TED Conversations

Sanyu Nagenda

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Beyond just science and religion, let's converse about the INFINITE implications of the purpose of ALL life. What does Existence stem from?

When it comes to all of Existence, I must first recognize Infinity. Infinity - though seemingly (generally) agreed upon by those who are religious and those who are scientific - does not get its due. This is perhaps because as incarnate finite beings in heavy flesh & blood bodies, most of us are not even capable of fathoming the scale of what Infinity actually entails.

It seems to me that Infinity, by its very nature, is beyond time. As tiny, young, largely inexperienced, generally unwise developing beings; what our species chooses to conceive about Infinity is actually very limited. It is treated like a number even while it encompasses all possible numbers. It is considered a time unit, even as it outexists all of our conceptions of time. This is not only something to be noted, but something to be observed, reflected upon and revered.

If Infinity is, in fact, "a 'number' greater than any assignable quantity or countable number;" and if the Omniverse is Infinite; and if everything exists within the Omniverse; then as far as I'm concerned, Infinity is "a formed existence greater than any assignable measure or quantifiable expression." What is not needed, what is lost, what is not included, within Infinity? Infinity necessitates EVERYTHING because Infinity IS everything. Everything is needed within Infinity because Infinity negates nothing!

To me, all consciousness' are the result of Infinity experiencing itself. Consciousness is the ongoing result and experiment of Existence (Infinity) Experiencing Itself. Our species is but one form of Existence experiencing itself. Plants, our animal cousins, planets, dimensions, elements, galaxies, etc. are each their own manifestation of our infinite existence experiencing itself.

Our species has lived only thousands of years and we've developed what we consider an advanced form of consciousness: self-reflection, language, creation, etc.

What, then, do you suppose is the likely consciousness awareness of Infinity itself?

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Aug 11 2011: Hi Sanyu,

    Actually "24" is not a unit of time. When you say that you are 24, I suspect you mean that you are 24 years old (rather than 24 months, 24 weeks, 24 hours, 24 minutes, or 24 seconds old, which are all units of time multiplied by the number 24).

    But let's talk about the purpose of life and where existence stems from.

    So what is the purpose of life? Many people want to believe that there is some exalted purpose. Why? Because it is emotionally satisfying to believe that. But why should there be any purpose to life other than perpetuating life? Does life exist simply so we could benefit emotionally? Or does life exist now simply because it existed earlier and managed to perpetuate itself?

    And why does anything exist? Throughout the ages people have wondered that and made up stories based on their experience. Alley Oop made a small fire. Somebody very very big must have made the big big fire that travels across the sky every day. Some of those stories persist to this day, and many people around the world still believe them.

    But I think a more promising line of pursuit is string theory. I wish I understood it. I recently read that the universe that we experience may be a holographic projection of a more complex reality. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
    • thumb
      Aug 12 2011: Hey Carlin,

      I see what you are saying about units of time. Noted.

      But let's talk about the purpose of life and where existence stems from!

      Do you really think it strange that people derive meaning from such a purposeful omniuniverse? Doesn't EVERY SINGLE THING in this existence serve a purpose in and of itself? By "exalted purpose" I imagine you mean some big dude in the sky with a beard, but I personally don't think it unlikely that "the Creator" - aka WHATEVER created this Existence - is sentient. I hardly think hominids are the only sentient species in the ENTIRE omniuniverse...I mean, if that were the case it would be a disappointment at best and a waste at worst.

      I also wouldn't say, "why should there be any purpose to life other than perpetuating life" as if that in itself is some SMALL task. I mean, PERPETUATING ALL OF LIFE? That's a LOT OF WORK! Assuming things are genuinely constantly expanding at an ever increasing rate and considering the technical details of creation from the atom to the galaxy system, I actually can't help but determine that perpetuating life is probably the most PURPOSEFUL thing that can be done in all of Existence. Many things have lives, after all. Sure there's us, the hominids, and bugs, plants, trees, healthy water systems and animals...but ideas also have lives and companionship takes on its own life and activities take on their own lives and planets, and solar systems and galaxies and dark matter and expansion and....I mean, you see what I'm saying here?

      It's no small task, it's not easy, it's an overwhelming responsibility for whatever decided to get this Existence party crackin' in the first place. Must be a lot of love innately built into Existence for some THING to perpetuate EVERYTHING. Especially considering how poorly our species does on the creation front...were I "the Creator" I probably would have ended our hominid lives here on Earth a whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillle ago. So whatever is putting up with us is a G!
      • Aug 13 2011: Re "Do you really think it strange that people derive meaning from such a purposeful omniuniverse?"

        No, I don't think it strange that people choose to attach meaning to the objects and events around them, even those that occur at random. People see mythological figures in the sky, banshees in the storm, and the future in tea leaves.

        Re "Doesn't EVERY SINGLE THING in this existence serve a purpose in and of itself? "

        I don't think that assertion is self-evident. Many things DO have an evident purpose, but what is the purpose of the coccyx, or the moons of Pluto or the dust mite in the corner? Perhaps they have a purpose, but it is not self-evident to me.

