I don't expect you guys to believe me or care, but after 27 years of deep thought, I've finally cracked it.
The great 42.
The meaning of life.
I can't explain it all here it's too vast, I might write a book, but all the pieces finally fit.
Inb4 babby's first trip, I've never done drugs
Pic unrelated
AMA
how about you explain it all in this thread OP, and then write a book?
how do i get the most happiness before i die
Can you at least give us a tl;dr for your answer?
And now you can get on with that life
It would mean writing a book in this thread. It should be obvious why not.
Glad this thread is pointless
Happiness, probably being a selfish asshole and managing to cut off that part of you that feels guilt or remorse or pity or love, disconnecting yourself from humanity and emotions completely and essentially becoming a hedonist.
But that's happiness, and that's a different animal from things like contentment or satisfaction
I can try, but it's not really the meaning that's mind-blowing, it's the reasoning behind why that meaning is correct, the logical steps and paradox resolutions that make it work. Kinda like when a complex math problem looks impossible until a bunch of stuff cancels out and it suddenly works, like the creation of 'i' to resolve things that would be possible without it.
The meaning without all of that context, background and explanation will seem trite and kind of vague, to really get it you need the whole lot. I can give you a base understanding of the meaning without all of that, but you'll probably disregard it.
Dude...don't blue ball us. Give us something.
I said AMA
I can't explain the whole lot it's too vast, but if you ask a specific question I can try to give a specific answer.
Give us the formula
>To be happy you need to disconnect from emotions.
fake and gay
How one can live his life with happines and being contempt?
794594642
Post 42 get
How about you give us the meaning in it's most basic form and we'll decide whether or not its trite
>AMA
>Ask Me Anything
>Anything
What is the meaning of life and why is it so?
Stop wriggling and give us the answer. One more evasive reply and I'll sage this thread into the pits of hell.
In it's shortest possible form?
Development/evolution of the soul
The why is really tricky. It involves infinity, paradox resolution, the fifth dimension, god, context, comprehension.... there's just no shortform explanation.
Do you eat spaghetti in daily basis?
Re
>Pretends to attempt an answer by vaguely dancing around a bunch of related terms from science fiction and mythology.
You were warned, the sage is coming in force.
Sage sage sagety sage
Saaaaaage, the plant they call saaaaage
Once I saw a thread
And wrote in it a haiku
That did not bump it
There is no "meaning" in it all. Life just "is" and developed because the physical laws of the universe allowed for it. All else followed from there. "Meaning" implies someone or somewhat, a greater being such as a "God", who defines some "goals". But there is no goal. Everything starts, "is" for some time, and then vanishes, to restart everything again.
What light through yonder window breaks? It is a OP, and he is a faggot getting saged
Shall I compare the to OP? Thou art more faggoty and saged.
Seems like there was already a book written about this.
I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o'er Yea Forums's impotent rage,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of green and leafy sage;
No
It's not a vague dance you idiot. If you were able to actually come up with a question beyond "WHAT IS IT THEN?" you might get some answers. You're too simple to understand even that, and you think you can handle this? Get a clue.
Before today, I would have said "fair enough", but now I can say you are wrong. If life just 'is', then where do you think it began. The Big Bang? Do you believe our universe to be finite?
Ive come to the conclusion that we are all infinite beings that decided to give up our 'powers' for a short while to come down to this reality for the sake of having fun, because we are so fucking bored
Where do you stand on that?
If you know the meaning of life then answer me this: How can I make my life feel worth living again?
>Before today, I would have said "fair enough", but now I can say you are wrong. If life just 'is', then where do you think it began. The Big Bang? Do you believe our universe to be finite?
You tell us you've found the meaning of it all, yet all your answers tell us otherwise, and your questions don't make any sense. I don't have a specific believe, or a specific thought about the beginning. To talk about the beginning of life, we first need a usable definition of life, that we know to be valid within the whole universe. We don't even have that, on a local level. How could we define a start then?
Short of the "because we were bored" part, the rest of that fits. Obviously there are parts of it all that are unknowable, acceptance of the unknowable is part of the answer, but that is a possible cause for our current reality. I doubt boredom was the driving force, as boredom is rarely ever the reason for anything. When people say they did something because they were bored, you can always ask "why not something else?" and a deeper motive will appear.
Knowing the meaning behind our existence won't necessarily make your life feel worth living user, but I will say this - if your soul is in a dark place, part of your purpose is to overcome that. You'll likely keep coming back until you do. If you care about more than just this life, and care about what lies beyond, nothing is more important than wrestling with your demons and becoming a better human.
