- #31
sd01g
- 271
- 0
out of whack said:
Why do we exist and why do we think and why do we ask questions?
The Three Purposes of the Universe: A Revelation.
- Thread starter Entity
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Universe
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the purpose of the universe and humanity's role within it. It posits that humanity serves as a "knowing agent," allowing the universe to be known through awareness and communication. The universe, described as the totality of existence, is not a fixed entity but rather an event that interacts with its environment. The conversation touches on the potential existence of multiple universes and critiques the influence of misguided ideologies on humanity's search for purpose. Ultimately, the dialogue emphasizes that the universe's purpose may be to facilitate awareness and understanding through living entities like humanity.
Why do we exist and why do we think and why do we ask questions?
- #32
fedorfan
- 115
- 0
sd01g said:
Nobody knows.
- #33
out of whack
- 436
- 0
sd01g said:
It appears to be a natural result of the evolution of species. We happen to be at a stage when living creatures have become sentient. That's my opinion regarding your specific question, but the original post is much more global than this since it asked about the whole universe, a much bigger bite to swallow.
- #34
Entity
- 65
- 0
It is the act of awareness to the reality of existing and then communicating this awareness to a knowing living entity that brings all other events into being. Without the knowing agent there can be no known thing.
- #35
AsianSensationK
- 186
- 1
verty said:
This most certainly is philosophy. It just happens to be a piece of classical philosophy. It's a concept called teleology, and I believe it's most closely associated with Aristotle.
The classical examples typically involve trivial stuff like acorns. This one is easy to argue for. It's an acorns purpose to become an oak tree. The function of the acorn is implicit in its structure. This means your typical acorn "should" become an oak tree.
I seem to remember that the function of man is "virtuous and rational activity" or something like that. Here it seems like the function of the universe is the reverse of the function of man. Isn't that a little too convenient? Why would it be the case that the purpose of the universe is to be known, and yet the universe contains so few "knowing" entities?
Last edited:
- #36
out of whack
- 436
- 0
Entity said:
[Bold adjective added by me.]
This sounds good if your only concern is known things. "Known things" of course do not exist unless they are both "known" and "things". It doesn't discount the existence of unknown things.
- #37
Entity
- 65
- 0
It only takes a few to know. Call it what you wish, I see nothing today that ask this question, perhaps you are better read. We are here to know.AsianSensationK said:
Yes, I am concerned with the known things as well as how they become known. Until we understand all of the known, the unknown will always be there. I will give you that.out of whack said:
- #38
Entity
- 65
- 0
Because we can. And as far as we know ...the only ones who can. cool huhsd01g said:
- #39
regent
- 37
- 0
Entity said:
How would you explain how humans first came to be?
- #40
Entity
- 65
- 0
Humanity is simply a natural event that can, does, and may happen. We are in the “does” faze of the human event. Things exist within a period of time within the space required. As with all "things" it can exist, may exist, does exist, and will go out of existence. Some "things" have an ability to influence it's space during it's time existing. Our universe is one of these "things." One of the universe's abilities is to create an environment that is suitable for a "knowing" "living" entity to sustain existence long enough for this entity to "communicate" it's awareness, as to the existence of the "universe" to another "knowing" "living" entity. By doing so, our universe can join the realm of the known. I understand this may sound a bit uneventful but in the realm of the known, it is essential. What one knows is a part of the “known” when one is able to transfer accurately this knowledge to another living knowing entity. My guess is humanity may be just one entity.regent said:
- #41
heusdens
- 1,736
- 0
Entity said:
The universe is not an apple. An apple exists in the objective sense that it exists as an object for us (we can take a bite in it to satisfy our hunger), and for the apple, there exists objects, like the birds who eat the apple, and who are independend of each other and can have objective relations.
For the universe, there are no separate objects strictly outside and independend of it, neither are there objects that have the universe as an object, which are independend and strictly apart from the universe.
So, in that sense, in the objective sense, there is no universe in existence.
- #42
Entity
- 65
- 0
Time is constant and for there to be time there must be space that exists. Things are what exist within space for a time period. The universe is one of the things that exist within space for a period of time. Before our universe there was time and space for it to exist within as will there be time and space the will exist when our universe no longer exist. The question is what if anything was in the space before the coming into existence of our universe. Was the space empty, a static essence of nothing or were there other things that affected the coming into existence of our universe. I think you all know what I think.heusdens said:
- #43
heusdens
- 1,736
- 0
Entity said:
Physics do not have a notion of 'empty' space in the sense that every part of space there is a non-neglectible something, even when there are no observable particles.
So a literal empty space has no physical reality.
Radiation/energy and/or fields at some point in the history and at some point in the future, may be the only things in existence in the universe (the universe by the way, does always exist, even when there are no observable particles), and there are good indications that some properties of the then dominating fields, can cause a Big Bang and a universe filled with ordinary matter, due to properties of the fields (cosmic inflation, etc.).
- #44
heusdens
- 1,736
- 0
Entity said:
The presence of thinking beings like us, is what defines meaning and purpose. Without us, or a sentenial being, one can not talk about 'purpose' of the universe. The 'purpose' of the universe, as far as we can understand this, is that it allows for sentenial beings like us to be able to exist.
