![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Just a reminder that "What is the meaning of life" is NOT "The Ultimate Question Of Life, the Universe and Everything", (to which the answer is "42"). The whole joke - and a critical plot element - is that the question is entirely unknown. Nowhere in the five books does it ever come close to saying what the actual question is. The mice simply make stuff up after Arthur escape, and once Arthur and Ford manage to actually get a read-out of the Earth computer program from Arthur's brain, the question is garbage because of the unexpected arrival the Golgafrinchams.
In my experience, the only people who ever say that "42" is the answer to the question "What is the meaning of life" is people who never actually read the book, watched the film, heard the radio theatre or in any other way partook of the forms that THHGTTG was ever published in.
So please... do not re-add The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy on this page because it is - simply - not relevant.
J-Star ( talk) 23:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Given that if you ask people on the street about Douglas Adams and "the meaning of life", you'll invariably get the answer "42" ("I don't know"). As a result, it's clear and obvious that in popular culture, "42" is an (absurdest) answer to the meaning of life. It doesn't really matter if that's what the books/plays/etc actually say. Yes, we get it that you're all smart and stuff because you know it's not actually written in the books that way, but that's not really relevant in this case. In this case, we're dealing with popular culture and not a literary critique of Adams' work. Saying "Adams didn't mean this" so we can't put it in a section about what people believe simply doesn't fly. Now, if you'd like to help out with this article, perhaps you can shorten the Adams' paragraph and add a bit about this not being what Adams actually wrote. Rklawton ( talk) 16:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, since people that seemingly never read the books are insisting on putting this section back... let's review the sources then:
First up, the book itself. [1] Does that say that "The Ultimate Question to Life, The Universe and Everything" — to which the answer is "Forty-two" — is "What is the meaning of life?". No it does not. In fact, the only mention of "the meaning of life" has even been removed compared to the radio theatre.
Radio theatre transcript: [2]
The book: [3]
And as I mentioned above: the whole joke to begin — in the radio theatre — is that people are expecting to get an answer to "What is the meaning of life?"... only to be completely disappointed because that is not the question.
This means that the primary source itself flatly contradicts that "Fourty-Two" is an answer to "What is the meaning of life?". This then means that all secondary sources have their work cut out for them. So... what about them?
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Meaning of Everything" is referenced. [4] The book is a Christian apologia. And when we turn to the preface (can be done on Amazon) pages 7 and 8 this source clearly says that we have an answer — 42 — without a question. Hence this source does not support the section being here.
Next up: "What's It All About?: Philosophy and the Meaning of Life" [5]. This one I don't have quotes of directly. However, this article [6] — that is reviewing the book — states that the author argues that "What's the meaning of life?" is a nonsensical question. It states: "That's why Douglas Adams' gag about the answer to the question of life, the universe and everything being 42 is so insightful. You can't expect to get a sensible answer unless you ask a sensible question". So this secondary source also does not seem to argue in favour of this section being in this wiki-article.
Finally, the last source, a tertiary one this time: "The Anthology At The End Of The Universe: Leading Science Fiction Authors On Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy". [7] This is an essay collection. Here I do not have any quotes at all.
So anyone that wants to keep this section in the article, I challenge with getting hold of this book, finding the page/chapter/essay in this book that tells us how that essay writer means that there is a connection between "The Meaning of Life" and "Forty-Two". J-Star ( talk) 19:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
When Douglas Adams wrote The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, he added a central joke which has become more famous over the years than the novel itself: "The answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything is 42." [10]
His books are well known. The joke is even more famous - sourced. Now, do you have a source that says it's NOT well known? Pointing to the primary source and saying "that's not what he meant" is irrelevant. What is relevant is the popular perception - and the popular perception is quite clear. Please go find something else to do with your time and stop making threats and wasting our time. Rklawton ( talk) 19:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
User:ScrapIronIV, your argument below is: "The Meaning of Life and Adams' answer of 42 have become intertwined over the years". Source that then. Otherwise your own argument — "Removal of the section is unsourced WP:OR, based on some personal definition of "truth."" — can be turned against you, because exchange "Removing" for "Keeping" and the exact same sentence is an argument against what you just said... that your your "personal definition of "truth"" is that these things are "intertwined". Source or it is WP:OR. J-Star ( talk) 22:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
So... User:J-Star would like to remove the section noting Douglas Adams' book for the reasons he has noted above. Those who support his recommendation should do so by signifying Support below. Those who do not should either Comment or Oppose as appropriate. Please briefly outline reasons as needed. Rklawton ( talk) 19:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
One can argue that philosophy encompasses metaphysics, thereby making direct mention of metaphysics redundant. One can also argue that replacing the concrete with the abstract is the hallmark of poor writing. "Philosophy" is way too big to get your mind around on the brisk orientation tour. — MaxEnt 18:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following to Popular Views
Ajinkyashukla29 ( talk) 14:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The course beings Someshsingh7 ( talk) 22:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Meaning of life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Meaning of life/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I assigned it to the stub class because while there is plenty of material here, it is a mess. Anarchia 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC) |
Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The meaning of life is to give your life meaning doing that task already gives your life meaning. You were given meaning when you were born at that moment your meaning was to be born and the rest of your life was the meaning of your life from the very beginning.- A 12 year old said this! Nikoli .P ( talk) 04:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please append to the list in 7.4:
To improve character traits and achieve spiritual perfection.
