Talk:Meaning of life/Archive 4

"The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy" does not belong here
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)


 * The key to your statement is when you say "In my experience..." Sourced content has been restored, the removal of which is your original research  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No, that is not the "key to my statement", that was a comment. The key to my statement is that the "The Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe and Everything" is not "What is the meaning of life". The source of this is the root material itself (the books, radio play, TV series, and movie), which were referenced in the section. So you can say "it's sourced" as much as you want but the sources to which you are referring do not support this section being in the article "Meaning of life".


 * In short: WP:REL. Don't say "it's sourced" when you haven't actually read the sources and thus failed to verify that the sources contain information relevant to the article.


 * J-Star (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Nobody, anywhere, said the "question" itself is verbatim, "What is the meaning of life?"
 * The association between them is clear, however, and the sourcing is adequate. You have your own special interpretation, but it was put here for a reason (and not by me) - so its removal of your personal beliefs and personal "experience" is clearly against consensus.  Start an RfC, or something - but cease removal of sourced information. In the meantime, per WP:BRD it stays at the status quo until you find a new consensus.  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "The association between them is clear, however". If this is your argument then it is up to you to show that such is the case and that the sources support that statement. The books clearly do not support it, which means that the one that is pulling a WP:SYNTH is you in that you think you see this association. You cannot say that I am the one doing a SYNTH for pointing out that that question is not "what is the meaning of life" in the HHGTTG trilogy.


 * The closest we get to that is that the "Cheerleader" in the radio theatre assumes this is the question that will be answered.
 * Transcript: http://www.clivebanks.co.uk/THHGTTG/THHGTTGradio4.htm


 * ''O people who wait in the shadow of Deep Thought… Honoured descendents of Vroomfondel and Majikthise, the greatest and most truly interesting pundits the universe has ever known… the time of waiting is over!

''
 * Seven-and-a-half million years our race has waited for this great and hopefully enlightening day. The day of The Answer!


 * Never… never again will we wake up in the morning and think, "Who am I?". "What is my purpose in life?". "Does it really, cosmically speaking, matter if I don’t get up and go to work?"


 * ''For today we will finally learn, once and for all, the plain and simple answer to all these nagging little problems of Life, the Universe, and Everything!

''
 * ''From today, we can enjoy a game of Brockian Ultra Cricket in the firm and comfortable knowledge that the meaning of life is now well and truly sorted out!

''
 * The joke is - of course - that this is exactly what not happens. That question is not the one that gets sorted out because the answer is "Fourty-two" and so they need to build another computer - the Earth - to figure out what the actual question is. If the question had been "What is the meaning of life?" - or anything remotely close to it - then the whole plotline would have ended right there.


 * So if you want to avoid a WP:SYNTH when you claim that "Fourty Two" is in any way connected to "The Meaning of life", the onus is on you.


 * Good luck Sir...


 * J-Star (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Since the person that objected to removing the section has provided no further argument as to why the section is not a blatant WP:SYNTH, I regard the matter as settled. J-Star (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In addition to the original Adams text, the disputed text was also sourced to Baggini's What's It All About?, Badke's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Meaning of Everything and Yeffeth's The Anthology at the End of the Universe: Leading Science Fiction Authors on Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which presumably put the whole thing in context. Poking around for sources, here is Baggini presumably saying the same thing as in his book, that "42" is a good joke about the difficulty of phrasing the meaning of life. --McGeddon (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article specifically points out that "The Ultimate Question" is not "What is the meaning of life?". It makes the point that "What is the meaning of life?" is pointless question, and that "The Ultimate Question" must be something else.J-Star (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2016 (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)


 * "Given that if you ask people on the street...". If that isn't WP:SYNTH I don't know what is. "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." Why would we want to have a section saying something to the effect of "Douglas Adams has in his book(s) something that is not related to 'The meaning of life', but people in general seem to believe he does"?J-Star (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "... people on the street..." Is not synth. It's not even close to synth. It's original research. But it illustrates the point. And the answer to your question is that it's commonly believed that this is what Adams wrote, and that's a fact validated by reliable sources. We also have a lot of religious stuff in here that one could argue also has no basis in reality - and yet it belongs here because we have reliable sources indicating that this is what some people believe. Rklawton (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Then show us these "reliable sources". A Google Search is not that. One essay in one anthology — an essay that discusses around "forty-two" and possible questions — is not a "reliable source" that says "it is commonly believed". And I must point out again that if this is your only way to link "forty-two" to "the meaning of life", then you need to bring that information in as well; that it is a commonly held misconception of Adams's work that "forty-two" is an answer to "what is the meaning of life".


