On b5’s forums, one of our bloggers asked what the meaning of life was. I said it was, quite obviously, 42. Aaron, our Tech Manager, retorted that I was wrong. That 42 was the meaning of life, the universe and everything. Hence, life’s meaning was 42/3. Or 14.
My response is below:
No, see, that would assume that life, the universe and everything had equal values. However it’s obvious that “everything” would include the universe (and may or may not include “life”, as “life” is fairly ambiguous in that it could mean life in general (which would be included in “everything”) or the value of YOUR life (which wouldn’t, as it’s a subjective value)).
Which means life is either a subset of the value of everything (ie: 42=everything(x+universe+life)) or completely separate (ie: 42=everything + universe + life).
Unless, of course, Adams meant “life, the universe and everything else that isn’t included”. My guess ishe meant “life as an objective stance” (as in Ingrid’s “what’s the meaning of life”, as opposed to “what’s the meaning of MY life”. Likewise, my guess is he meant everything as a separate entity to “life” and “the universe”. In fact, my guess is he meant “the magic of life”, “the magic of the universe” and “the magic of everything else that’s cool about everything else”.
In which case, the formula is certainly 42=life + universe + everything. However, even having deduced that (though the deduction could be wrong), it’s hard to imagine that 3 incredibly valuable things would all have the same core values in the answer of 42.
My supposition is that “the universe” is simply a function of “stuff” existing (ie: molecules collide and cool things happen). However “the universe” doesn’t necessarily result in “life”. So “life” is inherently more valuable than “the universe”. Not so much more valuable that it overshadows it - after all, life wouldn’t exist without the universe. But certainly of greater value.
How valuable, for example, is Wayne Gretsky’s father (had house with pond, taught Wayne to play, encouraged him daily, etc) to the value that is Wayne Gretsky. I’d argue that a talent like Gretsky is 10% genes, 15% upbringing, 40% perseverance, 30% training and 5% pure dumb luck. As a result, his father likely accounts for half his genes, half his upbringing and probably 10% of his training (since he was so involved early). Which really means Wayne’s father is worth at least 22.5% of Wayne Gretsky.
Wayne’s father would exist without Wayne, but Wayne wouldn’t exist without his father.
If we take the same figures and apply them to the formula, we might be getting somewhere.
In terms of “everything else that’s cool”, my guess is that that is a by-product (in a similar way to Wayne and his father) of both the universe and life.
So, in the tree of value, we have “everything”, which is 11.25% more valuable than both life and the universe, and life, which is 22.5% more valuable than just the universe.
Which means life is worth roughly 10.9466, the universe 8.936 and everything 22.119.
Even then, truth be told, that doesn’t tell us the meaning of life. Just the value of it.
So, I guess I was wrong in that I didn’t actually answer Ingrid’s question
On further reflection, I realized Adams had said 14 was the MEANING of life, the universe and everything. Hence, the meaning of life is, obviously, 10.9466, give or take a millenia or two.
#1 by Jeroen Mulder - January 16th, 2007 at 14:57
Perhaps if one gets a life, then Aaron would be right?
#2 by Sean - January 16th, 2007 at 18:44
Except that Adams said that 42 is the “answer to the question” of the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. The question never gets defined, the closest we get is “what is six times nine?”
Sean
#3 by jake-M - January 16th, 2007 at 21:46
How interesting that the Universe, vast as it is, is worth less than life, limited as life can be. But then again, the box that holds the xbox360 is worth less than the jewel housed inside, so why shouldn’t this obviously all inclusive principle apply to an infinite space? Also interesting is the “everything” factor. Everything must include all the “nothing” that’s out there too. In fact, the ratio of something to nothing is worth a look.
Further, Gretzky is spelled with a Z. Common mistake.
#4 by Jim Turner - January 16th, 2007 at 21:51
You forgot to divide by PI
#5 by John Evans (Syntagma) - January 19th, 2007 at 10:27
My guess : 42 was Adams’s age when he wrote the book. Thus, for him, the universe (and everything) had a timestamp of 42 years attached.
#6 by Bob - January 23rd, 2007 at 10:42
After 40 you need different considerations to your life that include finances, life style and maintaining your health.
#7 by Steve - January 26th, 2007 at 22:55
Holy Crap!
#8 by Frank - February 2nd, 2007 at 05:48
Realy ! the box that holds the xbox360 is worth less than the jewel housed inside!
#9 by Liz Strauss - February 4th, 2007 at 11:31
Could you go over that one more time?
#10 by Jeff Brown - February 4th, 2007 at 13:26
Is this gonna be on the final?
#11 by Ben - February 6th, 2007 at 09:24
Life. Don’t talk to me about life.
Or, at least, if you’re going to, please provide significant quantities of alcohol.
Anyway I think the whole 42 thing has got too much attention. My favorite bit is the ruler of the universe. I’d sure like to visit him one day, and sing to his cat… which has nothing whatsoever to do with this post, but there you go.
#12 by Dima - March 18th, 2008 at 08:51
The universe wouldn’t exist without life; The force that determines it’s existence. So in that sense, time being only a perception, the amount of time it took for the universe to begin, and life to exist is irrelevant because nothing could determine (or rather experience) how long it would take.
Not really on topic, but if you want to know the value of life, its the most valuable of all because of this fact.
#13 by chris - November 4th, 2008 at 09:34
certainly, this will not answer my homework….