( Vilna Gaon on Proverbs 4:13) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BinyominZeev ( talk • contribs)
The final entry prior to today's edits in the "Popular Opinions" section heading "Life is Bad" was properly cited, and represents an actual, factual view on this topic. Deleting this item from the range of expressions about this topic negates an aspect that makes this page interesting and exciting to people. The book referenced is actually insightful and interesting, and provides a different perspective about existence that I have found fascinating. Please return that item to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Gadbois ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Could you add This verses (about the meaning of the life, especially for human being perspective ) to the article.
And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know."
2:31
And He taught Adam the names - all of them. Then He showed them to the angels and said, "Inform Me of the names of these, if you are truthful."
They said, "Exalted are You; we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Indeed, it is You who is the Knowing, the Wise."
2:33
He said, "O Adam, inform them of their names." And when he had informed them of their names, He said, "Did I not tell you that I know the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the earth? And I know what you reveal and what you have concealed."
2:34
And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate before Adam"; so they prostrated, except for Iblees. He refused and was arrogant and became of the disbelievers.
2:35
And We said, "O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat therefrom in [ease and] abundance from wherever you will. But do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers."
2:36
But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that [condition] in which they had been. And We said, "Go down, [all of you], as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time."
2:37
Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.175.62.102 ( talk) 09:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Meaning of life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This page is brilliant now -- one of the very best on Wikipedia. A great starting point for many philosophical and scientific adventures! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.71.25 ( talk) 14:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
This is regarding this batch of edits, which I partially reverted. My edit summary called this WP:OR, which was inaccurate. I apologize for that. Since the section is based on a single page from one book, two entries and a table seems like far too much weight. This is, as currently supported by the source, a single perspective. If additional (verified) sources which clearly indicate these difference are found, this could be readdressed.
I have no problem with the content itself, or with the source, and have restored it in the past as mentioned above. My concern is that this is over-stating the prominence of this perspective as reflected by RS.
From a formatting point of view, the table seems very distracting, and adds a great deal of prominence to this one otherwise fairly subtle point. Tables often create accessibility issues, also. The place to discuss that might be Talk:Antinatalism, though. Grayfell ( talk) 00:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've had this question for a while, but in reality there is no meaning in life. this section in particular "The meaning of life, or the answer to the question "What is the meaning of life?", pertains to the significance of living or existence in general" in reality just means the meaning of life consists of just existence, but in reality at the end of it all you die, therefore there will never be a meaning of life unless there is something beyond that. 94.72.200.8 ( talk) 20:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the popular answers section under "answers from religion" the Westminster shorter catechism is quoted incorrectly
"To glorify God by enjoying him forever." should be "To glorify God and enjoy him forever."
i.e. it should look like this: Meanings relating to religion
sources https://www.opc.org/sc.html http://www.shortercatechism.com/resources/wsc/wsc_001.html westminster shorter catechism in modern english, Kelley and Rollinson 1986. ISBN 978-0875525488 Beardosecrets ( talk) 17:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Meaning of life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Meaning of life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
"In Red vs. Blue season 1 episode 1 the character Simmons asks Grif the question "Why are we here?" and is a major line in the series."