 * "Forty-two" — in the context of The Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy — has quite an extensive section on its own. Why do you think it so important to keep it in this article as well?J-Star (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine, let's look at the sources then
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. 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:

The book:

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. 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". This one I don't have quotes of directly. However, this article  — 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". 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)


 * See also WP:OWN. You're violating it. Persist, and you'll be discussing your approach to editing on WP:ani. Rklawton (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Very well then... if there are no further comments in two weeks — especially comments that verify that the essay collection actually support the section being here — then that section is gone.


 * So what kind of argument do you have to this staunchly restore the section?J-Star (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Mine? That except for you the consensus is to keep it. Rklawton (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You mean because two people insist on putting the section back without any other argument than "there are sources" — one of which I have already discussed with and that exited the discussion without providing any further arguments in over two weeks — then the section must be kept?


 * I am sorry but I am very confused now. I just pointed out that the primary source do not support the section, and 2 or 3 of the secondary sources do not support it. The last one may possibly say something slightly different about it, but no-one has read that source and said "Yeah, it does". If this is not enough to remove a section that is most likely wrong from a Wikipedia page, what does it then take? J-Star (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It takes consensus, and you do not have it. Next, if you do not remove your threat to unilaterally remove the section, I'm going to bring up your behavior for comment on ANI. Your reliance on primary sources is entirely inappropriate. It doesn't matter what the book says. What matters is popular culture - the heading for this section. As a foreigner, you may not be familiar with popular culture in English speaking countries, but a quick Google query shows the prevalence of this idea. To wit: Rklawton (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for being confused once again but I thought the key element of Wikipedia was sourcing, not a popular vote or threatening people to throw them to the administrators. Did I get that wrong? In any case I have removed the text which you asked for to be removed, but let it be noted that I think it is bad form to threaten with administrative action like that, and the condescending remarks about me being a "foreigner" does little to help the mood here. I will let you know if I have any problem of connecting to "popular culture in English speaking countries". Oh... and for the record:


 * You say "What matters is popular culture", and then give me link to a Google Search. I am sorry but is a Google Search really a Wikipedia-credible source?! But in any case, I humour you and quickly find that some links even on the first page do not even contain the word "meaning". And some of them flatly contradict the statement, for instance: "Ahem. Strictly speaking, 42 is NOT the meaning of life. Rather, it is the answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything".


 * So you have primary source — a piece of popular culture, i.e. the Hitch Hiker's Guide books (and films and radio theatre and more) — which explicitly state that "Forty-Two" is not an answer to "What is the meaning of life". And then you try to point me to popular culture about this piece of popular culture, with abysmal results. I am not in the least convinced by this.


 * So I would argue that — yes — "Forty-Two" as "the answer" is a famous piece of popular culture and deserves to be mentioned on Wikipedia. And so duly happens... on another Wikipedia page. But it does not belong here — on the page "Meaning of Life" — because the whole joke is that Meaning of Life does not get resolved by the Deep Thought computer. If you want to make some kind of mention that people — through word of mouth and misunderstanding Adams's work and sloppy references to Adams's work in other popular media — sometimes mistake "What is The Meaning of Life?" for "The Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe and Everything", then good luck in formulating that section. J-Star (talk) 00:39, 3 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.'" 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)
 * He made a joke and it is well known, yes. If you want to make the point about the joke the joke being well known then there is a page for that. But it does not belong on the page Meaning of Life.


 * Also I made no threats... you did. I quote: "Persist, and you'll be discussing your approach to editing on WP:ani". J-Star (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You threatened to unilaterally remove the section in the article unless we didn't meet your demands. That's a threat. And, as I pointed out, it violates WP:OWN. To wit, you do not own this article, you do not get to dictate what does or does not go in it. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and you do not have that. Rklawton (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not call it a threat to say that I will take a justified action but I see your point well enough. J-Star (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Badke's book does contain that sentence on page 6, yes. It then goes on — on page 6, 7 and 8 — to conclude that the question is unknown. So this source also does not "take "Ultimate Question Of Life, the Universe and Everything" as a simple synonym for "Question of the Meaning of Life"".


