It's been 42 years since 'The Hitchhiker's Guide' answered the ultimate question(npr.org)
npr.org
It's been 42 years since 'The Hitchhiker's Guide' answered the ultimate question
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/17/1046593657/its-been-42-years-since-the-hitchhikers-guide-answered-the-ultimate-question
132 comments
The sapient cow that wants nothing more than to be eaten has stuck with me since the very first time I read it. It's like it was targeted right at militant vegans before there were militant vegans.
That whole piece is so Adams. It's a complete subplot, and the main plot happens interweaved and at the same time. Totally ridiculous. And I love how on the face its kinda stupid but then makes you think a bit about privilege... Wonderful.
Schopenhauer used an equation with the answer of 42 to make a metaphysical point in “The World as Will and Idea.” I suspect this is the meaning Adams had in mind:
As time has only one dimension, counting is the only arithmetical operation, to which all others may be reduced; and yet counting is just intuition or perception a priori, to which there is no hesitation in appealing here, and through which alone everything else, every sum and every equation, is ultimately proved. We prove, for example, not that (7 + 9 × 8 - 2)/3 = 42; but we refer to the pure perception in time, counting thus makes each individual problem an axiom. Instead of the demonstrations that fill geometry, the whole content of arithmetic and algebra is thus simply a method of abbreviating counting. We mentioned above that our immediate perception of numbers in time extends only to about ten. Beyond this an abstract concept of the numbers, fixed by a word, must take the place of the perception; which does not therefore actually occur any longer, but is only indicated in a thoroughly definite manner. Yet even so, by the important assistance of the system of figures which enables us to represent all larger numbers by the same small ones, intuitive or perceptive evidence of every sum is made possible, even where we make such use of abstraction that not only the numbers, but indefinite quantities and whole operations are thought only in the abstract and indicated as so thought, as [sqrt](r^b) so that we do not perform them, but merely symbolise them.
I tried to add this on Wikipedia a while ago, but was overruled by an editor.
Source: https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/38427/pg38427-images.html
More on Schopenhauer: https://www.locserendipity.com/TitleSearch.html?q=Schopen
As time has only one dimension, counting is the only arithmetical operation, to which all others may be reduced; and yet counting is just intuition or perception a priori, to which there is no hesitation in appealing here, and through which alone everything else, every sum and every equation, is ultimately proved. We prove, for example, not that (7 + 9 × 8 - 2)/3 = 42; but we refer to the pure perception in time, counting thus makes each individual problem an axiom. Instead of the demonstrations that fill geometry, the whole content of arithmetic and algebra is thus simply a method of abbreviating counting. We mentioned above that our immediate perception of numbers in time extends only to about ten. Beyond this an abstract concept of the numbers, fixed by a word, must take the place of the perception; which does not therefore actually occur any longer, but is only indicated in a thoroughly definite manner. Yet even so, by the important assistance of the system of figures which enables us to represent all larger numbers by the same small ones, intuitive or perceptive evidence of every sum is made possible, even where we make such use of abstraction that not only the numbers, but indefinite quantities and whole operations are thought only in the abstract and indicated as so thought, as [sqrt](r^b) so that we do not perform them, but merely symbolise them.
I tried to add this on Wikipedia a while ago, but was overruled by an editor.
Source: https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/38427/pg38427-images.html
More on Schopenhauer: https://www.locserendipity.com/TitleSearch.html?q=Schopen
> Schopenhauer used an equation with the answer of 42 to make a metaphysical point in “The World as Will and Idea.” I suspect this is the meaning Adams had in mind:
I think that DNA was satirising the idea of one number, or phrase, or any singular thing being "the" meaning of life—the meaning of life, I like to think he'd think, is life itself, not any minuscule segment of it.
The many interpretations that people can hang on even the most transparently ridiculous of answers is, I believe, part of his point. ("How many roads must a man walk down?" and "what do you get when you multiply six by nine?" as questions I think indicate how seriously he took the answer.)
I think that DNA was satirising the idea of one number, or phrase, or any singular thing being "the" meaning of life—the meaning of life, I like to think he'd think, is life itself, not any minuscule segment of it.
The many interpretations that people can hang on even the most transparently ridiculous of answers is, I believe, part of his point. ("How many roads must a man walk down?" and "what do you get when you multiply six by nine?" as questions I think indicate how seriously he took the answer.)
I'm really sorry, but this is distressing me no end: It should be (((7 + 9) x 8) -2) / 3 = 42. As written, it equals 25.6666...
I've been told that (-80538738812075974)^3 + (80435758145817515)^3 + (12602123297335631)^3 = 42
Seems right to me. Google agrees. What am I missing?
