From the moment we draw our first breath to the final beat of our hearts, we are specially connected to the universe. Our environment molds us, its elements sculpting our physical forms and nurturing our existence. But it does not end there. We, in turn, exert our influence upon the world around us, shaping landscapes, crafting marvels, and making our presence known in the grand story of life. This reciprocal relationship is a testament to the interconnectedness of all things, a reminder that we are not mere spectators in the cosmic symphony but active participants. 

At its core, the interconnectedness of life is a recognition that every living organism, from the smallest microbe to the largest mammal, is connected to and influenced by its environment. Our environment provides us with the necessary resources, such as air, water, and nutrients, for our survival and growth. In turn, our actions and behaviors directly impact the environment, shaping ecosystems and influencing the well-being of other organisms.

This interconnectedness extends beyond the immediate physical connections between organisms. It encompasses intricate ecological relationships, such as predator-prey dynamics, symbiotic associations, and food webs. These relationships highlight the delicate balance and interdependence of species within ecosystems. A disturbance or disruption to one species can have cascading effects throughout the entire ecosystem, illustrating the fragility and resilience of the interconnected web of life.

Unraveling life’s secrets

While the universe’s origin remains shrouded in hypotheses and theories, the nature of life itself presents a different tale. Like the countless physical objects strewn across the cosmos, life finds its abode on our precious planet, Earth. 

Scientific exploration and observation have allowed us to delve into the mysteries of life, unraveling its inner workings and shedding light on its origins. Through meticulous study and experimentation, we have come to understand the fundamental processes that drive life, such as reproduction, metabolism, and evolution. We have deciphered the intricate code of DNA, unraveling the genetic blueprint that underlies the diversity of life on Earth.

However, despite our remarkable progress, the vastness of life’s secrets remains humbling. Each discovery uncovers new questions, opening avenues for further exploration and research. The complexity of life, from the intricate processes occurring within a single cell to the emergence of consciousness in the human mind, continues to challenge our current understanding and spurs us on to new frontiers of knowledge.

The relationship between the living and non-living world

In our quest to understand life’s meaning, let us journey through the varied definitions that have emerged over time. Rather than being confined to a single definition, embracing many perspectives is often fruitful, allowing us to appreciate the diversity of ideas and deepen our understanding of the relationship between the living and non-living world. Each definition offers a unique lens through which we can explore the intricacies of this enigmatic concept. And just as mathematicians understand that definitions depend on decisions, we too can choose how we approach and interpret the nature of life.

One definition of life focuses on the ability to exhibit certain fundamental characteristics. These include reproduction, growth, metabolism, response to stimuli, and environmental adaptation. From this perspective, life is marked by the capacity to perpetuate itself and undergo dynamic changes in response to internal and external forces. It emphasizes the dynamic nature of living organisms and their ability to interact with their surroundings.

Another definition considers life as an emergent property arising from complex interactions between molecules, cells, and systems. It views life as a result of the organization and arrangement of biological components, which give rise to properties and behaviors not present in individual constituents. This definition highlights the interconnectedness and self-organization inherent in living systems, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Furthermore, some definitions of life center around the concept of information and genetic inheritance. Life is seen as the transmission of genetic material through generations, enabling the continuity of traits and the potential for evolution. This definition emphasizes the role of DNA, genes, and the hereditary information encoded within them as the blueprint for life’s diversity and adaptability.

Yet, amidst these definitions, we must also recognize that life exists on a spectrum, with blurry boundaries between what is considered living and non-living. Viruses, for instance, challenge our traditional notions of life as they exhibit characteristics of both living and non-living entities. They possess genetic material and the ability to replicate, yet they require host cells to carry out their life processes. Such complexities prompt us to reevaluate our understanding and redefine our perspectives.

As we explore the relationship between the living and non-living, we come to appreciate the interdependence and interconnectedness that transcends traditional boundaries. We find that the non-living world provides the stage upon which life unfolds, offering the materials, energy, and environmental conditions necessary for living organisms to thrive. From the elements and compounds that make up our bodies to the cycles and processes that sustain life, the non-living world serves as both a source and a backdrop for the grand symphony of existence.

In turn, living organisms, with their remarkable complexity and adaptability, shape and influence the non-living world. They participate in the cycles of energy and matter, contributing to the shaping of ecosystems and driving the dynamics of our planet. Through processes such as photosynthesis, respiration, and the intricate web of ecological interactions, life leaves an indelible mark on the non-living world, shaping its landscapes and influencing its evolution.

