yes, well argued, you made my first point better than i did.

It seems quite obvious what purpose the concept of morality serves and why it is ubiquitous. It it also clear that what is considered moral changes over time and between socialites, probably as a result of different circumstances.

If morality is simply a helpful but changeable concept that fosters more functional communities then this is relativistic morality as a beneficial concept. I would argue that this is antagonistic to the populate conception of morality which is generally isn't seen as a just a concept and generally is seen as relay quite absolute.

For me the burning question is, dose morality as popularly conserved of exist?

Massive Climate change probably wouldn't wipe humanity out unless the whole of the earth become uninhabitable, which i think the wight of scientific opinion says could happen.

Any which way humanist will become extinct, one way or another, does it matter when or how?

"The legitimacy of physics is one of mankind’s greatest delusions."

The legitimacy of philosophy (where it isn't just science in disguise) is one of mankind's greatest delusions.

Physics is just people doing there best to generate a framework that as accurately represents the rules that the universe flows based on observation and logic.

Much of physics is backed up by evidence, E=MC squared was demonstrated to be a reasonable representation of realty by the advent of the nuclear bomb. Our ability to produce much of modern technology you use was made possible by the framework that physicists have provided. You should not call into question the legitimacy of physics.

Science agrees with idea that lies at the core of metaphysics.

There is the actual world which is made out of huge amounts of fundamental particles arranged into what we perceive as trees, lakes other people and other galaxy, operating in accordance with the fundamental realities of nature which we call physics.

We survey this world using our seances and we build a representation of it in our heads that consists of neurons and it is to this representation have access to. We would traditionally call this representation reality. Although this is not the world it contains information about the world as the word representation would suggest. A map of the earth is a representation of the earth, but it is not the earth. The map talks a lot of liberties in how it represents things, a living breathing city of millions of people may for example be represented by a small black dot and the words London, or Mexico City or Tokyo. Similarly, the massive Mississippi river is often represented by a small blue line.

We represent different combinations of photons with different energies as color when they are photons and even the best physicists idea of a photon is a representation of what the things actual are. Smell is a representation of volatile, mostly organic chemicals and sound is how we represent the physical phenomena of compression waves.

I don't know about the precise definition of metaphysics but science tells us what we perceive as reality can only ever be a distorted representation of the actual physical world. Science is the process of trying to find more about the worlds underling reality using some combination of specialized observation and rigorous logic. Science is also about generating a framework in which we can connect all the things we find out together by building a scientific model with the scientific model it’s self simply a different type of representation of the universes underlying reality.

Quantum Physics is simply a framework that allows for particulate underlying realities of the universe to be represented in a way that those with training can understand. I do think that any framework by which we seek to understand “philosophic questions” should at least be consistent with well-established scientific models including those produces by physicists. In honesty I think science is the most powerful tools we have when it comes to producing a more useful, less distorted representation of the world.

Meaning is a label we automatically apply to everything we can. It is in essence a value judgment based on how much we believe the things we are labeling is going to affect the things we care about. Labeling objects and actions with meaning is a fundamental part of how we construct the representation of the universe that is generated by the firing of neurons inside our heads. If a person has genetic mutations which prevents them from imparting meaning on the representation of the world they generate, they would be drastically less likely to pass on their DNA, compared with somebody without such mutations. The ability to label things with meaning requires specific genes and is an important part of our fitness from an evolutionary point of view.

We are only able to impart meaning on the representation of the world we generate in our heads as this representation can be distorted when it is evolutionary useful to do so. Beyond the representation of reality we generate in our heads there is absolutely no evidence for meaning and no evidence for a framework by which such a notion could exist as an entity in the actual universe. Indeed, the whole notion of meaning only really works when applied to our representation of the universe. When you try to apply notions of meaning to the actual universe it becomes very obvious very quickly how arbitrary and self-serving the whole construct of meaning actually is. Why would the universe care about any of it, buy what mechanism could it care?

In the actual universe meaning doesn’t exist but in your distorted representation of the universe meaning does exist. So where does this leave us. Those very old maps of the world that showed sea monsters around the edges could be seen as distorted representations of the actual world, analogous to our brain’s distorted representation of the world. The physical object of the map exists within the actual world, the physical paper and paint that make up the representation of the sea monsters all exist. The effect that the see monsters picture has on other things that physically exist such as sailors and ships is real, but the sea monsters themselves, they are simply not an accurate representation of anything that actually exists outside the maps distorted representation. Sea monsters exist on paper but only on paper. In a similar way the idea of meaning exists within our neurons but only within our neurons.
In general, we should just except things for exactly what they are instead of forcing them into ill-defined boxes labeled, does and does not exist. It is quite clear that the notion of meaning is just a self-perpetuating, evolutionary beneficial distortion in our representation of the universe which in no way reflects any innate truth about the world.

A problem with asking does meaning exist is that this leans heavily on the meaning of the word exist. Trying to understand the meaning of the word exist as it relates to the concept of meaning is tricky as it gets a little circular and very dependent on precise definitions which not everybody will agree with. Another problem is whether the concept of meaning can survive if we decide it is just a relativistic concept made up by our brains and is essentially arbitrary with respect to the actual reality of the universe. If meaning can only ever be arbitrary and relativistic then does the concept of meaning lose its meaning?

Although saying things are what they are, contains much more truth, if pushed I would probably say that meaning does exist as if it didn’t I couldn’t communicate with you. This said, I would say that people do very much mistake its true nature.

sorry, kinda long