe is not absurd either - same reasons.

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.

There can’t be other direction given,
To that which has no start; it’s undriven;
So, it’s as Everything possible,
Either as linear or exists all at once.

Consider quantum fields of waves atop
One another: a wave/field is continuous,
And so it qualifies as Fundamental;
Its quantized lumps are particles, then more.

The particles, etc., are temporary;
What’s Basic is coterminal with stuff,
But is not cosubstantial with the things;
Its information content is the same as Null.

Note that there is no other absolute:
Newton’s fixed space and time got the boot;
Particles as spigots of fields are mute;
Classical fields have no fundamental loot.

There are no ‘if nots’ for happened events—
That would be a fantasy world only meant
For simulations and playing mind games;
No use entertaining real replacements.

What the meaning to this play we’re befit,
From dirt to dust within the script that’s writ?
The wise in search have thrown themselves to waste;
Experience alone is the benefit.

(Still no overall purpose, just local ones.)

(Poem needs more work on it for more rhymes and to have all ten-syllable lines.)

I remember writing about purpose sometime ago in another thread but it doesn't show up in the forum's search. I'll repeat it here if it's of any interest.

The Paradox Of Purpose:

1. Every single organ in our body has a purpose. The eyes to see, the hands to grasp, etc. You get the picture.

2. We know, at least as the status quo, that life is meaningless i.e. life has no purpose. In other words, the whole person, the entire body, taken as a unit, is without purpose.

Conclusion:

3. It is possible for the parts to have purpose but the whole not to possess one.

The universe may lack a purpose, notwithstanding its parts having one.

You are the universe, because every decision you make shapes the plastic universe. Every decision, from the subliminal thoughts you have to the way you hold your toothbrush shapes the ever changing universe.

You are the universe's way of experiencing itself. Even if one may die tomorrow/day after/70 years from now, you are a sentient being that experiences a small portion of the timeline of the Universe.

possibly irrelevant, but I will still quote Elon Musk here,
"...it's funny, the universe appears to be 13.8 billion years old.
Earth is like four and half billion years old.
You know, in another half billion years or so, the sun will expand and probably evaporate the oceans and make life impossible on earth.
Which means that if it had taken consciousness 10% longer to evolve, it would never have evolved at all.
Just 10% longer. And I wonder, I wonder how many dead one planet civilizations there are, out there in the cosmos.
That never made it to the other planet and ultimately extinguish themselves or destroyed by external factors..."

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

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'm in the last camp, where I believe I can choose a purpose. — 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.

However, the Cosmological Purpose question is an attempt to know the mind of god, the "why" of creation, and the "why" of your personal existence. Apparently, you have given-up on the big cosmic fulfillment, and have resolved to be satisfied with a little personal gratification. But many of us are not content with arbitrarily choosing a small "P" purpose. We still want to understand the motive behind such a magnificent undertaking : the creation of a world, from scratch. Although most Astronomers and Cosmologists are motivated by a desire to understand How this marvelous machine works, in their hearts, what they really want to know is Why*1. Why does the world exist, and what cosmic function does it serve for the designer of the "machine"?

Even if our world was created for some arcane reason, we'll never know what that purpose was, unless the creator chooses to communicate directly with us. Not surprisingly, many religious traditions claim to have "revealed" reasons for creation : e.g. to produce childlike "servants" to love & obey the parental deity; but also to provide real-world services that the immaterial deity can't do for themselves -- such as obtaining food & drink, and for sacrificing living beings in honor of their egotistical creator. Those pseudo-psychological rationales may make sense for those who imagine the deity as a humanlike ruler, with emotional needs & desires. But, since those ancient notions seem naively outdated, those of us who view the Big Bang as an act of creation, must look for some more plausible explanation for the existence of our marvelous & fearful world of joy & suffering.