I think you've got an interesting version of google. For me it says 25.6666
The problem is that the arithmetic operators only associate left to right if they're the same precedence. The precedence is indicated by the old acronym BEDMAS: Brackets are highest, then Exponentiation, then Division and Multiplication, then Addition and Subtraction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
So the calculation as written in the original comment is (7 + (9 × 8) - 2)/3 = (7 + 72 - 2) / 3 = 77 / 3 = 25.666...
The problem is that the arithmetic operators only associate left to right if they're the same precedence. The precedence is indicated by the old acronym BEDMAS: Brackets are highest, then Exponentiation, then Division and Multiplication, then Addition and Subtraction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
So the calculation as written in the original comment is (7 + (9 × 8) - 2)/3 = (7 + 72 - 2) / 3 = 77 / 3 = 25.666...
Ah, I thought “as written” meant you had written what they did as an example. I was googling your formatting, which of course is correct.
I was 9 when he published Hitchhiker's guide. I'd just started reading and would go on to spend my teens reading ANYTHING I managed to lay my hands on. And throughout my teens everyone went on and on about Hitchhiker's Guide, and it just didn't... push me to read it. I eventually read it after being consrcipted. And it left me feeling as ambivalent as I felt before reading it.
As the comments here evidence, people read much into it, and the number 42. This is great. I felt books like The Ugly American [0], Honey Badger (Robert Ruark) and King Rat [1] had more to offer. My opinion hasn't much changed - but I feel the problem lies with me, in that depth and meaning are what I value.
Is humour the entirety of the draw for Hitchhiker's Guide, or (probably more likely) have I missed something?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_American
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Rat_(Clavell_novel)
As the comments here evidence, people read much into it, and the number 42. This is great. I felt books like The Ugly American [0], Honey Badger (Robert Ruark) and King Rat [1] had more to offer. My opinion hasn't much changed - but I feel the problem lies with me, in that depth and meaning are what I value.
Is humour the entirety of the draw for Hitchhiker's Guide, or (probably more likely) have I missed something?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_American
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Rat_(Clavell_novel)
Hitchhikers is more or less a series of vignettes that describe some human activity or historical event in such a way as to foreground it’s inherent absurdity. In a way, it’s meaning is to strip other things of meaning. Appreciating it goes hand in hand with appreciating Monty Python, who do the same thing. Hitchhikers is brilliant not insofar as it is layered with meaning as a work of literature, but in that it is quite dense with successful and memorable “skits” that poke fun at English society’s sacred cows. It’s a great example of science fiction as an analytical tool, where by redescribing something outside of its culturally weighted context a new perspective can be gained. I’d say that’s the primary “meaning” to be gained outside of the humor itself. As an example, one of the sections where he describes a whole series of absurd events that culminates in someone getting nailed to a tree for suggesting that everyone should get along, at which point you realize he’s describing the Jesus story. I think it’s a great read for someone in their adolescent years, to help them build some deconstructionist tools, but in a gentle way (Adams is quite humanist in the midst of all the absurdity).
> ...poke fun at English society’s sacred cows.
so as an american i shouldn't feel too bad if i don't really get it?
so as an american i shouldn't feel too bad if i don't really get it?
You statement that "in that depth and meaning are what I value" is an explicit argument that there is no depth or meaning in what other people here value.
Your question can't be taken in good faith when that's the ground you plant your feet on.
My opinion is that much of what Adams was getting across is that meaning is where and when you find it. Something that means nothing to others can mean the world to you, and vice versa. Other's in this conversation have said much the same thing.
Your question can't be taken in good faith when that's the ground you plant your feet on.
My opinion is that much of what Adams was getting across is that meaning is where and when you find it. Something that means nothing to others can mean the world to you, and vice versa. Other's in this conversation have said much the same thing.
> You statement that "in that depth and meaning are what I value" is an explicit argument that there is no depth or meaning in what other people here value.
Rather, it seems that the statement is saying that HHTTG lacks depth and meaning for him. (In the context that people like it anyway, but that doesn't imply they don't value depth and meaning; maybe they just like the humor, too, which he doesn't get that much.)
Rather, it seems that the statement is saying that HHTTG lacks depth and meaning for him. (In the context that people like it anyway, but that doesn't imply they don't value depth and meaning; maybe they just like the humor, too, which he doesn't get that much.)
> You statement that "in that depth and meaning are what I value" is an explicit argument that there is no depth or meaning in what other people here value.
I think, to the extent that it is an argument for that, it is offset by the question "(probably more likely) have I missed something?". That seems to be a clear indication that, since other people here do value it, FourthProtocol thinks it likely that the depth and meaning are there, just that they haven't found them.
