What is the answer to the ultimate question of life and universe?

Question

people, many scietists and researchers are trying to figure the answer to the ultimate question of life and universe so what is really

1, life ? and

2, universe ?

we have taken birth and whatelse we live, eat, work, sleep and have relationships, love and the same goes everyday and finally we die

what is the use of taking birth we may earn fame like einstein did and surely after we finish our education to our self-limit we wont think of einstein and think only about our future

so what is life, universe and galaxy and other unknown things in space we are to die anyway so what is the use of taking birth

never say we born only because of sperm and ovum, i ask why that sperm and ovum are created for all life forms ?

i want the first basic reason for it, can anyone guess - hope you can

please post you opinion

accepts any reply other than vulgarity and bad contents

come on brilliants

thanks in advance

Answer 1

No one knows, and this is something that you know. You know that none of these definite answers can really be answers to such questions. You know that when you elect the answer that gives a definite purpose, you are only answering it to comfort your need for one. You know that the only fact applicable to such questions is that there is none.  

Answer 2

49  or is it 42?

Oh, wait, no.  That was the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe AND EVERYTHING!  

'mI bad!

Answer 3

Well, who decides what the Ultimate question is?  And why pick a question that cannot be answered?  Personally I think a better question to base your life on, would be, "How can I make myself better?".  That way, if everyone strives to answer how to be a better self, the world overall would be a better place, in general.  And because that is a question you can answer, it is a question that is wise.

Answer 4

No level of brilliant can answer this question, only a matter of opinion, sorry to spoil your hopes.  Personally, the bible is the last place I would turn to answer this question for me.  It's really hard for me to trust that some almighty entity appeared one day and summoned a man in a garden.  The question that really has me going is "How can something derive from nothing?"  Is it a power too great to comprehend or does the Big Bang Theory seem like a better answer.  We only hope to find out in death, where the most logical answer to that is that we turn back into dirt.

Answer 5

Naturalism, challenging the cogency of the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments, holds that the universe requires no supernatural cause and government, but is self-existent, self-explanatory, self-operating, and self-directing, that the world-process is not teleological and anthropocentric, but purposeless, deterministic (except for possible tychistic events), and only incidentally productive of man;

that human life, physical, mental, moral and spiritual, is an ordinary natural event attributable in all respects to the ordinary operations of nature; and that man's ethical values, compulsions, activities, and restraints can be justified on natural grounds, without recourse to supernatural sanctions, and his highest good pursued and attained under natural conditions, without expectation of a supernatural destiny. -- B.A.G.Fuller

Answer 6

i find this lies in the minds of scolars and prophets in other words no1 will ever know the truth because behind every truth is a lie to get the truth or to every fact will b a theroy so my theroy is this seek not if its meant to b known it will if not it will not like NASA now why do we need to go into space so much if its out there it will find us and Mars they say it has water so i guess all planets do then see if we could only trust each other then your ? would have been like 1000 pages long or ur e-mail box would b stuffed

Answer 7

A New Grandfather Paradox?

Theodore Sider Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57 (1997): 139-144

In an article in Scientic American (March 1994, pp. 68-74) entitled “The

Quantum Physics of Time Travel”, Oxford physicist David Deutsch and Oxford

philosopher Michael Lockwood give a defense of the physical possibility of

time travel based on the “ManyWorlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics.

This positive view of theirs is not my concern, however—I want to quarrel with

their argument that time travel cannot be accommodated in any other way.1

The best way to spell out the traditional “grandfather paradox” that appears

to threaten the possibility of time travel involves the notion of ability, or

personal possibility, or free will. An example of David Lewis’s: Tim travels back

in time with the intent to kill his grandfather.2 Let us x the case as one in which

Tim in fact will not kill Grandfather; still, it seems that he can kill Grandfather

because he is a good shot, has a gun, and is alone with Grandfather at close

range. As Lewis says, Tim “has what it takes” to kill Grandfather. However,

it is also compelling that Tim cannot kill Grandfather, because if Grandfather

had been killed in his youth, Tim would not have existed to kill him.

It is important to realize that the paradox essentially involves the notion

of ability. No inconsistency results from supposing that Tim does not kill

Grandfather. As for the case in which Tim does kill Grandfather, there are

various possibilities. We could tell a consistent time travel story in which Tim

kills Grandfather, but Grandfather is miraculously resurrected. Or one in which

Tim kills Grandfather, but in which Grandfather has already had a child. Or

one in which Tim kills Grandfather permanently, before Grandfather has any

children, but in which Tim’s grandfather is someone other than Grandfather.

As for the story in which Tim both kills Grandfather permanently in such a

way that Grandfather has no children, and also is descended from Grandfather,

this is an inconsistent time travel story; but of course the existence of some

1Deutsch and Lockwood actually argue about whether “classical physics” is consistent with

the possibility of time travel. It is by no means clear that “classical physics” means Newtonian

physics, for they say on p. 72 that “when we refer to quantum mechanics, we mean its so-called

many-universes interpretation”. Moreover, the only feature of classical physics that they use in

the argument involving the “autonomy principle” (see below) is that, as they put it, “Classical

physics says there is only one history” (p. 71).

2See David Lewis, “The Paradoxes of Time Travel”, in his Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2 (Oxford,

1986): pp. 67-80.

1

Answer 8

That we evolved to fill Mother Nature's most fantastic ecological niche.

Answer 9

Ecclesiastes sums it all up pretty well.