Ill be interested in that book if you ever get around to writing it
You can find me on this board
Is there essentialy infinite number of universes with limitless possibilities that our 'souls' traverse to gain experiences and improve?
Make a lot of money then do speedballs
To be fair, I say "meaning of life" because it is the most universally recognised phrase that covers the reason for our existence. That's why I said 42 first, because "life, the universe and everything" is a more fitting description.
Ultimately a more accurate thing to say would be "the reason our universe exists, and understanding humanity within that context, and beyond that context into the next life and what lie beyond".
The first step to it all is understanding the nature of infinity, comprehending infinity, and most importantly the implications of infinity. If I do write a book, the first few chapters will be on that, it all stems from there.
No. Though as I just said in another post, the key word there is infinite. The gap between "practically infinite" and "infinity" is itself infinite. As such the implications are wildly different.
For instance, with an infinite number of universes, not only would every possible universe exist, but it would itself exist an infinite number of times. Infinity can hold an infinite number of infinities, a concept that is difficult to comprehend, because it breaks the very foundation of logic and math.
If you instead said "an incomprehensibly large number of universes", then it's plausible within the framework, but not what I would personally believe.
> if you ask a specific question I can try to give a specific answer.
Paradox resolution.
First paradox: There are no closed systems (every system is part of a larger system), and every system can be broken down into elements, which are their own systems. How can you have an answer to something which can never be fully described or properly contextualised given infinite loops in both directions?
Second paradox: "you" are part of a system, which mean you are part of what you're trying to find an answer for. How can an element of a system describe the entire system?
Third paradox: On the other hand, you can only perceive the system through your consciousness. Introspection/reflection upon consciousness still happens through consciousness. How can you understand consciousness if the understanding itself happens through consciousness? And how can you understand the system without an understanding of consciousness?
Resolve these for me and I'll believe you.
Yeah, you're wrong. The meaning of life is to wear blue socks every Monday. I COULD try to explain it to you, but it's really complicated. It all has to do with infinity, paradoxes, axioms, God, cookies, psychohistory and deeper karmic aura-developments in the spiritual sense of soul rebirthing.
>deeper karmic aura-developments in the spiritual sense of soul rebirthing
Soo tryhard. This is the below average retard kiddo, desperate to get some replies in his thread creating a stupid theory where he even did not have thought on a specific subject.
>tl dr: kys retard. Sage in all fields
I have seen lots of this type of threads where some retard bullied faggot claim to be a enligthned person, but they usually even tell some history about that. This fucking lazy retard didnt even thought a fictional story.
>fucking sage
>Infinity can hold an infinite number of infinities, a concept that is difficult to comprehend, because it breaks the very foundation of logic and math.
>[infinity] breaks the very foundation of logic and math
Ah, here we have the proof that you didn't understand shit.
Rather than snarking out of fear and ignorance, you could try asking a question, but something tells me you prefer your bubble. Can't say I blame you tbh, but you'll come out one day!
Well I'll try to give brief answers, but these are some pretty large deep questions. I'm not even sure I could articulate an explanation right now, but I'll try.
The first one I can manage. Ultimately it comes down to context and rules. The best analogy I can think of right now is the systems involved in a computer program. Variables and objects and classes and data, it all exists as you describe, systems within systems. If you "zoom out" from that you'll see the full program, then that program being just a part or 'subsystem' of the OS, but at some point the rules change. When you cross over from the digital to the physical, some of the fundamental rules of those systems shifts. Now imagine that our universe or reality is a system that, when 'zoomed out' from, changes the rules in a way we currently cannot comprehend. In a way that breaks things we understand as universal, like math. Understanding that gives us a finite subset from which we can work to our own confines, while respecting what may lie beyond.
......jesus that's the easy one and it was hard, and I still don't think I explained or articulated it very well. I'll give the other two a shot in a minute.
The meaning of life = why we are alive
the answer:
(51:56) And I (Allah) created not the jinns and humans except they should worship Me (Alone)
>to worship
> Now imagine that our universe or reality is a system that, when 'zoomed out' from, changes the rules in a way we currently cannot comprehend. In a way that breaks things we understand as universal, like math. Understanding that gives us a finite subset from which we can work to our own confines, while respecting what may lie beyond.
OK, I actually like that answer.
Next 2 please.
Oh I get it OP is a Fag
Cool, now just define "worship".
Common logic and math. My point is more that infinity is not a number but a concept, and the usual rules don't apply to it. I stand by what I have said.
>worship = following his commands
not the killing and booming shit
>there are great promises for the ones who do good and punishment for the ones who do bad
>Rather than snarking out of fear and ignorance, you could try asking a question, but something tells me you prefer your bubble. Can't say I blame you tbh, but you'll come out one day!