(I also think that many of us here, me included, have such an emotional attachment to HHGttG that it's easy to be offended by such statements, whereas clearly subjective statements like "Lisp is ugly and hard to read" and "Haskell is obscure and too obsessed with theory for a practical programmer to use" would, while surely provoking argument, probably not garner such an emotional response even from Lisp and Haskell fans.)
I think, to the extent that it is an argument for that, it is offset by the question "(probably more likely) have I missed something?". That seems to be a clear indication that, since other people here do value it, FourthProtocol thinks it likely that the depth and meaning are there, just that they haven't found them.
(I also think that many of us here, me included, have such an emotional attachment to HHGttG that it's easy to be offended by such statements, whereas clearly subjective statements like "Lisp is ugly and hard to read" and "Haskell is obscure and too obsessed with theory for a practical programmer to use" would, while surely provoking argument, probably not garner such an emotional response even from Lisp and Haskell fans.)
Maybe you're right. Maybe our understanding of "depth and meaning" is not quite the same. Some of us like apples, others oranges. Diversitry makes humanity awesome.
If this doesn't clear it up, at least someone tried:
Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 42
The Tao begot one.
One begot two.
Two begot three.
And three begot the ten thousand things.
The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang.
They achieve harmony by combining these forces.
Men hate to be "orphaned," "widowed," or "worthless,"
But this is how kings and lords describe themselves.
For one gains by losing
And loses by gaining.
What others teach, I also teach; that is:
"A violent man will die a violent death!"
This will be the essence of my teaching.
(translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English)
from: https://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu42.html
Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 42
The Tao begot one.
One begot two.
Two begot three.
And three begot the ten thousand things.
The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang.
They achieve harmony by combining these forces.
Men hate to be "orphaned," "widowed," or "worthless,"
But this is how kings and lords describe themselves.
For one gains by losing
And loses by gaining.
What others teach, I also teach; that is:
"A violent man will die a violent death!"
This will be the essence of my teaching.
(translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English)
from: https://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu42.html
Human life could be defined as a search for depth and meaning which truncates at some point.
I think there is a lot of depth in HHGG. I read the whole 42 saga as a parable on society's tendency to trust computer outputs without understanding what they really mean. There's a lot of great social commentary in there, one example that springs to mind is a planet run by middle managers declaring leaves as fiat currency as that way money really does grow on trees. Eventually this leads to mass deforestation in an attempt to halt inflation. A good critique of the economic status quo about 20 years before such things were widespread.
That planet was Earth.
Well, I suppose not everyone can understand everything, so, yes, it seems you’ve missed something. Both the humor and the depth.
But that’s ok as I’m sure you like books that others don’t. And you understand things that others don’t.
But that’s ok as I’m sure you like books that others don’t. And you understand things that others don’t.
Humour is what drew me to it the first time I read it. A friend pointed out that there are some hidden jokes that only make sense when you already know how it will end, so I read it again, and again... And kept discovering new layers. With years (I take it in my hands from time to time) these discoveries became a rare occurance, but I'm quite sure I still missed some of the gems. And it took some growing up to understand some of the messages.
Adams really was a master of observation. Especially if you consider that many things we take for granted today either didn't exist or were in very early stages (like Internet). Predicting basically "wikipedia on a phone" that far back is mindblowing. And of course, the exaggerared (but still believable) characters are a work of genius.
Maybe give it a second chance if you have spare time?
That said, I only read the last book twice because it makes me depressed. Ymmv of course.
Adams really was a master of observation. Especially if you consider that many things we take for granted today either didn't exist or were in very early stages (like Internet). Predicting basically "wikipedia on a phone" that far back is mindblowing. And of course, the exaggerared (but still believable) characters are a work of genius.
Maybe give it a second chance if you have spare time?
That said, I only read the last book twice because it makes me depressed. Ymmv of course.
I read Voltaire's Candide a few years before reading The Hitchhikers Guide. I'm glad I did.
The characters, style, themes, were all taken from Voltaire's master work. I still enjoyed reading Douglas Adams. Comparing the two gave me an understanding of what English Lit is. Enjoying each, in a different way, taught me to appreciate works as stand alone objects, and in a larger canon of literature. Though I'm still glad I read Voltaire first.
I am a huge HGTG fan, but just driving by to say...
King Rat is a massively underrated masterpiece. Read it in my teens and regularly re-read. Astonishing book.
King Rat is a massively underrated masterpiece. Read it in my teens and regularly re-read. Astonishing book.
[deleted]
I think that the quaint wackiness in HHTTG is simply a cult thing; it provides its fans (plus a broader body of geeks) with a body of references they can draw upon in order to communicate. Like this 42 thing. You don't need depth for that, or even humor that is rib-splitting. I think that the work simply holds a charm for some people, which may be all stylistic; it's okay to dig style. Just like quantity can be a quality of its own (who said that, Stalin?), style can be a depth of its own.