Hypotheses concerning the origin of life

The relentless pursuit of scientific inquiry has propelled our understanding of the origin of life beyond the limitations of past beliefs. Gone are the days when Louis Pasteur’s assertion that life cannot arise from non-living matter held sway. Today, we stand on the shoulders of countless researchers who have put forth compelling hypotheses about the genesis of life. While these hypotheses are not yet proven theories, they have been substantiated through rigorous theoretical frameworks and experimental investigations. 

It is important to distinguish between these scientifically grounded hypotheses and unscientific notions, such as the idea that an extraterrestrial or otherworldly intelligent entity created the first lifeforms on Earth. The ancient Greeks also considered the notion that living organisms originated from the inanimate world. However, when we examine the physical structures, metabolic intricacies, and biological processes of terrestrial lifeforms, it becomes evident that life did not materialize independently from the non-living world. This realization underscores the credibility of hypotheses that seek to explain the interconnectedness and commonalities between the living and non-living realms.

Yet, the true challenge lies in unraveling the origins of the first molecule or group of molecules capable of reproduction—the elusive Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). Once we move past this pivotal milestone, the subsequent development of life becomes a relatively straightforward journey guided by the principles of evolution. The hypotheses we explore below are primarily concerned with shedding light on the emergence of LUCA:

  • Exogenesis, also known as the Panspermia hypothesis, posits that life on Earth originated from extraterrestrial sources, such as microorganisms or genetic material transported through space.
  • The RNA world hypothesis suggests that RNA molecules played a pivotal role in the early stages of life, serving as both genetic material and catalysts for chemical reactions.
  • The Primordial Soup hypothesis proposes that life emerged from a mixture of organic compounds in Earth’s early oceans, where chemical reactions and interactions gave rise to the first living organisms.
  • The Protein Interaction World hypothesis explores the possibility that proteins played a critical role in the emergence of life, facilitating biochemical processes and driving the formation of complex molecular structures.
  • The Clay hypothesis suggests that minerals, particularly clay minerals, may have provided a supportive environment for the assembly and replication of early biomolecules.

These hypotheses represent diverse avenues of exploration, offering distinct perspectives on the transition from inanimate matter to the complexity of life. It is important to note that these hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, and their convergence may have played a synergistic role in the emergence of life within our universe.

Furthermore, overarching explanations for the origin of life encompass more intricate and systematic frameworks. These often involve the gradual development of increasingly complex systems, guided by the laws of thermodynamics and the presence of free energy. Through this concept of chemical evolution, life may have emerged as simple molecules evolved into more sophisticated structures, ultimately giving rise to the intricacies and diversity of life as we know it.

The Definition of Life

From the depths of our exploration, it becomes clear that the essence of life lies in the relentless pursuit of self-preservation. Living entities, whether they be objects or systems existing within a specific environment and timeframe, actively strive to sustain their present state or propagate themselves through intricate processes. 

At the heart of this definition lies the indispensable concept of metabolism—the ability to harness free energy from the environment. It is through metabolism that organic life forms maintain their vitality and perpetuate their existence. Yet, we must acknowledge that the mere utilization of free energy and the manifestation of activity do not exclusively denote life. Machines, too, exhibit such processes, yet lack the inherent drive for self-preservation. Thus, while metabolism and the utilization of free energy are essential, they alone are insufficient conditions for life’s classification.

Does growth hold the key to life? In terrestrial biological life, growth emerges through reproduction and ontogeny—a proliferation in numbers that encompasses visible milestones like reaching adulthood. However, we must distinguish between growth as a definitive characteristic of life and growth observed in inanimate structures like crystals or stalactites. According to our definition, growth is not an essential criterion; rather, self-sustainment and preservation serve as the fundamental indicators of life. Nonetheless, reproduction, a cornerstone of our definition, often accompanies growth, as it is intertwined with the propagation of life. Thus, growth finds its place within our definition as well.

Adaptation, a process that fosters survival and self-preservation, resonates deeply with the essence of our definition. The ability to respond to stimuli and react to the environment epitomizes the very core of life. While not an infallible proof, these indicators strongly suggest the presence of a living organism.

Reproduction, another manifestation of life within our definition, distinguishes life forms capable of procreation. It serves as a vital aspect that perpetuates the continuity of life itself.

