The Three Purposes of the Universe: A Revelation.

[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. :)

 

[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.