As humans we see as our purpose to be free, that is to be as limitless as possible, to not be restrained by slavery, hunger, desperateness, etc.
Knowledge in that sense is only functional, in that it enables us to acquire our freedom. Knowledge is not a goal in itself.
- #45
Entity
- 65
- 0
As one may not be able to grasp time so to is space. The two are co dependant. Before a thing becomes there exist a time and space it did not. When a thing becomes part of being, it occupies time and space.heusdens said:
and I will add … so as to acknowledge the existence of the universe and to communicate this awareness to another living knowing being.heusdens said:
- #46
AsianSensationK
- 186
- 1
Entity said:
See, you say we're here to know, but ask yourself this. Is there a purpose to knowledge?
That's why Aristotle generalized the purpose of man to "virtuous and rational activity" rather than just the act of "knowing." People don't just aim to know, but they also aim to use that knowledge for the general benefit of people (including themselves). Of course, plenty of people still pursue knowledge, just for knowledge's sake.
As far as your argument seeming convenient, it's because you're defining the universe based on properties that have more to do with people perceiving it, and less to do with it's actual structure.
The acorn's purpose is to grow into an oak tree and it is easy to argue for, since it's intrinsic to the acorn. If you argued that the acorn's purpose was for it to be known that it would become an oak tree, it's a little tougher to swallow, because the purpose of the acorn would then be extrinsic to the acorn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology A resource that you might find interesting.
I think you'll find that on a forum like this, most people are going to object to this kind of philosophy. A lot of people here will be "metaphysical naturalists." The idea that nature has any inherent purpose to it will sound ludicrous.
Last edited:
- #47
Evo
Staff Emeritus
- 24,029
- 3,323
Honestly, the universe needs no purpose, it just is. We need no purpose, we just are. But then what would bored people have to worry about?
- #48
Entity
- 65
- 0
To have knowledge works well with many qualities a living entity may exhibit however, the act of universe awareness and then communicating this awareness to another entity that can comprehend is far greater an act then most living beings can accomplish. Purpose is to be known to exist.AsianSensationK said:
Don’t really care about the structure of the universe but I do care about why it exist. If a knowing living entity does not develop within the universe the universe may exist however, it would not be known to exist and so as a result would be unknown to exist.AsianSensationK said:
I understand an acorn is not a sentient being as is our universe. I think your anology does not work with what it is I am writing. How about, it is a natural event that an acorn can, may, will, or will not become a oak tree. Our universe can, may, will, or will not create an environment suitable for the knowing living entity.AsianSensationK said:
I am cool with whom ever discusses my concept of reality. This is how I learn and develop… gain knowledge if you will. I understand teleology and I do not see anything wrong with suggesting that humanity has a purpose. It is simple, without a knowing agent there can be no known thing. Humanity can be a knowing agent and the universe can be the known thing. All other act be it from either the knowing agent or the known thing, is moving from this event or leading to this event or stuck in a static time/space activity neither leading to or away from this event.AsianSensationK said:
First, I am not bored and I understand what it is like to not have a purpose. All I am suggesting is that without the knowing there can be no known and so if you strip away all other attempted statements on purpose you will still be left with the one I suggest. As a result, with humanity’s knowing event (not to say some other knowing entities may exist outside our own unique environment) the universe can become known which allows it to exist in the realm of being.Evo said:
- #49
out of whack
- 436
- 0
Asking about the purpose of the universe is a loaded question. It assumes that one exists. A rational thinker should first confirm that there is one and not just assume that "there must be one" without any reason. Otherwise you should also discuss the opinion of the universe because if it has a purpose, it must also have an opinion about it, right? Also discuss its outlook for the next quarter.
- #50
fedorfan
- 115
- 0
If the universe has a purpose then we don't know what it is because using our logic if something has a purpose then it has a creator.
- #51
Entity
- 65
- 0
The outlook for next quarter looks bleak. The universe is known to exist because humanity can place it into the realm of the known. There are scenarios that place the universe either as all encompassing, mere illusion, brought about through intelligent design or chaos, to multi-verse theory. It seems apparent that there is not a consensus for the validity of the universe. I am stripping away all that is traditionally believed and addressing the one belief left over that we can all find as true.out of whack said:
The natural function of our universe allows the environment to develop to a point in which a living knowing entity can sustain Being long enough to become aware of its existence of Being “and” communicate this awareness to another knowing living entity. Humanity is unaware of any other living knowing entity that exists in the “Universe” that can do the same where by leaving humanity to talk to itself until either we parish into nonbeing before contacting others and thus returns the universe to the realm of the unknown or humanity learns to accept its fate and continues to exist until we are contacted if that is even a possibility. It is either true that humanity is the only living knowing being that can communicate its awareness of Being or there exist others throughout the universe.
The universe is a natural event that either; creates an environment that is conducive to the knowing living entity or creates an environment that is not conducive. There is no creator, as humanity understands. The universe comes into being because the environment it exists in was conducive for it to become and the only way it is known to exist is if it can develop to a point that the entity also comes into being thus placing the universe into the realm of the known.fedorfan said:
- #52
out of whack
- 436
- 0
Entity said:
Uhh... are you agreeing that you asked a loaded question or just changing topic?