 * Baggini does have that particular sentence on page 3, yes, and then — on page 4 — says "Now they have the answer, they don't understand it because they don't know what it is an answer to. Asking the right questions is as important as giving the right answers". So this source also does not "take "Ultimate Question Of Life, the Universe and Everything" as a simple synonym for "Question of the Meaning of Life"".


 * Finally "The Anthology At The End Of The Universe". Adam Roberts uses the sentence "Meaning of life" a lot in the essay "42". Apart from that it gets one more mention, there the author says "...the Earth is actually a computer built to resolve help the meaning of life.". So not only do they not even mention "fourty-two", they even get it wrong.


 * So essentially you are saying that are left with is to try to argue that Adam Robert's essay "42" is enough to include this section. Does that hold? J-Star (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument I'm making (and it is my own) is that in popular culture, "the meaning of life" and "42" go together. Your point is that it shouldn't. However, your point is irrelevant. In popular culture these go together, therefore we should acknowledge it here. I even provided a source that quite clearly said that this little joke of Adams' is even more popular than his books. If you'd like to educate the English speaking public as to why this shouldn't be so, then please do so - but do it somewhere else. Rklawton (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Then show me the sources for that argument. The particular piece of popular culture we are talking about — i.e. Adams's work — do not say that. So you are talking about popular culture about another piece of popular culture that we know get it wrong. Badke does not say it. Baggini does not say it. And in the anthology there is one essay that discusses the subject. I would not call that as having such a massive impact on popular culture that it makes it warranted to keep a section in Wikipedia that claims a primary source says something that it clearly does not. J-Star (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction: ...that it makes it warranted to keep a section on a particular Wikipedia page, that mentions a piece of popular culture that does not actually deal with the subject of the Wikipedia page at all.J-Star (talk) 01:24, 3 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)

Consensus
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)
 * Oppose - J-Star's arguments rely on the notion that Adams didn't mean what people think he meant. However, that is beside the point. The justification for inclusion in this article is that a great many people equate the number 42 with "the meaning of life" (and that information is sourced above). As a result, this article should include a brief paragraph explaining this phenomenon in the article's "Popular Culture" section. Rklawton (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - The primary source and the secondary sources say that "The Ultimate Question Of Life, The Universe and Everything" — to which the answer is "Forty-Two" — is unknown, and thus is not defined as "What is the meaning of life" or anything near it. The only supportive argument so far has been "This is what people seem to think anyway". However... since any claim that is of the sort "That is what people think he meant" is either a WP:SYNTH or something that needs a source... and then with the explanation that they have actually got it wrong. And since none of the sources that have been given so far even comes close to saying something to the effect of "A great many people think that is what Adams meant", then the section needs to go. J-Star (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Badke's book describes Hitchhikers as a "romp through space in search of the meaning of life" and compares Deep Thought's time-wasting and nonsensical "42" to people's own searches for the meaning of life; Baggini writes about "a race of beings fed up with bickering over the meaning of life decide to build a supercomputer to provide them with the answer" as part of a book about the meaning of life; The Anthology at the End of the Universe is searchable on Google Books and mentions the meaning of life a lot in relation to 42. All three sources seem happy to take "Ultimate Question Of Life, the Universe and Everything" as a simple synonym for "Question of the Meaning of Life". These sources seems enough to clarify that Adams was making a joke about the meaning of life. If we've got some counter-examples which suggest that he was actually making a joke about something else, by all means wheel them out. --McGeddon (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The Meaning of Life and Adams' answer of 42 have become intertwined over the years; despite the "question" in the original works not being written precisely as "What is the meaning of life?" Removal of the section is unsourced WP:OR, based on some personal definition of "truth." Removal is unwarranted.  Scr ★ pIron IV 13:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

on adding "metaphysical" to the lead litany
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. &mdash; MaxEnt 18:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2016
Please add the following to Popular Views