The capacity to exhibit signs of life when provided with free energy stems from certain materials or objects’ unique composition and structure. Complex arrangements capable of generating specialized behavioral patterns often underpin the existence of living entities. However, in our definition, the potential for life extends beyond complexity. In theory, even relatively simple organisms within a specific environment can manifest signs of life. Our definition aligns closely and logically with other interpretations of life while simultaneously expanding upon them from multiple perspectives.

We have yet to define the precise forms and materials life may assume. Are cells a requisite? We have not explicitly stated so. In fact, according to our definition, even viruses may be considered living entities. From our standpoint, anything actively striving for its own survival possesses the essence of life. Furthermore, we shall discover that under suitable circumstances, within environmental and temporal constraints, even more extraordinary and unconventional life forms exist—ones that might challenge the conventional notions embraced by biologists. 

In our interpretation, the realm of living things extends beyond three-dimensional, organic bodies pulsating with breath and motion. Theoretically, life can manifest as a packet of energy composed of particles, a phenomenon, a behavioral pattern, or even a concept as long as it ardently pursues self-preservation. Take, for instance, a human thought or concept—an intangible entity that materializes as electrical signals and ions within the intricate neural pathways of the brain, composed of atoms. Living things are not separated from the inanimate world solely by their material structure or basic physical and chemical processes. Rather, they manifest specific and often intricate behavioral patterns that transcend inanimate objects and their lower-level processes, ultimately giving rise to living entities.

Thus, life can be seen as a supplementary form of behavior—an emergent phenomenon. While every building block, characteristic, process, and phenomenon of the inanimate world can also be found in the living world, not every behavior characteristic of living entities is present in “non-living” objects. Indeed, every living thing comprises numerous smaller “non-living” components, and every form of behavior that signifies life consists of many smaller physical, chemical, and other processes that individually do not denote life. This is a classic manifestation of emergent phenomena. 

In our interpretation, a living entity can simultaneously have “inanimate” parts. However, when combined, all these inanimate components and processes give rise to active signs of functioning life and a new pattern of behavior. Even though individual signs of life may consist of physical and chemical phenomena separately characteristic of the inanimate world, it is only when they converge that they constitute life phenomena. Metabolic processes within cells may individually occur in an inanimate environment, and physical processes observed during bird flight can be found in the inanimate world. But it is the collective presence and interplay of these processes that define life phenomena, such as hunting or fleeing. 

In our conceptual framework, living and inanimate are not mutually exclusive; rather, the “non-living” world encompasses living beings and the biosphere itself. An atom’s behavior remains “inanimate” even when it is part of a human brain, and something that exhibits signs of life does not cease to be “inanimate” either. This understanding will be crucial in our exploration of the meaning of life and in structuring and organizing potential answers.

Furthermore, our definition carries a critical implication—the differentiation between two types of behavior that signify life within the realm of self-preservation. In one case, the living object or system strives to maintain its own physical state. In the other, it goes beyond self-preservation and produces an identical or similar structured object or system—an act known as reproduction or procreation.

An intriguing epistemological debate arises regarding whether our simplified definition of “self-preservation” encompasses reproduction. However, in practical terms, this theoretical question holds no significant weight as we strive for a more precise and comprehensive understanding. The simplified definition merely served to introduce the fundamental concept.

The two basic types of life previously mentioned are individual and reproductive life types, which encompass a broad yet not strictly evolutionary classification. Individual life entails actively maintaining, protecting, or restoring one’s physical structure or state. It is exemplified by gazelles fleeing from lions to avoid being eaten, while lions exhibit the same behavior in their quest for food. On the other hand, reproductive life involves the pursuit of self-preservation through the procreation or production of offspring—a means of replicating oneself. This category encompasses unicellular organisms dividing and mothers giving birth to and nurturing their children. These two types of life, individual and reproductive, are not mutually exclusive but rather interdependent, making each other possible.

It is safe to say that the majority of biological organisms on Earth display both individual and reproductive signs of life. Even under our broader definition, it is likely that most biological lifeforms, whether unicellular or multicellular, exhibit a combination of individual and reproductive life. For the simplest unicellular organisms, this entails metabolic processes and defense mechanisms against environmental adversities. For instance, certain bacteria exhibit limited movement within their environment to seek more favorable conditions, while disease-causing bacteria actively attempt to enter a host body to acquire sustenance. In the case of multicellular organisms such as plants and animals, the individual behavioral patterns of self-preservation become even more apparent, with processes like photosynthesis and hunting serving as prime examples.

