It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What is the meaning of the Universe if there were no humans/sentient beings?
page: 1share:
Because humans are so far up their own bottom. or their head is in the clouds they can only relate the Universe to themselves or the existence of
other beings who fly around the Universe.
Take away humans/sentient beings and what is left?
You are left with a lot of nuclear explosions/rocks floating in a vacuum with some chemicals e.g. DNA hanging on the rocks.
So what is the purpose of that then?
Without sentient beings being paralysed by analysing the Universe, what would a Universe without analysers exist for?
Take away humans/sentient beings and what is left?
You are left with a lot of nuclear explosions/rocks floating in a vacuum with some chemicals e.g. DNA hanging on the rocks.
So what is the purpose of that then?
Without sentient beings being paralysed by analysing the Universe, what would a Universe without analysers exist for?
It's a moot point, isn't it. If there really were no sentience at all in the universe, the question wouldn't come up. Of course, philosophers like
Berkeley would claim the universe wouldn't exist without an observer, but that's not quite the question you asked. Personally, from my small-mind
viewpoint, I don't think the universe needs a reason to exist at all.
reply to post by dr treg
I've pretty much decided that "meaning" as a concept is just a human mental construct. I don't think there can be "meaning" in/for anything unless it is created/decided upon by a thinking being.
I've pretty much decided that "meaning" as a concept is just a human mental construct. I don't think there can be "meaning" in/for anything unless it is created/decided upon by a thinking being.
Just backs up my theory that there is no reason for existence.
Originally posted by dr treg
Because humans are so far up their own bottom. or their head is in the clouds they can only relate the Universe to themselves or the existence of other beings who fly around the Universe.
Humans have always said our universe is seen through a lens of technological development; we proclaim humans to be reflected in our shiniest toys, mankind was destined to fly we built the plane and mankind was destined to swim we built boats, mankind talks at the speed of light and these computers aren't up to task yet.
They might be, or humanity might leave computers in the dust to reflect upon our own supremacy in the abstract reflection of reality our next big invention gives us.
The universe was always meaningless and until humanity came around that was alright, it was the artificial biopesis of humanity's desire for purpose that sparked our imagination.
The universe has no meaning, that does not mean we value it giving us the freedom to make our own meaning for it. It gave us freedom, perhaps it was merely the vessel for the eternal struggle of authority and anarchy.
reply to post by dr treg
That's such an interesting thought. I haven't got time to watch the video right now but I'm saving it for a later watch.
The questions about what the purpose of everything is has always been interesting to me. I've actually asked myself, what if there is no purpose? What if it's simply here because it is? What if "purpose" is simply a human invention that attempts to give us a sense of meaning to a life that would otherwise be meaningless?
This topic and discussion of it brings some important thoughts to mind. Hypothetically speaking, we're the only living organisms (that we're aware of) that are capable of higher thought and the ability to ponder such things as he purpose to life, the universe, and everything. We question our own existence, we question our purpose, and we question such things as ethics and morals. If we were to get the answer, and it really were as simple as "everything is meaningless" how would we react? Would it change everything if we found that the universe really has no purpose?
I really think the only reason people are around today is because we think we have a purpose. I'm not saying we do, or we don't. I'm simply saying, that without purpose people will loose the will to live because we know our lives will eventually come to an end anyways. Right now we think we have a purpose, so we survive and thrive. People count on us for something, and we feel as though we contribute to the world around us. When people lose sight of these things we see them fall into great depression and even suicide.
So to answer your question, the meaning of the universe does not depend whether or not sentient beings exist because in my opinion "meaning" is merely an invention of sentience for the purpose of fulfilling a need to have a purpose in order to not just survive, but to thrive.
That's such an interesting thought. I haven't got time to watch the video right now but I'm saving it for a later watch.
The questions about what the purpose of everything is has always been interesting to me. I've actually asked myself, what if there is no purpose? What if it's simply here because it is? What if "purpose" is simply a human invention that attempts to give us a sense of meaning to a life that would otherwise be meaningless?
This topic and discussion of it brings some important thoughts to mind. Hypothetically speaking, we're the only living organisms (that we're aware of) that are capable of higher thought and the ability to ponder such things as he purpose to life, the universe, and everything. We question our own existence, we question our purpose, and we question such things as ethics and morals. If we were to get the answer, and it really were as simple as "everything is meaningless" how would we react? Would it change everything if we found that the universe really has no purpose?