Simmons actually asks "You ever wonder why we're here?", prompting Grif to agree that he's unsure of the meaning (or cause) of life, before Simmons clarifies that he meant "why are we out here, in this canyon?" The line is reoccurring, but as a running gag someone always misinterprets the question in the way that is relative to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98B:8203:A380:5146:5267:8AD8:8BEB ( talk) 19:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The meaning of life is that every one has a purpose 2600:8806:A400:4B40:6C6B:D11C:C402:7149 ( talk) 01:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
This is really beautiful now -- my favorite article on Wikipedia. I love it how people can search for the meaning of life on here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.48.39 ( talk) 14:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The last sentence in the Sufism paragraph of the Islamic section includes a link and reference to a Baha'i interpretation of a Hadith Qudsi. This is misinformation since there is a separate section on Baha'i below and Baha'i are considered heretical to Muslims and Muslim sufis for their central tenet and belief in a prophet after Mohammad. I would remove this reference and move it down to the Baha'i section which should also be placed outside Islam. It would be the same as quoting a Muslim source for Judaism or Christianity. The quote may be useful but the context is wrong and frankly disrespectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBlakeRoss ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Consider adding to "External Links" the largest Meaning of Life e-publication - www.ExcellenceReporter.com
This website -- #1 MOST 'MEANING FULL' WEBSITE ON EARTH -- contains over 1000 article-interviews on the Meaning of Life, written by renowned spiritual leaders, mindfulness experts, great thinkers, authors, elders, artists, musicians, CEOs, etc. Check out the ABOUT page: https://excellencereporter.com/about/
You may also consider adding as a separate SECTION in contents -- 1000+ Interviews on the Meaning of Life -- which contains all the contributors in alphabetical order. Here is the page: https://excellencereporter.com/exclusive-interviews-on-the-meaning-of-life/
Thank you for your consideration. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Kind regards, Nicolae
Founder at Excellence Reporter Veverita11 ( talk) 22:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Africans have no meaning of life like other advanced people. I just realized it after reading this article. Africa does not appear once. So the Masai and all those billions of people in Africa have no notable meaning of life. It never comes up. Again Africa is on the outside of higher philosophy. I wonder if the accusation of systemic racism applies here. Opps maybe I offended a liberal who can never be wrong. -- 169.0.4.21 ( talk) 16:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me. I think Indy beetle's article is a good start. Molefi Kete Asante's book - Encyclopedia of African Religion has info about the meaning of life in some traditional African religions and societies. On page 846 he addresses Serer religion and the Serer creation myth and the meaning of life among the Serer. On page 749 he also mentions meaning of life in Africa within the context of African proverbs and teachings especially among the Akan people. Also see page 403 for the Akan's Kwa Ba philosophy and page 648 for Akan's Nkwa (life) philosophy. The Jom philosophy among the Serer also addresses this topic as detailed here in Gravrand's paper L’HERITAGE SPIRITUEL SEREER : VALEUR TRADITIONNELLE D’HIER, D’AUJOURD’HUI ET DE DEMAIN available in Éthiopiques (a review site in French [11]). Hope that helps. I will try and find sources for the the meaning of life in Dogon and Jola societies. I think both will provide an interesting read. In other to understand the meaning of life within the African context, one must look at African ethnic groups who have managed to preserve the traditional beliefs of their ancestors intact and unsyncretised despite the advance of Christianity and Islam. In other words, one must look at what their traditional beliefs/spirituality says about this topic free from any syncretism. These are just some of the groups I know of who have managed to preserve their way of life. Tamsier ( talk) 13:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is 42
And what is said
But also 42 PercabethForMePlz ( talk) 11:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
This article could perhaps benefit from edits for clarity and punctuation. However, I myself know too little about the material to edit it without fear I might unwittingly damage the meaning being expressed. Pkanella ( talk) 21:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the meaning of life is to die. 173.244.134.168 ( talk) 14:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Theism section listed in the Western Philosophical Perspectives below 20th Century Philosophies should be nested elsewhere. Theism is not a 20th century philosophy, as it originally developed sometime BCE several thousand years priors to the 20th century. Theism is also not exclusively a Western philosophical perspective. As there is an entire section of this page devoted to Religious perspectives on the meaning of life, Theism does not necessarily need its own section; especially an entry that is only three sentences in length. If the sub-section is to remain I posit that it needs some expansion and should also be changed to read from :"Theists believe God created the universe and that God had a purpose in doing so. Theists also hold the view that humans find their meaning and purpose for life in God's purpose in creating. Theists further hold that if there were no God to give life ultimate meaning, value, and purpose, then life would be absurd." to "Theists believe a god created the universe and that a god had a purpose in doing so. Theists also hold the view that humans find their meaning and purpose for life in a god's purpose in creating. Theists further hold that if there were not a god to give life ultimate meaning, value, and purpose, then life would be absurd." This section is is not well sourced and is biased towards Judeo-Christian Theists in its current format, and should be made to read more inclusively of multiple theistic perspectives. Furthermore, it should have more citations added and be more developed to encompass the perspectives of multiple Theists, especially those views that truly did develop in the 20th century. Mystic Crewman ( talk) 23:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the start of the section on Religious perspectives there is a broken link to the Charter for Compassion. 77.37.103.143 ( talk) 21:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The text "the program was ruined by the unexpected arrival of the Golgafrinchans" links to /info/en/?search=Garbage_in,_garbage_out. Is that really intentional or is it a misdirect? Very Fantastic Dude ( talk) 13:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Life is boring, why do I have this life?. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 24#Life is boring, why do I have this life? until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
15:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 17 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Johnapp3.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 03:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The page currently contains a meaning of life/purpose of life by Donald Cameron from his book The Purpose of Life: Human Purpose and Morality from an Evolutionary Perspective [13]. Cameron's Evolutionary Value Principle (EVP) is stated as follows:
I have no idea how popular that is but it makes sense as something to fit under the head of "biological perfection", perhaps better than "live as long as possible" or the meaningless "live forever". It belongs to evolutionary ethics so maybe there are other sources to support the same or similar idea, and these could be added. The text linking to Cameron misleadingly stated "to evolve" (whatever that means), so I changed it to something that Cameron actually says. This is not the same as "to reproduce" since it is the gene copy maximization (technically allele maximization), and one's genes are in relatives, closer or distant, and can be maximized without one's direct reproduction. -- Dan Polansky ( talk) 09:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
We may not now be able to answer the question 'what is the meaning of life' but in the future a meaning may well become apparent. Civilised mankind has existed for a very short time. Planet earth could potentially continue to support life for billions of years. In that time it is impossible to conjecture what we may become and what we may come to understand. Therefore the purpose of our existence now is to do everything possible to make sure that the planet is nurtured, our civilisation is stable, and diverse life on earth is sustained. 46.208.100.250 ( talk) 10:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
The page currently contains a meaning of life/purpose of life by Donald Cameron from his book The Purpose of Life: Human Purpose and Morality from an Evolutionary Perspective [14]. Cameron's Evolutionary Value Principle (EVP) is stated as follows:
I have no idea how popular that is but it makes sense as something to fit under the head of "biological perfection", perhaps better than "live as long as possible" or the meaningless "live forever". It belongs to evolutionary ethics so maybe there are other sources to support the same or similar idea, and these could be added. The text linking to Cameron misleadingly stated "to evolve" (whatever that means), so I changed it to something that Cameron actually says. This is not the same as "to reproduce" since it is the gene copy maximization (technically allele maximization), and one's genes are in relatives, closer or distant, and can be maximized without one's direct reproduction. -- Dan Polansky ( talk) 09:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
We may not now be able to answer the question 'what is the meaning of life' but in the future a meaning may well become apparent. Civilised mankind has existed for a very short time. Planet earth could potentially continue to support life for billions of years. In that time it is impossible to conjecture what we may become and what we may come to understand. Therefore the purpose of our existence now is to do everything possible to make sure that the planet is nurtured, our civilisation is stable, and diverse life on earth is sustained. 46.208.100.250 ( talk) 10:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I added this item, tracing it to two sources. Specific quotations:
John Stewart created http://www.evolutionarymanifesto.com/; the pdf is also available from https://philpapers.org/archive/ESTTEM.pdf. There is a related Wikiversity course Wikiversity:Intentional Evolution.
Whether this is popular I do not know but there are at least two people above who apparently independently published similar ideas and a third person is the author of the Wikiversity course.
Some objections and reservations to the ideas are available in the comments section of the Guardian article. Multiple comments echo the objection that there is no direction in evolution, a position held by Stephen Jay Gould. An obvious objection to Stewart is that expansion beyond the solar system is impossible given current knowledge. An earlier Stewart's article is The Meaning of Life in a Developing Universe, web-archive.southampton.ac.uk. Dan Polansky ( talk) 08:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
The section title can be gleaned from the two sources mentioned above in #To help life become as powerful as possible.
To my mind, the above is a sheer wild fantasy, not even science-fiction; I have no idea what it means for a universe to produce another universe as long as causation is within a universe and we have never observed any other causation. And if we consider a universe to collapse and expand again, it is unclear how something within the universe could ever affect parameters of its physical laws. But it is there, in these sources. No petty goal indeed. I hesitate to add this to the page in the mainspace since it sounds so crazy, but there are other crazy items there such as to become immortal using scientific means. -- Dan Polansky ( talk) 11:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Just a reminder that "What is the meaning of life" is NOT "The Ultimate Question Of Life, the Universe and Everything", (to which the answer is "42"). The whole joke - and a critical plot element - is that the question is entirely unknown. Nowhere in the five books does it ever come close to saying what the actual question is. The mice simply make stuff up after Arthur escape, and once Arthur and Ford manage to actually get a read-out of the Earth computer program from Arthur's brain, the question is garbage because of the unexpected arrival the Golgafrinchams.
