Syllogistic argument for the existence of objective meaning

One should always keep in mind these things: what the nature of the whole is, and what my nature is, and how my nature is related to the whole, and what kind of part it is of what kind of whole, and that no one can prevent me from always doing and saying what is in accordance with nature of which I am a part. 

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 2.9

“Ein Mensch ist ein räumlich und zeitlich beschränktes Stück des Ganzen, was wir „Universum“ nennen. Er erlebt sich und sein Fühlen als abgetrennt gegenüber dem Rest, eine optische Täuschung seines Bewusstseins. Das Streben nach Befreiung von dieser Fesselung ist der einzige Gegenstand wirklicher Religion. Nicht das Nähren der Illusion sondern nur ihre Überwindung gibt uns das erreichbare Maß inneren Friedens.”

Or in English:

“A human being is a spatially and temporally limited piece of the whole, what we call the “Universe.” He experiences himself and his feelings as separate from the rest, an optical illusion of his consciousness. The quest for liberation from this bondage is the only object of true religion. Not nurturing the illusion but only overcoming it gives us the attainable measure of inner peace.”

Albert Einstein, 1950, letter to Robert S. Marcus

Abstract / Summary:

In thinking about the meaning of life, people often feel lost, lacking guidance, and thus start to feel existential anxiety/torment in some shape or form. Yet, every human lives their life with a hierarchy of goals or purposes towards which their actions are oriented (albeit unawares at times). We are a meaning-seeking/meaning-making species. This question has always been relevant, yet it can be argued that it is currently more relevant than ever before. We are in times of great change and need to know what to aim our activities towards and what is worth preserving or ensuring going forward, as more and more aspects of our lives get a larger makeover.

This work is a syllogistic argument for that, under deterministic conditions, there is an objective meaning of life, based on that each individual’s conception of the meaning of life is a deterministic result of the way the universe is configured. Therefore, the aggregation of each individual’s idea of the meaning of life, into an aggregated whole, would have to have emerged from the universe as well, given by it’s specific make-up. As such the universe itself is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of life, making it objective, whilst keeping every individual involved in the process, as each individual is a delimited part of the Universe.

This text clarifies some terms, presents the premises, presents the syllogistic argument and then finally discusses the implications as well as practical guidance for thinking about meaning. Justification of the premises is included in section 5.

1.     Introduction

1.1. Defending the relevance of meaning

Can prosperity be felt or even achieved without meaning? In perusing both literary and academic material the evidence seems to point to that it is not. We need meaning in order to be happy or in a state of eudaimonia.

The key: We need to be more specific as to our ambition for human existence and arrive at the “meaning of life”, which has intrinsic value rather than instrumental value towards something else.

Marcus Aurelius was the most powerful man in the world, in his time. As he puts it we must understand what whole that we are part of, what kind of whole that that is and what is in line with that whole. This whole is here termed “the world” or “the Universe”, and what the meaning of life is is “in accordance with nature of which I am part”. Universe might seem unnecessarily big and inaccessible in our minds, but it is quite appropriate as the starting-point for our investigations as we do not want to leave anything out.

The conclusion of this syllogism is the following – There is a meaning of life that is objective and results naturally from the make-up of the Universe. We can figure out this meaning of life, yet it is general and would need concretization for each individual’s life. So regardless the individual always needs to be involved.The reasons are – That the world(Universe) is deterministic and thus our individual idea of the meaning of life is determined by the Universe through causal relations. When we then aggregate every individual’s idea of the meaning of life, this aggregate is also caused by the Universe. Thus we can say that this meaning of life emerges out of the Universe itself and could not be in any other way[3], making it the objective meaning of life.

Note that quantum concepts can be discussed later. The question regarding determinism or indeterminism is still open from a quantum perspective and recent research suggests inconsistencies in standard quantum theory as well as the lack of propagation of quantum properties to scales beyond individual particles. The degree to which quantum considerations impact on our aggregated level of detail is therefore still undecided.

”a human being carries a whole epoch within him,just as a wave carries the whole of the sea”

- Jean Paul Sartre

2.  Definitions

2.1. Definitions and Clarifications

These definitions are quite standard, nothing new, but it is worth the time to state them explicitly. We also describe some concepts such as an individual’s conception of a meaning of life.

