@Thorongil @Bitter Crank @Noble Dust@darthbarracuda@Nils Loc@schopenhauer1@Wayfarer@TheMadFool @WISDOMfromPO-MO@Rich@mcdoodle

Thank you all for giving your time to read my contention and providing thoughtful feed back. I very much appreciate it!
Based on a combination of all of your feed back, I think its fair to say the following:

My contention is a tautology in a logical sense of the word. Meaning its a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form. Though as suggested by many of you, and i think most accurately by 'Schopenhauer' stating that my contention was in fact a "teleology". Meaning it is an explanation of phenomena by the purpose it serves rather than by postulated causes. To which I 100% agree. I would very much enjoy reading all of the theories for possible causes of this phenomena that you can come up with.

@darthbarracuda@Thorongil@TheMadFool
@schopenhauer1
@Rich
@Noble Dust@Agustino@Bitter Crank

I would be interested to hear all of your thought in particular- cheers

So serial killers are sustaining the continuation of life? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes.

Ending life is important component in the continuation of it. E.g say you die. The engergy from your body is pulled apart and broken down by much small organisms as fuel. The energy transferred into these organism eventually becomes the next fuel source for the next living thing. Hence this is how death in life is still a mechanism to continue it. — ThinkingMatt

We suck even at predicting the next economic crisis, you think we'll predict the end of the Universe? — Agustino

I agree - all our predictions are very likely to be completely wrong. Though we are essentially a mind, and the purpose of the mind is to understand. If we weren't trying to understand the universe we wouldn't be a mind.

I'm not here to discuss science, but rather philosophy — Agustino

The definition of philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence,

The definition of science is the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world (existence) through observation and experiment.

I don't see a distinction between the two? As I see it science is just a means to test philosophy.

What you really want to ask is whether there are any good reasons to reproduce, do you not? — Thorongil

Correct - If the purpose of reproducing is just a means to continue motion of matter in the universe - why does this require consciousness to do so? It would and could still do this without us.

Jumping off a building. — Thorongil

Ending life is important component in the continuation of it. E.g say you die. The engergy from your body is pulled apart and broken down by much small organisms as fuel. The energy transferred into these organism eventually becomes the next fuel source for the next living thing. Hence this is how death in life is still a mechanism to continue it.

we can decide we have had enough and resign. "The life of all living things" -- life in toto -- however, isn't ours to discontinue. — Bitter Crank

Firstly what do you mean by "life in toto"?

This statement has no logic - if we as humans have the power to create and take life away then for what reason makes you think we can not discontinue it as a whole?

This is speculation. Scientific theories don't cease to be speculation just because they're undertaken by scientists. The truth of the matter is that the so called "end" of the Universe is so distant, that we actually have no clue what it even means physically. Physical laws are useful at predicting things assuming that thing stay the same, but in limit circumstances the laws may be different. There's no way to take this into account in our speculations. We have "models" about what the end of the Universe will be. We won't ever know. — Agustino

I 100% agree. Though it's fair to say we can only predict anything and everything based on the information and references we currently have. There's no logic in doing it any other way. So is your point that if we can never be certain, then there's no point even trying at all? If so I baffled to why you'd be on this forum.

No we weren't. We were talking about the purpose of life, not whether existence is circular. What the hell does existence being circular even mean? — Agustino

We agreed earlier that the purpose of life (for arguments sake) was for matter to continually move. If this was true then at some point the universe would be in equilibrium (meaning no energy could move from one place to another) Jensen the end of the universe. Though we decided that the purpose of the universe was that it had to continually be moving and for this to be true then the universe could not have a beginning and an end but would have to be 'circular'. Which means the end the universe is what inevitably cause it to start - meaning it never actually end and just exists in a never ending paradox.

:s I don't remember we were discussing whether the universe has a spatial or temporal end or not... — Agustino

We were discussing whether existance was circular or whether it had a beginning and end. Proving this from our our perspective being fourth dimensional (meaning we perceive space and time as changing and moving) relies on this understanding.

