The Three Purposes of the Universe: A Revelation.

[mosassam]

This asks for a purpose again and I don't see any reason to think there is one.

Would you view the existence of the universe as meaningless? Something that simply exists without a point?

I see no significant difference between function and purpose, both can be defined as "what something is used for", and in fact this exact entry appears under both terms in my dictionary. I cannot see precisely what the difference would be.

Function relates to the 'workings' or mechanics of a system. Purpose relates to the end product (if any) of a system. Function can be defined mathematically whereas purpose seems to be more philosophical in nature. We could ask "How does the universe function?", a clear answer to this question may indeed throw light on "What purpose, if any, does the universe have?"
I make all this up as I go along

 

[out of whack]

Would you view the existence of the universe as meaningless? Something that simply exists without a point?

Of course. Do you consider this a disturbing thought? Consider something smaller, like just a rock. What is the meaning of the existence of a rock? Can a rock exist without making a point? Of course it could, and that's ok.

Function relates to the 'workings' or mechanics of a system. Purpose relates to the end product (if any) of a system.

Alright, but then I suggest you pick a less ambiguous word than "function" since it suggests a purpose. "Workings" better describes what you mean, and I agree that we can research the workings of the universe.

We could ask "How does the universe function?", a clear answer to this question may indeed throw light on "What purpose, if any, does the universe have?"

F = ma. This describes at least part of the workings of the universe. But does it say anything about purpose?

I make all this up as I go along

You are in good company.

 

[baywax]

The question just shifts to ones like "What is a universe?", "What does it do?", "What is it for?"
When asking about the 'purpose' can it be said that we are asking about the function. To me, things make more sense when described in terms of function rather than something as vague as purpose. I intuitively feel that it may be possible to discern whether the universe has a function or not. Also, describing things in terms of function avoids relative concepts.

Function is also a relative concept.

 

[mosassam]

Function is also a relative concept.

So the function of a bicycle "is a relative concept". The function in a mathematical equation "is relative".
Please expand on your statement or we could end up in a "pantomime debate" (oh no it isn't, oh yes it is, oh no it isn't...ad infinitum)

 

[mosassam]

Of course. Do you consider this a disturbing thought? Consider something smaller, like just a rock. What is the meaning of the existence of a rock? Can a rock exist without making a point? Of course it could, and that's ok.

The only thing I find disturbing is "Of course". Such certainty in a uncertain world. Do I smell dogma? As for the rock, you posit that it has no purpose or point (obviously the rock doesn't "make" a point). Does the rock contain a fossil? Has it been used as a weapon? Does it form part of the immense life-cycle of mineral exchange necessary for Life on our planet? Take away all rock and what are you left with?

Alright, but then I suggest you pick a less ambiguous word than "function" since it suggests a purpose. "Workings" better describes what you mean, and I agree that we can research the workings of the universe.

No. I like the word function exactly because it encapsulates "workings" and "purpose". You dislike it because it contains that element of "purpose". Do I smell dogma?

F = ma. This describes at least part of the workings of the universe. But does it say anything about purpose?

Does it say anything about the purpose of Force? Does it reveal an aspect of what Force may be for? Or maybe it demonstrates meaninglessness in a tidy equation.

 

[moe darklight]

the universe actually has two purposes, not one. after 19 years of formulating a hypothesis, and nine months of quiet fetal reflection, I have come to the following conclusion:

purpose A of the universe must both precede and superimpose purpose B.
purpose B must superimpose, but under no circumstances precede purpose A.

therefore:

purpose A of the universe is for purpose B to be achieved.

purpose B of the universe is to exist until purpose A is achieved.

hope that clarifies everything. now sleep sound everyone.

 

[mosassam]

That fetal reflection seems to have worked out a treat!
PS: Any views on substituting "Function" for "Purpose"?

 

[out of whack]

The only thing I find disturbing is "Of course". Such certainty in a uncertain world. Do I smell dogma?

I said "of course" in response to your "would you" question. It means of course I would. I don't rule out the possibility as you seem to. No smell of dogma, at least on my side.

As for the rock

The purpose or lack of purpose of a rock was an example to illustrate how it should not be disturbing to consider that the universe may have no purpose, so...

Take away all rock and what are you left with?

No rock. Nothing special.

I like the word function exactly because it encapsulates "workings" and "purpose". You dislike it because it contains that element of "purpose". Do I smell dogma?