In my experience, the only people who ever say that "42" is the answer to the question "What is the meaning of life" is people who never actually read the book, watched the film, heard the radio theatre or in any other way partook of the forms that THHGTTG was ever published in.
So please... do not re-add The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy on this page because it is - simply - not relevant.
J-Star ( talk) 23:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Given that if you ask people on the street about Douglas Adams and "the meaning of life", you'll invariably get the answer "42" ("I don't know"). As a result, it's clear and obvious that in popular culture, "42" is an (absurdest) answer to the meaning of life. It doesn't really matter if that's what the books/plays/etc actually say. Yes, we get it that you're all smart and stuff because you know it's not actually written in the books that way, but that's not really relevant in this case. In this case, we're dealing with popular culture and not a literary critique of Adams' work. Saying "Adams didn't mean this" so we can't put it in a section about what people believe simply doesn't fly. Now, if you'd like to help out with this article, perhaps you can shorten the Adams' paragraph and add a bit about this not being what Adams actually wrote. Rklawton ( talk) 16:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, since people that seemingly never read the books are insisting on putting this section back... let's review the sources then:
First up, the book itself. [1] Does that say that "The Ultimate Question to Life, The Universe and Everything" — to which the answer is "Forty-two" — is "What is the meaning of life?". No it does not. In fact, the only mention of "the meaning of life" has even been removed compared to the radio theatre.
Radio theatre transcript: [2]
The book: [3]
And as I mentioned above: the whole joke to begin — in the radio theatre — is that people are expecting to get an answer to "What is the meaning of life?"... only to be completely disappointed because that is not the question.
This means that the primary source itself flatly contradicts that "Fourty-Two" is an answer to "What is the meaning of life?". This then means that all secondary sources have their work cut out for them. So... what about them?
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Meaning of Everything" is referenced. [4] The book is a Christian apologia. And when we turn to the preface (can be done on Amazon) pages 7 and 8 this source clearly says that we have an answer — 42 — without a question. Hence this source does not support the section being here.
Next up: "What's It All About?: Philosophy and the Meaning of Life" [5]. This one I don't have quotes of directly. However, this article [6] — that is reviewing the book — states that the author argues that "What's the meaning of life?" is a nonsensical question. It states: "That's why Douglas Adams' gag about the answer to the question of life, the universe and everything being 42 is so insightful. You can't expect to get a sensible answer unless you ask a sensible question". So this secondary source also does not seem to argue in favour of this section being in this wiki-article.
Finally, the last source, a tertiary one this time: "The Anthology At The End Of The Universe: Leading Science Fiction Authors On Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy". [7] This is an essay collection. Here I do not have any quotes at all.
So anyone that wants to keep this section in the article, I challenge with getting hold of this book, finding the page/chapter/essay in this book that tells us how that essay writer means that there is a connection between "The Meaning of Life" and "Forty-Two". J-Star ( talk) 19:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
When Douglas Adams wrote The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, he added a central joke which has become more famous over the years than the novel itself: "The answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything is 42." [10]
His books are well known. The joke is even more famous - sourced. Now, do you have a source that says it's NOT well known? Pointing to the primary source and saying "that's not what he meant" is irrelevant. What is relevant is the popular perception - and the popular perception is quite clear. Please go find something else to do with your time and stop making threats and wasting our time. Rklawton ( talk) 19:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
User:ScrapIronIV, your argument below is: "The Meaning of Life and Adams' answer of 42 have become intertwined over the years". Source that then. Otherwise your own argument — "Removal of the section is unsourced WP:OR, based on some personal definition of "truth."" — can be turned against you, because exchange "Removing" for "Keeping" and the exact same sentence is an argument against what you just said... that your your "personal definition of "truth"" is that these things are "intertwined". Source or it is WP:OR. J-Star ( talk) 22:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
So... User:J-Star would like to remove the section noting Douglas Adams' book for the reasons he has noted above. Those who support his recommendation should do so by signifying Support below. Those who do not should either Comment or Oppose as appropriate. Please briefly outline reasons as needed. Rklawton ( talk) 19:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
One can argue that philosophy encompasses metaphysics, thereby making direct mention of metaphysics redundant. One can also argue that replacing the concrete with the abstract is the hallmark of poor writing. "Philosophy" is way too big to get your mind around on the brisk orientation tour. — MaxEnt 18:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following to Popular Views
Ajinkyashukla29 ( talk) 14:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The course beings Someshsingh7 ( talk) 22:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Meaning of life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Meaning of life/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I assigned it to the stub class because while there is plenty of material here, it is a mess. Anarchia 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC) |
Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The meaning of life is to give your life meaning doing that task already gives your life meaning. You were given meaning when you were born at that moment your meaning was to be born and the rest of your life was the meaning of your life from the very beginning.- A 12 year old said this! Nikoli .P ( talk) 04:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please append to the list in 7.4:
To improve character traits and achieve spiritual perfection.
