What is the purpose of life?

>Why is there something rather than nothing?
>This is a easy one, because it requires absolutely no knowledge on science, only logic. If we weren't, we wouldn't know. If we are, we know.

I am (i.e. I exist), and I can't answer this question. I've just demonstrated a contradiction in your statement.

why do kids love cinnamon toast crunch?

Just terminate this board please. End the suffering.

>>Why is there something rather than nothing?
>>This is a easy one, because it requires absolutely no knowledge on science, only logic. If we weren't, we wouldn't know. If we are, we know.

Except you haven't answered the question. Note specifically the word "why"

Oh.

>So time is not infinite; it is bounded by entropy, which cannot be infinite as we can easily define a perfectly ordered system and a perfectly disordered system.
This assumes the universe is bounded, which may or may not be the case.

>>Why is there something rather than nothing?
>tfw you change the question you're answering and don't even notice.

I agree roughly with your assessment of free will. Purpose of life is stupid because purpose need not exist. You described a core function/trait of life.

We were created by the universe with the intent to observe.

We are the only means it has of appreciating its own magnificence. Planets and stars can create endless wonders but cannot marvel in or comprehend the beauty of what is happening.

So you're welcome spacetime, would you like fries with that?

type less. I ain't reading all dat words just for you user.
>What is the purpose of life?
under different interpretations of the question; "to not die" and "there is none" are viable answers
>Is time infinite?
sort-of... 'infinite' is pretty meaningless without context
>Do humans have free will?
dafuq is that? No, we just have some complexity and partially understand ourselves. And we aren't that special.
>Why is there something rather than nothing?
because its more likely than nothing

>a series of chemical reactions created a molecule that could replicate itself

is this what you actually believe?

Would you like to present an opinion that you think is more likely so that we can laugh at you?

What I'm saying is there are no living things that have an entire body of only one molecule, even viruses which aren't technically living have thousands of molecules

>Everything organism does serves one and only one purpose: to replicate itself.
Obviously false. Sexual reproduction does not replicate the organisms that reproduce. And not all organisms even try to reproduce.

>Time proceeds only when entropy can change. So time is not infinite; it is bounded by entropy, which cannot be infinite as we can easily define a perfectly ordered system and a perfectly disordered system.
The entropy of the universe as a whole cannot be defined, because the universe is not in equilibrium. So everything you just wrote is meaningless. Also, the assumption that time is somehow bounded by entropy and not the other way around is stupid and baseless.

Ffs, my reading comprehension. Carry on.

>In state Y, John doesn't die in car accident, so his future is not inevitable, in a macro-scale.
All you've shown is that a deterministic system is not necessarily predictable (if the prediction effects what is being predicted, then the prediction cannot be infallible). This is well known and has nothing to do with "free will".

>This is a easy one, because it requires absolutely no knowledge on science, only logic. If we weren't, we wouldn't know. If we are, we know.
Doesn't answer the question. If I ask you why I won the lottery you wouldn't answer "because if you hadn't won you wouldn't be asking that question". The actual resolution is simply that there is no reason for the universe being the way it is, because there is no intelligence behind it. The question also implies that "nothing" is somehow a default state, which is baseless.

Further, in the supposed deterministic situation, it would be predictable exactly which prediction the individual would use, and given that we can use the same prediction, we know the result he will get and can factor that into how he will behave.

Knew that shit was wrong too but your post made me realize why.

>Further, in the supposed deterministic situation, it would be predictable exactly which prediction the individual would use, and given that we can use the same prediction, we know the result he will get and can factor that into how he will behave.
That doesn't really have anything to do with what I just said though.

Imagine Bert always says "0" if you tell him "1" and always says "1" if you tell him "0". Now imagine Ernie is very smart and by knowing all the information in the world can always predict what Ernie will say. So Ernie examines Bert's brain and predicts that Ernie will say "1". Bert hears "1" and says "0". So Ernie's prediction fails. Ernie then predicts Bert will say "0". Bert hears this and says "1". No matter what Ernie predicts Bert will say, he will always be wrong, even though there is nothing random about what Bert does. What Bert says is completely deterministic and simple, yet Ernie cannot predict it infallibly.