But why did Douglas Adams think of 42? My theory is that it is from "times table" memorisation questions.
Back in the day in the UK we learned "times tables" at school as a verbal by rote memorisation technique. For each "times table" you memorised up to "times twelve". And then the teacher might ask you in class the answer for a table you were supposed to have learned.
First one to learn was "two twos are four, three twos are six... twelve twos are twenty four". (I'm writing out the numbers rather than using numerals because this was specifically a spoken recitation).
Then you learned the three times table "two threes are six, three threes are nine, ... twelve threes are thirty six".
The four times table is a selection of the two times table up to "six fours are twenty four" and then the next member "seven fours" is an easy addition from 24 to 28.
The five times table is obvious.
The six times table is a selection of the three times table up till "six sixes are thirty six".
Say that (emboldened by the obviousness of the five times table) you didn't do your homework and verbally memorise the six times table.
And then the teacher asks you what are "seven sixes". You are acutely aware that this isn't in your verbal memory (as it would have been if you had done your homework as instructed). You add 6 to "six sixes" which I calculate as "use 4 to get up to 40 then the other 2 are the units so 42".
You say "seven sixes are forty two". There was a one second panic while you worked this out instead of just reciting the rote memorised fact.
But it's the right answer.
Tension then resolution - that is why 42 is the answer to the ultimate question.
Back in the day in the UK we learned "times tables" at school as a verbal by rote memorisation technique. For each "times table" you memorised up to "times twelve". And then the teacher might ask you in class the answer for a table you were supposed to have learned.
First one to learn was "two twos are four, three twos are six... twelve twos are twenty four". (I'm writing out the numbers rather than using numerals because this was specifically a spoken recitation).
Then you learned the three times table "two threes are six, three threes are nine, ... twelve threes are thirty six".
The four times table is a selection of the two times table up to "six fours are twenty four" and then the next member "seven fours" is an easy addition from 24 to 28.
The five times table is obvious.
The six times table is a selection of the three times table up till "six sixes are thirty six".
Say that (emboldened by the obviousness of the five times table) you didn't do your homework and verbally memorise the six times table.
And then the teacher asks you what are "seven sixes". You are acutely aware that this isn't in your verbal memory (as it would have been if you had done your homework as instructed). You add 6 to "six sixes" which I calculate as "use 4 to get up to 40 then the other 2 are the units so 42".
You say "seven sixes are forty two". There was a one second panic while you worked this out instead of just reciting the rote memorised fact.
But it's the right answer.
Tension then resolution - that is why 42 is the answer to the ultimate question.
3rd reply (4th item in the thread) from the man himself:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.fan.douglas-adams/c/595nPukE...
> The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.fan.douglas-adams/c/595nPukE...
> The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story.
I was hypothesising the subconscious reason why Douglas Adams would think "42 will do". I find 42 funny for the conscious reasons I stated.
It's perfectly possible this did not apply to Douglas Adams. But a hypothesis around "eek I didn't do my homework but I winged it" seemed plausible for him.
It's perfectly possible this did not apply to Douglas Adams. But a hypothesis around "eek I didn't do my homework but I winged it" seemed plausible for him.
The question was revealed to be "what do you get when you multiply 6 * 9." This is, of course, 42, when you have thirteen fingers. (Mr. Adams denied this, but clearly he was being controlled by the Illuminati.)
Stephen Fry knows. And from what I heard 42 is probably close to meaningless. Or a point that its meaningless is a meaning in itself.
After hitting my 42nd birthday this year, I thought for a while that Douglas Adams had layered the joke with a bit of truth: at 42, a man is more or less confident in his skin, having lived through enough to feel somewhat unflappable; he's probably raised kids, bought a home, got a decent job, and can pretty much choose what he wants to do for the rest of his life. Hence "the answer" - the answer is to be 42.
... Alas, it was just a random number he came up with, without any deeper meaning. I was a bit disappointed, although I'm sure he would have found my serious speculation about it extremely funny.
... Alas, it was just a random number he came up with, without any deeper meaning. I was a bit disappointed, although I'm sure he would have found my serious speculation about it extremely funny.
You sought for meaning where there was none, and you found it. Then you lost it when you realized it was never there to begin with. I'm sure there is a lesson to be had here.
This wouldn’t have happened with the towel!
That towel advice is a total pro tip.
Always trust your gut even when you have irrefutable proof it’s wrong
I mean, he wrote the radio play aged 25, so that would have been an odd basis for it.
Though, funnily enough, Adams' child was born when both he and his wife were 42! So you might be on to something.
