99
Is the purpose of life to be happy?
(lemmy.ca)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
99 points (93.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43852 readers
971 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Maybe, does it matter? As a property of the universe it has neither predictive power nor falsifiability.
If it is, I think it's fair to say it's not a human-centric simulation. I suppose it could be life-centric or intelligence-centric (Fermi paradox explanation?), but it could just as easily be an investigation into conformal field theories, and the creators don't even realise there's an equivalent gravitational weak field system present yet.
I think it's also worth asking how you define "simulation". It's possible to have a system who's state can be read two different ways but in which it's not clear which of the two is more "real". The holographic theory I touched on there is a great example.
It probably matters to people who are looking for an external source of meaning, and doesn’t matter to people who are creating an internal source of meaning. In that way, it’s maybe a useful clue to what type of meaning is more valid.
In the scenario you gave, how would you judge whether a life was well lived? How would you go about living a good life? What would you do or become to be an effective human being?
You mean in the no-free-will purposeless-universe scenario? I think there's no right or wrong answer, really. Every human being (and animal, and plant, and rock) are simply what they are. You have to add somewhat arbitrary personal criteria to get a meaningful answer.
Personally, I think being kind and strong is very important. That's not very original, but I guess the interesting thing I have to say about it is that 99% of the population earnestly tries to do that, and the reason people suck is basically down to a version of Hanlon's razor. To be an effective human being, don't lie to yourself.
We all lie to ourselves. But I admire people who try to lie to themselves less, who try to be honest with themselves and face reality.