I really think the only reason people are around today is because we think we have a purpose. I'm not saying we do, or we don't. I'm simply saying, that without purpose people will loose the will to live because we know our lives will eventually come to an end anyways. Right now we think we have a purpose, so we survive and thrive. People count on us for something, and we feel as though we contribute to the world around us. When people lose sight of these things we see them fall into great depression and even suicide.
So to answer your question, the meaning of the universe does not depend whether or not sentient beings exist because in my opinion "meaning" is merely an invention of sentience for the purpose of fulfilling a need to have a purpose in order to not just survive, but to thrive.
"The Universe has no meaning if their are no humans to analyse" - is quite an egocentric (self-centred) prejudiced (pre-judged) concept.
Why couldnt there be something going on unnoticed by humans at this stage in human development.
Why couldnt there be something going on unnoticed by humans at this stage in human development.
"The Universe has no meaning if their are no humans to analyse" - is quite an egocentric (self-centred) prejudiced (pre-judged) concept.
Why couldnt there be something going on unnoticed by humans at this stage in human development.
Why couldnt there be something going on unnoticed by humans at this stage in human development.
reply to post by schuyler
I agree with you, it doesn't need a meaning or a purpose to exist. And I disagree with Berkely, the universe has no reason to depend on an observer to exist. We cannot observe something that does not exist, and we cannot exist if what we are part of the non-existent thing which we are attempting to observe to cause it's existence.
With that logic, there would have to be a sort of seed at some point that would cause the existence of either the observer or the object whose existence is in question. If the object in question is merely existent because of my observation, then I should theoretically be able to observe a new universe on my desk here and therefore cause one to exist.
I agree with you, it doesn't need a meaning or a purpose to exist. And I disagree with Berkely, the universe has no reason to depend on an observer to exist. We cannot observe something that does not exist, and we cannot exist if what we are part of the non-existent thing which we are attempting to observe to cause it's existence.
With that logic, there would have to be a sort of seed at some point that would cause the existence of either the observer or the object whose existence is in question. If the object in question is merely existent because of my observation, then I should theoretically be able to observe a new universe on my desk here and therefore cause one to exist.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Mapkar because: removed a ridiculous grammar error.
Originally posted by dr treg
"The Universe has no meaning if their are no humans to analyse" - is quite an egocentric (self-centred) prejudiced (pre-judged) concept.
Why couldnt there be something going on unnoticed by humans at this stage in human development.
The OP did not say that. You are twisting his words so that you can criticize it. he said "no humans/sentient beings" which clearly includes anything sentient. Why not take the question from that perspective and try again?
I do not like being crass or negative,but think about it.
There are as many galaxies in this universe as there are people on this planet.
There are no less than 50 million star systems in our galaxy.
Of these about 1\4 of them are G type stars.
Add to that about 2-5 habitable planets per system for human possible habitation.
How in anyone's mind could one extrapolate that there is no sentience in galaxies millions of years older than ours?
I am not vane enough to think that God just chose here, to let life develop.
We are not the first nor will we be the last.
Many races are in this universe and millions of years wiser.
An we are still trying to bash each others heads in to be top dogs on this planet.
Peace!
There are as many galaxies in this universe as there are people on this planet.
There are no less than 50 million star systems in our galaxy.
Of these about 1\4 of them are G type stars.
Add to that about 2-5 habitable planets per system for human possible habitation.
How in anyone's mind could one extrapolate that there is no sentience in galaxies millions of years older than ours?
I am not vane enough to think that God just chose here, to let life develop.
We are not the first nor will we be the last.
Many races are in this universe and millions of years wiser.
An we are still trying to bash each others heads in to be top dogs on this planet.
Peace!
An addendum: to my post .
the meaning of the universe is exactly that .
We grow and expand ,go forth and multiply, discover and try to help our creator as many races have done
for eons. All try to get closer to the Creator Prime in hopes of understanding more.
Races rise and others fall. That is part of of the fractals of the universes as well all races learn of higher levels.
If one thinks this planet is complicated, then get ready. In the future [if we survive] it willexpand to a million times more complex and be boiled down to simplicity.
Peace!
the meaning of the universe is exactly that .
We grow and expand ,go forth and multiply, discover and try to help our creator as many races have done
for eons. All try to get closer to the Creator Prime in hopes of understanding more.
Races rise and others fall. That is part of of the fractals of the universes as well all races learn of higher levels.
If one thinks this planet is complicated, then get ready. In the future [if we survive] it willexpand to a million times more complex and be boiled down to simplicity.
Peace!
Originally posted by Mapkar
reply to post by schuyler
And I disagree with Berkely, the universe has no reason to depend on an observer to exist.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Osiris1953 because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-1-2012 by Osiris1953 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Mapkar
Quote is up there, rest of post is here.... everything I wrote was minuscule, and partially off the page... don't know what happened.
