Even if there was a meaning to life and the universe, Wouldn't that meaning be meaningless?
At the most fundamental level everything will always be meaningless.
>>851984
Meaning and meaningless are human value judgements. Stop being a sad sack.
>If X were true, wouldn't X be false?
The meaning of life is energy. That's it. Quit being a faggot.
>>852041
Something that is true for f(x) is not necessarily also true for x itself.
>>852326
But if x is 0 than f(x) will always be 0
>>852035
Why is he being a sad sack? Why isn't he just simply being smarter than 99% of /his/?
>>851984
>>852359
I don't think he's being a sad sack, but the wording of the question seems needlessly vague, and is made so intentionally so as to create the appearance of a paradox.
But to start: What do you mean by "meaning"? I'm not asking this dismissively. If you mean "purpose," then the question becomes "Even if there was a purpose to life and the universe, wouldn't that purpose be purposeless?"
Well, yes, in fact, that purpose would be purposeless, but that fact wouldn't render the first purpose any less legitimate or valid. Under most conceptions of a purpose to life and the universe, that would be a final purpose, a final end. To ask for any further purpose would be misguided. That that purpose doesn't serve some larger purpose doesn't diminish it in the least. Why should we think that all purposes are subservient to some other purpose or end? Again, the point I'm making is just that some ends are final.
To be clear, I don't think that there is a purpose to life, and certainly not the universe. But it doesn't do as an attempt to undermine the notion of such an overarching purpose to point out that that purpose is purposeless.
And of course, this whole post of mine fails if by a meaning to life and the universe you do not mean a purpose to life and universe, but many people do use "meaning" and "purpose" interchangeably in this context, so my motivation for making this equivalence, even if wrong, isn't baseless.
>>852041
if god came down and said that the meaning of life is to have sex then do you have to listen to it? the world/universe is a sandbox and the only way anyone can give objective meaning is to completely change the way the universe works
>>852340
> if x is 0 than f(x) will always be 0
Especially is f(x)=x+1
>>852340
You know... I see people misuse the word 'then' all the time... but, I don't think I've ever seen someone misuse 'than'. Fascinating. I must be one of only 5 people left on the planet who understand the fucking difference.
>>852495
oh fuck you
>>852495
We should invent new word... Something like thean to end this misusing once and forever.
>>852359
Since the universe is neither with or without any meaning any statement about it is a reflection of the human mind.
The universe only has no meaning when you feel meaningless yourself.
Likewise if you feel meaningful than the universe does have a meaning.
The objective answer to whether or not the universe has a meaning is null.
>>852399
That isn't really a valid comparison. God coming down and telling you the meaning of life and you not acting would be more like life being meaningful yet ignoring it.
>>852399
>if god came down and said that the meaning of life is to have sex then do you have to listen to it?
If we're talking about the typical Western conception of the Abrahamic God, then you are morally obligated to do what you're told here, yes.
>>851984
>Wouldn't that meaning be meaningless?
That's just nonsense.