What's with the dogma thing again? I prefer to use two separate words when discussing two different concepts. You prefer to use a single one for both.

Does it say anything about the purpose of Force? Does it reveal an aspect of what Force may be for?

Not that I can see. You?

Or maybe it demonstrates meaninglessness in a tidy equation.

Not even that. It just shows a relation, no purpose.

 

[baywax]

So the function of a bicycle "is a relative concept". The function in a mathematical equation "is relative".
Please expand on your statement or we could end up in a "pantomime debate" (oh no it isn't, oh yes it is, oh no it isn't...ad infinitum)

A function is relative to the cause and effect and to the person deeming the action a function.

It is only an individual or group of individuals that can assign a function to the sun, for example. This is an anthropocentric term and does not apply outside of the realm of humans. Function usually relates only to how an action effects humans and/or living systems.

Like I said, the universe is on its own with regard to relatives. Therefore, as a whole, the universe has no function that is relative to another entity since, as far as we know, there is no other entity besides the universe. So, again, I am stating that function is a relative concept and since the universe has nothing relative to it, it has no function.
Oxford Dictionary

function |?f? ng k sh ?n| noun 1 an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing : bridges perform the function of providing access across water | Vitamin A is required for good eye function.

• practical use or purpose in design : building designs that prioritize style over function.

• a basic task of a computer, esp. one that corresponds to a single instruction from the user. 2 Mathematics a relationship or expression involving one or more variables : the function (bx + c).

• a variable quantity regarded in relation to one or more other variables in terms of which it may be expressed or on which its value depends.

• Chemistry a functional group. 3 a thing dependent on another factor or factors : class shame is a function of social power. 4 a large or formal social event or ceremony : he was obliged to attend party functions. verb [ intrans. ] work or operate in a proper or particular way : her liver is functioning normally.

• ( function as) fulfill the purpose or task of (a specified thing) : the museum intends to function as an educational and study center.

 

[mubashirmansoor]

Wow Wow Wow ... Go On...

the universe actually has two purposes, not one. after 19 years of formulating a hypothesis, and nine months of quiet fetal reflection, I have come to the following conclusion:

purpose A of the universe must both precede and superimpose purpose B.
purpose B must superimpose, but under no circumstances precede purpose A.

therefore:

purpose A of the universe is for purpose B to be achieved.

purpose B of the universe is to exist until purpose A is achieved.

hope that clarifies everything. now sleep sound everyone.

I'm shocked... Since this is exactly what I needed to understand a number of phenomenas... Please tell me some more on that, How did you come up with that? what's the logic behind this statement of yours?

I'll be eagerly waiting for your reply. :)

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

The purpose of the Universe is to experience itself subjectively, as one cohesive collective consciousness, as all aspects of material reality are inextricably, interconnected.

The notion that a non-sentient Universe is encoded towards a dynamic evolution of sentience, consciousness and awareness, is mysteriously intriguing and begs the question, "Is the Universe a conscious whole, or does it only exist consciously through subjective periphrial extensions of itself?"

Does the Universe have a memory?

Granted, we have to separate and classify this 'inextricably, interconnected whole,' however, it is for the purpose of clarity.

 

[out of whack]

The purpose of the Universe is to experience itself [...]

How do you reach this conclusion? Why not "to wonder why it exists" instead? Why not "to perpetuate itself" instead? What is it about experiencing oneself that makes it the purpose of all there is?

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

'Wondering why it exists', 'perpetuating itself', etc. are all experiences. The word "it" that you used, seems to yield an element of subjectivity as well. I fail to understand the complication but perhaps my perception is distorted.

-cP

 

[out of whack]

I ask how you conclude that the purpose of the universe is to experience itself.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

I ask how you conclude that the purpose of the universe is to experience itself.

To clarify, when I use the word 'consciousness,' I am referring to 'phenomenal consciousness' or 'experience,' which, currently, we can treat intuitively. If we require an operational definition to continue forward, that would require an application of logic, which I would need to construct.

I concluded this because I am a conscious, sentient being and I possesses self-awareness, sapience, cognition, free-thought, logic and reasoning. I am an emergent, macroscopic physical system, constructed and engineered through the contingent elements of the Universe, thus making me, inextricably, interconnected with all of material reality.

