Here are a bunch of folks discussing whether or not the universe has a purpose. I'm too busy to read it all right now, but I thought my readers might find it of interest. Without reading it, I was a little surprised that the "maybes" and "yeses" outnumbered the "no ways" or "unlikelies." I think it does, but I recognize that it's a (non-theistic, in my case) religious belief.

[Via the Derb]

I see the question as ill-defined. First, what does it mean for the universe to have a purpose? Can you see a difference between a purposeless and a purposeful universe. Does one just look or feel better? Even if there is a difference, we'll never know, because we can only live in one of them. You can't compare.

Second, we need to consider the mechanism of how purpose is assigned. Last I checked, it was just an arbitrary decision. Some goal is assigned by a thinking being. Given that assignation is an important part of the process, I see no reason to claim that purpose is in any way absolute. Different beings seem naturally to come up with different goals. Further, these goals can change over time. It seems fruitless to assign any sort of absoluteness when a whim can change the purpose.

For example, consider the purpose of a hammer. Here we're on firm grounds. A hammer is for pounding things like nails. It might have other features (like a claw end) that allow to perform other tasks. But hammers can perform other tasks as well. It can be a paperweight for example. I've pulled out a hammer precisely for the purpose of holding down a picnic table cloth in a windy day. At that time, that was its purpose.

Further, with some effort, I'm sure we can find examples of hammers (say those used in art exhibits) that were bought and used for tasks completely unrelated to hammering.

Finally, hammers can be discarded. Even then, it contains iron and carbon that are useful to growing plants.

I suppose one could say that hammers were made to be used. But I'm sure that most hammer manufacturers make hammers because they get paid for them not because they intend the product to be used.

Alternately, one could say that the purpose of the universe is something common to all assigned purposes in the universe. I suppose it could be the enabling of assigning purpose to the universe or something similar. This strikes me as rather weak. I haven't fully read through all of the Templeton crew, but I bet one of them has assigned a purpose to the universe. In other words, we have the existence of at least one purpose, implying the union of all purposes. So mission accomplished, right?

I do see a bit of mental gymnastics here. For example, Owen Gingerich professes first thing that he's psychologically incapable of believing the universe doesn't have a purpose. But he doesn't actually assign a purpose to the universe himself. While he professes a belief in God, he doesn't claim that that being assigns purpose to the universe either. Finally, he notes that he choses to believe the universe has purpose, a neat trick for someone who has already claimed that he couldn't do so in his first sentence.

I suppose I see this as some sort of high intellectual equivalent of the carnival. The carnies come in and astound us with their clever ideas and speculation, juggling sometimes contradictory thoughts at the same time, slick shell games, and all the other fun we've come to expect. But better check your wallet when you leave.

Hmmm, my mistake, I thought they asked these people more than one question (that these people were answering more than one "big question"). I really don't know what you call a one time carnival. A guest show?

It's late (04:08) and I should be doing other stuff so I haven't read the article/opinions. Apologies if I'm repeating an argument already made.

Karl Hallowell wrote:
"First, what does it mean for the universe to have a purpose?"

The way I see it as an absolute minimum the universe gained a purpose the moment interacting self-aware intelligence emerged. And if nothing else (but by no means does it need to be exclusive) the universal purpose for the universe is at that point, retroactively as well as into the future*, to exist for such a thing to happen/happening/having happened.

* unless the universe by itself has some form of self-awareness and has such an awareness bound by our notion of time the distinction between past, present, and future is meaningless.

More simply put the universe --at least a universe "configured" in the way ours is with physics curiously* supportive of the eventual creation of such entities-- is its own purpose simply by existing.

* from our perspective and naturally so since any universes of the non-supportive kind would be unlikely to harbour entities such as ourselves.

Humans might be the first such instance or we might not be, likewise singular, part of a multitude, or last. We have no generally acceptable specifics on that at the time being and it is irrelevant as long as at least we exist.

Karl Hallowell wrote:
"Second, we need to consider the mechanism of how purpose is assigned. Last I checked, it was just an arbitrary decision. Some goal is assigned by a thinking being."

Exactly, and so while one cannot assume any purpose without a "thinking being" there will automagically be some form of purpose if you have at least one "thinking being". Why? Because such an entity (with the earlier disclaimer about the universe itself) could not exist without the universe to the best of our current knowledge. As far as purposes go nothing gets bigger than that from the perspective of such an entity.

There might be ways for intelligent entities to emerge and/or exist independent of the universe but we don't know and it is completely irrelevant to the question about the universe having a purpose as long as we know of at least one intelligent entity that does depend on the universe for its existence.

If you think about what simulations and artificial habitats are created on Earth for, it seems reasonable that the universe if it has a purpose is either a research project, an environmental project or entertainment.

We have pets to enjoy and have a human-animal relationship with. My kids and I enjoy simulation-type games (Sim City, Roller Coaster Tycoon) because we get to create an artificial world and interact with it. I guess both these fit into the "entertainment" category, but the interacting nature is a particular type of entertainment.

I once heard a comment that there are two basic categories of entertainment--things you do (sports, games) or things you experience (books, movies, bards, a nice vies).

I also heard that there are two types of people in the world: those that divide the world into two types of people and those who don't. But I digress.

Having now read all the answers at the link I'm severly unimpressed.

There are actually 10 types of people. Those who know binary and those who don't.

The answer is 42. We don't understand the question.

I, like Habitat Hermit, am unimpressed by the answers at the link. I think Habitat Hermit's answer is superior to all of them. The size and nature of a purpose don't matter; that's all just opinion anyway. What matters is to have a purpose and pursue it, hopefully with some effectiveness.

As long as one being anywhere creates a purpose, the universe has at least that purpose.

BTW, there is little significance to the search for meaning. Humans don't so much search for meaning as create it, compulsively, non-stop, out of control. We can't stop creating meaning in everything we see, hear, etc. We see patterns in pure random noise. Meaning creation is a result of our built-in pattern-recognition survival-driven mechanism and has, itself, as much meaning as a sneeze.

Life is empty and meaningless, and it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless. Until we show up, that is.

The purpose of the universe is to propagate its physical laws to other universes.

If we ever learn to travel across some kind of inter-universe boundary, we could prove to be the vector for the contagion.