The main purpose of the human life is to be happy

..."I disagree, the main purpose in life is to have purpose."..

Only humans --via access to mind/intellect/concepts--- apply a "purpose" to Universe, or any of its parts.

 ..." Simply existing with no purpose in life in my view would  be the most dull and boring existence imaginable.  I would prefer death over a pointless purposeless  existence. Whats there to be happy about if you serve no purpose?"...

This above is anthropism.  I agree, that, there exists no conceptual  point of Universe's existence if there,  is no consciousness to  apply, or appreciate,  the conceptual point/purpose of any existence.

The strong anthropic principle fits in there somewhere, but been so long since I read about it. I think it is the occupied space Universe only exists, if a mind/intellect/concept accessing creature is there to observe it existence.  I dont believe that is the case.

However, Ive made clear in other threads, that, it may be that all that occupied space existent parts of Universe, --including the most complex humans,  -- may be encoded into some, if not all, black holes.  As black hole evaporate, that which is encoded inside  -on the event horizon---   is released/dissapated out into galaxies as radiation ---perhaps other just electro-mangetic ex plasma---  that carrys those patterns, that then coalesce into fermionic matter and subsequent molecular configurations.

All symmetry and asymmetry of Universe is dervied from two primary geometric patterns;

1} 4-fold symmetry, and,

.....includes 3-fold tetrahedral, 4-folds octahedrral, etc ex rhombahedral patterns......

3} 4-fold symmetry

...includes 5-fold icosahedral and pentagonal patterns,

and the most primary combination of the two above is the rhombic-tri-contahedron.  All of these abstracts with their abstract great circle associations, are the abstract axi of great complex { invesion-outversions } spiral tori, which great tori,

combine, overlap nad  interfere in a finite myriad set of patterns we observe as fermions, bosons, and,

what we do not directly observe, Gravity (  ) and Dark Energy )(.

What goes in --contractive Gravity  with ultimate black hole creation--   must come out  --expansive Dark Energy--.   Again and again and again, eternally.

Um ya, life is pointless without purpose.

Um ya, that is correct, except for the point{s}/ purpose{s} humans  apply to life.

That biologic cells---and viri inside a biologic cell--- reproduce  is not a point/purpose,  rather it is an end resultant of cause and effect that is somewhat likened to karma.

All that exists is the end resultant of previous cause and effect.

What goes in must come out again, and again eternally.

Life might be either pointless or purposeful.....Because of either purpose or chance.....Jury's still out.

> Point > and end point ><> Point > and end Point ><> Point eternally

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ocean waves are resultant of wind

wind is resultant of daylight sun heating and sunless night cooling

 (  * * ) Purpose is to observe points, sort points , discover patterns of points and then, via access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts, apply the creative mind to reshape the points and end points in the direction we want them to travel.

Where humanity is today is a resultant of myriad of events to complex that know combination of computers can ever calculate.

What humanity thinks today, partially shapes { determines } where humanity may be 5, 20, 100, 500 years from now.

7 generations is approximately 140 years.  The resultants  --judgeand jury?---   has allowed humanity to make it this far with all of their ignorant bumblings to discover truth.  Finding truth, accepting truth and acting responsibility with truth is all part of a set of points, that, we make no gurranttees, because they are cause and effect points, not a judge and not a jury.

Exactly....Until the truth is found the Jury's out.

Z4, many truths have been discovered, well documented and applied.

  You will need to  specific what truth your refering to.  Life on Earth will go on after humans perish on Earth, is my best guess.

Fine, y'all go. What is the purpose of this anymore.

A. I agree.

B. The truth of material existence/creation.

C. I agree.

The truth of human existence might be as an integral part of a universal system's progression. So with reference to Point C. We may well eventually become redundant, having exceeded our ability to influence material evolution further...Human life will perish on Earth when human life is no longer sustainable on Earth and the jury is also out on whether we will ever leave this solar system and colonise elsewhere.

So is happiness the main purpose of human life?.....I doubt it.

Leave this solar system.   Ha, I think you must have drunk the kool-aid.

Sure, if it is possible, then, who am I to say, humans wont discover and apply that possiblity technologically.  I wont be holding my breath, nor should you.

Meanwhile, reality points us in the direction of what we do see in front of our eyes, over population  ---see LINK below-- for the operating systems we have in place, and what those systems of operation are doing to the ecology that sustains humans on Earth.

How about a purpose being to survive our own stupidity, because humans are so bent on their individual independent freedom, they cannot grasp that cooperation is only way to attain survival and true happiness on Earth, with least amount of suffering to most people.

Purpose of life: to fulfill the full measure of our creation: to become as God is, just as He was once like us. Eternal progression is the road we are on.

Population is population and if population becomes unsustainable then it will....  I would agree that our inability to override instinct and work collectively to limit population, does seem somewhat contrary to our assumed advanced levels of intelligence (stupid)....Though I would suggest that as the demands of technological/data, evolution/development become ever greater, then the demand on humanity to produce innovators becomes greater also....Out of a million people, how many possess the intellectual acuity necessary to move material/data development forwards?......Perhaps most of us are here simply to service the needs of the few, and the need for the the few.....That is to say, that most of us are expendable.

Maybe one day there will be only one intelligence that knows what is required, and perhaps that intelligence will be referred to as GOD.