Meaning of life:

The meaning of life refers to that intrinsically valuable end, towards which all individuals’ existence(being), actions and events should ultimately be directed (directly or through levels of instrumentality).

Later in the discussion the question should be phrased as “What is the value of life? What is the value of intelligent life?”. This helps us frame it from a broader and more universal, general, outside-in perspective rather than an individual’s feelings.

This opens up for us thinking of life as having intrinsic meaning and/or instrumental meaning.

To clarify -

Intrinsic: The meaning could be existence in and of itself, in which case the meaning of life is just being alive and thus it is intrinsic (valuable in and of itself).

Instrumental: The meaning of life is of instrumental value towards something else. E.g. “Life is meaningful because it leads to ……. [Enter intrinsic value]”

Objective:

Objective is taken to mean something that is expressive of a fact regarding what and how the Universe actually is and works, it’s make-up.

Let us illustrate with an example – Adewale may claim that vanilla is a boring ice-cream flavour, whilst Jining may say that it is the best flavour, because it reminds her of visiting her grandmother as a kid. Both of these are opinions and are subjective, furthermore, there is little to no external criteria upon which we could evaluate either opinion. These are therefore fully subjective. However, that Adewale believed vanilla was boring in the moment that he made that claim (granted he wasn’t lying or fooling himself) and that Jining liked vanilla (same caveats) is an objective fact. We could even theoretically measure the brain activity of both and determine that their respective claims were true to their preferences.

We could also, and often do in companies, make surveys and/or study sales-data regarding the preferred ice-cream flavours and thus find that chocolate, for example, is the most popular ice-cream flavour, and this again would be an objective description, even though we are talking about subjective preferences.

There is therefore a certain meta-level objectivity that can be had with regard to subjects that might otherwise be thought of as subjective.

An individual’s conception of the meaning of life:

The generalized idea of the meaning of life that an individual has. That is their idea of meaning of life in general, not solely with respect to their own specific life.

For the purposes of this discussion we will see that we are in need of a “qualifier” for what is to count as an “individual” in our discussion. The most logical two-fold qualifier that is suggested here is an intelligent being who is capable of conceiving of a general meaning of life.

There should be some cut off between what counts as an individual who can qualify for participation here. We will see that an individual bacteria, insect or dog would not qualify, even though they constitute “life”. In a way, the qualifying beings could be setting this meaning even on behalf of other life, depending on how we delimit the discussion. This is something that some readers would find controversial but can be mitigated with adequate delimitations.

2.2. Words that are used interchangeably and defined here:

World & Universe – The world is a more accessible and well-understood word. It is important for these discussions to understand that “Universe” is the natural extension of the “world”, which we otherwise implicitly tend to delimit to our planet. Universe here is written as a proper name, with a capital letter, for two reasons: Firstly, the Universe is an object encompassing all things (in our universe), seeing as it is that and there is no other Universe that we talk about (if so it would be termed “our part of the multiverse”) then it is one of its kind (for our purposes) and can therefore have a proper name. Secondly, we humans think of the world more easily in terms of agency and individuals. The arguments here might feel slightly less foreign to us if we play to our brains’ way of thinking (particularly for those with a more “spiritual” inclination). This text is fundamentally oriented towards logic reasoning, yet our feelings and tastes can both help and hinder our rational understanding. This is simply attempting to remove some of those barriers to our understanding and reasoning.

Idea & Conception – A conception is the making of an understanding of something. This is for our purposes the same thing as an idea. Idea is a more accessible word, but can sometimes mean an idea taken from somewhere else or not necessarily internalized by the one who holds it. Now, in a deterministic world the distinction hardly matters, but the point in this text is to emphasize that the “meaning of life” that each individual believes in, or puts up as a suggestion, has been integrated, shaped or moulded more closely within the confines of that individual’s brain. The point of using “conception” is to stress the participatory approach in this theoretical exercise. The point of using “idea” is that it is better understood by most, but risks coming with connotational baggage. Thus this clarification that they are used interchangeably with this intention.

3.  A syllogistic argument for an objective meaning of life

3.1. Premises

Let us first lay out the premises, which if interwoven lead to the conclusion we have described previously. These should be uncontroversial and are increasingly so in the scientific literature. There are rational reasons for these holding true.

These are further described and justified in section 5.

Premise 1:

We all (all individuals and beings that we can perceive) live in/inhabit the same world.