        Re "By "exalted purpose" I imagine you mean some big dude in the sky with a beard, but I personally don't think it unlikely that "the Creator" - aka WHATEVER created this Existence - is sentient. I hardly think hominids are the only sentient species in the ENTIRE omniuniverse."

        I agree that it is quite likely that there were and are and will be sentient beings at many times and places throughout this universe, and others, if they also exist. But these beings are unlikely to have created the very universe that gave rise to their own existence. But I suppose it is possible that this universe is the result of a lab experiment by seven-eyed, five-footed, and three-tentacled beings (beards or no) in some other universe. But there is no particular reason to suppose that it is so.
        • thumb
          Aug 13 2011: Are you implying that only what you can ascertain to have purpose has meaning?

          What about all the knowledge "we" haven't gained yet? Certainly greater consciousness cannot be reached without considering something other than what one has "known."

          While I appreciate Hitcherhiker's Guide to the Galaxyesque considerations of the infinite possibilities of the omniuniverse, and I truly do; I also recognize that a "lab experiment by a seven-eyed, five-footed, and three; tentacled being (beards or no)" is certainly possible (considering the infinite possibilities) but in comparison to a sentient creation "particle" or "thing" - the unifying basis of life, whatever it is - I consider the former to be less likely.

          It seems you do not, which is what it is and I don't have a problem with your opinion.

          I do thank you for sharing it and engaging in conversation!
      • Aug 13 2011: Re "PERPETUATING ALL OF LIFE? That's a LOT OF WORK! "

        Perpetuating life IS a lot of work. It's so much work that it takes most of the time of each individual plant or animal to perpetuate its own life, and to provide for its offspring. Some animals (such as humans) DO perpetuate the lives of other beings -- usually so that can cook them for food, but sometimes to keep them for work or for companionship. But there is no reason to suppose that the seven-eyed, five-footed, and three-tentacled beings are actively working to perpetuate our lives, or even those of their more favorite beings.

        Re "I actually can't help but determine that perpetuating life is probably the most PURPOSEFUL thing that can be done in all of Existence. Many things have lives, after all. Sure there's us, the hominids, and bugs, plants, trees, healthy water systems and animals...but ideas also have lives and companionship takes on its own life and activities take on their own lives and planets, and solar systems and galaxies and dark matter and expansion and....I mean, you see what I'm saying here?"

        I agree that many things have lives, including plants, animals, ideas, solar systems and societies.

        But not ALL life IS perpetuated. Have you met any Sumerians lately, or any Neanderthals (myself excepted)? Or the beings whose planet orbited the ex-sun, and recent supernova, in the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51)?

        Re "It's no small task, it's not easy, it's an overwhelming responsibility for whatever decided to get this Existence party crackin' in the first place. Must be a lot of love innately built into Existence for some THING to perpetuate EVERYTHING."

        I think the notion that some sentient being decided to create our existence is more of a crock than a crack. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) But even if some beings did cook up our universe in their lab flasks, what reason is there to suppose that they are still around 13.75 billion years later, and looking out for all life?
        • thumb
          Aug 14 2011: Hello Carlin,

          I see the you take things very literally and that for you things are very concretely one thing or the other. That is very likely necessary for whatever lifestyle and worldview you maintain, but it does not make getting my point across to you (in a way that computes) very easy. That is fine as I don't generally expect things to be easy, but I'm just prefacing what I'm to say next with that statement so that you know where I'm coming from.

          "But not ALL life IS perpetuated. Have you met any Sumerians lately, or any Neanderthals (present company excepted)? Or the beings whose planet orbited the ex-sun, and recent supernova, in the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51)?"

          It seems you think that "life" is an isolated thing for each living thing. I do not "see" things that way. A Sumerian is a Homo Sapiens Sapiens, as far as I'm concerned, so yes I certainly see that their lives are perpetuated by their ancestry. Their ancestry being their species, not their "race" or "nationality."

          It is true that Neanderthals were not so "lucky" in the perpetuation department, but allow me to borrow from the Lion King for a moment and say they paid their existence forward to future living things even in their death.

          Death and life are not mutually exclusive or isolated things. They each require the other to have definition to begin with, so they are mutually inclusive and very participatory as far as I have observed. Just because our species has chosen to live against sustainability and renewal does not mean that the rest of existence doesn't get along relatively nicely considering the circumstances.

          "I think the notion that some sentient being decided to create our existence is more of a crock than a crack."

          I think you are also taking my reference to a sentient being a bit literally. To you, it would seem that a being must have a "body" and must have appendages and opposable thumbs. I do not see beings in this way. An atom is a being, as it IS being, so far as I'm concerned.
    • thumb
      Aug 12 2011: Also, I agree with your thoughts on String Theory. As to the holographic projection, I actually talk a bit about that on my blog - though granted in ENTIRELY different language. You can check it out here if you would like: http://getattheroot.blogspot.com/2011/05/before-time.html

      At the least it will likely give you some insight into where my particular thinking stems from.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.