Reproduction, procreation, and division are typically evident in nearly every animal, and those that do not exhibit such behaviors usually have not survived through the ages. Nonetheless, exceptions do exist that highlight the distinction between the two types of life. Some individual living organisms possess individual lives but lack reproductive lives. Examples include infertile creatures like mules, worker ants, bees, and living beings that are no longer capable of procreation due to age or an unfortunate mutation resulting in infertility. Despite their inability to reproduce, we still consider them alive during their limited lifespan (per our more precise definition regarding time frames). A simple inquiry to someone who has been kicked by a mule or stung by a bee would confirm their aliveness. Individually, they possess transient capacities for self-preservation, which warrants considering them alive within a specific time span from this perspective.

Conversely, certain rudimentary lifeforms have reproductive lives but lack individual lives. Viruses are prime examples, although some biologists may not classify them as living organisms. When a virus is not actively multiplying, it exists in a static state, merely as DNA or RNA encased in a protein coat. It lacks autonomous functionality, metabolism, and active behavior outside other cells. This is why many people do not regard viruses as living entities, as they do not exhibit individual signs of life. However, according to our definition, viruses are indeed alive because they possess a reproductive life within other living systems, such as cells. This aspect aligns with our definition’s consideration of the environment. From this perspective, our definition remains practical and consistent: we can specify that viruses lack individual life and exclusively rely on certain environments, such as living organisms or cells, to sustain their reproductive lives. 

Viruses are often referred to as “replicators,” and we concur. Dismissing viruses as non-living entities solely from a narrowly defined standpoint of individual life while disregarding their reproductive capabilities within specific environments would be an oversight. After all, a viral infection could potentially lead to our demise, regardless of any presumptuous beliefs. Fortunately, in practical terms, viruses are generally acknowledged as living organisms, even by biologists who contest their classification on principle. This acknowledgment is evident in the annual renewal of flu vaccines due to viral mutations.

Furthermore, our definition allows us to delve into complex cases, such as that of worker bees or ants. These fascinating creatures possess individual lives, as evidenced by their need to eat and engage in self-preservation. However, they also display a willingness to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the hive, which may appear contradictory to the concept of individual life. The question of their reproductive life also arises since they do not procreate independently. Nonetheless, they contribute to the preservation of their queen’s gene pool, which is identical to their own. This involves potential self-sacrifice to protect the queen. If we consider the beehive as a unified entity and accept the queen’s procreation as a form of reproduction for the workers (due to their identical gene pools), then the workers indeed possess a reproductive role—a reproductive life within this system. While the confirmation of worker bees’ individual lives may be weakened by their selflessness, it only strengthens the evidence of their evolutionary existence. Thus, our concepts can effectively clarify even the most extreme cases.

In the context of the meaning of life, our definition offers a valuable analytical tool for addressing existing questions and dilemmas. While biologists may consider organisms that exhibit signs of both individual and reproductive life as living entities (such as dividing unicellular organisms, infertile mules, and worker ants), what people generally perceive as being alive in everyday situations holds greater significance for us. Firstly, individuals rightfully consider themselves alive, regardless of their ability or desire to have children. Secondly, the entirety of humanity, the human life cycle encompassing birth, procreation, and death, as well as the entire terrestrial biosphere, is regarded as alive and interconnected. Thus, our definition sheds light on the fact that the question “What is the meaning of human life?” encompasses not just one, but two types of human life.

Certainly, there are those who argue that individual life merely serves as a necessary “component” for reproductive life, as it is transient and subservient to gene replication. They contend that it cannot be considered a distinct type of life. Conversely, others propose that reproductive life is simply a sequence of individual lives, with reproduction itself being part of individual life. They focus on examining the meaning of individual lives. However, it is crucial for our research to acknowledge individual human life. While it may be acceptable to disregard the individual life of a unicellular organism when studying its life’s purpose (given that its individual behavior is largely genetically determined), the same cannot be done when it comes to human beings, particularly the individual in question. Removing the concept of individual life theoretically renders the question, “What is the meaning of my life?” nonsensical. Thus, we cannot overlook individual life in our investigations. For the purpose of our book, a broad and inclusive definition is essential.