Hoyle's hypothesis fell down in the first paragraph I read.... That is to say all hypotheses including Hoyle's require faith in the impossible.

To explain the possible one must first explain the impossible.

I couldnt read   any of it cause have sign in, so I have no idea what hypothesis your refering to. You brought intelligent God into conversation, and that Universe/God are synonyms ergo Hoyles book from 90's totally related to your comments.  I'm sure Hoyle had many hypotheses in his lifetime as well as many scientific theory.

Here is what is impossible, ---and it is so simple even you maybe will get it----, that, anything that would violate the finite set of cosmic laws/principles is impossible.

There can exist only five convex polyhedra of Universe.  The list is long of cosmic laws/principles is long.

As far as I have always seen it the only basic law that needs to be overcome, is something cannot be created form nothing.

 Intelligence but not as a material entity, for sure...But wherefrom is the initial intelligence source.

And I will have to pass on the "five convex polyhedra of universe".

And I would suggest that Cosmic Laws are only relative to post-cosmic creation.

.."But wherefrom is the initial intelligence source."...

Huh? What are you talking about Z4?  Where do come across these ideas of a "initital intelligence source"?

I think you've dipped into the kool-aid again and/or been talking to the dead terrance mckenna. 

Hoyle...Intelligent universe....Your link.

Intelligent universe is all well and good...but wherefrom came the original intelligence source....if Hoyle proposes one then he needs to explain the other....Simple logic.

Its what's referred to as starting at the beginning....Rather than after the beginning....Most if not all creation hypotheses start after the beginning. 

My reference of Hoyle followed your reference to God > intelligence. Get with the program z4.

So fully explain something from nothing without starting after the beginning.

I currently run with the idea of an oscillating universal sequence, in which intelligence/data is a key component. This also loosely addresses something-nothing-something as part of a sequence, but does not account for nothing-something.

As I see it, nothing-something has to be void of intelligence.....This has always been my argument.

Something-nothing -something fits nicely within the context of a finite universe, though I would question whether  this also implies that occupiable space is also finite. 

So fully explain something from nothing ( in a language that idiots like me can comprehend), without starting after the beginning.

Your personal hypothesis is what it is and has probably perplexed people for the last thirty years.

And cosmic trinities abound, but are always based upon something.

z4, your still playing immature mind games.

how many times do I have to repeat to you over the last year or more, that, You've never heard that from me and in fact you and others have clearly stated for last 30 years that  our finite, occupied space Universe { something } is eternally existent ergo the only perpetual motion machine.

Something { occupied space  } cannot come from nothing { true non-occupied space }.

PLease get off the drugs long enough to open your eyes, ears and mind to rational, logical common sense truths.

There is only one Cosmic Trinity by me and Ive attached various labels that seperates it from all others. Your closed/dens mindless ego prevents you from being able to make rational, logical common sense between various Cosmic Trinities.  Get off the drugs, your mind will work better.

Nope....That's because of your own ego based mind games.

Sometimes there are rare flashes of clarity.

Nonetheless, your hypothesis (if it is seriously meant ) starts after the beginning.....Which just won't do.

And as you can see I am still undecided....Troll, Nutcase or Genius?

Makes sense, thank you.

With all due respect nothing you said makes anything clear. LOL.  Don't quite know what the entire universe has to do with finding a reason to wake up in the morning.

....'Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, you got have something, if your going to be with me'.......song I heard on radio the other day

Universe comes with happiness, sadness and all degrees in between. i'm happy to have discovered the geometric princples of;

toroidal, positively curved Gravity (  )  in dieametric oppostion to,

toroidal, negatively curved Dark Energy )(, and the resultant of those two, and the resultant

inside the toroidal tube, sine-wave /\/\/\/\/\/\ patterned and associated physical/reality aka Observed Time

I'm happy with my discoveries, there trinary correlation to my Cosmic Trinity Outline.  Its trinary turtles al the way to the micro-bottom from the macro-top, of occupied Space Universe.

I'm happy that these discoveries are related to my geometric disoveries regarding prime number patterns in semi-linear 2D rows of four, semi-linear 2D rows of four when inside-outed, and with hexagonal pattern rows of prime only falling on  two radii, on each side of radii with no primes.

Gravity ( 1, 5-7, 11-13, 17-19, 23----25......etc ) ....peak of positive geodesic curvature

Observed Time /\/\/ 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18,....etc /\/\/\/ inside the toroidal tube

Dark Energy )(  2, 4, 8, 10, 14, 16, etc )( ...peak of negative geodesic curvature

If want to understand Universe, begin at the top of my Cosmic Trinity Outline, that, I was so happy to discover and pass on those in search of cosmic truths.

This isn't me disagreeing, this is me legitimately curious where you got those numbers? From my brief research I've learned that positvely and negatively curved shapes are typically what people use to describe the shape of the universe, so I can infer that you are speaking about the specific shapes of gravity and time? Furthermore you extrapolate based off of that shape to come to some conclusion? I am curious where you got your numbers from? Do you have an academic resource, did you do and publish the tests yourself? Are they common knowledge I haven't stumbled onto? I am skeptical of every claim until it's been demonstrated, so this isn't a case where I'm saying I don't believe it, but I'm not convinced yet either.