The Three Purposes of the Universe: A Revelation.

[Entity]

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

 

[out of whack]

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.

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.
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.

Uhh... are you agreeing that you asked a loaded question or just changing topic?

 

[Entity]

Uhh... are you agreeing that you asked a loaded question or just changing topic?

It is a legitimate question. Why are we here?
You know what I say about this. How about you?
Persuasion of the spirit is done many ways and most only prolongs the agony.

 

[out of whack]

It is a legitimate question. Why are we here?
You know what I say about this. How about you?
Persuasion of the spirit is done many ways and most only prolongs the agony.

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.

 

[mosassam]

The purpose of the universe is to continue to exist.

To what end? Just for the hell of it?
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

 

[moe darklight]

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!

 

[mosassam]

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)

 

[moe darklight]

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)

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?

 

[mosassam]

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.

 

[moe darklight]

hahaha! now I can't help but like you

 

[out of whack]

Like many others on these threads you seem content to undermine whilst offering nothing constructive.

Undermining a theory (unlike a bridge) is indeed constructive. I assume we are interested in factual information and not fiction. But you are not likely to get to the truth with undisputed acceptance of faulty premises. I have asked more than once for someone to explain why the universe needs to have a purpose in the first place. No answer yet.

About definitions of the word, I also agree that everyone has different ones. I have picked a few from an online dictionary.

1. Purpose: The quality of being determined to do or achieve something.

By this definition, the purpose of the universe is its intention to reach some goal. This asumes that the universe has a goal and an intention to get there. The question then becomes "what is the intention of the universe?" But then we should also decide if the universe is capable of having an intention in the first place.

2. Purpose: What something is used for.

By this definition, we have to wonder who uses it. If the universe is all that exists then nothing else remains that can make use of it, so this definition doesn't fit the present discussion.

3. Purpose: An anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions.

By this definition also, the universe has an intention, as in the first definition.

Now, if anyone is working with a different definition from the above, let's hear it. Otherwise the subject of debate is the intention of the universe. Personally, I see no reason at all to imagine that the universe has one, but you can show me wrong.

 

[Entity]

I have asked more than once for someone to explain why the universe needs to have a purpose in the first place. No answer yet.

The universe purpose derives from its beginning. Before the universe there existed time and space. The things that inhabited the time and space created the environment for our universe to come into being. This process may have happened many times before and may still occur during and after the existence of our universe; however, we may never know unless there also becomes a knowing living entity that can bring the presence of the universe into the realm of the “known.” In order for the universe to be known to exist, it must create the environment for the entity to exist in. If no entity of this kind exists, within the universe, this universe would not be known to exist. Therefore, if the universe is to exist it must be known to exist. The purpose for the universe is to create the environment for the entity, which in turn will allow the universe to exist. All of this is done by natural conclusions of things reacting to other things within its environment. If one cares about the universe, which I am finding most humans do not, then this would be a rational resolution to the theory of why we exist. If one chooses not to care why the universe exists then this resolution would be a distraction to ones complacency towards humanity’s purpose.

1. Purpose: The quality of being determined to do or achieve something.

The intention of any “thing” is to finally become known to exist. If it is not known to exist it does not exist.

2. Purpose: What something is used for.

The universe creates the environment for the entity.

3. Purpose: An anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions.

The existence of the universe and entity can, may, or may not accrue. It is only when the inclusion of the knowing living entity that the final intention is fulfilled.

Now, if anyone is working with a different definition from the above, let's hear it. Otherwise the subject of debate is the intention of the universe. Personally, I see no reason at all to imagine that the universe has one, but you can show me wrong.

What do you think?

 

[out of whack]

What do you think?

I think I do not know how to talk to you. Instead of addressing my questions you repeat your initial position as if repetition was explanation. I don't believe you use this approach in bad faith. I do believe we are so far apart in basic reasoning methodology that this discussion will frustrate both our efforts. So I wish you well but I will now walk away because I see no likely resolution here. Good luck in your search for purpose.

 

[verty]

Entity, you're just repeating yourself. It's just your opinion and it's baseless.

 

[kant]

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

Well, i don t see how your theory is more true than the others. Is it really more believable that the universe has some type of "conscious", and "intention" to create a being that is "conscious of itself"( us). If that is the case, then i think nature/universe is really "wasteful" to invent something like evolution throught natural selection to perish 99.999 percent of the specie in this planet so that "us" can evolue into this conscious being that is awear of it.

 

[kant]

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.