Though, funnily enough, Adams' child was born when both he and his wife were 42! So you might be on to something.
> bought a home
Maybe in Adams' time. These days it takes an entire lifetime to buy a home.
Maybe in Adams' time. These days it takes an entire lifetime to buy a home.
It seems a year out to me. The original radio series was broadcast in 1978, so 42 is now 43.
--Spoiler alert-- And the answer 42 turned out to be "What do you get if you multiply six by nine" in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
--Spoiler alert-- And the answer 42 turned out to be "What do you get if you multiply six by nine" in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
Some comment I read ages ago convinced me that the real Ultimate Question is “pick a number, any number.” The two bits of evidence for this are paraphrased below.
Marvin talking to the mattress: “I’m roughly a billion times smarter than you. For example, pick a number. Any number.” Mattress: “Ummmm…seven?” Marvin: “Wrong. You see?”
Arthur, while aboard the Heart of Gold, says, “I’m disappointed we never figured out that Ultimate Question business.” Eddie the ship’s computer immediately after says, “Pick a number, any number!”
Given the abilities of each of those characters, it’s a plausible theory. It’s also how the author chose the Answer, so at least at a meta level it is true.
Marvin talking to the mattress: “I’m roughly a billion times smarter than you. For example, pick a number. Any number.” Mattress: “Ummmm…seven?” Marvin: “Wrong. You see?”
Arthur, while aboard the Heart of Gold, says, “I’m disappointed we never figured out that Ultimate Question business.” Eddie the ship’s computer immediately after says, “Pick a number, any number!”
Given the abilities of each of those characters, it’s a plausible theory. It’s also how the author chose the Answer, so at least at a meta level it is true.
More specifically, Marvin claimed to have a brain the size of a planet.
Adams alluded elsewhere to how the march of technology had brought about galactic scale advances in miniaturisation and exponential growth in the capability of technology.
When deep mind designed the earth she probably used the state of the art for that time however many billions of years ago, but Marvin being a more modern device is far more powerful and can do the same calculations trivially.
Furthermore he always claims to be depressed because despite his eminence nobody will listen to what he says, which is indeed ”pick a number any number” which is probably what DNA said to himself when he selected it.
Adams alluded elsewhere to how the march of technology had brought about galactic scale advances in miniaturisation and exponential growth in the capability of technology.
When deep mind designed the earth she probably used the state of the art for that time however many billions of years ago, but Marvin being a more modern device is far more powerful and can do the same calculations trivially.
Furthermore he always claims to be depressed because despite his eminence nobody will listen to what he says, which is indeed ”pick a number any number” which is probably what DNA said to himself when he selected it.
A tangential question that has always bothered me is "How do you get to Alpha Centauri". Or to put it another way, I can probably set off to Alpha Centauri using today's technology. My corpse would arrive there probably in 130,000 years. Give or take an order of magnitude (I've not run the numbers properly). Now I'm extremely confident that the human race in the next 100 years could design a craft that would be able to travel to Alpha Centauri in less than 129,900 years. So. How do I get to alpha centauri?
Just a vaguely interesting question that bothers me.
Or to put it another way, how pissed off would you be when you set off to alpha centuri and you arrive to find your bloody grandson vaping and listening to Lil Nas x.
Or to put it another way, how pissed off would you be when you set off to alpha centuri and you arrive to find your bloody grandson vaping and listening to Lil Nas x.
> My corpse would arrive there probably in 130,000 years
It is infinitely improbable that you would arrive instantly and alive.
Or could just turn to the ol janx spirit ;-)
It is infinitely improbable that you would arrive instantly and alive.
Or could just turn to the ol janx spirit ;-)
Yeah but that was because the program running on Earth was corrupted by the presence of the Golgafrinchans arriving in prehistoric times, thus corrupting the output.
That was a bit of retcon though - I remember Adams saying it was just a random number he saw on a fridge, or something equally inconsequential.
wouldn't six by nine be 54?
Is this one just soaring over my head?
That's the joke within the joke. Without giving away the plot of the book in question, it's incorrect for a reason.
That's the joke. Everyone in the book thought it was THE ANSWER - but it wasn't. It was wrong.
I think it's a bit more subtle than that, it's not clear if the answer is wrong, the question is wrong, or both are correct and the universe is wrong (although the story does hint towards one in particular being wrong).
It's not by nine
The ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything is indeed asking what is 6 multiplied by 9. (42 of course, as any well-read high school student could tell us.)
It's unclear. It's proceeded by a discussion that the question may have been garbled. So we're left with two possibilities:
1) The ultimate question was 6 * 9 = ? and the universe makes no sense at all.
2) The ultimate question was 6 * 7 = ? and the universe has no deeper meaning.
