10 Answers

  1. It is necessary to increase entropy in the most rational way. If we consider entropy in Boltzmann's interpretation (S=k * ln(W)), then the meaning of being can be declared such a transformation of the world that its complex state is more likely than a simple one. W>0, -> S>0. To me, this is a very decent meaning.

  2. Meaning like the sound of a tree in a forest that doesn't exist if no one can hear it. That is, meaning requires someone who makes sense. And since the one who makes sense can make sense in various ways, being can have no objective meaning other than what is assigned to being by the conscious subject.

  3. What is the point of being if everything in the universe tends to increase entropy? I am asked if I know the answer to this question. Yes, I know. Idealistic philosophers ask such questions to invite you to play on their field. They came up with the category “being”, put it in the first place and, further, everything – it is not discussed…So there is no being at the head of everything, and we will not discuss this. But the fact that “…everything in the universe tends to increase entropy” I will say that this is a misconception. Nature is full of processes of self-organization of matter with a corresponding ordering, that is, the process of self-organization of matter. with increasing order and decreasing entropy. This applies to physics, chemistry and biology. The highest form of organization of matter is consciousness.

  4. The entropy of an isolated system is constant, that of a closed system can only increase, and that of an open system (almost ALL known systems) can decrease. A classic example is Benard cells. Entropy is exported to the environment.

  5. You don't need to transfer thermodynamic theories to the entire universe. The energy cycle in the universe is most likely much more complex than modern ideas distorted by false theories.

    We must first carefully review the entire metrological experience of mankind, which is mostly obtained in laboratory conditions on Earth. Anyway, this is a limited scale compared to the entire universe. It is necessary to avoid indiscriminately and formally extending the limited metrological experience to a large scale. We already know that the physics of the microcosm is very different from the physics of the macrocosm. So we should expect that the physics of the mega-world will also be significantly different from the physics of the macro-world, which is familiar to us on our planet. I won't make futuristic predictions. It would be fair for us to deal with the problems on Earth here and now without hysteria.

  6. It is the same as the meaning of this question – if the question is meaningless, then the meaning of being is absent, if the question has some meaning, then being has the same meaning.

  7. If you'll excuse me, I'll change your question to a more human one : what is the meaning of life if we all die?

    I think these questions are similar, and just about a person-many people tried to reason, it seems to me that you can apply the meaning of the answers to the universe.

    in sankhya yoga, the “desire to live” (such as the instinct of self-preservation) of a person is considered, and this desire is defined as one of the strongest (perhaps the strongest) affects of consciousness, which even the best of the sages cannot overcome.

    the problem with this desire is that the more developed, conscious and spiritual a person is, the more difficult it is for him to overcome the desire to live ..

    the sankhya explanation for this affect is that the desire to live is the fear of death, and the fear of death is the fear of the next birth .. it is the INEVITABILITY of the next birth that makes people fear death, want to live, and extend their lives as much as possible despite the obvious end.

    I give this reasoning AS AN EXAMPLE .. perhaps there is a similar passage about the Universe, and it by its nature prolongs existence as much as possible, despite the “victory of entropy”, out of some internal reluctance to repeat this path from the beginning )))) .. but from our human point of view, these universal fears and concerns are hardly visible and understandable.

    there are many meanings around us that do not arise reasonably, but arise from fears, attempts to prevent what may not happen, from greed and hoarding, vanity and bragging. maybe we are a reflection of being, and why shouldn't it be the same?

  8. Although my dear participant proved that the meaning is like a noise in the forest, which everyone understands as he “hears” (one as “music”, another as “whisper”, and the third as “hindering hunting”), but I understand the “question of meaning” a little differently.

    Roughly speaking, this is the answer to the question ” why?” (i.e., it indicates the purpose or purpose of the “thing”). Nikita told us everything very well about the “purpose”, because people sometimes use the same smartphone in completely different ways (they sometimes see or find amazing uses for it, for example, as surveillance devices for its users). And the purpose of the smartphone was determined by its creator (creator) and” made ” it functionally most applicable in this particular purpose.

    But as the people say, “man assumes, but God disposes,” and Mayakovsky reasonably remarked, ” if the stars are lit, does it mean that someone needs it?“After all, your question is about the “natural phenomenon of being”, to which a person is not a “creator”, not even an actor playing the “main role”, but only an “extra” (in contrast to the same” forest noise”, and even more so a smartphone).

    Does it make sense (natural, like “purpose”) for such “things “(not “made up” by us, in which we “play the role of extras” in fact)?

    I do not know how to check this “in a scientific way” with the current level of development of sciences, but I assume that it is still possible to do this. After all, nature seems to “force” all creatures to “adapt” (according to the theory of evolution) to the “meanings” that are “embedded” in it (although often a person is “stubborn” in this, changing the natural conditions of his existence, instead of” adapting ” and not always intelligently or even consciously). Therefore, I am not surprised that some words of the language (tested for thousands of years and not suitable for use for various “passionate hobbies” of people) indicate just this (natural) meaning with their meanings. Not because “people guessed” the name, but because people's understanding of the meaning of this “name” for centuries “floated” in the direction of” natural meaning “(under the” pressure ” of nature).

    For example, the meaning of “science” is to teach people those “laws of nature” that science unbiasedly (objectively, i.e., regardless of people's opinions) studies in “objective reality”. If science ceases to correspond to this purpose (regardless of the reasons for this), then no one will need it (it will become indistinguishable from the same religions or other “teachings”, i.e. one of them).

    Being (or” existence”) is one of these words. The meaning of” to be “(to exist) definitely exists (after all, that nature does not” want “to” exist “it rejects, and therefore such a thing can only” exist ” by violence against nature on the part of people). “Not being”, to put it mildly, is not very “pleasant”. Unfortunately, this is still all that people understand about “being” (the main question of the ontology of philosophy is not as simple as it seems).

    But the question of the “arrow of entropy” is hardly connected with the” meaning of being ” by anything other than a speculative connection:

    If the universe will still die due to the growth of entropy someday, then what is the point of being everything in it?”

    Similarly, we can ask about the accelerated expansion of the universe -“And what is the meaning of being if everyone is waiting for a Big Gap?“After all, there are a lot of more “prosaic” and much more understandable reasons why not only a person, but almost all life can easily disappear from the face of the Earth in a much more foreseeable future (for example, environmental pollution).

    As for entropy, which really seems to “rule” over inanimate matter, then there is “living matter”, which, on the contrary, shows not the desire for” averaging”, but the steady development, including” diversity “(although so far due to the growth of the” entropy ” of inanimate matter). After all, we still don't really know what the source of life is, or even “what it is.” And what if it is this (especially “reasonable”) that is intended by nature so that the universe does not” die “from entropy or the same”big gap”?

    So I suggest not to ” guess “(inventing arbitrarily “what is the if washed off?”), but to live and explore this mysterious life and even more mysterious “mind”. Perhaps it is you who will be “lucky” to understand the “meanings” of life and reason (not momentary, but “eternal”, i.e. their natural purpose).

  9. There is no and can not be a sense of being in the Universe with entropy, no need to entertain illusions, the end of everything is heat death . The logical consequence is that meaning must be sought beyond the material world , and you will find it .

  10. There is no meaning to being at all, even if everything in the universe did not tend to increase entropy. People have always thought about this, but it did absolutely nothing for science, for being, or for life. Scientists can be wrong about entropy, as they have been many times in science. Remember the notorious ether. For general development, read Shcherbakov's popular presentation. He argues that evolution is the resistance to entropy. Perhaps the people of the future will be able to stop the entropy of the universe.

Leave a Reply