You don t make any sense. You are playing a language game. Sure, it is easily to define the universe as being everything, and that whatever statement that assert something that is outside of that everything is meaningless. Then again, the initial assumption that the universe is everything is as subject to doubt.

 

[Entity]

Entity, you're just repeating yourself. It's just your opinion and it's baseless.

The purpose for the universe derives from the notion of survival. Why should humanity continue to exist if its purpose for existence is meaningless? The most important aspect of any spiritual quest for meaning must first address “why” humankind is here. The answer is crucial to humanity’s purpose for survival. Why now is our planet able to sustain the knowing living entity that can communicate its awareness of existence? Never before in the history of knowing has humanity been able to communicate a most well informed rationale of why we are here. Realistically, humankind has always asked “why” however today’s entities have the most spiritual tools to use in order to breakdown the barriers on awareness. I am using valid concepts based on perceptions of established facts.
It seems rational that:
1. Humanity exists
2. In an environment developed inside the space, which is identified and labeled the Universe
3. No other known “thing” exist within the universe which humankind is “aware” of that can communicate its awareness of being
4. Humankind can communicate its awareness of being
5. If not for humanity, the universe would be unknown to exist.
6. If the universe is to exist, it must be known
7. Humanity is here to be the knowing agent

 

[heusdens]

You don t make any sense. You are playing a language game. Sure, it is easily to define the universe as being everything, and that whatever statement that assert something that is outside of that everything is meaningless. Then again, the initial assumption that the universe is everything is as subject to doubt.

I don't agree, it is a very common way of defining the universe as "everything there is" or "everything we can have knowledge about".

There can be a slight misunderstanding and need of better specification in the light of new theories that theoretize we might be part of an ensemble of universes, but still this means there is a universe in the broad sense, as defined above.

 

[heusdens]

The purpose for the universe derives from the notion of survival. Why should humanity continue to exist if its purpose for existence is meaningless? The most important aspect of any spiritual quest for meaning must first address “why” humankind is here. The answer is crucial to humanity’s purpose for survival. Why now is our planet able to sustain the knowing living entity that can communicate its awareness of existence? Never before in the history of knowing has humanity been able to communicate a most well informed rationale of why we are here. Realistically, humankind has always asked “why” however today’s entities have the most spiritual tools to use in order to breakdown the barriers on awareness. I am using valid concepts based on perceptions of established facts.
It seems rational that:
1. Humanity exists
2. In an environment developed inside the space, which is identified and labeled the Universe
3. No other known “thing” exist within the universe which humankind is “aware” of that can communicate its awareness of being
4. Humankind can communicate its awareness of being
5. If not for humanity, the universe would be unknown to exist.
6. If the universe is to exist, it must be known
7. Humanity is here to be the knowing agent

Purpose is what we define it to be, or what is purposefull to us (our existence).

For example, the sun's existence is not purposefull, but we attribute purpose to the sun as it enables life forms on Earth to exist.

And as a remark:

You could define human consciousness as it is the way for matter to become aware of itself.

 

[kant]

I don't agree, it is a very common way of defining the universe as "everything there is" or "everything we can have knowledge about".

There can be a slight misunderstanding and need of better specification in the light of new theories that theoretize we might be part of an ensemble of universes, but still this means there is a universe in the broad sense, as defined above.

In reply to first paragraphy:

I am "not" sure what you mean here. Do you mean the word "universe" as the totality of all our knowledge, or do you mean the word is it is referred to the physical universe that we inhabit. If it is the former, then you are play game of language, and meaningless game by the way. If it is the latter, then you have to tell me what the universe really "is".

In reply to second:

Can you eloberate on how might the knowledge of the multiverse be obtain?

 

[kant]

The purpose for the universe derives from the notion of survival. Why should humanity continue to exist if its purpose for existence is meaningless? The most important aspect of any spiritual quest for meaning must first address “why” humankind is here. The answer is crucial to humanity’s purpose for survival. Why now is our planet able to sustain the knowing living entity that can communicate its awareness of existence? Never before in the history of knowing has humanity been able to communicate a most well informed rationale of why we are here. Realistically, humankind has always asked “why” however today’s entities have the most spiritual tools to use in order to breakdown the barriers on awareness. I am using valid concepts based on perceptions of established facts.
It seems rational that:
1. Humanity exists
2. In an environment developed inside the space, which is identified and labeled the Universe
3. No other known “thing” exist within the universe which humankind is “aware” of that can communicate its awareness of being
4. Humankind can communicate its awareness of being
5. If not for humanity, the universe would be unknown to exist.
6. If the universe is to exist, it must be known
7. Humanity is here to be the knowing agent

I take it that you don t see my reply to you. Therefore, i will repost what i wrote:

Well, i don t see how your theory is more true than the others. Is it really more believable that the universe has some type of "conscious", and "intention" to create a being that is "conscious of itself"( us). If that is the case, then i think nature/universe is really "wasteful" to invent something like evolution throught natural selection to perish 99.999 percent of the specie in this planet so that "us" can evolue into this conscious being that is awear of it.