- #53
Entity
- 65
- 0
It is a legitimate question. Why are we here?out of whack said:Uhh... are you agreeing that you asked a loaded question or just changing topic?
You know what I say about this. How about you?
Persuasion of the spirit is done many ways and most only prolongs the agony.
- #54
out of whack
- 436
- 0
Entity said:
But you initiated this discussion thread. You insist that the purpose of the universe is to be known. Staying on topic, I must point out that you hypothesize on the nature of a purpose without showing any evidence that one even exists.
- #55
mosassam
- 213
- 0
To what end? Just for the hell of it?Rade said:
No point = no purpose
Therefore, your statement appears thus:
The purpose of the universe is to continue to exist without purpose!
The purpose of the universe appears to be growth, the continuous evolution of systems of ever-increasing complexity. To what end? Growth produces that which seeded it. What seeded the universe? Buggered if I know!
Growth, defined as the continuous evolution of systems of ever-increasing complexity, would appear to be an empirical fact of the observable universe. I would then argue that purpose can be viewed as an inherent feature of growth in that all things that grow become "that which seeded them", the purpose of a growing system can be defined as "becoming that from which it emerged".
Now we have purpose with an end which can be tested empirically.
perhaps
Last edited:
- #56
moe darklight
- 409
- 0
to me, the question is irrelevant because "purpose" is a man-made concept* (on which we don't even seem to agree; what is purpose to one person is not to another).
So, first of all, we should agree on what the term "purpose" represents, and THEN figure out if the universe contains these qualities :)
* like other concepts such as "happy," "sad," "beautiful," etc. Marvin Minsky talks about emotions in this way in his latest book, and it makes a lot of sense... we come up with all these words, and we don't even know what they mean!
So, first of all, we should agree on what the term "purpose" represents, and THEN figure out if the universe contains these qualities :)
* like other concepts such as "happy," "sad," "beautiful," etc. Marvin Minsky talks about emotions in this way in his latest book, and it makes a lot of sense... we come up with all these words, and we don't even know what they mean!
Last edited:
- #57
mosassam
- 213
- 0
Thanks for that profound contribution moe darklight. Instead of just childishly whining on about the limitations of words why did you not attempt to provide a definition for the word 'purpose' (something like "the object towards which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or goal" would have done nicely). Like many others on these threads you seem content to undermine whilst offering nothing constructive. You hinder communication, cooperation and the opportunity to discuss and even learn. Read through your last post but in your mind use the voice of stroppy, spoilt brat. It's actually quite funny. (to meeee the question is irrelevant)
- #58
moe darklight
- 409
- 0
mosassam said:
wow, I'm very impressed with YOUR ability to open up communication. here, I'm communicating right now!
hey! here's one of my hilarious point-by-point explanations for you to enjoy:
1) this is the PHILOSOPHY forum.
2) to me: as in, "this is just my opinion". or should I just state my thoughts as facts? would that be less "stroppy" of me?
3) I try to write as clear as possible, I have ADD and, as a result, my thoughts are very chaotic and it makes it very hard for me to express them in a way that they make sense. so I've taught myself to try extra hard to organize my thoughts when i explain them so that it doesn't read like a mess of random sentences. is it a sin to try and make sure that people understand what you are trying to communicate?
4) I'm very eager to learn. If I wanted to know what I think I would write all this down and read it to myself. I post on these forums to know what other people think. if they agree, disagree, if they can add to my idea, correct it, etc.
if you are so interested in me and my personality, you should continue your investigative report by reading some of my previous posts in which I ask questions about things I don't know. I ask a lot of questions, even in forums like the one you mentioned where i give my opinion, because I am well aware that there are people here who know much much more than me on these subjects. I'm always eager to learn, I also like long walks on the beach and am more of a cat person; i don't kiss till the third date... i hope that doesn't disappoint you.
to meeeeee, a spoilt brat is a person who gets off at starting childish fights with people they barely know about (other than the profound insight into the inner workings of my soul that are my forum posts, of course) so they can feel good about themselves. did you type your message with one hand too?
I'm disappointed in myself for answering to your comment... i guess congratulations on lowering me to your level?
Last edited:
- #59
mosassam
- 213
- 0
To moe darklight - apologies for the harshness of my post, it was written in a moment of annoyance and I have since been wishing I could take it back. I am aware of the valid contributions you have made on a number of threads (ie: increasing/decreasing complexity thread) and if anyone was being childish it was me. I too am eager to learn and have had the luck to be guided along by some very tolerant and helpful people who were willing to come down to my level of understanding. I hope we can continue exploring together this thread together.
As such, I would like to know your opinion of my thoughts on the purpose (ultimate goal, if any) of the universe as outlined in post #55.
Once again, I apologise unreservedly.
As such, I would like to know your opinion of my thoughts on the purpose (ultimate goal, if any) of the universe as outlined in post #55.
Once again, I apologise unreservedly.
- #60
moe darklight
- 409
- 0
hahaha! now I can't help but like you