|
Many years ago, I read that the meaning of life is 42. I didn't understand the answer and pondered it up until about a year ago. I discovered something amazing. I now understand why the meaning of life is 42, and what the answer means. I think the answer is so clever that it's almost brilliant. It explains everything.
What do you think? Is the meaning of life 42?
|
|
|
|
|
I think you'd need to get the mice to build a bigger computer[^] to work out what the question is first.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
In Life, The Universe and Everything, it was worked out as "What is 6 by 9?"
And yeah, it doesn't make sense. That's Douglas Adams for you. He was hilarious though.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: And yeah, it doesn't make sense
It does in base13
|
|
|
|
|
Base 13 makes sense if you have polydactylism, with 6 fingers on each hand, and you are a man.
|
|
|
|
|
Feeling sorry for the Babylonians then.
And Danes as well.
|
|
|
|
|
The "answer" to life, the universe & everything is 42.
Its just the question can't co-exist in the same universe. 
Wiki has an interesting page on 42[^]
// TODO: Insert something here Top ten reasons why I'm lazy
1.
|
|
|
|
|
yacCarsten wrote: Its just the question can't co-exist in the same universe. 
First off, I love your signature. That's so funny!
Your reply reminds me of when I asked chatGPT if nothing exists. I forget the answer that I got, but it was somewhat lame and incomplete.
I believe that nothing doesn't exist. If nothing exists, then it's no longer nothing. If nothing becomes something, it ceases to be nothing. Right?
|
|
|
|
|
That is a matter of term definition. One can even frame it in set theory.
In set theory I can have a set with 'A' and 'B'.
{A, B}
In set theory one can also have an empty set. It looks like the following
{}
However one still then has that set - the empty one. So conceptually one can then argue that there is in fact something. So one should remove that set as well.
That argument is not realistic however because despite not stating it as such one is implicitly assuming another set - the one that contains the empty set. If it was not in fact contained in something then it would not be possible to remove it.
That is the same as the 'nothing' argument. What exactly are you removing 'nothing' from?
I would compare that to statements/questions about what was 'before' the Big Bang. That very statement however is false because time only exists in the universe. So there cannot be a 'before'. One would need to redefine time (in an actual consistent way) to allow one to even to ask the question.
|
|
|
|
|
You have no tea.
(Infocom HGTTG reference.)
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Raw wrote: I believe that nothing doesn't exist. If nothing exists, then it's no longer nothing. If nothing becomes something, it ceases to be nothing. Right?
You haven't seen the neverending story, have you?  
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: You haven't seen the neverending story, have you?  
I saw it as a kid, but I don't really remember anything about it.
A Google result explains something about the main antagonist known as "The Nothing".
Referring to something that is nothing by using the word 'the' turns Nothing into something.
That something is a noun. This means nothing is a person, place, or thing. If something that's
nothing is a thing, then it can't be nothing, because all things are something and no things
are nothing. Right?
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what you have smoked... but I definitivelly want a bit  
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: First off, I love your signature.
Thanks. It was going to be a running gag by adding something to it every now and then. But I can't be bothered. 
// TODO: Insert something here Top ten reasons why I'm lazy
1.
|
|
|
|
|
Does this imply that the meaning of Non-Life is this?
..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ..., 40, 41, 43, 44, ..., 10000, ...
Or that Non-Life (whatever it means) is much much bigger in size than Life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
liquid nitrogen
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: liquid nitrogen
Someone buy this man a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster!
|
|
|
|
|
You're making my brain hurt
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 888 869 450 418 352 160 768 000 000
|
|
|
|
|
It's not 42. It' "Sorry for the inconvenience". Ask Arthur.
Zaphod
|
|
|
|
|
Tea for two, or for tea, two?
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, not the "meaning", particularly if you ask Wowbagger.
Now go stick your head in a pig.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Now go stick your head in a pig.
Which end of the pig?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
