The Universe Seems No More Meaningful to me if We Survive Death

I was unable to separate temporal-spatial patterns, from meaning. I consider them as identical for practical purposes.

Modern physics let's us imagine a gravity grid bounded by time/space coordinates -- with an object rolling through it.  As the object moves - so is the grid warped.

Is mass only a space/time pattern with no meaning?  If an object, say an asteroid, in this simulation grid has the same information as a real object, how does the drastic difference in meaning come about in your worldview?

All real world mass has meaning in my worldview.

I've now done that. Here it is: https://creativeandcritical.net/essays/life-meaning

Am interested in what, if anything, you guys think I've missed, and in any ways you think this essay can be improved or broadened. Potentially, though, I will once again take it down on the basis that it's not meaningful enough to be left up for public viewing.

I probably need to read through it again but my first impression is that you and I seem to be in agreement, at least when it comes to the word "meaning". In other words, you seem to have expressed, much more extensively, the sentiments I made in that other post of mine that I linked earlier. Here's what I had to say:

My first thought was that perhaps you [not you, Laird] are talking about the use of meaning as in a dictionary definition. Is that what you mean by objective? If so, then that isn't really what this discussion is about. We are talking about meaning arising from feelings which enable (or prompt) us to make choices (free will). 

There are, of course, other senses of the word "meaning" such as "definition" (which is actually listed as a synonym) which are clearly more objective but not really relevant to the discussion. On looking up synonyms, I could also list: "sense", "spirit", "understanding" and "value" which could all be said to be subjective and human rather than objective and fixed (determined).

And some of your comments in your essay:

We might also ask: is meaning in this (initial) sense objective or subjective? My view is that meaning is in and of itself objective, in the same sense in which any existent thing's fundamental existence is objective, but that it can only be apprehended by a (conscious) mind, which is a type of subjectivity, and that in its generation and communication it might also have been intended for a particular mind - again, a type of subjectivity.

You go on to describe different definitions in more detail as well as the various senses of the word, which is also what I was trying to get at in short form.

Yes, a rubber sheet and ball are a way of trying to help explain spacetime, but it's inaccurate.


Not sure why you would suggest that? The patterns i previously referred to, we understand in spacetime as matter and energy, which have space-like, time-like, and light-like separations


That question doesn't make any sense to me...? What is the distinction you are making between a real object and an asteriod? Why would they be composed of identical information but have some distinction? Why would objects identically composed have a drastic difference in meaning?

Spacetime units are standards addressing physical structural.  It is in the background of action and an environment for energy transformations.  It assess location, orientation, sequence  and placement among other variables.  Formal information is structural in an identical way.  There is no physical activity as spacetime or as information.

The property of mass is a disposition understood to be casual in terms of gravity.

I have no experience with terms: "space-like, time-like, and light-like separations".

Asteroids are real life objects and they are so meaningful that I bet there are more than half a dozen movies with them as a subject.  Simulations of asteroids are likewise real-life events, but are only virtual and of no concern.  I personally have wasted a lot of hours in past years playing Asteriods with little meaning beyond wasted time and alcohol consumption.

On the other hand, if the data on specific sim matches (is isomorphic) to a real life asteroid -  there is a quantum leap in meaning.  The meaning of a matching sim will cause world upheaval.  The two information objects - (1) the information detected about a physical object and the (2) sim are the same.  Yet, it will be the sim that carries the result of danger.  Seeing a speck doesn't do it - computation of the future will.

I suggest it is the actual mass of the asteroid as the difference maker.

Meaning is objective as real-world probabilities.

I'm not saying that acceptance of the futility of life is an inevitable consequence of materialistic thinking, but it does seem to be the most common consequence. So common that in this very realistic dialogue exchange, the possibility that their mother's life might have had some higher meaning or purpose does not even come up. It is taken for granted that there is not, cannot, be any higher meaning or purpose.

We have met the enemy

As Becker explains it, if I am reading him correctly, all our fears, neuroses, phobias, depressive states, however they are classified, are rooted in a fear of death, even if we don’t recognize them as such.

Facing Death with Hope

I think that if people were aware that death is not an end but a new beginning, a new chapter in their “personal history”, they will have a vision for the long term. If they were aware that we are all somehow immortal, they would realize the importance of the environment and nature, of their heritage and of future, because they would keep in mind that sooner or later they will be back in Midgard.

Some Thoughts about Death and our Relationship with Her

Allow me to be the fool to rush in. 
Like every metaphysical position I've encountered,  the continuation of consciousness is based on one or more assumptions. The one perhaps relevant, to your question, being the gift of new eyes. Or the life review, as its commonly referred to in NDE literature.
In otherwords some insight is gained to compensate, for the tribulations of this life.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Regarding the gift of "new eyes" or the "life review", are these things finite? If so, what is the functional difference if I get to experience them, but then cease to exist? I suppose that would possibly add some value to my finite life experience in a similar way that living 100 years might compared to living 10 years, but that's not definitely going to add more meaning...And if they are part of some infinite experience instead, where is the meaning in that? If my experience is infinite, it would seem to lack anything resembling meaning, at least to me. How is anything evaluated in an infinite experience? That's my core question. I haven't thought much about this type of thing before, so perhaps my questions are easily answered, but I can't understand how an infinite experience of anything could have any meaning woven into it whatsoever. In contrast, I find there to be plenty of meaning woven into this finite experience I know we all get. 