Premise 2:

The world contains one truth regarding objects’ physical states, at the level with which we individuals are concerned.

What this means is that there is one true description of the objective world, with respect to physical events and states.

Quantum considerations are not considered at this point for this syllogism, and not likely to be influential in this argument at the scale we are looking at. It will be further argued in the future. The reasoning behind holding this premise for true for the moment stands on 3 legs:

1)    Quantum phenomena collapse near-instantly in the presence of a perceiver system. This is what made Roger Penrose sceptical to the quantum effects in the brain, until they found out about

2)    Quantum phenomena merely create emergent larger-scale (larger than specifically quantum) properties that have causal implications, their random nature does in itself not effect larger phenomena but only the properties these objects have.

3)    Quantum theory is still incomplete, not yet unified with relativity, and recent research seems to unveil inconsistencies in the theory, suggesting its incompleteness.

If the Multiverse-theory is true, then each universe for itself has one truth, each eventuality that it is entangled with still creates the fact that nothing could be different in this Universe’s make-up.

Premise 3:

All mental / psychological phenomena are a result of physical processes in the brain and (possibly) extended nervous system.

Physical processes here refers to that all particles and therefore all mental phenomena obey the laws of physics. These physical processes actually occur in the brain, the extended nervous system, and the gut flora, which according to recent research has significant impact on our thinking and mental health. As will be typical with this discussion, we will find that some exact delimitations become hard to make and in fact less relevant to make.

Premise 4:

An idea / conception of the meaning of life is a mental phenomenon.

In this argument we specify and use the particular phrasing “An idea / conception of the meaning of life”. This is a subset of ideas / conceptions.

Premise 5:

All physical processes behave according to deterministically causal relations (they have causes and cause effects).

That is to say that the world is deterministic with respect to physical relationships or, in the least, deterministic at the scale that we living beings are concerned with and experience, according to the principles & patterns of particle physics.

Quantum considerations are discussed in a later chapter, as a potential nuancing factor, but do not affect us on the level which we are concerned with now.

Premise 6: All deterministic interactions behave as multiple interlocking causal relations rather than specific and isolated “chains” of causality. We shall call this a deterministic weave of causality (or causal weave).

Premise 7: All deterministic weaves of causality expand in breadth as one goes backwards in causal time, due to natural scaling functions.

Though both intuitive and poetic when we think about it, this is the premise that is in need of most explanation. It is very clearly the case, only that we seldom think about it.  See the section on the justification of the premises for the explanation and argument.

This allows us to say that the Universe, in it’s entirety, is the cause.

Premise 8: There can be no other external “seat of authority” for decisions or truths that would lie outside of the Universe.

This would clash with the other premises and it would be putting authority in something that is beyond existence within this world / Universe.

Premise 9: Objective is taken to mean something that is expressive of a fact that can be verified, derived from the make-up of the Universe.

3.2. The syllogistic argument - propositions and corollaries

Now to discuss the meaning of life – Which we will find is objective and natural to the universe, as an emergent phenomena of life in the universe.

Proposition 1: Premises 1 & 2 lead to that the world is the same way for all of us, regarding it’s make-up and functioning.

If:

a) We all live in / inhabit the same world (Prem.1),

b) The world contains one truth regarding objects’ physical states, at the level with which we are concerned. (Prem.2)

then:

1.    The world is one, and the same way for every individual, with regard to it’s physical make-up and functioning. One world with one truth.

Corollary1.1: Any idea/conception of the meaning of life thus refers to the shared experience of living existence in our common and shared Universe / world.

Logic of this is:

If:

a)  We all live in the same world (Prem.1)

b) And someone has an idea of the meaning of life (life in general for all living things)

Then:

1.1.         That idea of the meaning of life is referring to the meaning of the phenomena “life” experienced by all living beings in our Universe.

Note:

So now we have established the ontological foundation, that there is one world that we all inhabit and that any claims about the world regards our shared experience.

This (Realism) is simply a requirement for it to be fruitful to have any intellectual or scientific discussion at all, and is a basic assumption that we operate from constantly. We will leave it at the comment that otherwise this author would be writing from one universe to a reader in another universe where nothing is guaranteed to be similar. Our technology and capacity to coordinate action with each other should be support enough for this ontology (at the scale of human events).