Life is too exuberant that it does not need a meaning

 * Have you ever noticed that whenever you feel certain level of pleasantness within you, the need to have a meaning of life subsides.
 * This question becomes more significant when there is a certain level of unpleasantness within you.
 * If you were very blissful and ecstatic at this moment, would you think, “What is the purpose of life?” – No. Only when in some way, life has become burdensome, these questions arise: “To be or not to be?” “Is there a good enough purpose for me to exist?” (Sadhguru)

Ajinkyashukla29 (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the "have you ever noticed" tone is inappropriate for a Wikipedia entry, and a blog is not a reliable source. --McGeddon (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2016
The course beings

Someshsingh7 (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. GABHello! 22:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 one 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070926154148/http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/2001/tapio%2001.pdf to http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/2001/tapio%2001.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081013130816/http://www.astrobio.net/news/article226 to http://www.astrobio.net/news/article226
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081101024755/http://www2.una.edu:80/pdavis/BI%20101/Overview%20Fall%202004.htm to http://www2.una.edu/pdavis/BI%20101/Overview%20Fall%202004.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051218171922/http://www.mindcontrolforums.com:80/news/electromagnetic-field-theory-of-consciousness.htm to http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/news/electromagnetic-field-theory-of-consciousness.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927223410/http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances5/6_Criticism_in_Experimental.html to http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances5/6_Criticism_in_Experimental.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070809103515/http://www.americanhumanist.org:80/3/HumandItsAspirations.php to http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100209062632/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/News-Feed/europe/The-new-Seven-Wonders-of-the-World/235431/Article1-235487.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/europe/The-new-Seven-Wonders-of-the-World/235431/Article1-235487.aspx
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110525061446/http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9901/ET05-2795.html to http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9901/ET05-2795.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070811185026/http://www.pub.umich.edu:80/daily/1999/sep/09-22-99/edit/edit2.html to http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1999/sep/09-22-99/edit/edit2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The True Meaning
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)

Semi protected edit
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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Life is Bad - Popular Opinions
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)


 * This is in relation to This from Dinosaur Comics from June 22. The entry does seem like a valid take on "the meaning of life" so should be debated on its own merits. Since the reference is a book titled "Better never to have been : the harm of coming into existence", written by philosopher David Benatar and published by Oxford University Press, it appears to be well supported by a reliable source. I hope the Department of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town are doing well; I worry sometimes. Grayfell (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Islam section could be rewritten according to Quran verses
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810173433/https://www.parapsych.org/papers/07.pdf to http://www.parapsych.org/papers/07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Great page
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)

Antinatalism
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)


 * I partially agree although the popular views section of this article is hugely weighted to the positive views. This requires more balance, in my opinion, hence my edits. Antinatalism clearly has a place in this article as it argues for not starting lives, linking directly to the meaning of life'. Pipkin2.0 (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2017
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)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 21:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2017
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


 * [He] [God] who created death and life to test you [as to] who is best in deed and He is Exalted in Might, the Forgiving. (Quran 67:2)
 * To worship God and enter heaven in afterlife.[197]
 * To reach the highest heaven and be at the heart of the Divine.[198]
 * To have a pure soul and experience God.[154]
 * To understand the mystery of God.[160]
 * To know or attain union with God.[199][200]
 * To know oneself, know others, and know the will of heaven.[201]
 * To love something bigger, greater, and beyond ourselves, something we did not create or have the power to create, something intangible and made holy by our very belief in it.[152]
 * To love God[199] and all of his creations.[202]
 * To glorify God and enjoy him forever.[105][203]
 * To spread your religion and share it with others.[204] (Matthew 28:18-20)
 * To act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.[205]
 * To be fruitful and multiply.[206] (Genesis 1:28)
 * To obtain freedom. (Romans 8:20-21)
 * To fill the Earth and subdue it.[206] (Genesis 1:28)
 * To serve humankind,[207] to prepare to meet [208] and become more like God,[209][210][211][212] to choose good over evil,[213] and have joy.[214][215]

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)


 * Yes check.svg Done The quotation is correct and should not be changed; it is John Piper's phrase (see also Christian hedonism) as correctly attributed in one of the two references. The mistake was that a reference to the Westminster Shorter Catechism was also inserted, which I have removed. The Catechism is quoted elsewhere in the article, in . Thanks for pointing this out. Biogeographist (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070730070437/http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html to http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114144956/http://www.solstice.us/russell/science-ethics.html to http://www.solstice.us/russell/science-ethics.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809102124/http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html to http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Correction to "In popular culture" quote
''"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)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018
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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Beautiful article
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)