The universe is actually stagnant and only made up of space. Time and movement is only a stubborn allusion we hold on to from a 4D perspective.

Proving that the Earth is "round" (ie spherical) is an empirical matter. Proving that an argument is circular is a logical matter. The two aren't proved in the same manner. — Agustino

I disagree - A practical demonstration of Earth's sphericity was achieved by Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián Elcano's expedition's circumnavigation (1519−1522). They physically traveled in the same direction until they inevitably arrived to the same point to which they originatly started.

If you were to conduct the same experiment in terms of the universe you would have to travel in the same linear direction in time (like we are) until you reach the end of existence of the universe or time and space and see if ends completely or in Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián case you arrive back where you started. Whether humans can come up with a way of surviving this experiment is another question.

I don't want a baby with my sister and I don't want my wife to marry another man. — TheMadFool

One desicribing their emotion toward someone else as 'love' purely identifies that you have a strong affection toward them.
Your relationship with them and how you choose to appropriately express this feeling of love is what the variable is. Not the idea of love itself.
I think your confusion is in not distinguishing the difference between the two.

Was the purpose of this thread to identify the logical status of infinite regresses? — Πετροκότσυφας

I don't believe that that's where we've ended up

Here one must become spiritual. The Daoist simply say the beginning is the Dao that spirals (not circles) into a wave of creative energy. This would be the equivalent of Bergson's Elan vital. — Rich

perhaps - though I'm not familiar with Bergson's Vital force but at least you've given me something to go onto ahaha thanks for the discussion non the less @Rich

If you cannot provide a means to identify it, then we'll have to treat it as impossible, in which case it's time to dismiss your concerns as children's play. You were merely trolling us afterall. — Agustino

You're right that if it has a separate beginning and end it is impossible to identify which make my argument mute. Though if you agree it's circular (as in its begging ist started by its own end) then it is theoretically possiable to prove. Eg in the same way that they proved the earth is round

Nope, because we've already defined continuation of motion as the purpose of everything (life being just a part of everything). — Πετροκότσυφας

I'll have to read the article before commenting on what they suggest.

Though based on your quote above, if the continuation of motion is the entire purpose of existence then logically it still has to have a starting and ending point or it exists as a close loop paradox where it's begging is derived by its end.

How are you going to recognise that the origin is the origin if you'll keep asking what's the purpose what's the purpose to everything that is said to you? What's your criteria for recognising that origin? — Agustino

Fair statement - essentially when you can not derive any further. Which as you stated is difficult or impossible to identify. So perhaps that's reason to suggest a situation that we are in a closed looped paradox.

Motion is creation of something new — Rich

Maybe in some sense. Let's say that statement is true - motion means for something to go in a specified direction or to change position. Though as I've said:

Logically everything must start from one point. Unless you believe in closed loop paradoxes. Where the begging of syestem is started by the ending of the same system which makes it circular. — ThinkingMatt

It needs to occur so that motion can continue. — Πετροκότσυφας

In terms of physics motion of energy (which is essentially what we are talking about), continues as a means to evenly distribut energy amungst all matter situated within the universe until is reaches a state of equalibrium, when no matter is able to transfer energy between each other. Where the universe will be therefore stagnant.

If this is the case you left with another question being 'why does the universe need to be stagnant or in equalibrium?'

So your expectations that there will be a purpose to a final purpose is silly. — Agustino

Is it though? Or is it a logical sequence of steps to find the origin or absolute beginning? Logically everything must start from one point. Unless you believe in closed loop paradoxes. Where the begging of syestem is started by the ending of the same system which makes it circular.

Well, no. You gotta choose. You can't have both. Once you have done that, we can go on. — Πετροκότσυφας

Okay for the sake of the discussion let's say the purpose of life is the continuation of motion. Why does the continuation of motion need to occur?

@Agustino that's your job - by being able to disprove my logic with your own ahahah

Life is just a particular configuration of matter, so all there is matter and its motion. The "purpose" of life is not to sustain itself, it's to sustain motion the motion of matter. — Πετροκότσυφας

Fair statement - it essentially substitutes the contention that the purpose of life is continuing the cycle of life (reproduction). Though still leaves us questioning the purpose of why we need the continuation of life (reproduction) to happen. Or in your context, what the purpose of continuing motion is.