( Vilna Gaon on Proverbs 4:13) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BinyominZeev ( talk • contribs)
The final entry prior to today's edits in the "Popular Opinions" section heading "Life is Bad" was properly cited, and represents an actual, factual view on this topic. Deleting this item from the range of expressions about this topic negates an aspect that makes this page interesting and exciting to people. The book referenced is actually insightful and interesting, and provides a different perspective about existence that I have found fascinating. Please return that item to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Gadbois ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Could you add This verses (about the meaning of the life, especially for human being perspective ) to the article.
And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know."
2:31
And He taught Adam the names - all of them. Then He showed them to the angels and said, "Inform Me of the names of these, if you are truthful."
They said, "Exalted are You; we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Indeed, it is You who is the Knowing, the Wise."
2:33
He said, "O Adam, inform them of their names." And when he had informed them of their names, He said, "Did I not tell you that I know the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the earth? And I know what you reveal and what you have concealed."
2:34
And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate before Adam"; so they prostrated, except for Iblees. He refused and was arrogant and became of the disbelievers.
2:35
And We said, "O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat therefrom in [ease and] abundance from wherever you will. But do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers."
2:36
But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that [condition] in which they had been. And We said, "Go down, [all of you], as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time."
2:37
Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.175.62.102 ( talk) 09:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Meaning of life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This page is brilliant now -- one of the very best on Wikipedia. A great starting point for many philosophical and scientific adventures! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.71.25 ( talk) 14:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
This is regarding this batch of edits, which I partially reverted. My edit summary called this WP:OR, which was inaccurate. I apologize for that. Since the section is based on a single page from one book, two entries and a table seems like far too much weight. This is, as currently supported by the source, a single perspective. If additional (verified) sources which clearly indicate these difference are found, this could be readdressed.
I have no problem with the content itself, or with the source, and have restored it in the past as mentioned above. My concern is that this is over-stating the prominence of this perspective as reflected by RS.
From a formatting point of view, the table seems very distracting, and adds a great deal of prominence to this one otherwise fairly subtle point. Tables often create accessibility issues, also. The place to discuss that might be Talk:Antinatalism, though. Grayfell ( talk) 00:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've had this question for a while, but in reality there is no meaning in life. this section in particular "The meaning of life, or the answer to the question "What is the meaning of life?", pertains to the significance of living or existence in general" in reality just means the meaning of life consists of just existence, but in reality at the end of it all you die, therefore there will never be a meaning of life unless there is something beyond that. 94.72.200.8 ( talk) 20:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the popular answers section under "answers from religion" the Westminster shorter catechism is quoted incorrectly
"To glorify God by enjoying him forever." should be "To glorify God and enjoy him forever."
i.e. it should look like this: Meanings relating to religion
sources https://www.opc.org/sc.html http://www.shortercatechism.com/resources/wsc/wsc_001.html westminster shorter catechism in modern english, Kelley and Rollinson 1986. ISBN 978-0875525488 Beardosecrets ( talk) 17:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Meaning of life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Meaning of life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
"In Red vs. Blue season 1 episode 1 the character Simmons asks Grif the question "Why are we here?" and is a major line in the series."