You can not separate yourself from the nature, you are the nature. If the Universe is non-sentient, then I can conclude that it is at the very least, experiencing itself subjectively through me, if you want to posit solipsism. However, I tend to believe that while we do subjectively construct our own cognitive models and maps of the Universe and of reality, there still exists an objective source from which we extrapolate this experience. With this in mind, assuming that every individual exists as a real entity, then the Universe as a whole, would be experiencing itself subjectively through each individual.

This is the most conservative approach that I can think of, even if it is anthropocentric. One could conclude that all aspects of material reality, constitute a subjective experience for the Universe as a whole, however, that requires an extra assumption that experience in general does not correspond necessarily to our subjective notion of experience.

If the Universe itself as a whole, is non-sentient and unconscious and we posit the notion of a material consciousness (i.e. the physical architecture and organization of the brain generates consciousness), then we can conclude that these same laws would apply to the macroscopic Universe (i.e. it organizes in a fashion that consitutes experience).

If the Universe itself as a whole, is indeed sentient and conscious, then we can conclude that our conscious experiences are derived from this collective source.

This is pure conjecture without the application of rigorous logic, so it is an informal argument.

 

[out of whack]

This is pure conjecture

I agree.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

I agree.

Is that your response? It is conjecture because it is unfalsifiable, as are most abstract notions of reality. I fail to see how it being conjecture, in anyway detracts from the argument.

You can not posit any conditions for the purpose of the Universe, that are directly falsifiable! What is your argument? You have asked me questions, which I answered and then you quoted my own comment about my conjecture and used that to conclude it was invalid.

Is this your method of discussion?

 

[out of whack]

There is nothing wrong here. You make some claim. I ask to see your proof of what you claim. You yourself conclude that your claim is pure conjecture. I agree that it is. You're upset?

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

There is nothing wrong here. You make some claim. I ask to see your proof of what you claim. You yourself conclude that your claim is pure conjecture. I agree that it is. You're upset?

Upset? No, dood, I am laughing. It's a discussion on a board homie and I am at work currently. I gave you my proof, now respond to it.

There is plenty there for you to go through and pick apart. You have yet to provide a single contention in this discussion. I wrote the thing in like five minutes, I don't understand what your requirements are, lol.

SILLY INTERNET KIDS! (again, I am kidding incase the intonation gets lost in translation from oral to text).

 

[moe darklight]

I'm shocked... Since this is exactly what I needed to understand a number of phenomenas... Please tell me some more on that, How did you come up with that? what's the logic behind this statement of yours?

I'll be eagerly waiting for your reply. :)

That fetal reflection seems to have worked out a treat!
PS: Any views on substituting "Function" for "Purpose"?

----

the universe actually has two purposes, not one. after 19 years of formulating a hypothesis, and nine months of quiet fetal reflection, I have come to the following conclusion:

purpose A of the universe must both precede and superimpose purpose B.
purpose B must superimpose, but under no circumstances precede purpose A.

therefore:

purpose A of the universe is for purpose B to be achieved.

purpose B of the universe is to exist until purpose A is achieved.

hope that clarifies everything. now sleep sound everyone.

thank you for your support of my emerging theory... I actually have incredible news!

I was looking through the numbers last night (sorry mubashirmansoor, I would post the equations but just the first equation is around 10 pages long! ... besides, I feel the mathematical complexity and philosophical implications would be beyond anyone here at PF anyway). anyway, looking through the numbers I realized something. how did I not see it before? I don't know... it turns out there is a third kind of purpose for the universe, I have labeled it purpose A1, as it does not seem to fit into the same category of purposes A and B.

the fascinating thing about purpose A1, is that it is to be achieved once purpose B has been achieved, yet it cannot exist once purpose A has been achieved!

this seeming paradox had me most perplexed! after all, wouldn't this imply that the purposes of the universe cancel each other out?

indeed, to the unsophisticated mind. but upon further contemplation I realized the following principle: the three purposes of the universe do not cancel each other out; instead, purpose A1 interacts with purposes A and B in a way that perpetually forces them into different states... how can I describe this better without going into overly-complex concepts... imagine these three purposes of the universe as a line, a string of sorts. with my discovery of purpose A1, the three interconnected and superimposed purposes of the universe (this string) is constantly in motion... "vibrating," for lack of a better word!

why three purposes to the universe? why are they superimposed in this manner? ... I am yet to resolve this issue. but at least I have solved, at last, this most relevant of questions: what is the purpose of the universe? . ending once and for all the need for speculation.