Play. Prayer. Art. Music. Beauty. God. Nobility. — Agustino

Play - is a mechanism (1) to learn (2) to reinforce and build social relationships - both are advantageous in terms of creating properous survival/ life.

Prayer - purpose of praying (1) to ensure a good relationship with god out of a fear that death will be painful. Having a good relationship with god is based on the premis that he has control over whether you live or die. Having a good relationship with god hypothetically insinuates he will choose to either keep you alive (survival) or bring no pain with your death which is what we fear (perhaps ideas with endless pain in hell as well).

... I can keep going @Agustino

Why isn't our purpose as living things to serve the motion of lifeless matter? — Πετροκότσυφας

Are you able to rephrase this statement? Or elaborate?

Love is defined as a strong feeling of affection.

Love of wife is different from Love of sister is different from Love of a book, and so on. — TheMadFool

The strong feeling of affection toward wife, sister and book aren't different. What's different is the the reasons for why you have this strong feeling of affection and how you express your feeling of affection. The feeling of love isn't different only how you express it.

What is the purpose of a knife? To cut.
What is the purpose of eyes? To see.
What is the purpose of phones? To communicate. — TheMadFool

With all these analogies there is an underlying purpose for all these actions being done. Eg. The reason you would be cutting with a knife is to perhaps prepare something to eat (so you can continue surviving).

What's the underlying drive or reason to understand the universe?

Maybe earth is a biological super computer. Where its purpose is gathering information about the universe around it for the advantage of a more advanced entity? (Reference from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) - might not be such a silly premis

Yes. Philosophy is an attempt to better understand the world around us. Doing so is advantageous as better understanding the world around you allows you to evaluate more effective or efficient means to essentially survive. — ThinkingMatt

@TheMadFool

Despite the fact that I believe this statement is true, it would be ignorant or obnoxious to say its the best means of doing so. (There is no data to suggest otherwise) it's just the best tactic i have

@TheMadFool

I don't disagree with your premis that continuing the cycle of life is to better understand the universe from humankind - my question is what's the objective in doing so?

So, why isn't everybody doing philosophy? — TheMadFool

As understanding the world around you isn't the only or maybe the best tactic for continuing the cycle of life.

@TheMadFool

cont

the single purpose of life is to reproduce — TheMadFool

I agree that this is the purpose of all living things as individuals "to continue the cycle of living things".

the meaning of life is to understand the universe in all its glory. — TheMadFool

Though if the purpose of continuing the cycle of life (as we are not imortal) is to understand the glory of the universe as a whole (humankind). Then that leaves us with the question of why we need to understand the glory of the universe in the first place?

@TheMadFool

Does knowledge of philosophy help to survive? — TheMadFool

Yes. Philosophy is an attempt to better understand the world around us. Doing so is advantageous as better understanding the world around you allows you to evaluate more effective or efficient means to essentially survive.

@schopenhauer1
See my response to Thorongil above where I have clarified my overal question.

@TheMadFool

There's something extra that is required - the thirst for knowledge — TheMadFool

The thirst for knowledge isn't a need to sustain life - learning is a mechanism to better understand our environment as a way to improve our chances of to meet the four necessities I mentioned above

When you focus right down to it, every single behavior and action conducted by not only humans but all living things can be sourced right down to a mechanism just to sustain the continuation of life. — ThinkingMatt

This is demonstrably false. There are probably an infinite number of human actions that are not conducive to living. J — Thorongil

@Thorongil

What's an example?

what is the purpose of continuing the life of all living things?’ — ThinkingMatt

@Thorongil
Your response

A nonsensical question. No one person can continue the life of all living things — Thorongil

What I meant buy this is the fact that we keep alive long enough to reproduce and create the next generation - hence 'continuing the life of all living things'.
My question is, what is the purpose of continuing this cycle?