If the universe has no meaning...

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think Lewis Carrol was attempting to use bad logic to support beliefs that he held for totally different reasons.

An excellent example of this methodology can be found here:
http://xkcd.com/759/

I think the meaning has changed even further by the fact that he has changed from CS Lewis to Lewis Carrol. 😉

When your mind stays calm the Universe appears not;
When you understand, the reality depends on you;
When you do not understand, you are depending on the reality;
When the reality depends on you, the unreal becomes real;
When you are depending on the reality, everything is not real;
When the reality depends on you, everything is real;

Brother, what is the origin of your quote? It is profound to the depths.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is possible for a sentence to be essentially meaningless, even though its individual words or even phrases have meaning. So it is presumably possible that the universe as a whole is meaningless even though its sub parts are meaningful.

"It is possible for a sentence to be essentially meaningless, even though its individual words or even phrases have meaning. So it is presumably possible that the universe as a whole is meaningless even though its sub parts are meaningful."

Kinda like that sentence?

Why would one suggest that the universe has no meaning? Where did the idea that there is no meaning to the universe come from?

I think it came from the mind of someone with too much time to waste sitting around questioning their own existence.

Even the most casual observer with little knowledge of science can see that the universe has meaning. The evidence is overwhelming for order.

I have a feeling I'm going to get reamed for saying that! lol

Originally posted by black beetle
When your mind stays calm the Universe appears not;
When you understand, the reality depends on you;
When you do not understand, you are depending on the reality;

Originally posted by hakima
Brother, what is the origin of your quote? It is profound to the depths.

"The sutras say, "Not to let go of wisdom is stupidity." When the mind doesn't exist, understanding and not understanding are both true. When the mind exists, understanding and not understanding are both false. When you understand, reality depends on you. When you don't understand, you depend on reality. When reality depends on you, that which isn't real becomes real. When you depend on reality, that which is real becomes false. When you depend on reality, everything is false. When reality depends on you, everything is true. Thus, the sage doesn't use his mind to look for reality, or reality to look for his mind, or his mind to look for his mind, or reality to look for reality. His mind doesn't give rise to reality. And reality doesn't give rise to his mind. And because both his mind and reality are still, he's always in samadhi."
- www.fodian.net/world/dmnsl-e.html

Damn clever they are, those Buddhists.

Originally posted by josephw
Why would one suggest that the universe has no meaning? Where did the idea that there is no meaning to the universe come from?

In this thread, it was C.S. Lewis who asked the question.

I think it came from the mind of someone with too much time to waste sitting around questioning their own existence.
Yep. That sure does sound like C.S. Lewis.

Even the most casual observer with little knowledge of science can see that the universe has meaning.

The evidence is overwhelming for order.
As pointed out by vistesd, if you equate order with meaning, then I doubt anyone will disagree with you, but I don't think C.S. Lewis was talking about order.

Originally posted by hakima
Brother, what is the origin of your quote? It is profound to the depths.

Bodhidharma
😵

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"The sutras say, "Not to let go of wisdom is stupidity." When the mind doesn't exist, understanding and not understanding are both true. When the mind exists, understanding and not understanding are both false. [b]When you understand, reality depends on you. When you don't understand, you depend on reality. When reality depends on you, that which isn' ...[text shortened]... adhi."
- www.fodian.net/world/dmnsl-e.html

Damn clever they are, those Buddhists.[/b]

So this Gota has his Zen activated?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
edit: "But whether or not the brute fact of that coherence signifies—let alone necessarily signifies—something else is a whole other question."

And even this further "significance" is empty, my friend vistesd, because our opinions/ knowledge derive solely through our own senses. We have 6 senses, and the sixth is Mind.
Due to the nature of our very ...[text shortened]... rything is not real;
When the reality depends on you, everything is real;

Be well😵

Of course. 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
We should not confuse a part with the whole. I fully accept that the universe contains at least one sentence that I find meaningful. Therefore 'the universe contains meaning' seems to make some sense.
But just as we would not say 'the universe is dark' or 'the universe is light', we should not say 'the universe is meaningful' or even 'the universe is meaningless'.

Yes good point

Originally posted by vistesd
[/i]And that people tend to try to escape the absurd situation—of wanting the world to disclose “meaning”, when all it discloses are facts and their relationships—by making an unwarranted existential leap into a religion or philosophy that claims to relieve the situation. Or at least to relieve them of having to exercise their own existential freedom in order to to grapple with it.

Ah, our old friend Camus!

Right, in Camus' view, that would be to commit suicide of a different nature (philosophical suicide). Instead, as you know, Camus values living without any such "appeal".

Originally posted by jaywill========================================
I don't follow. If the universe had no meaning, then wouldn't the universe just be 'meaningless' by definition? Also, I do not agree that such a universe itself would be 'absurd'. For instance, this is a distinction Camus wrote about: "I said that the world is absurd, but I was too hasty. This world in itself s philosophical debate for you on the matter. I have not read a lot of Albert Camus.

Do you personally live as though to use your stomach is meaningless ?

Which characterizes your personal life - that your stomach is meaningless or that it has meaning ?

I am not speaking of arm chair philosophizing now. How do you live ? If after 48 hours of having nothing to eat, do you shrug your shoulders at the thought of putting something in your stomach ?

Do you regard the hunger pangs as meaningless in your practical daily life? I would wager that to sustain your human life is a meaning that you daily attach to the function of your stomach. Even sometimes just enjoyment is the meaning you practically attach to your tummy.

I don't think I have a rigorous philosophical debate for you on the matter. I have not read a lot of Albert Camus.

I'm not looking for a rigorous philosophical debate at all; I was just asking what you meant when you claimed that stomach function carries "meaning". I just want to know that we are not equivocating on the word. It's not at all clear to me just how the word is to be understood in this thread. Typically, when I think about 'meaning' in life, I think about different types of considerations. For example, we could take meaning for a person to have to do with the things and projects in their life that they take as valuable; and, in turn, we could take value to be wrapped up in reason-giving awareness. Or something like that. That is more what I had in mind, but maybe I am off-base. Consideration to stomach function could certainly come into play in what I just described, but your earlier statement seemed to me to be claiming that stomach function is meaningful per se. I would have thought someone such as yourself might take "meaning" in life to have something to do with eschatological considerations, for example. Instead, you claimed that meaning is manifested in things like digestive cycles. So, I am not trying to bait you into rigorous philosophical debate; rather, I was just hoping you could explain what you meant by that. I think 'meaning' is a very difficult subject to pin down in context, so I am just testing the waters here.

When you wonder 'what does something mean?', it is useful to remember that the question itself only has meaning in the context of having decided to whom the something can have meaning.

Meaning is not an intrinsic property of a thing, and that includes universes.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Right, in Camus' view, that would be to commit suicide of a different nature (philosophical suicide). Instead, as you know, Camus values living without any such "appeal".

Yes. I recall that perhaps our earliest discussions were about our mutual affinity for Camus on that.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
When you wonder 'what does something mean?', it is useful to remember that the question itself only has meaning in the context of having decided to whom the something can have meaning.

Meaning is not an intrinsic property of a thing, and that includes universes.

Meaning also implies some value system is in place too don't you think?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Meaning also implies some value system is in place too don't you think?
Kelly

How so?