John Leslie - Does Cosmology Provide Meaning?

We know the age of the universe, how stars were born, how galaxies were formed. But does the cosmos have meaning? Not make-believe, feel-good meaning, but real meaning with transcendent value? Can we discern 'meaning' using the hard data of science to go beyond science? Or is 'meaning' a term not at all appropriate in scientific cosmology?



John Andrew Leslie is a Canadian philosopher who focuses on explaining existence and Professor Emeritus at the University of Guelph, in Ontario, Canada.


Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[garybala]

I think Leslie is onto something here which could be profound in its explanatory power. Let’s expand on it.

Leslie: “The Good” (or the value of “The Good”), justifies and demands the universe, which otherwise appears random, chaotic, and often evil and horrific.

“The Good” is all we know that makes life worth living: love, truth, beauty, triumph, and so on.

It’s unique as an abstraction and marked by a “direction” over say the number 6 or an isosceles triangle.

But is not “good” more than static? It’s additive and expandable, isn’t it?

What if the universe, and any other universe in the Multiverse landscape, is intended to add to or expand on “The Good”?

I am thinking of de Chardin’s theory of the “Omega Point” as the ultimate and evolving aim of the universe.

All of us sentient intelligent creatures on earth and perhaps elsewhere add to “The Good” in our own humble way - which in turn helps justify an otherwise seemingly meaningless and often evil universe.

And what if each of the emerging “Omega Points” of each universe finally join to produce an ultimate “Good”? (“What rises must converge”, by the group FREq).

[Aguijon]

The universe is trying to tell us something. It's trying to tell us that we are fucked lol

[waerlogauk]

So an element of the Universe, namely humans, makes a value judgement of the universe decides it is good and therefore must exist To put it differently the universe self-referentialy defined itself into existence.

[jozsefnemeth]

Entertaining and insightful discussion. Interesting to realize, relish that abstract things may have creative power over tangeble things. At least abstract things that imply a direction. Maybe we are talking about personality really.. The word meaning seems central, irreducible to anything else, but perhaps to another meaning, value. The impact of ideas words onto actions and their consequences is our common experience and yet some people want to reduce everything to meaningless matter, which does not work. Very well said that these people talk about values but these do not belong to them because in fact they do not believe that one way of things is really better than another, they are just keen on something. For them life is a pursuit of pleasure instead of a moral pursuit. What is truth? says Pilate.

[tonymontana]

We have no clue what's deep under our feet and everyone wants to understand cosmos. How about understanding your house first then the neighborhood

[dennisjump]

" Everything having been heard, the conclusion of the matter is; Fear the true God and keep his commandments, for that is the whole obligation of man. " Ecclesiastes 12: 13 There, the meaning of life.

[rickwyant]

"Meaning" is a human construct, the universe just is. Somehow Robert just can't wrap his head around that simple fact. He longs for a universe with a purpose. And I suppose most of his viewers do too.

[grixessedraxis]

Good and Evil are human concepts and generally fall into one of the categories either moral absolutism, amoralism, moral relativism or moral universalism. They not prerequisites for creation or the existence of the universe and consciousness.

[aaron]

So he's using the last-resort religious stance: "You can't prove it ISN'T true." Hard to believe people still say this. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Otherwise, you could be accused of murder and executed with no evidence. The prosecutor need only say, 'You can't prove you DIDN'T murder someone.' This is the logic being employed here.

[bluelotus]

Since in the cosmos everything comes into existence, stays for some time, dwindles and dies, and since none of us likes this course, the cosmos has at least one meaning: lead to the understanding that we'd better try to get out of it.

[Oysterboiler]

John Leslie says, "The Universe exists because it OUGHT to exist. Because its existence is ETHICALLY required."

Come on with some evidence. Something tangible.

I might as well say that the "Universe exists because chocolate IS better than vanilla."

He says, "God IS a force of value."

Give me something to go on. Like that he is a force at ALL?

[waerlogauk]

Leslie's arguments against values being relative is based on a claim to have better knowledge of the others beliefs than they do themselves. Thus he creates a straw man so feeble he doesn't even need to blow it down.

[physicsisawesome]

Physics is incredible 'cause i'ts the king of all knowledge and science

[jamesruscheinski]

Mathematics helps to organize information. If it would turn out to be the case that organization of information contributes to the formation of physical reality, then mathematics also would take part in forming physical reality, even though not physical itself.

[finetuner]

God is the main eternal tree in heaven

[DesertTalk]

The existence of the universe is "ethically required" - I don't think I have disagreed with anyone more so in my life.

[francesco]

Quantum physics is based on ties and relations ( Rovelli, in his last book about quantum physics)... If there were ties and relations there would not be a reality ... Can ties and relations be regarded as values ? If so our reality is based on values.

[SRAVALM]

How to push the questions without falling into tradition or religious views.

That's important, and It's strange because when I learn like that, it brings me to a greater understanding of the ancients in general; comprehending the Bible, gnostic texts, bhagavad Gita etc. Because it's all based on the cosmos and consciousness, the laws and nature, mind, body and soul -- which is the basis of science, birthed from the sacred sciences.

Perhaps modern science pertaining to strictly mathematicians will never exceed much further. Where can strict science take us? Can't wait.


Regarding the title: doesn't that depend apon you?

If you want to keep things scientific, logical, superficial, of course you're not going to experience anything, thus there be no meaning.
Humans are not computers. In fact humans are the most sophisticated Spiritual technology.

Spirituality, intuition, the mystical path, the hidden meanings, the life and experiences in this cosmos, attaining gnosis, applying reason, seeking to know thyself. This is meaning. And it's not taught in any school -- perhaps that's why it's not respected.

I value and apply logic in and to everything, however never limit myself in constraint to my own logical understanding, lest my cup become full.
I don't feel it's logical to think I even know what logic is. So I question the very logic of logic itself.

If you dont apply the mystical way, how are you ever able to comprehend the cosmos or discover meaning?

Does science have meaning, or does living life truly, have meaning?

The Lord(God), cosmos, the laws, nature, thus we have science. Mans logic in applying science never really gets past natures because you don't know what fields are, or light etc. So Spirituality is the only way to grasp the cosmos and God. You're the only one who can experience it -- will you.

[kallianpublico]

What is .eaning? Is it only linguistic or is there some physical component to meaning?
The dictionary definition gives three philosophically and mentally distinct words to indicate what can be signified by the use of the word meaning. The three are purpose, reference or sense, and denoting.
For myself I would encapsulate meaning in two ways. Meaning is, both, an alignment to a reference and the context of that reference. How what I refer to is related to myself and how myself and what I refer to is related to the world. By the world I mean the limited scope of my experience and knowledge: my ignorance. As my ignorance seemingly decreases my consciousness, or unity of self, acquires scope. My sense of self stretches.
This stretch taxes my unity. It becomes harder to go back and forth between memories of references and their original ignorant contexts. Instead of the logical sequence of before and after the mind gets jumbled up in the illogical sequence of superposition: everything altogether, all at once.
Though a quantum computer can calculate all the permutations at the same time, a calculator must do them one at a time. But how does the quantum computer maintain context? Context is ignorance.
As our ignorance is modified by consciousness so our consciousness is modified by ignorance. Meaning oscillates between adolescent, awe to arrogance to out of date senility.

[MrSanford]

I think the meaning and the good of the universe is that it keeps itself in a state of recession on our behalf . The forces of nature could’ve easily killed us all at any moment, but nature is keeping itself at bay on our behalf