[Guille]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody I chose instinct for a reason. Intuition is reserved for intelligence and/or intent. Instinct includes learned and unintentional behaviour akin to the other 99% of life on earth. The meaning of life for many is not about the search for absolute truth. For me it is also to gain orientation, perspective and enjoyment on the way.

Oh, I wasn't refering to the meaning of life. The search for truth is the search for meaning, and that's why I used the term. Of course, the search for the meaning of life is a search for truth, but the meaning of life isn't necessarilly the searc for truth (it is a truth, but not necessarilly a search for truth). However I think there is no meaning in life apart from reproduction and survival, and the rest is human invention. About instinct, preciselly because it refers to all the other living beings is why I don't think it's the appropiate term, cause we can't say other animals have meaning for life apart from the already mentioned reproduction and survival.

[Mr. Nobody]

Very astute Guille;
There is a search for the meaning of reality and there is a search for the meaning of life.
Does the search for the fundamentals of reality need to always include the observers, if there are possibilities of realities without observers?
Lets look at this in more detail:

Anton Zeilinger states:
"A world, a reality existing independently of what can be said about it, is void of any meaning. It is obvious that any property or feature of reality "out there" can only be based on information we receive. There can not be any statement whatsoever about the world or about reality that is not based on such information. It therefore follows that the concept of a reality without at least the ability in principle to make statements about it, to obtain information about its features is devoid of any possibility of confirmation or proof. This implies that the distinction between information, that is knowledge, and reality is devoid of any meaning. In other words, it is impossible to distinguish operationally in any way reality from information. Therefore, following Occam's razor, the notion of the two being distinct should be abandoned, as the assumption of the existence of such a difference does not add anything that could not also be obtained without it"
For Mr. Zeilinger there is no reality without the observation, or the principle of being able to make an observation. Observation takes an observer, so no reality w/o an observer.

Follow me here, because this is new territory to me too...
No information, no reality. No observers, no information and hence no reality. So is the search for the meaning of reality different than the search for the meaning of life? What defines the observer or observation? Does the observer need to have consciousness or is a microbe enough? If consciousness is a pre-requisit for the observer, the subject making the measurement, what do we call the events leading up to the measurement?. Its the old saying of, if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one to see it, did it really fall? According to the above, the answer is NO.

Therefore, the meaning of life and the meaining of reality must be the same and the answer can only be that there is NO meaning of life nor reality.

[Mr. Nobody]

It ties in with Quantum Mechanics and how to interpret its random behavior subject to only probability functions, functions that do have existence and influence over reality.
I have always had an issue with the many worlds explanation. Theses other worlds have no reality IMHO, because they lack the observer and/or a way of obtaining information. So we might think up some results in some imaginary dimension, but without observation/information it has no reality. Being cut off from it for good, is not a valid explanation to us not seeing it, removing the possibility of there being an alternate reality is the answer.
That brings us back to randomness and how to understand that. I mentioned sometime ago that randomness is a very important pre-requisite of evolution and time. Were it all predetermined in a neat package of pre-described laws, there would be no reason, no possibility of change, and hence no time nor evolution.
A unified field theory in my opinion, if found (I doubt it due to Goedel's incompleteness theorem), will be shaped more in terms of quantum mechanical probabilities then the absolute observations of General Relativity

[harmonygirl]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody Follow me here, because this is new territory to me too... No information, no reality. No observers, no information and hence no reality. So is the search for the meaning of reality different than the search for the meaning of life? What defines the observer or observation? Does the observer need to have consciousness or is a microbe enough? If consciousness is a pre-requisit for the observer, the subject making the measurement, what do we call the events leading up to the measurement?. Its the old saying of, if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one to see it, did it really fall? According to the above, the answer is NO. Therefore, the meaning of life and the meaining of reality must be the same and the answer can only be that there is NO meaning of life nor reality.

Interesting, but I am not sure that perceptions of reality (for that is all they are) are inextricably linked with search for the meaning of life. Does a grasshopper observe or have life? What about light? have life? observe? I think that perceptions rule all, which will ultimately determine meaning attributed to life or reality.
I think the saying is 'if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make noise?' (which of course, gets you into the discussion about whether noise has to be heard to exist, etc)

[Mr. Nobody]

And since I believe in the probabilty function as a fundamental part of reality and exhaustive observations of the sub atomic realm have yet to discover anything funadamntally solid, I suggest all life, all reality is, is interacting energy (matter or aether) waves with particles mascerading as solid entities

[harmonygirl]

I agree with your take here that all life is interacting energy waves. Particles or matter are simply energy at a lower vibration. This is life. But is it reality?

[Mr. Nobody]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Interesting, but I am not sure that perceptions of reality (for that is all they are) are inextricably linked with search for the meaning of life. Does a grasshopper observe or have life? What about light? have life? observe? I think that perceptions rule all, which will ultimately determine meaning attributed to life or reality. I think the saying is 'if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make noise?' (which of course, gets you into the discussion about whether noise has to be heard to exist, etc)

Thanks, sometimes I get my metaphores all messed up when I get excited, makes for funny quotes...lol

The grasshopper has life because he does not question the meaning of life. My line of thought was to determine if the meaning of life is the same as the meaning of reality. Perception aside, its about information received and when one asks or feels compelled to question a meaning for the above, he/she will need to examine the validity of the question first and that is what I attempted.

[Mr. Nobody]

Life is part of reality. Life is a step of matter becoming more organized by harnessing energy to slow entropy. This does not impact overall entropy but create entropy differences that in turn can be exploided for more energy. In the end entropy wins and all energy/matter gets diluted beyond recognition for eternity. Perhaps another fluke jump of this illusive inflaton field that keeps humming along in the background will jumpstart another round of reality.

[harmonygirl]

Maybe I should ask you to define what you mean by 'life'...

[Mr. Nobody]

My definition of life is
1 Destinction from surrounding
2 Synthesis or harnessing of energy
3 Response to input that can not be explained by the fundamental laws of nature.
Life in that sense is an emergant property of matter organization and only depends on the ability to cross a certain threshold of complexity