Simmons actually asks "You ever wonder why we're here?", prompting Grif to agree that he's unsure of the meaning (or cause) of life, before Simmons clarifies that he meant "why are we out here, in this canyon?" The line is reoccurring, but as a running gag someone always misinterprets the question in the way that is relative to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98B:8203:A380:5146:5267:8AD8:8BEB ( talk) 19:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The meaning of life is that every one has a purpose 2600:8806:A400:4B40:6C6B:D11C:C402:7149 ( talk) 01:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
This is really beautiful now -- my favorite article on Wikipedia. I love it how people can search for the meaning of life on here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.48.39 ( talk) 14:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The last sentence in the Sufism paragraph of the Islamic section includes a link and reference to a Baha'i interpretation of a Hadith Qudsi. This is misinformation since there is a separate section on Baha'i below and Baha'i are considered heretical to Muslims and Muslim sufis for their central tenet and belief in a prophet after Mohammad. I would remove this reference and move it down to the Baha'i section which should also be placed outside Islam. It would be the same as quoting a Muslim source for Judaism or Christianity. The quote may be useful but the context is wrong and frankly disrespectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBlakeRoss ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Consider adding to "External Links" the largest Meaning of Life e-publication - www.ExcellenceReporter.com
This website -- #1 MOST 'MEANING FULL' WEBSITE ON EARTH -- contains over 1000 article-interviews on the Meaning of Life, written by renowned spiritual leaders, mindfulness experts, great thinkers, authors, elders, artists, musicians, CEOs, etc. Check out the ABOUT page: https://excellencereporter.com/about/
You may also consider adding as a separate SECTION in contents -- 1000+ Interviews on the Meaning of Life -- which contains all the contributors in alphabetical order. Here is the page: https://excellencereporter.com/exclusive-interviews-on-the-meaning-of-life/
Thank you for your consideration. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Kind regards, Nicolae
Founder at Excellence Reporter Veverita11 ( talk) 22:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Africans have no meaning of life like other advanced people. I just realized it after reading this article. Africa does not appear once. So the Masai and all those billions of people in Africa have no notable meaning of life. It never comes up. Again Africa is on the outside of higher philosophy. I wonder if the accusation of systemic racism applies here. Opps maybe I offended a liberal who can never be wrong. -- 169.0.4.21 ( talk) 16:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me. I think Indy beetle's article is a good start. Molefi Kete Asante's book - Encyclopedia of African Religion has info about the meaning of life in some traditional African religions and societies. On page 846 he addresses Serer religion and the Serer creation myth and the meaning of life among the Serer. On page 749 he also mentions meaning of life in Africa within the context of African proverbs and teachings especially among the Akan people. Also see page 403 for the Akan's Kwa Ba philosophy and page 648 for Akan's Nkwa (life) philosophy. The Jom philosophy among the Serer also addresses this topic as detailed here in Gravrand's paper L’HERITAGE SPIRITUEL SEREER : VALEUR TRADITIONNELLE D’HIER, D’AUJOURD’HUI ET DE DEMAIN available in Éthiopiques (a review site in French [11]). Hope that helps. I will try and find sources for the the meaning of life in Dogon and Jola societies. I think both will provide an interesting read. In other to understand the meaning of life within the African context, one must look at African ethnic groups who have managed to preserve the traditional beliefs of their ancestors intact and unsyncretised despite the advance of Christianity and Islam. In other words, one must look at what their traditional beliefs/spirituality says about this topic free from any syncretism. These are just some of the groups I know of who have managed to preserve their way of life. Tamsier ( talk) 13:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is 42
And what is said
But also 42 PercabethForMePlz ( talk) 11:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
This article could perhaps benefit from edits for clarity and punctuation. However, I myself know too little about the material to edit it without fear I might unwittingly damage the meaning being expressed. Pkanella ( talk) 21:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the meaning of life is to die. 173.244.134.168 ( talk) 14:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Theism section listed in the Western Philosophical Perspectives below 20th Century Philosophies should be nested elsewhere. Theism is not a 20th century philosophy, as it originally developed sometime BCE several thousand years priors to the 20th century. Theism is also not exclusively a Western philosophical perspective. As there is an entire section of this page devoted to Religious perspectives on the meaning of life, Theism does not necessarily need its own section; especially an entry that is only three sentences in length. If the sub-section is to remain I posit that it needs some expansion and should also be changed to read from :"Theists believe God created the universe and that God had a purpose in doing so. Theists also hold the view that humans find their meaning and purpose for life in God's purpose in creating. Theists further hold that if there were no God to give life ultimate meaning, value, and purpose, then life would be absurd." to "Theists believe a god created the universe and that a god had a purpose in doing so. Theists also hold the view that humans find their meaning and purpose for life in a god's purpose in creating. Theists further hold that if there were not a god to give life ultimate meaning, value, and purpose, then life would be absurd." This section is is not well sourced and is biased towards Judeo-Christian Theists in its current format, and should be made to read more inclusively of multiple theistic perspectives. Furthermore, it should have more citations added and be more developed to encompass the perspectives of multiple Theists, especially those views that truly did develop in the 20th century. Mystic Crewman ( talk) 23:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the start of the section on Religious perspectives there is a broken link to the Charter for Compassion. 