Baha'i is not sufism
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2019
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)


 * ❌, as grossly promotional. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Article needs African perspectives
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)
 * If you have a reliable source (WP:RS) that discusses the meaning of life among African people, then please add it to the article, it would be a welcome addition. I don't believe the omission of Africa is intentional and does not imply that people in Africa have no notable meaning of life. Wikipedia relies on reliable published sources and if there is no information on Africa in this article it means that it is not referenced in the sources. Hopefully there are some books or scholarly articles that deal with this issue. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would it offend a person who is willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; someone open to new ideas? Is that a typo or something? You did indeed say the word "liberal"... did you mean something else? A liberal is someone who would welcome additional material relating to what you have said because it would broaden the perspective of the article.--92.238.227.68 (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For more information on African meanings of life, see African philosophy. Perhaps some of the editors of African philosophy—such as, , , , and —can help fill in the African gap on this page? I also left a message about this at . Biogeographist (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have access, but this journal article "Meaning in life within an African context: a mixed method study" might be of limited use. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a nice little article! If you search for the title of it on Google Scholar you'll find an author-hosted copy of it. It's very short but does point to some of the important African ideas that should be included in this article, such as ubuntu and batho pele. Google Scholar also shows that some interesting sources have cited that article, including an article published in Metaphilosophy titled "Is philosophy all about the meaning of life?" Biogeographist (talk) 03:14, 30 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 ). 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)
 * Campbell Shittu Momoh's book The Substance of African Philosophy (1989) provides some info about the Dogon perspective, but it is in snippets and I can't read it in full. I will buy the book for my own collection (if available) or borrow it from my library. In the meantime, if anyone has it, please share.Tamsier (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

42
It is 42

And what is said

But also 42 PercabethForMePlz (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Douglas Adams' writing is already mentioned in the article. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 22 August 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019
the meaning of life is to die. 173.244.134.168 (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As to that, the one who would know is God. But she uses original research, and unfortunately on Wikipedia we have to use reliable secondary sources. ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020 regarding the Theism sub-section of 20th Century Philosphy nested beneath Western Philosophical Perspectives
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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoingBatty (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020
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)
 * Yes check.svg Done Danski454 (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible wrong link?
The text "the program was ruined by the unexpected arrival of the Golgafrinchans" links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out. Is that really intentional or is it a misdirect? Very Fantastic Dude (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks intentional to me. Biogeographist (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

"Life is boring, why do I have this life?" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Life is boring, why do I have this life?. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 24 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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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)

Donald Cameron and evolutionary ethics
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. Cameron's Evolutionary Value Principle (EVP) is stated as follows:
 * The correct set of values in any evolved being is the one which will give its holder's genes the maximum advantage in terms of natural selection.

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)

Sustaining mankind's future.
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)

Donald Cameron and evolutionary ethics
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. Cameron's Evolutionary Value Principle (EVP) is stated as follows:
 * The correct set of values in any evolved being is the one which will give its holder's genes the maximum advantage in terms of natural selection.

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)

Sustaining mankind's future.
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)

To help life become as powerful as possible
I added this item, tracing it to two sources. Specific quotations:
 * David Hockey (2004). Developing A Universal Religion
 * "Given that there is no detectable purpose pre-designed into life or the universe, then, if we must have one, we must adopt a surrogate. To my mind, the only viable option is to support life’s continual evolution and focus upon helping it to achieve an omnipotent ability. Such a purpose is universal and rational; it is a purpose that will last as long as life itself lasts. It accommodates the whole of life, and shows that we care about more than just our own well-being. It declares that we value life for its own sake and think little about the death that must follow, taking it simply as the price to be paid for living."
 * Making life "omnipotent" is impossible so I read it as "as powerful as possible".
 * Is this the meaning of life? by John Stewart, 2010, guardian.com
 * "Extrapolating the trajectory further would see the continued expansion of the scale of cooperative organisation out into the solar system and beyond. [...] If the trajectory continued in this way, the scale of cooperative organisation would expand throughout the universe, comprised of living processes and intelligence from multiple origins. As it increased in intelligence and scale, its command over matter, energy and other resources would also expand, as would its power to achieve whatever objectives it chose."

