I only have about 5 minutes right now, so I'll reply later to others. Thanks to everyone for commenting though!

I thought about the following things yesterday:
- Second law of thermodynamics: Heat naturally flows from a system of higher temperature to a system of lower temperature, which I also see manifested in how higher temperature processes take precedence over low temperature processes. Burning wood adjacent to unlit wood is an example of what I'm thinking of here.
- Heisenberg uncertainty principle: Copies of systems and processes are never perfect, which I see manifested in quantum tunneling and the quantum no-cloning principle. Genetics is an example of what I'm thinking of here.

So, perhaps the purpose of life is to obey the second law of thermodynamics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, just like any other process involving burning material is.

years ago I wrote a 20 minute song about it

the final part

the meaning of life is to fuck
to fuck until you loose your mind
youve gotta love everyone in sight
youve gotta do it till you go blind
and with any luck
there will be an afterlife
but until that day comes along
youve just gotta keep on moaning and sighing

I don't know how relevant this is but I don't think the dominant species isolated on a planet will be able to access it's intelligence/greatness. We humans think we are pretty smart, but to a weak mind it's own accomplishments seem great. So basically we as humans may be the big fish in the pond but there is a whole ocean out there that we have only had a minuscule glimpse of. There is a lot we don't know.

Life, as has been clearly established, has no "purpose" in the canonical sense of the word.

However, it does follow a simple guiding principle, which is that certain patterns tend to outlast other patterns. This is the essence of natural selection. At some point in the past, certain chemicals become more likely to form than others; these chemicals began forming compounds, some of which had more longevity than others; and these progressed into fundamental components which also tended to stay intact for longer periods of time than alternative blobs of matter. Give it a few billion years and these compounds organize into information-storage structures (DNA et. al.) and start creating replicating organisms which ultimately wind up producing countless species of life across the globe.

It's not really all that mysterious or profound, frankly. It's just a simple mathematical principle: if something is more likely to remain intact and/or propagate, it will do so on statistical average. The reason life developed is that this pattern recurses. You start with particles, which tend to organize into atoms, and atoms into molecules, molecules into compounds, compounds into structures, structures into life forms.

I highly recommend anyone with a little bit of programming experience to dabble in genetic evolutionary algorithms. Nothing scary or complex (unless you want to) - just look at how incredibly powerful this principle really is. Start with some random gibberish and watch as almost-organic-looking bits of code end up coming out the other side. It's not a direct correlation to real life (since you have an external force "choosing" to kill certain code forms) but it's very instructive about how evolution operates.

- Heisenberg uncertainty principle: Copies of systems and processes are never perfect, which I see manifested in quantum tunneling and the quantum no-cloning principle. Genetics is an example of what I'm thinking of here.

Eh? The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle I learned is that you can't measure both the exact position and momentum of any particle at the same time; that is, the more precise your measurement of position, the less precise your measurement of momentum, and vice versa.

Also, from a semantic point of view, asking what the "purpose of life" is implies (in the sense of linguistic implicature, not logical entailment) that life is an intentionally created artefact. To ask this particular phrasing of the question without having first demonstrated (or listed as an assumption, at the very least) that life is such an artefact begs the question thereof.

So, perhaps the purpose of life is to obey the second law of thermodynamics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, just like any other process involving burning material is.

Everything "obeys" these (as far as current scientific knowledge goes), like rocks, clocks, oranges and the vacuum of space. This just sounds like anthromorphism to me.

I highly recommend anyone with a little bit of programming experience to dabble in genetic evolutionary algorithms. Nothing scary or complex (unless you want to) - just look at how incredibly powerful this principle really is. Start with some random gibberish and watch as almost-organic-looking bits of code end up coming out the other side. It's not a direct correlation to real life (since you have an external force "choosing" to kill certain code forms) but it's very instructive about how evolution operates.

I second this, I was into making ALife sims years ago in school, and found it fascinating. The strategies that evolutionary processes (artificial and biological) produce are a surprising mixture of hacks and kludges, yet at the same time often beautifully genius.