I think the ability to predict it was hypothetical, the point of the knowledge of X creating Y proves that we have free will if you're not looking at it at a quantum level

Unpredictable is not equivalent to nondeterministic, and nondeterministic is not equivalent to "free will". You are piling fallacies on top of each other.

>what is the purpose of life?
>purpose
Way to confuse purpose with origin...

Are you actually as stupid as you just implied? You gave me an broken oracle that forgets the input to the system he is was making a prediction for, and gives (prediction, prediction) as (input, output).

Either that or you do not understand that a system is either deterministic or nondeterministic FROM THE FUCKING OUTSIDE.

If we know the full state of the system, any prediction he will use is known. Again, a system is deterministic or nondeterministic from the outside.

On free will, if human behavior can be fully attributed to neurological and chemical processes, then it should be possible to map out these one day entirely and so a machine could theoretically exist that would predict the exact behavior of a human. If used on a human and it said "this human will now sing." and then the human would sing, given data from the input of neurological connections and other such data points. It should have 100% accuracy with this.

Paradox: What then happens if someone points this machine at themselves and reads what it predicts? If it says "this human will now sing" then by seeing this input the human could choose not to sing, but the machine should have 100% accuracy if humans are 100% predictable, hence paradox.

lol didn't read comments someone already made this statement just worded differently lol

Congratulations on summarizing OP's fallacy, failing to read the thread and understand why it's a fallacy. A system is deterministic or nondeterministic from the outside. The paradox is faulty because you have put the machine inside the system you are analyzing. Being unable to build such a machine in our own world due to that reasoning says absolutely nothing about determinacy.

>If something happens that makes it it's purpose
There is no purpose to life unless you are religious.

>tfw no rocket gf to call me senpai and whisper sweet equations in my ear...

Turn this question on its head OP.

Q. What is the purpose of death?
A. To make you enjoy your life more.

The answer to your original question is..

'Experience'.

There are no answers. Life just is. Giving meaning to anything is a human construct. Life 'doesn't care' about meaning, only we do.

assuming dark matter has many flavors, is it possible to exist dark matter worlds/life that we can't observe (except for it's gravitational influence) ?

>a molecule that is able to replicate itself
Please inform about this so called molecule, I've never heard of it.

to replicate.
thats it.

If it calculated the human will sing after being told it's going to sing then the human will sing. There's no paradox. The computer will find whatever it has to say so the human does it. Even if there's no situation where it can say anything that the human will do, it just means it's in a infinite loop but the interaction is still deterministic.

>You gave me an broken oracle that forgets the input to the system he is was making a prediction for, and gives (prediction, prediction) as (input, output).
The oracle is not broken, it is simply impossible to predict the outcome of a deterministic system in certain cases. I already told you that the oracle has all the information in the system. It has all the inputs.

>Either that or you do not understand that a system is either deterministic or nondeterministic FROM THE FUCKING OUTSIDE.
What are you talking about? You are not an observer on the outside looking at our universe, you are an observer that is part of the system you are observing. The question is, if our system is deterministic can it be predicted infallibly? The answer is clearly no. Therefore unpredictability does not imply nondeterminism.

Our purpose as humans is to live, love, and learn, then ultimately organize a rather chaotic realm we know as our universe. That's it. We're literally nothing more than the micromanagers of the cosmos

>arn, then ultimately organize a rather chaotic realm we know as our universe. That's it. We're literally nothing more than the micromanagers of

>tfw we run into other micromanagers...

another poor guy who can not deal with it.

please realize that things humanity still has no answer for, cannot be anwered and that reducing really difficult and complex questions to such simple equations can lead to all kinds of scientific fallacies when not bound to premises or paradigms.

For example: You can't claim to know my purpose in life. You need more information first to make any point AT ALL!