 

[kant]

The purpose for the universe derives from the notion of survival.

You do not have justification for this statement.
The word "purpose" as webster define it is:

1 a: something set up as an object or end to be attained : intention b: resolution, determination
2: a subject under discussion or an action in course of execution
(http://209.161.37.11/dictionary/purpose)

The word itself implies a conscious being to implement that "purpose" or "intent". Your statement above implicitly assume that the universe is conscious, and that "it" is implementing a certain "purpose". The burden of proof is on you to show that the universe is indeed "conscious" as defined by the dictionary( or whatever).To say that humen exist as your justification is to say something like "gravity exist" because " your cat has black fur". You don t have anything.

 

[heusdens]

In reply to first paragraphy:

I am "not" sure what you mean here. Do you mean the word "universe" as the totality of all our knowledge, or do you mean the word is it is referred to the physical universe that we inhabit. If it is the former, then you are play game of language, and meaningless game by the way. If it is the latter, then you have to tell me what the universe really "is".

In reply to second:

Can you eloberate on how might the knowledge of the multiverse be obtain?

No, not totally of knowledge, but all things (material states or whatever is there outside and independend of our mind) which we can have knowledge about.

According to some theories (for example inflation theory and/or M theory), our universe might not be the only one. Current state is that we can not have any knowledge about them, although it is not a priori excluded that we can have knowledge about it, since we are in some sense materially connected to it (for example possible gravitational interaction).

 

[Entity]

I take it that you don t see my reply to you.
Well, i don t see how your theory is more true than the others. Is it really more believable that the universe has some type of "conscious", and "intention" to create a being that is "conscious of itself"( us).

I read your reply and thanks for your interest. I have stripped away all other theories to present the one most believable. Not only is humanity conscious of itself but can communicate this awareness to another living knowing entity. If there is no knowing agent, there can be no known thing.

If that is the case, then i think nature/universe is really "wasteful" to invent something like evolution throught natural selection to perish 99.999 percent of the specie in this planet so that "us" can evolue into this conscious being that is awear of it.

It is not a waste it is the natural progression of being. Existence is not some theme park for our entertainment; Being is because we know it is.

You do not have justification for this statement.
The word "purpose" as webster define it is:
1 a: something set up as an object or end to be attained : intention b: resolution, determination
2: a subject under discussion or an action in course of execution

The purpose for the universe derives from the notion of “humanity’s” survival. The intention of the universe is to attain awareness of existence through the determination of the living knowing entity in order to bring resolution to the moment of being.

The word itself implies a conscious being to implement that "purpose" or "intent". Your statement above implicitly assume that the universe is conscious, and that "it" is implementing a certain "purpose". The burden of proof is on you to show that the universe is indeed "conscious" as defined by the dictionary( or whatever).To say that humen exist as your justification is to say something like "gravity exist" because " your cat has black fur". You don t have anything.

The universe is a natural event that allows for the environment to develop to a point that a living knowing entity can bring the universe into the realm of the known.

Purpose is what we define it to be, or what is purposefull to us (our existence). For example, the sun's existence is not purposefull, but we attribute purpose to the sun as it enables life forms on Earth to exist.

I think you are right humanity is the one that can define what is purposeful. The universe is a place that creates boundries for things to come into being. The universe is a thing within its environment.

You could define human consciousness as it is the way for matter to become aware of itself.

why?

 

[kant]

No, not totally of knowledge, but all things (material states or whatever is there outside and independend of our mind) which we can have knowledge about.

What do you mean by "all things which we can have knowledge about". By what criterion do you separate things that we can "know", and the stuff that is "unknownable"? Is the set of all knowable stuff a constanting increase set with time, or is it something otherwise?

According to some theories (for example inflation theory and/or M theory), our universe might not be the only one. Current state is that we can not have any knowledge about them, although it is not a priori excluded that we can have knowledge about it, since we are in some sense materially connected to it (for example possible gravitational interaction).

I don t understand you. What point are you trying to drive. Are you saying we are pretty sure what the universe really "is". Are you saying we can be "certain" of our theory? What is your point?