I disagree.
"A tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, does it make a noise?"
We all see reality through our own eyes, giving us each a different perspective; we each have these perspectives because we have the advanced reasoning of a sentient being. Should all who have a perception or an understanding of what a "universe" is cease to exist, the universe would in a philosophical sense, cease to exist itself. Would it still be there, sure, but if nobody existed to experience it, it's existence is meaningless, and in a metaphysical sense, the universe itself cannot exist.
"A universe was created, if no one is around to see it, was it there?"
To answer the OP, sentient beings or none, I can't see a point to all of this anyhow.
Quote is up there, rest of post is here.... everything I wrote was minuscule, and partially off the page... don't know what happened.
I disagree.
"A tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, does it make a noise?"
We all see reality through our own eyes, giving us each a different perspective; we each have these perspectives because we have the advanced reasoning of a sentient being. Should all who have a perception or an understanding of what a "universe" is cease to exist, the universe would in a philosophical sense, cease to exist itself. Would it still be there, sure, but if nobody existed to experience it, it's existence is meaningless, and in a metaphysical sense, the universe itself cannot exist.
"A universe was created, if no one is around to see it, was it there?"
To answer the OP, sentient beings or none, I can't see a point to all of this anyhow.
reply to post by dr treg
The purpose of the universe is to generate sentient life that can ascribe its own purposes to it.
The purpose of the universe is to generate sentient life that can ascribe its own purposes to it.
The answer to that question....
Is the same answer as to, "What was the meaning of the Universe for you 1+ years before you where born?"
Is the same answer as to, "What was the meaning of the Universe for you 1+ years before you where born?"
it wouldn't "mean" anything, because there wouldn't be anyone or anything to mean. lol
human sillyness and ego drives this question..
the universe doesn't exist solely for us nor does it have a meaning with us existing here..
it has simply found a state of equilibrium which allowed us to manifest within it.
people can give meaning to things, like we have done with our lives,
but the universe cannot, at least not by a conscious choice.
everything the universe "decides" is based on what overcomes what and the aftermath reaction down the line.
human sillyness and ego drives this question..
the universe doesn't exist solely for us nor does it have a meaning with us existing here..
it has simply found a state of equilibrium which allowed us to manifest within it.
people can give meaning to things, like we have done with our lives,
but the universe cannot, at least not by a conscious choice.
everything the universe "decides" is based on what overcomes what and the aftermath reaction down the line.
I'd say that we cannot assume that we are ever outside the universe.
Our chemical bodies and energized minds are a part of the universe, and in that sense we are the universe!
We are star dust and energy that gets endlessly recycled.
We fool ourselves if we think we can look at anything else in the universe objectively, and in recent decades we openly began to suspect that other parts are looking back at us (even if they just view as a zoo, or some ants in a cosmic jungle).
Are we even sentient beings?
We'd like to think we are.
Yet, even science is starting to suspect that we have other dimensions around us, and few of us can even grasp how time and space are connected.
So how can we call ourselves sentient, or any better than a bacteria that clings to a primordial rock?
We are the product of the universe - the unexplained tendency of life to come from natural forces, or perhaps even "spirit".
As such one cannot simply remove us from the material world, like one could move actors from a stage, or figures from a diorama.
We are the product of a very essence in the universe (God?) and by the same token we impact the universe, beginning with our world.
Thus one cannot view the universe from an outside perspective unless one has a means to go outside it.
Otherwise one would ultimately have to conclude that one is looking at oneself.
Our chemical bodies and energized minds are a part of the universe, and in that sense we are the universe!
We are star dust and energy that gets endlessly recycled.
We fool ourselves if we think we can look at anything else in the universe objectively, and in recent decades we openly began to suspect that other parts are looking back at us (even if they just view as a zoo, or some ants in a cosmic jungle).
Are we even sentient beings?
We'd like to think we are.
Yet, even science is starting to suspect that we have other dimensions around us, and few of us can even grasp how time and space are connected.
So how can we call ourselves sentient, or any better than a bacteria that clings to a primordial rock?
We are the product of the universe - the unexplained tendency of life to come from natural forces, or perhaps even "spirit".
As such one cannot simply remove us from the material world, like one could move actors from a stage, or figures from a diorama.
We are the product of a very essence in the universe (God?) and by the same token we impact the universe, beginning with our world.
Thus one cannot view the universe from an outside perspective unless one has a means to go outside it.
Otherwise one would ultimately have to conclude that one is looking at oneself.
edit on 15-2-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason
given)