Both are possible, and the ambiguity suggests he wanted to say both.
1) The ultimate question was 6 * 9 = ? and the universe makes no sense at all.
2) The ultimate question was 6 * 7 = ? and the universe has no deeper meaning.
Both are possible, and the ambiguity suggests he wanted to say both.
Have you ever read the source material? If not, you should, and if you have, you still should, since that was a quote
I like the theory that 42 was chosen because ASCII 42 is *, as in the wildcard character. It matches everything!
> On 3 November 1993, he (Douglas Adams) gave this answer on alt.fan.douglas-adams:
> > The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_...?
> > The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_...?
So the "Cow Tools" school of narrative-building? Great minds think alike.
TVTROPES WARNING!
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CowTools
TVTROPES WARNING!
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CowTools
I think the point is that it's just a random number.
And here we are trying to associate meaning to a random number like we do to all the other random events/things that happen in life.
Like writing an article after 42 years as if it means something.
And here we are trying to associate meaning to a random number like we do to all the other random events/things that happen in life.
Like writing an article after 42 years as if it means something.
"Like writing an article after 42 years as if it means something."
It does mean something: it gives most of us, who read the book, a nice memory and a smile.
It does mean something: it gives most of us, who read the book, a nice memory and a smile.
I only heard that he picked it because it was the "funniest" 2-digit number. No idea if that's true but it seems in line with most other things in the books.
HHGTTG series is a perfect book to read if you are learning English as a second language. It's instantly funny, you can go back a few pages and read again.
My book starts with underlined words every few lines. I underlined words I did not know at the time I read it the first time.
My book starts with underlined words every few lines. I underlined words I did not know at the time I read it the first time.
Seen a few Ask HNs where people asked that question: `What is the meaning of life?`.
Well one thing I believe is: `The meaning of life is to find meaning in life`
Another quote I live by is, by Bukowski:
“Find what you love and let it kill you” – Charles Bukowski
I mean it makes sense right? Many people just haven't found their passion and go round like headless chickens!
Well one thing I believe is: `The meaning of life is to find meaning in life`
Another quote I live by is, by Bukowski:
“Find what you love and let it kill you” – Charles Bukowski
I mean it makes sense right? Many people just haven't found their passion and go round like headless chickens!
The older I get the more I feel that the point of living is experience, not meaning.
The stories we make up inside our fish bowls most likely have very little to do with reality.
The stories we make up inside our fish bowls most likely have very little to do with reality.
> The older I get the more I feel that the point of living is experience
On the flip side I think the very modern take on "life = experience" can be badly interpreted. The trend is more about consuming experiences and destinations rather the living experiences, you could describe them as commercialized experiences (Disneyland, holiday resorts in very touristic countries, &c.)
On the flip side I think the very modern take on "life = experience" can be badly interpreted. The trend is more about consuming experiences and destinations rather the living experiences, you could describe them as commercialized experiences (Disneyland, holiday resorts in very touristic countries, &c.)
Yup, exactly. My current take is that "pursue experiences instead of things" is primarily a meme that's being spread by countless businesses that want recurring revenue. Experiences are fleeting, so you have to keep buying them all over again - where a well-chosen thing is something you buy once, and it keeps yielding value (including, possibly, experiences) for a long time.
The money machine will embrace and corrupt whatever works.
Not looking for meaning doesn't mean spending the rest of your life at Disney Land.
Life is fleeting, love is fleeting, everything that means something is fleeting; framing and clinging destroys its essence.
Not looking for meaning doesn't mean spending the rest of your life at Disney Land.
Life is fleeting, love is fleeting, everything that means something is fleeting; framing and clinging destroys its essence.
>The older I get the more I feel that the point of living is experience, not meaning.
the older I get the more I see the point of living as basically the same as everything in nature - propagate your genes as much possible and give them the best chance of them propagating their genes. Everything else is try and and fun and help humankind
the older I get the more I see the point of living as basically the same as everything in nature - propagate your genes as much possible and give them the best chance of them propagating their genes. Everything else is try and and fun and help humankind
In a way I see experiences as a distraction, escapism, something that helps to postpone the search for meaning.
You could also make an argument that search for meaning is an escapism from experiencing life.
It's almost like there's no clear answer here.
“The purpose of life is not to be [superficially] happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well.” - R.W. Emerson
“Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.” – Helen Keller
“Through love alone can man find the kingdom of heaven for which he has sought since his beginnings. Only through living love as a principle can he find the happiness, peace and prosperity which lie in his heart as the greatest of his desires.” - Walter Russell
“Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.” – Helen Keller
“Through love alone can man find the kingdom of heaven for which he has sought since his beginnings. Only through living love as a principle can he find the happiness, peace and prosperity which lie in his heart as the greatest of his desires.” - Walter Russell
By the way, this question has been the simplest one to answer since ages ago. Love gives the meaning to life. That is, if you love something or someone, your life has a meaning, if not, it does not (yet). You know it when you acutely feel the desire to live, and, in fact, the very question only arises when you don't.
