TED Conversations

Micheal Savage

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

The meaning of Life the universe and Existence.

With all the data we have collected about the universe we know the relative structure of the universe. In fact it looks very similar to an organic structure. Like a heart or a lung, Perhaps it is simply a fraction of a larger organism in a world and universe far more vast than our imaginations can comprehend. Picture the solar system as an atom with the nucleus in the center and the planets are the electrons. The billions of different atoms compiled in the structure creating a single cell our galaxy and the billions of cells aligned in a structure creating the veins and other structures of an organic life form. And finally us Life the electrical impulses traveling from system to system to communicate a message to each piece of the structure. Imagine if you will that an entire universe stems within each of us in this same fashion but its simply so small that we cant conceive or record its existence. This could potentially go on infinitely in both directions. A universe within a universe. The Constance of structure on all scales of building blocks supports this theory. This isn't my theory alone. The first time it was purposed to me was by my astronomy teacher in high school. He said to picture our universe as a dust particle in someones closet. However with the knew scientific information and data its more likely we are a part of an organic structure. Even thinking about this still raises the age old question. Where did it all come from? What is existence? How did it all come to be? Is there a god? If so Where did it come from? As far as I can tell and comprehend existence is god it always was and always will be. The only thing that has no beginning and no end. Existence itself is proof of god.

progress indicator
  • thumb
    Sep 10 2011: Whatever I learn about the universe, which is generally jaw dropping, does not change the fact that I will die. When asking about the meaning of life, death is the elephant in the room. I believe that when a person comes to terms, as best one can, with one's own demise, the universe and it's presence becomes the greatest show on earth.
    • thumb
      Sep 11 2011: Wow Lynn, your time off turned your inner poet loose! I enjoyed that post.
      I recently had the honour of tending to a dying friend. The funeral was yesterday. In his final days, I grew and somehow understood more than ever before. His courage, dignity and decency in the face of death deeply impressed me. Living fully and completely now is important.
      • thumb
        Sep 12 2011: I definitely believe that life is to be cherished. Everybody has a purpose in life and everybody makes an impact on someone. Even if it is a small impact every action you take and every word you say will effect someone. Its our connections in life that define us. As much as I love life and care about the world and its future I'm not afraid of death. You cant understand life without recognizing the importance of death. In fact I would say that death is a very important part of life. To me death isn't the end, its only the start of a new journey. Mind you I'm not much for religion but there is a growing amount of scientific evidence to support an afterlife. My personal belief is that we have choices after death. The knowledge and wisdom that we gain as individuals throughout our lives go with us then.
        lol Reading what I just said sounds like a religious statement. I guess I would consider myself spiritual in my own way.
  • thumb
    Sep 12 2011: It's when the common way of doing or thinking something is changed. For example, the invention of the photograph put thousands of etchers out of business. That was a paradigm shift in how newspapers and books were illustrated.
  • thumb
    Sep 11 2011: I'm going to answer "what gives life meaning" - which is slightly different than "what is the meaning of life?"

    And that answer is: death.

    What we have here is finite and we all need to Act Now because a moment lost is irretrievable (at least currently). If this life were infinite we could try everything and not have to make choices or feel as though we need to commit to being one way over another, at least in the moment.

    I'm not so sure that the latter is the best thing, but it is as it is.
    • thumb
      Sep 11 2011: Its a nice principle to commit to one way of thinking. Unfortunately in life things fall under shades of grey. There are people who fallow the law word for word and then some times events come up which leaves you wondering if the laws are correct. In other words sometimes doing what we know is wrong might be right under the right circumstances. Im sorry Im just kinda thinking out loud I hope you get the gist of what Im thinking.
      • thumb
        Sep 12 2011: The reality is indeed that people aren't "one way" for the duration of their lives - especially now. It's not one career from adulthood to grave, nor (for the most part) one spouse, one house, or one perspective any more, and yet we still pretend like it is the norm to pick a career out of high school and be that person forever.

        Some times when I watch Americans discussing politics, so deeply entrenched in the minute differences between their parties as though they were truly polar opposites, I wonder about this arbitrary identification with one over the other as though their whole being depends on this label.

        It is especially in those moments that I am most struck by the falseness of the commitment, so yes, I think I can relate to what you are saying.
  • thumb
    Sep 10 2011: If existence itself is proof of god, what is the existence of god proof of?

    We've been playing this game from the beginning of recorded history. We look around ourselves and see things that don't make sense to us. Rather than just enjoying the mystery and continuing our quest to figure it out, we attribute the mystery to the existence of god. Whether it's lightning, earthquakes, and drought, or large scale structures of the universe, we seem to be built in such a way that we are always willing to find agency in the world where it later turns out it never existed. I think that's what you are doing here.
    • thumb
      Sep 10 2011: Don't look around. Close your eyes and ears. Just to be is what it is about. Try to understand what you talk about if you say, "to be", what it is "being". Not being this or that, just being itself. It is about the primary experience.
      Imagine you are and creation yet has to happen. In this nothingness you are aware of yourself and the first thought arises as a desire to know yourself. This thought is the first light, undifferentiated yet.
      This is a thought experiment to see the point.
      The key question is to be or not to be. Point, nothing more.
      What is the closest is the hardest to see.
    • Sep 10 2011: What is your point exacty Fran? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