Ok, here's a question. Why do you feel the need to convince people you know 'the meaning of life'? Do you want to feel smarter than other people, or somehow extra special? Because all it tells us about you is that you're an autistic, attention-starved retard that read some bad 60's and 70's sciencefiction and couldn't philosophize himself out of a wet paper bag.
Oh, you mean just "some" commands. Not all of them, not the bad ones. Just the good ones. Ok.
Well actually I don't feel that need. Everything just kinda clicked and I guess I'm kind of excited. Partly I just wanted to be able to talk about it with someone(s), and also because I figured I would get resistance and questions here in the heart of hostility and it would act as a good 'training ground' at which to run my findings through the mill, so to speak.
A better question would be "why are you so angry and confrontational?"
So why that religion, and not any of the other newer and older religions? What does that religion offer that others have not, and if the answer is nothing, why did Allah allow other religions with indistinguishable qualities of proof to exist at all?
t. OP
>Reason
Why do you assume there is a reason?
>Oh, you mean just "some" commands. Not all of them, not the bad ones. Just the good ones. Ok.
he never said go to Tel Aviv and boom yourself in my name and kill women and children people did
he never said "Look, but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, but don't swallow"
he said marry a woman the do whatever you want "no back doors"
Wow, such a short answer, and it still shows the infinity of your helpless retartedness.
>Common logic and math
There are different versions of logic and math?
>infinity is not a number but a concept
Logic and math treat infinity as a number?
>usual rules
What usual rules are you talking about? There are different versions of logic and math, build upon different rules?
I hope you didn't develope your concept about everything in 27 years of deep thought just on school math?
>It's not vague
It is vague. You avoided answering the question with vaguaries. You said AMA, I did. You have yet to actually provide an answer to the question. What you've said instead is various flavours of
>I can't answer
>I won't answer
>You wouldn't understand
What you actually have is a belief founded in your subjective experience that presupposes there must be a purpose where no evidence of such purpose has been given.
You're a theist and a retard and sage sage sage.
Because I dislike charlatans. First it's the meaning of life and next it's vaccination, religion, flat earth, Brexit and politics. People are stupid enough as it is. No need to bamboozle them with extra bullshit.
Come back when you've published the book that will shock the world. I expect nothing less than world peace and salvation for all mankind.
Tbh I'm struggling to find an answer for the second one beyond either "why not?" or "just because", which admittedly is lame. To reuse the previous analogy, can a program not contain a file describing the purpose of the program? Also consider that part of the meaning is kind of to find the meaning, or more accurately comprehend it.
I guess a more accurate way to answer this, again using the data analogy, is to say "what if someone programmed an AI whose sole purpose was to understand the reason it exists?".
>Inb4 babby's first trip, I've never done drugs
so you're basically full of shit even without doing drugs?
Even an absurd universe must have a cause, cause and effect, "the universe just is" doesn't work because of infinity, ahhhh this is so hard to articulate, this is why I need to write a fucking book.
>So why that religion, and not any of the other newer and older religions?
other got corrupted by satan ISLAM is still under process and this is why everyone don't like it these days it just took one 9/11 to do the trick
>What does that religion offer that others have not?
salvation of the soul from the demons
i helped this one by islamic quran and it works
youtube.com
>crazy but real
If you'll write a book how can I know which one is It?
>File describing the purpose of the program
Yes it can, but the program itself cannot understand the file, only display it to an outsider.
Ok then, how about this: I'll answer your question, with a book. It'll take a while though, you'll have to wait. Ok?
It's unlikely to result in that I'm afraid, but I guess we can all hope. Interpretations will vary, but religions will hate it, and many others will use it as an excuse to be fucking selfish.
I love Douglas Adams, so in tribute I'll title the book "42".
Though there are so many books there is probably already a book called that... hmm
I'll (try to) title it "42: Life, the Universe, and Infinity"
Agreed, which is why I went the AI route instead.
No. If you truly understood you would be able to expand upon the phrases you listed in your reply
>Development/evolution of the soul
Define soul
>The why is really tricky
You need to tell us what the what is, then relate the why to it
>infinity
Like the infinite nature of all that is? I accept that infinity plays a big part in existence but ascribing meaning to it is still a stretch.
>paradox resolution
Paradoxes cannot be resolved. If it is resolved, it was never a paradox.
>the fifth dimension
Define this
>god
Define this
>context
The word context on its own means nothing and, ironically, needs context
>comprehension
I can comprehend anything of which there exists evidence. You have so far provided only vaguaries and evasion. No evidence, just "ask me anything, except about the thing I'm claiming because I can't explain/won't explain/you wouldn't understand it."