Consequently, according to our definition, there exist two fundamental types of life: singular, individual life, and evolutionary, reproductive life. Previous definitions of life often failed to clarify this distinction, leading to misunderstandings. However, recognizing both types of life does not imply their identity. The long-term success of biological life, spanning billions of years, primarily stems from the triumph of reproductive (and indirectly evolutionary) life. Individual lives are typically finite, limited in adaptive abilities, and susceptible to environmental constraints, rendering them vulnerable. Within a statistically given period, individual life forms are highly likely to perish. In contrast, by its very definition, reproductive life is immortal and has persisted on Earth for billions of years. Hence, due to their distinct characteristics, we cannot treat these two types of life in the same manner.

It is important to note that the two types of life are not contradictory; in fact, they depend on each other in almost every instance. Most reproductive life cycles encompass individual phases, while individual lives often have evolutionary predecessors and successors. Biology often does not distinguish between the two types since they usually, though not without exceptions, presuppose and intertwine with one another.

It is also important to note that our definition does not exclusively pertain to biological life or reproduction. Therefore, we can even acknowledge a computer virus as partially (albeit only partially!) reproductively alive within computer systems or networks. Computer viruses, despite being non-biological entities, exhibit infectious behavior and can self-replicate, demonstrating their pursuit of self-preservation within their specific environment.

Interestingly, computer viruses also possess a semblance of individual lives. These programs are often engineered to evade detection by antivirus software within computers, and some viruses even attempt to disable these protective measures. However, it is worth noting that their individual life is relatively simplistic, representing a predetermined pattern of behavior that lacks complexity or adaptability.

Time and Observations

In the scientific pursuit of the meaning of life, the concepts of time and observation play crucial roles in our quest for understanding. As a fundamental dimension of the universe, time provides the framework within which life unfolds and evolves. Observations, on the other hand, serve as the empirical foundation upon which our scientific understanding is built.

When we examine the phenomenon of life through the lens of time, we gain insights into its temporal nature and evolutionary processes. Over billions of years, life on Earth has undergone remarkable transformations, adapting and diversifying in response to changing environments. The fossil record, a testament to the passage of time, reveals the progression of life from simple single-celled organisms to the complex array of species we see today.

Observations of the natural world offer us glimpses into the intricate workings of life. Through the scientific method, we make systematic and objective observations, collect data, and formulate hypotheses to explain the phenomena we encounter. For instance, observing the behavior of social animals like ants or bees helps us understand how cooperation and division of labor contribute to the survival and reproduction of the colony as a whole.

Time and observation also allow us to explore the principles underlying life’s emergence. By studying the chemical reactions and physical processes that occur within living organisms, we gain insights into the fundamental building blocks of life, such as DNA and proteins. Through observations of genetic variation and natural selection, we unravel the mechanisms that drive evolutionary change and shape the diversity of life forms on Earth.

One remarkable instance where time and observation converge is in the field of astrobiology. Scientists observe distant stars and planetary systems, searching for habitable environments that may support life as we know it. The study of exoplanets and their atmospheres provides clues about the potential for the existence of extraterrestrial life. By considering the vast timescales involved and making observations of distant celestial bodies, scientists expand their understanding of the conditions necessary for life to arise and persist.

Additionally, time and observation inform our exploration of consciousness and the human experience. Neuroscientific research enables us to observe the workings of the brain, mapping neural activity and studying the relationship between cognition and subjective experiences. By examining how the brain processes information and generates consciousness, we deepen our understanding of the human mind and its role in shaping our perception of meaning and purpose.


An intriguing aspect of human life expectancy is the prolonged period it takes for young individuals to mature. This phenomenon is not unique to modern society but has been a longstanding characteristic throughout history. While antelope calves are able to stand shortly after birth, a three-month-old human child struggles even to crawl, demonstrating the innate biological vulnerability that persists for a considerable duration. This delayed biological development is then compounded by social factors such as education. Even in more nature-oriented communities like tribes in forests, children remain dependent and do not attain full membership within the tribe until many years have passed. In modern societies, this state of “nonage” and reliance can extend for decades.