>aren't technically living
kek this is what Veeky Forums still thinks after a billion threads on this topic

I think he meant proto-cells. Not molecules.

>What the purpose of life?
to keep on living

>Is time infinite?
Time can't exist alone, it is relative.

>Do humans have free will?
As much as other organisms do

>Why is there something rather than nothing?
Because you cannot express 'nothing' without 'something'

dat t5 phage is so sexy dough

why are boobs good?

You're almost as stupid as OP. Circular logic and answers to different questions than asked.

Sure is reddit it here

>>What is the purpose of life?
avoid discomfort, get pleasure (watch you pleasures don't conflict with the first part of this diad. so heroin and alcohol are bad choises. sex mostly sucks as well) that's pretty much universal in living species.
>Is time infinite?
it is an abstraction.
>Do humans have free will?
It depends on what you consider FREE, because every freedom is relative, which doesn't mean there's no freedom at all of course (beware this trick of equivocation, or whatever you call it, when guy tells "nobody have an ABSOLUTE freedom, thus it's okay that you have to live in a concentration camp. Using "absolute A" instead of A disproves anything, because absolute is just an abstraction, a limit we approach.
>Why is there something rather than nothing?
because ABSOLUTE nothing is abstraction as well. In an infinite time ago, even infinitesimal dx tends to raise, because though d2x is infinitesimal, but of the sequence of dnx where n is infinite. and then some resonating comes or something like this and common field establishes thus quantum elements and stuff.

STFU U KNOW NOTHIN

>What is the purpose of life?
>purpose
>the reason for why something is done

Can´t back you up here:
If it has a reason to be, some one reasoned this. For having a purpose, it needs a "will", a some one,even if this some one is Bat. Bat doesn't decide he is born Bat, but he is. He is just born as nature intended: a scary winged faggot with awesome echolocalization. His attack or flyes have purpose, his brain has a purpose: maximize food getting. Bat can't intend to grow a new organ,it just happens, mutations, y'know.
Then, Tree has will if he tries to go to break your pipes for water? Nope, the movement has purpose. But Tree has no "will", that's why it was in "quotes", but as tree has no brain, it is not maximizing nothing, it'sjust following chemical homeostasis to grow in direction of water. Kinda the same, older technology, not so advanced, cause it's not like "solving problems", it just grows in the more favorable direction.
It's funny, because if you think of E. Coli, she thinks nothing. She is like Tree, but even older tech. She just grows, her movements have purpose, but she lacks of "will", cause it's just a bunch of chemical reactions making her grow. And fast.

At this point, you can argue what will is and about sentience and stuff. But, even at a lower point, atoms,didn't had will, they're just a bunch of ball colliding or coalesing in an infinite sea of chaos. Yet life emerged, not from someone trying to make it, but from spontaneous chemical reactions. That an inanimated collection of lypids, amines and proteins came to be a self replicant organism
had no purpose by it self, it was something that just came to be, shit happened; and then more shit happened, and then came sexual reproducction and then some real shit happened. And then even more shit happened.
As you and me speak, and probably one or two animals know, more developed brains can abstract things and categorize stuff. You and i Know what a Problem is and what a Solution is, but it's a level of abstarction that atoms didn't have. Atoms do not want to produce life (or not more than rocks and stars, as far as i know).

From that, the birth of life as we k now it, had no purpose, and as that, eating food and replicating had no purpose as well, shit just happened. We tend to think stuff as a problem/solution thing, but that requires someone to understand that.
Life has no purpose, just is. So enjoy it, and try to erradicate those people who says it has, because they tend very easily to point out that purpose in life is to serve them well, even if they mask it pretty well . Better get your own satisfaction.

>Is time infinite?
So say the numbers, by now.

>Do humans have free will?
As much as Brain, hormones and society leaves them

>Why is there something rather than nothing?
Just because. Is this so terrible idea?

What cripples my mind now is this: what was before time? I mean,assuming time started with big bang, how did all this matter packed in a head pin appeared there in the first place. Damn questions.

This was supposed to be a quick response.