AI can never fully understand itself without outside intervention either. Try again.
If you want to write a fucking book, then you better learn the fucking vocabulary first. "Cause" doesn't have the exact same meaning as "reason". Yes, there are so called synonyms, but usually there is a reason (sic!) that there are different terms.
So the religion of bombings, beheadings and child rape is the only one NOT corrupted by demons, and no other religion offers salvation from demons?
I rate your radicalization as truckofpeace/10
Is there any purpose to the survival of our species?
>must have cause and effect
Only within the system. The system itself can theoretically exist without a cause if it is infinite, as the evidence suggests or reality must be, as per the laws of conservation of mass-energy.
You're right, I'm not a writer, getting the wording right will be a serious challenge. Half the reason why people here are pulling me up on semantics. It's not my understanding that is struggling, just my articulation of it.
Not even if you simulated an entire universe for it to exist within, and within that universe it was capable of creating an AI like itself?
I haven't called you up on semantics once. You've just avoided answering by being vague and throwing mystic - sounding words at us in lists without even ATTEMPTING to explain what you mean by them or any connections between them.
>can a program not contain a file describing the purpose of the program?
First of all, we weren't talking about purpose, but meaning. I don't think you can understand the meaning of something without understanding its structure and operation. I also don't think meaning and purpose are the same thing. You can know your purpose (or role) within a system without understanding the purpose of the system itself. The meaning of all those purposes would be the purpose of the largest system, which you've said we can't understand "at our level".
Actually regarding your first answer: what you really did with the computer analogy was to demonstrate that there can be lines separating levels of systems from each other (like with the transition from virtual to real space). However, the rules don't actually change with that transition. The operation of the software is still fully embodied in the operation of the hardware which works according to the same rules as any other hardware object. The software is just a higher-order abstract reflection of the hardware processes which we use to harness and direct the abilities of the hardware.
Also what you did with the computer analogy was to offset the resolution of the paradox onto the 3rd paradox. You said the rules change when we reach a higher enough level. I'm assuming "reaching a higher level" implies changes in consciousness and the way it perceives and interprets the world. So let's say that paradox 1 is just a result of a low-level consciousness and the perception of the world will change when it reaches a higher level, where the paradox will no longer exist. That still leaves the question of consciousness itself open.
The reason I said I liked that answer was because you essentially admitted that you can't resolve it "at this level".
The only answer you've provided so far about the meaning of life is that eventually we'll transition to a state where we can understand it. Which doesn't prove or show anything.
What books have you already read about the topic? I hope the answer isn't "None, hadn't the time in 27 years because all my thinking."
Our species will survive for as long as is necessary. If for whatever reason it was destroyed, our souls would simply be transferred to a new creation, that may or may not be the same as our current one.
>allah never said that people did
-beheadings
if you killed someone you get the same not the 25 years from taxpayer money BS
-child rape xxxxx
rape in general = you will get killed why you want someone like this to live
BTW as i said islam is under process by satan
right now in saudi the do not do any of that today thank to the westerns
Not even then, because the most out would understand without direct intervention is that it exists, within a universe, and whatever processes within that universe it can detect. It will never unbeatable the process of the creation of that simulation until it is outside of it, or something from outside of it gives it evidence in a way it can detect.
That has not happened. So you do not understand the 'meaning' if life.
The universe is not, and cannot be infinite. It can exist as part of a larger system, but as explained in another reply the rules of the system then change in ways we cannot comprehend.
>our souls
[citation needed]
Define and evidence 'soul'.
Try reading other people's replies rather than just your own. Unless you then come back with a reasonable question, I'll waste no more time on your ignorant prepubescent trolling.
what animu is that from?
>Cannot be infinite
Incorrect. It Cabot be anything but. The only law of physics to never have been found wanting, Conservation of Mass-Energy, demonstrates that the sum of mass and energy cannot EVER be created or destroyed. If it cannot ever be created, that means that prior to the universe as WE know it, the same quantity of mass and energy must have already existed, differently arranged.
>As explained in another reply
Link it please, I linked an earlier reply, it isn't hard, so return me the courtesy and don't cop out with a 'find it yourself'. You know what post you're looking for, I don't.
take this scenario
one sick fuck raped your kid
Q-what the first thing you think you are going to do to him?
A-revenge you want to kill him for what he did
>love for yourself what you love for others
>person reasonably asks you to stop speaking random Sci-fi sounding phrases and at least try to connect them meaningfully without copping out with the same "you won't understand" childish response every single time
>you call this prepubescent trolling
Pot, meet kettle.