77.37.103.143 ( talk) 21:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The text "the program was ruined by the unexpected arrival of the Golgafrinchans" links to /info/en/?search=Garbage_in,_garbage_out. Is that really intentional or is it a misdirect? Very Fantastic Dude ( talk) 13:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Life is boring, why do I have this life?. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 24#Life is boring, why do I have this life? until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
15:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 17 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Johnapp3.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 03:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The page currently contains a meaning of life/purpose of life by Donald Cameron from his book The Purpose of Life: Human Purpose and Morality from an Evolutionary Perspective [13]. Cameron's Evolutionary Value Principle (EVP) is stated as follows:
I have no idea how popular that is but it makes sense as something to fit under the head of "biological perfection", perhaps better than "live as long as possible" or the meaningless "live forever". It belongs to evolutionary ethics so maybe there are other sources to support the same or similar idea, and these could be added. The text linking to Cameron misleadingly stated "to evolve" (whatever that means), so I changed it to something that Cameron actually says. This is not the same as "to reproduce" since it is the gene copy maximization (technically allele maximization), and one's genes are in relatives, closer or distant, and can be maximized without one's direct reproduction. -- Dan Polansky ( talk) 09:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
We may not now be able to answer the question 'what is the meaning of life' but in the future a meaning may well become apparent. Civilised mankind has existed for a very short time. Planet earth could potentially continue to support life for billions of years. In that time it is impossible to conjecture what we may become and what we may come to understand. Therefore the purpose of our existence now is to do everything possible to make sure that the planet is nurtured, our civilisation is stable, and diverse life on earth is sustained. 46.208.100.250 ( talk) 10:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
The page currently contains a meaning of life/purpose of life by Donald Cameron from his book The Purpose of Life: Human Purpose and Morality from an Evolutionary Perspective [14]. Cameron's Evolutionary Value Principle (EVP) is stated as follows:
I have no idea how popular that is but it makes sense as something to fit under the head of "biological perfection", perhaps better than "live as long as possible" or the meaningless "live forever". It belongs to evolutionary ethics so maybe there are other sources to support the same or similar idea, and these could be added. The text linking to Cameron misleadingly stated "to evolve" (whatever that means), so I changed it to something that Cameron actually says. This is not the same as "to reproduce" since it is the gene copy maximization (technically allele maximization), and one's genes are in relatives, closer or distant, and can be maximized without one's direct reproduction. -- Dan Polansky ( talk) 09:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
We may not now be able to answer the question 'what is the meaning of life' but in the future a meaning may well become apparent. Civilised mankind has existed for a very short time. Planet earth could potentially continue to support life for billions of years. In that time it is impossible to conjecture what we may become and what we may come to understand. Therefore the purpose of our existence now is to do everything possible to make sure that the planet is nurtured, our civilisation is stable, and diverse life on earth is sustained. 46.208.100.250 ( talk) 10:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I added this item, tracing it to two sources. Specific quotations:
John Stewart created http://www.evolutionarymanifesto.com/; the pdf is also available from https://philpapers.org/archive/ESTTEM.pdf. There is a related Wikiversity course Wikiversity:Intentional Evolution.
Whether this is popular I do not know but there are at least two people above who apparently independently published similar ideas and a third person is the author of the Wikiversity course.
Some objections and reservations to the ideas are available in the comments section of the Guardian article. Multiple comments echo the objection that there is no direction in evolution, a position held by Stephen Jay Gould. An obvious objection to Stewart is that expansion beyond the solar system is impossible given current knowledge. An earlier Stewart's article is The Meaning of Life in a Developing Universe, web-archive.southampton.ac.uk. Dan Polansky ( talk) 08:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
The section title can be gleaned from the two sources mentioned above in #To help life become as powerful as possible.
To my mind, the above is a sheer wild fantasy, not even science-fiction; I have no idea what it means for a universe to produce another universe as long as causation is within a universe and we have never observed any other causation. And if we consider a universe to collapse and expand again, it is unclear how something within the universe could ever affect parameters of its physical laws. But it is there, in these sources. No petty goal indeed. I hesitate to add this to the page in the mainspace since it sounds so crazy, but there are other crazy items there such as to become immortal using scientific means. -- Dan Polansky ( talk) 11:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)