Life, as has been clearly established, has no "purpose" in the canonical sense of the word.

However, it does follow a simple guiding principle, which is that certain patterns tend to outlast other patterns. This is the essence of natural selection. At some point in the past, certain chemicals become more likely to form than others; these chemicals began forming compounds, some of which had more longevity than others; and these progressed into fundamental components which also tended to stay intact for longer periods of time than alternative blobs of matter. Give it a few billion years and these compounds organize into information-storage structures (DNA et. al.) and start creating replicating organisms which ultimately wind up producing countless species of life across the globe.

It's not really all that mysterious or profound, frankly. It's just a simple mathematical principle: if something is more likely to remain intact and/or propagate, it will do so on statistical average. The reason life developed is that this pattern recurses. You start with particles, which tend to organize into atoms, and atoms into molecules, molecules into compounds, compounds into structures, structures into life forms.

I highly recommend anyone with a little bit of programming experience to dabble in genetic evolutionary algorithms. Nothing scary or complex (unless you want to) - just look at how incredibly powerful this principle really is. Start with some random gibberish and watch as almost-organic-looking bits of code end up coming out the other side. It's not a direct correlation to real life (since you have an external force "choosing" to kill certain code forms) but it's very instructive about how evolution operates.

Well said, and pretty much in tune with what I had in mind this morning. Life's nothing special, though it does indeed act differently than dead matter, but defining that difference isn't really why I started this thread.

[quote name='taby' timestamp='1341948609' post='4957739']
- Heisenberg uncertainty principle: Copies of systems and processes are never perfect, which I see manifested in quantum tunneling and the quantum no-cloning principle. Genetics is an example of what I'm thinking of here.

Eh? The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle I learned is that you can't measure both the exact position and momentum of any particle at the same time; that is, the more precise your measurement of position, the less precise your measurement of momentum, and vice versa.

Also, from a semantic point of view, asking what the "purpose of life" is implies (in the sense of linguistic implicature, not logical entailment) that life is an intentionally created artefact. To ask this particular phrasing of the question without having first demonstrated (or listed as an assumption, at the very least) that life is such an artefact begs the question thereof.
[/quote]

Seems like we're talking about the same uncertainty principle?

I realize now that the word "purpose" was probably not the best word. I wonder what a better word would be, other than "role". For sure it's pretty hard not to anthropomorphize what I'm trying to ask about.

Everything "obeys" these (as far as current scientific knowledge goes), like rocks, clocks, oranges and the vacuum of space. This just sounds like anthromorphism to me.

I think you're getting me backwards, because of how I was coming at it yesterday. What I was saying earlier today was that all processes -- dead or alive -- "compete" to "obey" these laws. It's not just "as far as current scientific knowledge goes", because it's not just a theory, it's a law. Of course, you're still ignoring the spontaneity aspect, which sounds like so much reverse anthropomorphism, so it can't be quite right either. Surely you're not going to accuse me of saying that smoke and fire are alive. LOL.

[quote name='Oberon_Command' timestamp='1341972072' post='4957856']
[quote name='taby' timestamp='1341948609' post='4957739']
- Heisenberg uncertainty principle: Copies of systems and processes are never perfect, which I see manifested in quantum tunneling and the quantum no-cloning principle. Genetics is an example of what I'm thinking of here.

Eh? The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle I learned is that you can't measure both the exact position and momentum of any particle at the same time; that is, the more precise your measurement of position, the less precise your measurement of momentum, and vice versa.

Also, from a semantic point of view, asking what the "purpose of life" is implies (in the sense of linguistic implicature, not logical entailment) that life is an intentionally created artefact. To ask this particular phrasing of the question without having first demonstrated (or listed as an assumption, at the very least) that life is such an artefact begs the question thereof.
[/quote]

Seems like we're talking about the same uncertainty principle?
[/quote]

I'm not sure that we are. How do you get "copies of systems and processes are never perfect" from "one may not precisely measure the momentum and position of a particle at the same instant?"