 

[kant]

I read your reply and thanks for your interest. I have stripped away all other theories to present the one most believable. Not only is humanity conscious of itself but can communicate this awareness to another living knowing entity. If there is no knowing agent, there can be no known thing.

You are as nonsensical as the other guy. By repeat the some phrase again, and again wouldn t make your statement any more believable. Saying that you theory is more believable "to you" does not make it more believable to me. I am sorry, but i am not convince. You are using these deeply mystical language that don't amount to anything. Perhaps, if you were born 1000 years ago, you might compet with other deeply mystical philosophiers. If you write this **** to a philosophy professor, you get an F. To repeat what i am saying, the burden of proof is on you to proof that the universe is alife. Using the fact that there are people does not make a justification for your hypothesis. You are also unclear by what you mean as "alife", or "conscious".

 

[heusdens]

I think you are right humanity is the one that can define what is purposeful.

Our existence more or less determines what is purpose or what is purposefull.

The universe is a place that creates boundries for things to come into being. The universe is a thing within its environment.
why?

The universe is not a "thing".

 

[Entity]

You are as nonsensical as the other guy. By repeat the some phrase again, and again wouldn t make your statement any more believable. Saying that you theory is more believable "to you" does not make it more believable to me. I am sorry, but i am not convince. You are using these deeply mystical language that don't amount to anything. Perhaps, if you were born 1000 years ago, you might compet with other deeply mystical philosophiers. If you write this **** to a philosophy professor, you get an F. To repeat what i am saying, the burden of proof is on you to proof that the universe is alife. Using the fact that there are people does not make a justification for your hypothesis. You are also unclear by what you mean as "alife", or "conscious".

What other guy? I don’t have a lot to say just the few things I write in order to answer your questions. I am not trying to convince as much as read what you have to say that is an argument against. The phrase “to be known” is all I am saying. Every other action humanity is capable of doing on Earth is equal to many other living entities on this planet however the ability to know we exist as a form of communication is way off the charts for “any” other entity. Also, I have never used "alife" or "conscious" to describe any of my ideas>

Our existence more or less determines what is purpose or what is purposefull.

To “know” is all humanity can do and this is what separates it from any other thing in our universe.

The universe is not a "thing".

Have you read my statement on thing? Just a little bit to not repeat… 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 its space during it's time of existence. 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" its awareness, as to the existence of the "universe" to another "knowing" "living" entity. By doing so, our universe joins the realm of the known.

 

[kant]

What other guy?

heusdens

I don’t have a lot to say just the few things I write in order to answer your questions. I am not trying to convince as much as read what you have to say that is an argument against.

Before, you were saying you are putting out a hypothesis that is more "believable". I pointed to how ironic it was, because to have something that is believable requires more than one person to belief in that thing. In other to make people believe in your hyposthesis, then you must convince other people.

Every other action humanity is capable of doing on Earth is equal to many other living entities on this planet however the ability to know we exist as a form of communication is way off the charts for “any” other entity. Also, I have never used "alife" or "conscious" to describe any of my ideas>

You are saying that the universe is "conscious". The state of being conscious would also imples that something is "alife".

According to the positivist, you would be place in a mental institution for saying something like the first sentence. What do you mean? Can i even test your claim? Can you reduce your mystical, vague words into something more concrete? Can you put it into formal logic?

 

[Entity]

Before, you were saying you are putting out a hypothesis that is more "believable". I pointed to how ironic it was, because to have something that is believable requires more than one person to belief in that thing. In other to make people believe in your hyposthesis, then you must convince other people.

Sure, you are correct I do want others to conceder my ideas but I believe in teamwork. I am interested in finding my weak points as to edit them out. It seems obvious to me that many on this forum are reluctant to believe any knew theories and are happy with the established norms that I feel are confusing and antiquated. I do not hold much hope of convincing humans that are apathetic to any knew ideas and refute simply for sake of argument.

You are saying that the universe is "conscious". The state of being conscious would also imples that something is "alife".

First, I have never said nor do I believe the Universe is a conscious being.
It is not alive. It is the environment that allows for things to become.

What do you mean? Can i even test your claim? Can you reduce your mystical, vague words into something more concrete? Can you put it into formal logic?

P1 A purpose is what a thing does that gives it a known existence.
P2 The universe exists and has the properties of being known.
P3 Having the properties described in P2 is sufficient to qualify “a known existence” as being a purpose of the universe according to the definition of P1.
C: Therefore, the purpose of the universe is to "exist and to be known to exist"

 

[out of whack]

Sorry, I said I would walk away but I just cannot resist reacting to this. My favorite part:

A purpose is what a thing does that gives it a known existence.