That's why I have produced a non-theological thesis of my own, based on what little scientific and circumstantial evidence is available in the "year of our lord" 2020. Some find the notion of an eternally meandering Multiverse, plausible, but must accept that there is no reason or purpose for our accidental existence beyond the stochastic laws of probability. Yet, I find that desperation speculation to be unacceptable, since pure randomness cannot explain the existence of physical order, not to mention intentional organisms. Therefore, while I don't look to a slave-owner deity for the "purpose" of my own life, I do think that the act of some intentional entity is the only reasonable explanation for the direction of evolution (the arrow of time).

If the Multiverse hypothesis answers your "why" questions, then personal purpose is your only option. But inquiring philosophers typically are not content with just mechanical "how" answers. So, I posit the Axiomatic Deity hypothesis as a foundation for seeking to understand the meaningful "why" questions, such as why our cosmic organism seems to be purposefully pursuing a heuristic (evolutionary) search for some unknown-to-me functional teleological goal. :cool:


*1 On why the universe exists : "If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God"
___Stephen Hawking

Designer Universe? : http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page39.html

I believe I can choose a purpose. — A Ree Zen

And you will find that the Universe is utterly indifferent to your choice.

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

That "eternal basis" and "permanent something" is the cosmic principle of BEING, that I also call G*D, as a sop to traditional feelings.

(Still no overall purpose, just local ones.) — 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:

BEING : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

I imagined that the purpose of the Universe is a profound concept which explains why there is something rather than nothing. When I try to imagine the dawn of time, I see two possible starting scenarios: Science tells me that everything was condensed into a point of matter, which either spontaneously emerged or always existed. Theology tells me that God also spontaneously emerged or always existed. Either way, there was nothing before which caused matter or God to spontaneously emerge or always exist.

Does this follow that a purpose or reason for a god or matter existed only after a God or matter already existed? Purpose and reason are thoughts, not matter. Purpose and reason can't exist until there is a being capable of thought. Certainly, if there was a time when only mindless matter existed, that would be a time when no purpose for that matter existed.

Likewise, did purpose necessarily not exist until a mind capable of considering "purpose" evolve into existence?

"Things merely are" to quote Simon Critchely about Wallace Stevens. Constituents of the universe may have purposes, which will vary with circumstances.

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.

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.

That seems impossible.

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.

Also solipsism and idealism are possible.

That seems impossible. — RogueAI

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 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.

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.

That reminds of Lawrence Krauss's book "A Universe from Nothing". The laws of nature that allow 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.

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.

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.

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

For that, I think you'd need to study empty vacuum of space void of anything to further clarify the issue. We're only thinking here :) I'm afraid.

Nonetheless, even after "that" kind of a scientific study. One can still say those evidence are based in empiricism and there are arguments against empiricism.

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's definitely one of the oldest questions about the universe. Yes, it seems like a contradiction, as to how a state of nothingness, completely void of anything, can produce something.

But there's another contradiction with something coming from something (rather than something from nothing). Where did the initial something come from? How can the initial something have always existed? It had to come from somewhere, right? Which again leads us to the simplest initial phase -> nothing. But that is again a contradiction as well.

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.

reason and logic can lead us to an acceptable and perhaps irrefutable answer. — A Ree Zen

That is just the problem. People think their reason is capable of going beyond itself. Should we go back to Kant and ask him?

You are the universe's way of experiencing itself. — griefkebab

Could be. But what is Universe?

there was nothing before which caused matter [or God] to spontaneously emerge or always exist. — A Ree Zen

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?

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

Not after, but parallel to it. Those are things interdependent - the Universe and the purpose (in general).

did purpose necessarily not exist until a mind capable of considering "purpose" evolve into existence? — A Ree Zen

Right. But the Universe itself did not exit prior to mind capable of seeing it.

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

I would say it did came from nothing (but not nothing as opposed to something, rather nothing as beyond any dualism), but not spontaneously.

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

I like this point Ree Zen.

What is the Purpose of the Universe?

It's an educational toy. I thought everyone knew that.

Two quick comments.

Many of the arguments for and against map nicely upon those which arise when the question of the existence of a god is considered.

There is much to be said for the pragmatic approach alluded to in the OP. If a belief, one way or another, makes your own life richer and you can accept that belief, do so ... and don't look back.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.