thinker

I move the 'to thinker' thread here because it went from a question about the Zero ontology to connectionsd with Taoism.

Telemachus asks us this question, but has gone quiet and provided no answer. I am interested in the responses of people who identify themselves with mysticism, the new age movement in general, and generally people who check in on this particular corner of II.

How do you answer Telemachus' question?

kctan

Life's purpose & meaning is up to the individual to decide for his/herself.

For me, life have no purpose while a whole lot of meanings.

telemachus

Posted by thinker:
Hey, i'm a busy fellow sometimes! I try to keep up as best i can.

I asked this question partly because i am interested generally in how those with a better understanding of science, religion and philosophy, and even mysticism, would answer; that is, if their studies have led them a certain conclusion, or if they're still guessing. I also wanted to know from thinker if his Zero Ontology had led him to a definite position.

No-one seems to be bothered with my posts in the philosophy of mathematics, but perhaps i may have more luck here?

I consider that it is absurd to say that life is non-purposive once we realize that randomness tends toward order, both in the inorganic and organic portions of our universe. This is as true of evolutionary processes and the future of our universe as it is of card games. Moreover, how could a non-purposive process have led to a purposive life-form, and yet remain pointless?

In my opinion the purpose of life for us is to learn.

thinker

Ah... I cannot accept this line of reasoning because it contradicts my understanding of the mechanism by which randomness has led to order. It would appear to contradict MWI.

I have argued that all possible configurations of this Universe exist, and all possible configurations of every other possible Universe exist. Many of them will be pointless existences. I fundamentally disagree with your statement, not because I believe there is definately no meaning, but because I cannot accept your line of reasoning.

Well, that's fairly inoffensive - it is the main activity I engage in also, but purpose? meaning? Dunno.

telemachus

thinker wrote:
Perhaps you could explain to me your understanding of this mechanism?

telemachus

thinker:

Whenever you have a moment, i really am interested in your understanding...

telemachus

I've been able to look into MWI and i don't think there is any such contradiction. The mathematics would apply in all worlds and thus they would all tend toward the same symmetric order. This would mean that quite literally everything would have an underlying order...

I simply don't have the words to explain how beautiful this realization appears to me.

thinker

The only problem I have is in the conclusion that the apparent way order has risen from complexity indicates meaning. I have argued that all possible configurations of our Universe exist. The vast majority are sterile, lifeless and disorganised. It is not true that they are all as well-ordered as this one. We have to rely heavily on the anthropic principle for our order. We can only exist in one the the most highly organised bits of the MWI structure.

The question I would most like to answer for myself is how the human mind interacts with the multiverse. MWI does not make a conclusive case either way regarding free will. In truth I may also not understand what you are proposing anyway.....

telemachus

thinker wrote:
I think this is the problem here, and it is entirely my fault.

It does. However, i do not see the difference between this conclusion and yours; if the cosmos (or infinity if you like) is tending toward symmetry order, then this would constitute it's inherent meaning, viz. to attain such an order.

Okay; let's assume you're correct, and that MWI holds. We can conclude that there are some configurations that are less organized that ours, and some more so. I don't think you can argue with this.

If it's the case that randomness in both the inorganic and organic regions (for want of a better word) of the cosmos tends toward order, it makes no difference at all which of the configurations we are considering. A more organised one is closer to symmetric (or dynamic) order; a less organized one is further away.

The mathematics that comes out of the analysis of classified combinatorial sums demonstrates beyond all doubt (as far as i am concerned) that as the number of factors increases, so does the tendency toward order. In one of your postulated "sterile, lifeless and disorganised" configurations it will take longer for this order to come about, but in the longest run it will do so nonetheless.

Do you see that once we understand that there is an implicit order underlying all possible configurations of our universe it is utterly absurd to consider our lives to be without purpose? There is no need to posit a God or the nonsensical speculations about chance that accompany QM to make sense of this; it is fundamental.

I am so convinced that this understanding is as vital as it is bewildering that it has been overlooked, that i am prepared to be shot down in flames at this forum trying to get others to appreciate it. I'm willing to send you both the books i have dealing with it, if you're prepared to give them your consideration.

If it's all wrong then i want to know why, because i sure as hell can't see it.

thinker

We may be involved in a semantic disagreement here. My objection to the word 'meaning', may be down to our use of the word itself.

I can't say for sure whether or not I disagree with what you are saying. I'll need to think about it.

What part of the UK are you in?

(I live in Brighton)