The purpose of a hammer is what a hammer does that gives it a known existence. Of course. Yes. Sure. It does what it does in order to become known to the nail...

The purpose of a government is what a government does that gives it a known existence. That, I can understand. And taxes are the means to its purpose.

Listen, you cannot tailor-make a definition that nobody else uses just to suit your assumptions. This is NOT what the word "purpose" means by any stretch of the imagination and common understanding. If you start redefining the English language to your liking then you will not make any sense to anyone but yourself, in which case posting to a public forum makes no sense either.

 

[Entity]

Sorry, I said I would walk away but I just cannot resist reacting to this.
The purpose of a hammer is what a hammer does that gives it a known existence. Of course. Yes. Sure. It does what it does in order to become known to the nail...
The purpose of a government is what a government does that gives it a known existence. That, I can understand. And taxes are the means to its purpose.
Listen, you cannot tailor-make a definition that nobody else uses just to suit your assumptions. This is NOT what the word "purpose" means by any stretch of the imagination and common understanding. If you start redefining the English language to your liking then you will not make any sense to anyone but yourself, in which case posting to a public forum makes no sense either.

Thanks for at least humoring me but you did make my point purpose is what a thing does and that is all I am saying. What I am stating is not complex, it is meant to be simplistic in nature.
If you have read anything that I am theorizing you would of course be aware of my attitude towards establish norms. Humanity in general needs to reevaluate its antiquated understanding of reality. Humanity works on conditions set thousands of years ago and must allow for new interpretations of reality as it grows through life. I will not allow for the dogma of past unrealistic understandings of purpose to hinder my own perceptions of purpose. The institutions of humanity rely on conservative change within any progression of meaning. I rely on my perceptions not institutions conceptions which only perpetuate false truth without any recourse or end game that allows for a re-set of values. Sorry.

 

[Airmanareiks]

Projection of God

The Purpose of the Universe is to manifest God.

This is seen as the manifestation of consciousness. The movement of space/time is the movement of God and the evolution of species, is the evolution of the mind/brain. That what thinks exists, that which does not think, does not exists. The cosmos is the development to higher thinking minds.

 

[disturbed1]

you say the universe isn't alive...so u don't see the reproductive force

 

[mosassam]

The Purpose of the Universe is to manifest God.

The Porpoise of the Universe is to jump through Hoops for Fish.

 

[petermorrisjr]

Does the universe have a purpose for being?
Does humanity have a purpose for being?

Without a knowing agent there can be no known thing.
The universe is a thing, humanity is a knowing agent therefore the universe can be known to exist if humanity becomes aware of the universe’s presence.

To know and to communicate the awareness as to the existence of the universe is the purpose of Humanity. To be the knowing

To be known to exist is the purpose of the universe. To be the known

No one has the answers to these questions and they are good Questions

 

[mosassam]

To ask about the purpose of the universe can only be done by a "knowing agent". BUT... if the knowing agent does not exist, does purpose exist? Do we not exalt ourselves when we say that the purpose of the universe "is" "to be known"? OR, does the consiousness/awareness attained by some primates living in a nondescript solar system reflect a fundamental aspect of the universe?
I equate the purpose of the universe with Growth, the same way a seed produces that which it came from. Mind you, last week I equated it with God blowing up a balloon because It was having a party (I was pretty out of it at the time ).

 

[baywax]

To ask about the purpose of the universe can only be done by a "knowing agent". BUT... if the knowing agent does not exist, does purpose exist? Do we not exalt ourselves when we say that the purpose of the universe "is" "to be known"? OR, does the consiousness/awareness attained by some primates living in a nondescript solar system reflect a fundamental aspect of the universe?
I equate the purpose of the universe with Growth, the same way a seed produces that which it came from. Mind you, last week I equated it with God blowing up a balloon because It was having a party (I was pretty out of it at the time ).

Hi Mosassam, I'd say purpose is a relative concept. Since the universe is on its own with regard to relatives we'd have to say there is no purpose to the universe other than to be a universe.

 

[mosassam]

Hi Mosassam,

I'd say purpose is a relative concept. Since the universe is on its own with regard to relatives we'd have to say there is no purpose to the universe other than to be a universe.

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.

 

[out of whack]

"What is a universe?"

This sounds answerable but may be mainly a matter of definition. Most people define it as "all there is".

"What does it do?"

This sounds at least partly answerable. It is precisely the domain of science to describe how things behave.

"What is it for?"

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

To me, things make more sense when described in terms of function rather than something as vague as purpose.

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.

 

[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. :)