If you were to apply or guess a meaning to human existence, which would it be?

[El_Machinae]

That word probably means something different for you than for me.

 

[warpus]

For me, the VASTLY more important question is who is the "we" in that scenario?

Likely some sort of a creature we would not recognize as "human" or maybe even as a mammal or animal. This is billions of years in the future, so if we survive that long, we're going to look completely different, due to evolution and whatever technological improvements we introduce to our bodies.

Impossible to predict.. but I'd guess that these creatures wouldn't think of themselves as human. But, who knows? Chances are we won't make it for millions of years, let alone billions.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, I mean will "we" include "Warpus" and "Mac", or would it be more accurate to say "they"?

 

[gay_Aleks]

You could take a shortcut and use "it".

 

[warpus]

@El_Machinae I guess we'll be long dead by then, so "they". But I think I might be misinterpreting your question.

 

[CavLancer]

To go from nothing to something.

 

[Kyriakos]

To go from nothing to something.

Nothing can be many things, though. For example:

1) Nothing as in 'nothing at all, for any observer, or even nothing by itself'
2) Nothing as in 'nothing at all, according to set observers regardless of their state in ability to observe, eg human observers currently'
3) Nothing as in 'nothing next to what set observers -eg human- deem as 'something' currently'.

At any rate any living being senses that at the very least there is something: that being's own existence.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Unprotected sex

 

[El_Machinae]

@El_Machinae I guess we'll be long dead by then, so "they". But I think I might be misinterpreting your question.

Naw, you're getting it. I find it to be a more important question whether we will be part of the 'we' that exists trillions of years from now. When I talk about non-infinite risks, it brings my attention to short-term risks.