Pretty off topic, but this quote is most certainly not from old Buck: https://bukowskiforum.com/threads/find-what-you-love-and-let...
You've just moved the goalpost, now instead of people not knowing what the meaning is, you've asked them to find it.
Ok, how do you find it? Oh, we don't know again :)
The right answer to 'what is the meaning of life?' is to ask for definitions of terms. What do you mean by 'meaning'? How do you know life has or ought to have such a property, that you'd go looking for it?
In other words, the only right answer to 'when did you stop beating your wife?' is to point out that it is a loaded question aka invalid question, instead of scurrying to try and answer it :)
Meaning of life is a variation of when did you stop beating your wife. One presupposes you did beat your wife, the other presupposes there exist meaning and it is important to find.
Those are unjustified presuppositions.
Ok, how do you find it? Oh, we don't know again :)
The right answer to 'what is the meaning of life?' is to ask for definitions of terms. What do you mean by 'meaning'? How do you know life has or ought to have such a property, that you'd go looking for it?
In other words, the only right answer to 'when did you stop beating your wife?' is to point out that it is a loaded question aka invalid question, instead of scurrying to try and answer it :)
Meaning of life is a variation of when did you stop beating your wife. One presupposes you did beat your wife, the other presupposes there exist meaning and it is important to find.
Those are unjustified presuppositions.
knowledge - https://wikischool.org/human_life
I recommend reading Viktor Frankl's take on life and meaning. A good intro is Maria Popova's "Viktor Frankl on the Human Search for Meaning", which I just added to HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28899325
I would have hoped to see the tech take on "42". It's ascii for the widely used wildcard, the asterisk.
Yesterday I noticed 42 is shorthand for 420. Today I'm annoyed.
You mean the Czech Republics dial up prefix?
But of course we now know it's actually 137 :)
My dad, a nuclear physicist, always had his briefcase locked with the combination 137-731. As a kid I just knew it was "some important physics number".
(He never kept anything super secret in there as far as I know; the lock was just to stop it from opening by accident)
(He never kept anything super secret in there as far as I know; the lock was just to stop it from opening by accident)
That's funny, back when I worked at Bell Labs many years ago, back when we carried briefcases, mine was 314. I remember getting into an argument (friendly) with this guy when he noticed it and told me I should be using 137. We had a big long discussion about which number is more important or more meaningful, Pi, Fine Structure, Golden Ratio, Euler's, etc.
It would be funny if it turned out there is some mathematical combination of those that is 42 !
What’s yellow and dangerous?
A couple of interesting 42 links:
42 is the largest answer to the Diophantine puzzle, solved by using a "world computer"
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-sum-cubes-solvedusing-real-lif...
Douglas Adam's 42 puzzle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker%27...
42 is the largest answer to the Diophantine puzzle, solved by using a "world computer"
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-sum-cubes-solvedusing-real-lif...
Douglas Adam's 42 puzzle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker%27...
“The idea for the title first cropped up while I was lying drunk in a field in Innsbruck, Austria, in 1971. Not particularly drunk, just the sort of drunk you get when you have a couple of stiff Gössers after not having eaten for two days straight, on account of being a penniless hitchhiker. We are talking of a mild inability to stand up.”
― Douglas Adams, The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
― Douglas Adams, The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
"The book follows Englishman Arthur Dent as he wakes up to find that Earth is about to be demolished to make way for a space highway."
It was a hyperspace bypass. As far as I am aware that is neither "space" nor a "highway". I guess it is a "kind of space" but I just feel that this is a terrible way to describe it by the authors of the article.
However, I could be wrong, I have been multiple times in the past.
It was a hyperspace bypass. As far as I am aware that is neither "space" nor a "highway". I guess it is a "kind of space" but I just feel that this is a terrible way to describe it by the authors of the article.
However, I could be wrong, I have been multiple times in the past.
Bypass in context refers to the development of the motorway system in the UK. It was sometimes deemed necessary to demolish existing villages, or similar, so that a new motorway would follow a shorter path.
Specifically, the bypass would be a section of roadway that "bypassed" pre-existing routes.
Specifically, the bypass would be a section of roadway that "bypassed" pre-existing routes.
I feel like the bypass reference is a very English joke, and therefore doesn't fully translate.
Bypasses exist in the US. I can’t believe they are never created in other countries that build highways.