The relatively long lifespan of humans can be attributed to their biological composition as vertebrates, mammals, and primates with relatively large bodies. Primates, including humans, typically live for more than 15 years, and it is not uncommon for them to reach or exceed 40 years of age. The acquisition and transmission of knowledge necessary for independent living in humans necessitate an extended period of nurturing, wherein older individuals play significant roles. The practical application of acquired knowledge and skills must yield returns that justify the time invested in perfecting them, and this, in turn, requires a lengthy lifespan. In traditional large-family models, parents work while grandparents assume the responsibility of teaching and caring for their grandchildren, a task made possible by their extended lifespans.

The correlation between human intelligence and life expectancy is multifaceted. Intelligence has facilitated human development in scientific, social, and technical domains, thereby influencing life expectancy. Simultaneously, the extent and flexibility of human intelligence are intertwined with the extended learning process. As the body of theoretical and practical knowledge continues to expand, a longer learning period becomes necessary. While genes determine brain capacities and basic cognitive abilities, these capacities are also adaptable. Each stage of life demands the appropriate application of these abilities, requiring minimal innate, concrete knowledge at birth. 

Although it might have been advantageous to possess innate knowledge, such as Newton’s law of gravitation, at birth during the Stone Age, it would have hindered the discovery and adoption of subsequent scientific advancements, such as the general theory of relativity. A similar principle applies to group structures and social systems. While an innate “imperial instinct” might have expedited the establishment of empires, it would have impeded the formation of diverse social systems, including the democratic systems based on individual freedom prevalent today.

The interconnectedness of human intelligence, flexibility, and the absence of innate knowledge (also known as a tabula rasa) regarding facts and knowledge at birth, is unsurprising. It remains unknown which current pieces of knowledge will require abandonment in the future to pave the way for new perspectives and remarkable discoveries. Similarly, future generations must learn and adapt to various social life forms from birth to thrive and develop in unprecedented conditions.

Intelligence and consciousness hold immense significance in the context of individual human life, although they are not synonymous with life itself. By examining their existence and effects, we can derive valuable albeit indirect insights into the meaning of life.

Humans are distinguished from all other living and inanimate entities in the universe primarily due to their intelligence. It is the primary factor that elevates us, enabling the creation and sustenance of tools, machines, and various social structures. Thus, the purpose and meaning of our lives lie in utilizing and developing our intelligence to its fullest potential, encompassing learning, research, and more. This widely accepted notion highlights the significance of intelligence for both individual and reproductive life.

The existence of intelligence may also hold objective or even ultimate meaning on a larger or universal scale. As humans, we have the capacity to influence and exert control over our biological and physical environment, which in itself can be seen as a meaningful pursuit. Through advancements in science and technology, we may eventually extend our influence beyond our own society and even impact processes on a cosmic scale. Although currently speculative, the idea that highly intelligent civilizations could manipulate cosmic processes demonstrates the potential significance of intelligence in shaping the meaning of life. Therefore, the pursuit of intelligence becomes intrinsically tied to our purpose, particularly in the realm of reproductive life.

While the development of human intelligence is important, it is crucial to acknowledge that intelligence is not synonymous with life itself. The human brain and intelligence have evolved through an evolutionary process that served the survival of our ancestors. As such, intelligence should serve life rather than the other way around. 

Let’s not forget that intelligence can be employed destructively, as evident in militarism, warfare, and the creation of weapons of mass destruction. Hence, intelligence is a crucial tool that must be harnessed and utilized for the benefit of humankind. This perspective emphasizes the need for intelligence to be deployed wisely, acknowledging its importance while understanding that it is a means to an end. This applies to both individual and reproductive life.

Through our existence, we can objectively affirm the existence of our intelligence and consciousness. Therefore, our presence in the universe contributes to its partial intelligence and consciousness. Consequently, the meaning of our life lies in making the universe itself partially intelligent and conscious. This concept primarily applies to human reproductive life, considering the vast scale and age of the universe. While we may not be aware of other intelligent or conscious beings at or above our level, our existence allows us to contribute to the intelligence and consciousness of the cosmos. This objective meaning remains independent of our personal opinions and is observable, measurable (albeit small compared to the universe’s size), and accepted by a group of people. As long as we exist, this objective meaning persists, and to maintain its significance, we must strive to stay alive and improve if possible.

While the aforementioned meanings possess a certain level of objectivity, they are not absolute. The eventual destruction of the universe or the extinction of all intelligent life would extinguish this objective meaning in the future. It is important to acknowledge that absolute certainty is unattainable. Currently, these meanings hold objective value, but in a changed reality, they may dissipate without leaving a trace.