So we are all part of one and the same physical universe.

We here deny that we all live in our own universes and we deny multiple or no truths (nihilism and other post-modern epistemological theories). This is non-controversial as all our natural sciences are based on these assumptions and, more importantly, work consistently and reliably under them.

Proposition 2: Premises 3 & 4 mean that all ideas of the meaning of life arises as physical manifestations in the brain.

If:

a)    All mental /psychological phenomena are the result of physical processes in the brain and (possibly) extended nervous system (Prem.3),

b)    An idea / conception of the meaning of life is a mental phenomenon (Prem.4).

then:

2.    A conception of the meaning of life is the result of physical processes in the brain and extended nervous system.

Note:

This proposition is something that is currently (as we write this) prominent in the neuropsychological field. We have established that the meaning of life is a thought that therefore has a neurophysical equivalent response in the physical brain.

This suggests determinism in the brain’s processes, stemming from empirical evidence.

Proposition 3:  Premise 5 & Proposition 2 mean that our ideas of the meaning of life are shaped by deterministic causal interactions.

If

a)    all physical processes behave according to deterministically causal relations (they have causes and cause effects) (Prem.5).

b)    a conception / idea of the meaning of life is created by physical processes in the brain and extended nervous system (Prop.2)

then:

3.    Our ideas of the meaning of life are deterministically caused.

Proposition 4: Proposition 3 & premise 6 lead us to conclude that our ideas of the meaning of life emerge deterministically from a weave of causality.

If:

a)    Our ideas of the meaning of life are deterministically caused (Prop.3)

b)    All deterministic interactions behave as multiple interlocking causal relations, rather than specific chains of causality. We shall call this a deterministic weave of causality (or causal weave). (Prem.6),

then

4.    Our ideas of the meaning of life emerge from a deterministic weave of causality.

Proposition 5: Proposition 4, Proposition 1 & Premise 7 necessitate that any individuals idea of the meaning of life is deterministically shaped by the universe.

If:

a)    Our ideas of the meaning of life emerge from a deterministic weave of causality (Prop.4)

b)    The world is one, and the same way for every individual. (Prop.1)

c)    All deterministic weaves of causality stretch back in history to the beginning of time, expanding in breadth with regard to their causes due to natural scaling functions. This allows us to say that the Universe, in it’s entirety, is the cause. (Prem.7)

then

5.    any individual’s idea of the meaning of life is caused by (or emerges out of) the Universe.

The corollaries that follow from this are:

Corollary5.1: Every idea of the meaning of life is deterministically caused by, or emerged out of, the Universe.

Corollary5.2: The aggregation of (or sum of) all ideas of the meaning of life is deterministically caused by, or emerges out of, the Universe.

Notes:

With the corollaries we here we simply extend the logical next step of the point arrived at in proposition 5. If any given idea of the meaning of life is deterministically caused by the Universe, that means that every idea is generated this way by the Universe. The first can be thought of as the function and the other as every instance that is the output of the function.

Now, since each individual instance is deterministically caused, then the aggregation of all the instances must be deterministically caused (it retains that property).

Proposition 6: Corollary 5.2 & Premise 8 ensure that the aggregation of the ideas of the meaning of life would emerge out of the Universe itself.

If:

a)    the aggregation of all ideas of the meaning of life is deterministically caused by, or emerges out of, the Universe (Corr.5.2).

b)    there can be no other external “seat of authority” for decisions or truths that would lie outside of the Universe. (Prem.8)

then:

6. the aggregation of the ideas of the meaning of life represents the ultimate overarching meaning of life, set by the Universe.

   
   

Corollary6.1: The Universe’s idea (aggregation of all ideas) of the meaning of life is the objective meaning of life.

Logic of this is:

If:

a)    the aggregation of the ideas of the meaning of life represents the ultimate overarching meaning of life, set by the Universe (Prop. 6).

b)    objective is taken to mean something that is expressive of a fact that can be verified or at least is derived from the make-up of the Universe. (Definition & Prem.9).

Then:

6.1.         The Universe’s idea (aggregation of all ideas) of the meaning of life is the objective meaning of life.

Conclusion: The Universe’s idea (aggregation of all ideas) of the meaning of life is the objective meaning of life

The premises are justified in section 5 further down. It is however valuable to simply discuss premise 8 & 9 slightly further in this instance.