And just to add, I think it's quite possible that consciousness does survive death. I just don't see how it necessarily adds a bunch of meaning, or how it is meaningless if consciousness doesn't survive death.

One thing I’d add is that it’s not that the argument is that more time gives meaning it’s that it gives a meaning that is:

1: Specific
2: Externally defined
3: Universal across all human life if not all life period
4: Built into the fabric of reality along with/as part of physics
5: To the benefit of the individual as perceived by the individual

Although these aspects are not typically said explicitly all the time, after seeing enough back and forth discussions it’s clear to me that this is a pretty good distillation of the assumptions so lets break them down.

No one ever really says what the actual meaning is, I suspect because to do so would destroy globals 3, 4 and likely 2 as well. Typically the best answer anyone can come up with is “it’s all about love” which still breaks the globals.

But for the sake of argument let’s assume there actually is a specific reason that is externally defined. Now for a few simulations, let’s assume:

1: it goes against your principles.
A: You follow anyways
* How is global 5 logically maintained?
B: You don’t follow
* How are globals 3 and 4 logically maintined?

2: It aligns with your principles
A: You follow
* Is it not redundant and thus not “the meaning” then?

Let’s take it a bit further, even if we assumed path 2, what logically constrains said meaning to be the only possible one that exists as per globals 3 and 4? What prevents there from being another universe or another period of time or whatever where “the meaning” is different? If you have more than one possible meaning, then global 3 is false even if global 4 is true.

And before moving to the most heinous one. Let’s assume the best case scenario and you follow it, so what? Like, let’s say it’s all about soul evolution or whatever, why should anyone care about that? What makes an evolved soul intrinsically better than an unevolved one? Or let’s assume it’s about love, why is love intrinsically better? I.e, what’s the meaning of the meaning? And then what’s the meaning of that? And the meaning of that? And so on, forever.

Now for the most ridiculous of the assumptions, global 5. what logical reason is there to assume that any of this is actually for your benefit? For all anyone knows, all of this could be to flavor your soul up to eat. The reincarnation cycle could just be the equivalent of “slow roasting” for all you know. So why would anyone assume that even if there is a meaning that this meaning is something they’d like rather than it being, say, part of Elysium del Paso’s production line of sweet chili lime taco seasoning packets?

I mean really why does anyone jump to the conclusion that they’re super special and that the universe loves them and that this is all for their personal benefit? It makes no sense and is the definition of wishful thinking. Furthermore, when people give the answer that, “Oh well if there’s no meaing/if life doesn’t go on you might s well just grab whatever you can for yourself and to hell with the rest cuz there’s no point caring” doesn’t that demonstrate what a horrible, petty little cretin you are? I mean if that’s someone’s argument what they’ve just said is that they don’t actually, genuinely want to help anyone else, they’re only doing it because there’s some cosmic reward in it for them if they do.

I just wanted to add this because this question goes beyond just finite vs infinite time and “meaning” as far as I’ve ever seen.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Regarding the gift of "new eyes" or the "life review", are these things finite? If so, what is the functional difference if I get to experience them, but then cease to exist? I suppose that would possibly add some value to my finite life experience in a similar way that living 100 years might compared to living 10 years, but that's not definitely going to add more meaning...And if they are part of some infinite experience instead, where is the meaning in that? If my experience is infinite, it would seem to lack anything resembling meaning, at least to me. How is anything evaluated in an infinite experience? That's my core question. I haven't thought much about this type of thing before, so perhaps my questions are easily answered, but I can't understand how an infinite experience of anything could have any meaning woven into it whatsoever. In contrast, I find there to be plenty of meaning woven into this finite experience I know we all get. 

And just to add, I think it's quite possible that consciousness does survive death. I just don't see how it necessarily adds a bunch of meaning, or how it is meaningless if consciousness doesn't survive death.

The infinite is difficult, any way that I can attempt to conceive it. 
It is so far beyond my experience that approximations are my best effort.
This leads me to consider both reincarnation and the traditions that espouse the reunification with the Godhead.
Even though I consider myself firmly in the proponent camp, threshing out eternity, is a bit intimidating.

The infinite is difficult, any way that I can attempt to conceive it. 
...

Even though I consider myself firmly in the proponent camp, threshing out eternity, is a bit intimidating.

You're not alone in that. I think it is probably beyond human capacity to imagine eternity. Certainly beyond mine which does render it somewhat scary when I start to think along the lines of a billion or a trillion years hence which may as well be day one of the journey because I would be no closer to the destination, whatever that might be. But I view it as merely a limitation of human comprehension and that time and distance will turn out to be illusory and meaningless the closer we get to what might be described as a divine perspective.