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 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)
 * I removed the reference to 's book, which is self-published (WP:SPS) by an author who does not appear to be otherwise notable by Wikipedia standards. We would need a reliable independent secondary source to establish that his views are more worth including than any other David who has used the Internet to self-publish musings about the meaning of life. Biogeographist (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * David Hockey's book has ISBN and is on Amazon. The paper book is self-published by "Stephenson-Hockey Publishing", but does it make a difference? To answer myself, a self-published paper book seems not much better than a web page, per your quoted WP:SPS: "That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources." --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct, and that's the only book published by "Stephenson-Hockey Publishing". Case closed, I think! Biogeographist (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

To help life produce another fine-tuned universe
The section title can be gleaned from the two sources mentioned above in. 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)
 * David Hockey (2004). Developing A Universal Religion
 * "Surely, as the sole and complete repository of all that is to be learned from within the universe, oB [omnipotent Being arising through evolution of life] wouldn’t just wither and expire. I find that very hard to imagine. But, there might be one last endeavour that it might undertake, some deed that would represent a fitting end for a being of such capability. Conceivably, oB could perhaps arrange matters so that the universe would rebound and restart, creating a new one from the old. Such a scenario might just be possible. Knowing all there is to know might point to a way that this could be done. A complete fantasy to us, yes, but to it? We do not know enough to judge.
 * "The additional challenge for oB then, would be to see if it could somehow improve upon the past universe, perhaps slightly modifying one or more parameters, so making it possible for life in the subsequent universe to develop in new ways.
 * "This, to me, is a very attractive thought. It opens the possibility of life being truly without end. In this fantasy, life effectively hibernates at the end of each universe, its existence to be reconstructed in the next. Each successive universe is given its initiating parameters in the final act of the oB of the universe past. In this way, we might have an endless, continually varying succession of life-bearing universes. Reincarnations without end.
 * Is this the meaning of life? by John Stewart, 2010, guardian.com
 * "What might organised life and intelligence do with this increasing power? One possible answer was developed as an attempt to solve the "fine-tuning problem" – the enigma of why the fundamental laws and parameters of the universe seem to be fine-tuned to support the emergence of life, with even slight changes leading to a universe in which life is unlikely to emerge. Supposing the trajectory of evolution eventually produces life and intelligence with sufficient power and knowledge to reproduce the universe itself? This intelligent universe would fine-tune "offspring" universes so that they are even more conducive to the emergence and development of life and intelligence. And so on.
 * "According to this scenario, our universe itself is embedded in larger evolutionary processes that shape universes. And life (including humanity) has a function and purpose within these larger processes in the same sense that our eyes have a purpose within the evolutionary processes that have shaped humanity.
 * As I mentioned in the previous section above, 's book is self-published (WP:SPS) and therefore is not a suitable source.
 * I would note that this topic ("To help life produce another fine-tuned universe") and the previous one that you mentioned above ("To help life become as powerful as possible") are both teleological. I see that someone perceptively included Teleology among the "See also" links in the Fine-tuned universe article (it's also mentioned in the "Religious apologetics" section of that article). Teleology and Ultimate fate of the universe are both also linked in the "See also" section of this article. By the way, teleology is more related to the sense of "meaning of life" as "purpose" rather than as "significance". (On this distinction, see, e.g.: )
 * This stuff reminds me of some of the wild speculations of the technological singularity community. Biogeographist (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Purpose of life redirects to Meaning of life and the two terms seem to be often used interchangeably, although the implied metaphorical meanings seem to be slightly different. I understand the implied meaning of "purpose of life" (what is it for?), whereas I am not all that confident about meaning (what does it mean, right, but I am not sure what the word "means" means there.) Technological singularity seems pretty wild and implausible to me as well, not least since Moore's law is running out of steam and improvements of chip technology are limited by atomic level and cannot exponentially grow for a whimsically chosen period of future, but producing and fine-tuning a new universe is on a whole different level of "wild". --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be clear, I didn't mean to imply that it didn't belong in this article; I was just stating as an aside that there are various aspects to "meaning of life", and teleology is one of them. I probably said more than was relevant. Biogeographist (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)