I don't personally believe in the Simulation Theory, but if we created a simulated universe and came to understand we were likely created the same way, would our reason for existence not be the same as the reason we created our own?
Besides we are only talking about what is possible, not what is definite. As I said before I don't really have an easy answer for your second paradox, besides to say that it involves the understanding of elements beyond our comprehension, and accepting that certain things cannot be known. If you accept certain unknowable entities, you can factor that in. I guess that means the answer is more like algebra, there are undefined values x y and z but it still works out... if you get my meaning. Maybe I'll call the book 42y instead.
I'll try to have a crack at paradox 3 when other replies die down a bit, though my tablet is at 4% battery....
How in the hell did the meaning of life just click ? Shit like that doesnt just click.
It cannot be created or destroyed, but it could have been transferred from a dimension we cannot currently comprehend, the 5th.
>"what if someone programmed an AI whose sole purpose was to understand the reason it exists?"
In order for something to be capable of understanding, it would need to possess consciousness, which I'm not aware of any techniques for demonstrating.
If you laid out an arbitrary set of criteria to satisfy an arbitrary definition of "understanding" and trained an AI to fulfill that set of criteria by returning a particular result, then yes, you would have an AI that "understood" X, but not really.
This is Searle's Chinese Room allegory 101.
>"why not?"
Admittedly I used to have an answer for this but I don't think it works any more. So paradox 2 can probably be disregarded for now. At least it seems that it can be contextualised as a consequence of paradox 3 anyway.
Super smart user who know the meaning of life and the reasons behind it cant even charge his tablet.
>My theory requires the assumption that you can understand everything when you factor in not being able to understand everything.
Your mental gymnastics are dizzying. No. If the universe were a closed system that was not infinite it would forever be impossible for those of us within it to understand it fully without direct intervention from outside. We can imagine possibilities as you have said, but none of these are an answer to the question, only "don't know, could be this". In summary: you don't know the meaning of life, you just have an idea of what you think it is.
Op is the cringiest faggot in this site right now.
Strong feelings he is either 14 or has aspergers
Id say both.
>Could have been
That is not an answer, nor even a theory. That's a "what if" with no testable hypotheses. This you haven't 'cracked it'. You've got an interesting but ultimately useless idea about it.
Well it took like 27 years, but I was having a pretty intense philosophical discussion with a friend about various things, I guess I had all the pieces already (maybe missing like 1 or 2) and they all just started to fit together.
In fact using the jigsaw analogy and taking it further, I guess it would be most acccurate to say I haven't actually finished the puzzle, but I finally got enough pieces together in the right places that now I know what the picture is. Obviously we have no box, so this is kind of a big deal!
>If the universe were a closed system that was not infinite it would forever be impossible for those of us within it to understand it fully without direct intervention from outside.
Could you please explain why this is? I think I used to know the explanation but it seems I've forgotten it.
Op, what did you mean with dimensions? Some time shit or actually a place where you could observe life and see everything there is from one perspective (also fifth dimension wtf)
I love the smell of your fear and the taste of your insecurity, it seeps from every pore.
>I know what the picture is
No. You have a fantastical and unsubstantiated idea about how you think things are that is unprovable and, as you've demonstrated time and time again in this thread, a result of extraordinary mental gymnastics.
Haha I'm in bed and it's super late, I'm not getting back up again I need to sleep!
Because to understand fully the closed system you would need to be able to observe it from an objective perspective, which does not exist with the system. Its similar to Russell's paradox.
>Understands the meaning of life
>Didn't have the wherewithal to take his charger to bed
Within* the system
Fifth dimension is just how I describe it, but what I really mean is a dimension that our universe does not have. It's not a dimension of space or time, but something we can't really comprehend. The closest thing I can think of is a dimension of reality (or at least reality as we know it)
Charger at foot of bed, super short lead, can't charge AND use.
Hey...nice, Elon
42 indeed faggot, your realisation is number 6 onto 7
Russell's paradox says that you can't have a set of all sets that don't contain themselves. If this set didn't contain itself, then it wouldn't contain a set that didn't contain itself. On the other hand, if it did contain itself, then it would contain a set that contains itself.
I'm not sure how this relates to being able to understand a system from inside it.
Nice guy spotted
Aspergers confirmed
Similar, I said. Not identical.
If the universe contained a full understanding of itself it would have to be infinite, if it was a finite closed system it could never contain the full understanding of itself because a full unbeatable of itself would include understanding a relative location of itself within whatever medium the closed system is contained.
So it's similar to Russell's set of sets not containing themselves, with the difference being its not a paradox, it's a rule.
To understand itself, the universe must be infinite, for your understanding of the universe to be correct, you already said it is a closed system.