      I agree with you Mark. The use of god to explain what we dont yet know is an illogical leap. There is no reason to connect our ignorance of the nature of our existence with the existence of a supernatural creator and it makes no sense to use ignorance of a subject to point to somethings existence or nonexistence.
      • thumb
        Sep 11 2011: My main point is that when you push imagination to the extreme on both ends you wonder if there is an end. Was there even a beginning? I'm just saying that we are so small in the vastness of the universe we just simply don't have the perspective to see such a large picture. However we are billions of years away from having a much better idea of the true nature of the universe. I think the first step would be moving off of this rock we all call home. We need to populate the galaxy and beyond before we have a better idea. Or maybe travel to another universe completely. However its still just learning another microscopic piece of truth in a endless ocean of information. I don't believe that we will ever have all the answers that the universe has to offer. But that certainly doesn't mean to stop trying.
      • thumb
        Sep 11 2011: If you ask me?
        I was trying to find a way to let someone understand the most simple as it is the most difficult to comprehend. Shakespeare tried and yet people are repeating it over and over without getting any clue. It probably takes a bit of contemplating.
    • thumb
      Sep 11 2011: Sorry you got me wrong. Actually I'm not a religious person at all. I don't so much care about the existence of god because its something we cant ever truly understand. However it is extremely important that we work towards the understanding of the universe around us. I love science, research, and evolution. I was simply stating that the overall structure of what we think the universe is, is simply a sign of intelligence. I don't for one second believe in blind faith. Its very important that we keep searching for the truth.
  • Sep 15 2011: Answer to your question is simple "he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not."

    Rig Veda:
    HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

    1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
    What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

    2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
    That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

    3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
    All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

    4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
    Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.

    5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
    There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder

    6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
    The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?

    7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
    Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

    Taken from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm
  • Sep 14 2011: I've had a simalar thought before. Imagine if we were in the body of god.
  • thumb
    Sep 11 2011: Yes, nothing is impossible within the laws of physics for humans, as long as we really know what those laws are and how they work. A lot of gee wiz science makes it into a PR release in order to create funding opportunities. The observation of water on Mars is made into a media circus in order to justify speculation about life on other planets. But the really interesting story is how huge amounts of water got dumped on Mars leaving evidence of large tsunamis, yet Vallis Marinaris clearly was not carved from flooding, it's a blind canyon at both ends. Such forehead slappingly obvious deductions don't get discussed in the mainstream scientific literature because their implications are paradigm shifting and that's not a welcome thing in academia unfortunately. Until scientists can welcome paradigm shifts, or better, actually try to generate them, our knowledge base and methodology won't be sufficient to answer your question.
    • thumb
      Sep 12 2011: Forgive me for asking but what is a paradigm shift?
  • thumb
    Sep 11 2011: I'm having difficulty these days sorting out the various "theories of everything" from political propaganda. Humanity's self image is crucial to a creative civilization. Big Bang implies that we are the result of chance and entropy. Whereas humans are clearly negentropic or extropic- we invent greater efficiencies than Nature is capable of. There are alternative theories to Big Bang but they don't see the light of day. Edwin Hubbel's chief assistant, Halton Arp, has found evidence that red shift may not be completely intrinsic to velocity (http://www.haltonarp.com). If this is the case, there goes Big Bang. We don't know what gravity is. If it has an electrical component, as some believe, there goes Black Hole. Tell me that a barred spiral galaxy is formed by gravity alone. There goes Dark Matter.

    Mainstream astrophysics is a kludge of nonrigorous definitions and a priori assumptions that often defy logic. (http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/) Science is also terribly politicized and additionally distorted by the dictates of funding. Until science truly operates under the method of hypothesis, we won't be able to solve the question being asked. Until humans increase their intelligence to savant levels, we won't be able to know if the answers are real or a delerium.
    • thumb
      Sep 11 2011: This is a good point. the laws of physics we had in place 100 years ago were proven wrong. The same thing happened with the new laws within 50 more years. We have recorded events in deep space that seem to defy the laws of physics as we know them now. Yet another interesting pursuit is the concept of quantum physics. I believe that nothing is impossible.
  • thumb
    Sep 10 2011: Picturing our universe as a speck of dust on someone's shelf doesn't add meaning to the whole thing. It may add understanding, but not meaning. This is very different.
    Meaning is anthropomorphism. Like asking the moon why it wants to spin around us, instead of understanding why it does...
    Our brains have evolved to detect meaning behind other animal's actions. "This guy is being friendly... he needs to borrow money."
    It makes no sense to look for meaning elsewhere, even though that's what we do instinctively.
  • thumb
    Sep 10 2011: Well maybe, or perhaps as we study the very small and the very large we run up against the limits of our minds so they only appear to be similar. Kind of like how things at both extremes of your peripheral vision both appear blurry.
    • thumb
      Sep 10 2011: This is also a very interesting idea pretty much the same concept as the matrix theory. This is also a possible truth within a truth. And in any case if we are in a computer simulation then what created that universe. If technology is the creation of the universe than what is life? I think life is the program.
      • thumb
        Sep 10 2011: Probably! But then again who knows ... we may just be a part of a greater plan or something. I don't like the idea of my life being programmed and as much as I hate to admit it sometimes I feel it could be true.
  • thumb
    Sep 10 2011: Good thinking. Few people can reach this vision. Once I saw a nice picture of Brahma, drawn as a somewhat human form set up out of all starsystems to give a symbol of the unimaginable.