We Give The Universe Meaning, Like Nothing Else

It does seem likely that the ancients would have thought in some such terms, as they lacked our scientific tools of thought. Is it appropriate that we continue thinking this way?Is your placeholder idea what you wish to convey in the phrase "meaning of the universe"? If it is, why do you think that the universe is the kind of thing to which it is sensible to apply the placeholder idea, and what does the universe stand in for? Do you think that most people mean what you do when they talk about the "meaning of the universe"?

Science is just a disciplined version of the same thinking. It does discourage anthropomorphic models. Our ancestors gave themselves more latitude to project their own situations onto the environment. But even as science discourages anthropomorphism (and unconsciously chosen models of any sort), it makes plenty of pictures and mental constructs. Without the liberal use of placeholders science could not exist.A theory is a placeholder. A law is a placeholder. Each is a picture we carry around that stands for something in nature. But the picture is not nature.Say we have a debate about whether or not Pluto is a planet. We are discussing the placeholder. How shall we define 'planet'? It's like asking where to draw the lines to make our cave painting look like a rhinoceras. Our discussion may refine the picture in a way that makes nature more comprehensible to us. But nature couldn't care less. Pluto continues in its orbit, heedless of everything we say. I don't see how we can help thinking this way. We do it right off the bat whenever we use language.As soon as we use a series of letters

P L A N E T

to convey a certain series of sounds, we are using placeholders. When we understand the letters or sounds to mean a huge object in orbit around a star, we again use a placeholder. We are working with symbols. We say 'This means that.' I'm suggesting that questions like 'What is the meaning of the universe?' or 'What is the meaning of my existence?' arise from our evolutionary specialty: a consciousness that thinks in placeholding ways. We make meaning, we look for meaning. It's just how we think. It has served us well. And the more we do it, the better the habit seems to serve us. So those are the kinds of questions our species would inevitably ask when our thoughts turn to The Whole Enchilada. I'm not sure applying the placeholder idea to the universe makes sense at all. I am only suggesting that we do it because that is our habit of thought.We are not prone to thinking things just are. And we don't much like to think that way. 'Just so' ideas don't normally get us very far. We seek meaning. When we can't find meaning, we create it. That kind of knowledge--'meaningful' knowledge--has been far more useful to us in our survival than 'just so' knowledge. That is a beautiful question, isn't it?What if the whole universe is a symbol of something? What would it represent?Of course, maybe it just represents itself. It seems they do. I'm open to being shown otherwise.We see this thing we call the 'universe.' As soon as we ask what this thing means, we have assumed the reality of another thing. That other thing is not the universe itself, but its 'meaning'. This means that.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Refinement of cave painting.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

consciousness is meaning
individual atom-level influences do not conflict with plausible universes (potential truths) because they are resultants whose components are not differentiated.
combined influences rule out impossble universes, leaving the components of the resultant.all the best

---

Human Evolution in 42 Steps

I'm surprised that you do think so. My impression is that meaning is usually used in the sense of "purpose", as in "For what purpose is the universe here?", or "The universe is here so that ...", or "The universe is here because Gods want to ...". It also seems to me that that is why some folks are upset if one says that the universe has no meaning. I doubt anyone would care if the universe was not a symbol for something or other.Edited by Woodsy, : spelling, but which s to remove?

The problem with all of this is that it is a circular argument1) We as humans considere consciousness important basically because we happen to have it
2) For something to have "meaning" (whatever that may be) it requires a consciousess to be aware of it
3) Having meaning is therefore a byproduct of consciouness and as such considered very important to conscious beings
4) Therefore we ourselves (and presumably any other equally or more conscious beings in the universe) are exceptionally important as we provide meaning to the universe and we have decided that meaning is a very important attribute to haveAll you have done is show that one very human attribute (meaning) is dependant on another very human attribute (consciousness). The phrase "meaning" has no meaning except that which conscious beings give it.If that makes you feel better about yourself - congratulations on a job well done.But please do not try and claim to have revealed some grand truth of nature.The universe was happily in existence billions of years before we came along and will no doubt carry on for even longer after we are gone. Meaning or no meaning.

The theistic argument is, as you suggest, that meaning equals purpose. The purpose presumably being us.Apart from anything else it seems to be self important to the point of delusion to suppose that a vast and ancient universe was put in place solely for our benefit.If the universe is a physical system like any other then attributing "meaning" to it is no different to attributing meaning to any other natuarl object. What is the meaning of a particular mountain, grain of sand or asteroid floating through space?The question - What is the meaning of the universe? has no meaning.