Is life really planned or is it all just random?

[John7777]

I don't think it's either. There's no grand "plan." And yet we have free will and can alter our course. And to the extent that makes a difference, the world isn't random, either. On balance, I'd say the random forces are winning.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by John7777

I don't think it's either. There's no grand "plan." And yet we have free will and can alter our course. And to the extent that makes a difference, the world isn't random, either. On balance, I'd say the random forces are winning.

Not free will really, but freedom of choice. Free will would require an always unlimited menu of choices with no undesired consequences from any of them.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by charlygal

However, to the part I highlighted above, that is not about ego. It's about being the product of a creator. Do you agree that we are all alive and that mankind has been created? Even if you believe mankind crawled out of some ooze, the force/energy/whatever that contained within itself the power to create had to have some meaning for the actual creation. Otherwise, the power to create would be useless.

I believe only that we are at the end of a causal chain that we largely, in broad terms, understand but that in pragmatic personal terms is essentially random. We wouldn't be having this conversation if my parents had not gotten randy in the late summer of 1956, and probably on a particular day at a particular time to boot. We wouldn't be having this conversation (or at least not this exact one) if I had gotten tetanus from that rusty nail I accidentally impaled my hand on somewhere around 1968. And so on.

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

Look at anything around you. Plants, animals, dirt, rocks, heck, even your iPhone. It was all created. Doesn't it all serve some purpose? Even poop (created by the body) serves a purpose.

You are using "created" pretty loosely. Creation implies a creator which implies a deliberate intent. I scarcely think that my sweat or my poop deserve to be called "created". Excreted is more like it. Causal chains again.

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

But how do you reconcile the contradiction that "your life isn't about you at all. Not one bit" with "build your own meaning and significance and make the most of your existence."

There is nothing to reconcile. It's just a way of saying that meaning is not externally bestowed, it is made by us and is our responsibility.

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

If life isn't "about" the person living (I get what you're saying about "ego" or even "attachment"), what's the use of find meaning and significance? Even if one dedicates their life to...helping others, that most certainly is "about" the person.

Self actualization, directed purpose. It is not a question of whether there is meaning, but from whence it comes and whose responsibility it is. Prefabricated meanings constructed by others are superficially comforting to those who need the approval and permission of others to think thoughts and explore the world. But ultimately they are someone else's borrowed vision and represent dependence on the bestower (in the case under discussion, religious belief-systems, although you would doubtless say, "god").

The best meaning for any given individual is what they find through knowing themselves and assuming the roles in the world that resonate with them. And it's not an "anything goes" proposition because there are plenty of feedback mechanisms that tell you that if you are attracted to something that society deems threatening to the greater good, you will not successfully find fulfillment in that thing.

"What's the use" and "why bother" types of questions arise largely from the existential reality that existence is, for any given individual, inherently pointless. People then extrapolate from that to an inevitable nihilistic view of life, leading to despair and giving up -- literally or figuratively. That is simply a reaction to the fact that we are by nature wanting to gather 'round some sort of metaphorical comforting campfire and feel less alone. That we ultimately are all born, live, and die alone, in a vast and impersonal universe, seems a discomfiting thought. But it is a matter of perspective. Most of the time, all the meaning, purpose, and pointfulness you can want are available to the individual who constructs them for itself. We are capable of that. But fearing that we are not, we turn to people who are willing to sell us their own concepts of what is (un)worthy and (ig)noble to be pursuing.

Humans suppress their self-awareness in various ways because being self-aware means facing mortality, random happenstance, and other hazards and limitations and frustrations, ultimately alone and with zero guarantees. They suppress it because there is so much suffering to bear witness to, for themselves and for others. We want to escape this and use various shortcuts to do so: religion, compartmentalization, distraction, repression, etc. But these are all diversions from being fully human. The only way forward for me is to face it all full-on and work to create order and safety and justice and comfort for myself and others, for the short time I am here, with no illusions that the universe cares a whit whether I succeed or fail. The important thing is that I care.

[Matt Marcinkiewicz]

Originally Posted by John7777

I don't think it's either. There's no grand "plan." And yet we have free will and can alter our course. And to the extent that makes a difference, the world isn't random, either. On balance, I'd say the random forces are winning.

Two senses of randomness: one in the sense of information as it can be known by us, and one in the sense of how it actually is. Given the latter understanding of the term, I argue life is entirely non-random--physics determines ALL. Future human discoveries regarding quantum physics, of which I will likely not be part, will either bear me out on this or disprove me or be unable to conclude in either direction. Until disproof, I will maintain my position that physics is in fact fully deterministic.

Given the former understanding of the term "randomness", however, then life's sufficiently random to keep us interested enough for the 75 or so years for which we might be [un]lucky enough to roam this planet--subject to change, of course (regarding life expectancy stats and our interest levels and even the possibility of us understanding randomness in two different ways).

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz

Two senses of randomness: one in the sense of information as it can be known by us, and one in the sense of how it actually is. Given the latter understanding of the term, I argue life is entirely non-random--physics determines ALL. Future human discoveries regarding quantum physics, of which I will likely not be part, will either bear me out on this or disprove me or be unable to conclude in either direction. Until disproof, I will maintain my position that physics is in fact fully deterministic.

Given the former understanding of the term "randomness", however, then life's sufficiently random to keep us interested enough for the 75 or so years for which we might be [un]lucky enough to roam this planet--subject to change, of course (regarding life expectancy stats and our interest levels and even the possibility of us understanding randomness in two different ways).

To me, that physics determines all makes life largely explicable but doesn't remove randomness in the sense meant by the existential concerns of the OP.

And physics as we currently (mis)understand it doesn't determine all. Our physics is not 100% accurate or complete. Nor will physics ever remove the need for philosophical exploration.