Fair. To explain my thinking; in the UK we have lot less land area, so generally bypasses are pretty controversial, and when Adams was writing the books a lot of them were being created and it was very much in the public consciousness as an issue of the time.
Of course; it could be the same over there :D So my theory could also be wrong.
Of course; it could be the same over there :D So my theory could also be wrong.
"42" being the "Answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, the universe, and everything" was the basis for selecting it as the racing number for this car in Ferrari's XX Racing Programme:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CTpvlbMvhMm/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CTpvlbMvhMm/
42 ~= 137 / ((pi * e)/phi^2)
(phi = golden ratio)
(phi = golden ratio)
Hey, that's true:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=137+%2F+%28%28pi+*+e%2...
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=137+%2F+%28%28pi+*+e%2...
42 is probably used in so many passwords, in so many lottery number choices, etc.
Right now there's 42 comments on this post about 42.
This is comment 43. I broke it.
This is comment 43. I broke it.
I made a screenshot because I noticed the same
https://ibb.co/nPx4kFc
https://ibb.co/nPx4kFc
I have a pet theory that though Adams believed he picked the number at random, that it probably had some significance to a person of his social background at that particular point in time. That is, in the spirit of the books themselves he drew it unknowingly from his environment.
I think that 42 rang for him due it’s association with WW2. The type of (particularly British) humour he deploys in his writing is the sort that makes fun of unspoken awkward thoughts and experiences. I reckon it might have been a subtly taboo number due its association with the horrors of WW2 and Adams being of the first adult generation to not experienced the horrors the time might have been right to “make light of” this number.
TL;DR The number 42 maybe did have a significance beyond what he was himself consciously aware of; he describes the process of such exigesis in his books, perhaps also subconsciously!
I think that 42 rang for him due it’s association with WW2. The type of (particularly British) humour he deploys in his writing is the sort that makes fun of unspoken awkward thoughts and experiences. I reckon it might have been a subtly taboo number due its association with the horrors of WW2 and Adams being of the first adult generation to not experienced the horrors the time might have been right to “make light of” this number.
TL;DR The number 42 maybe did have a significance beyond what he was himself consciously aware of; he describes the process of such exigesis in his books, perhaps also subconsciously!
> I think that 42 rang for him due it’s association with WW2.
Huh, what association is that? WWII started in 1939 (or 37 if you consider the second Sino-Japanese war to be part of it) and ended in 45.
Huh, what association is that? WWII started in 1939 (or 37 if you consider the second Sino-Japanese war to be part of it) and ended in 45.
I don’t want to get too into the details cause this is just idle speculation but I came across a less wholesome association with 42 in another numerological discussion …
42
Why is the answer to "the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything" the number 42? An interesting Christian twist might be ...
* GIVEN ...
* the number of (hu)mankind, 3x for emphasis in some contexts where
humans want to stand completely alone, is "666"
* the atom for human is "6"
* the number most often associated with divinity in the bible is "7"
* THEN ...
* the product of interaction of the divine with humanity is 7 * 6 = 42
(of course this firmly puts humanity at the apex of earthly, and perhaps
universal, entities, and many would object)
Rainbows.
> Indeed, it is impossible for an observer to see a rainbow from water droplets at any angle other than the customary one of 42 degrees from the direction opposite the light source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow
> Indeed, it is impossible for an observer to see a rainbow from water droplets at any angle other than the customary one of 42 degrees from the direction opposite the light source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow
I don't get it. Is this a joke? It reads like Time Cube.
Rather than working backwards from "666", isn't it more direct to observe that Man was created on the 6th day of Creation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_6th_Day
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_6th_Day
I thought it's that you have to cross 42 bridges in your life.
Not trying to brag but I've crossed hundreds of bridges.
Ah, but how many metaphorical bridges?
(but btw. the parent comment was a reference to the book, where someone tried to come up with a fake question, matching the answer)
(but btw. the parent comment was a reference to the book, where someone tried to come up with a fake question, matching the answer)
I don't think metaphorically I think meta42ically. It's topical.
But which ones and in which order? And in whose shoes?
Some guy who told me to try walking a mile in his shoes. So I beat him up and took his shoes.
If he was suggesting to walk in his shoes, did you really need to use the violence? It sounds like he was offering them? Are you a really just the troll from under the bridge?
At least then he didn't ask you where you got them.
Wasn't it how many roads a man must travel instead?
You would have fallen to a scam then ...
I've got a bridge for sale...
How come there were seven horsemen of the Apocalypse in the Bible?
and 12 disciples of Jesus?
and ten commandments?
It's real confusing.
maybe what it means since there's seven horsemen of the Apocalypse and six is the number for the human...7*6=42.
Maybe it means the horseman of the apocalypse and the human beings are going to be friends and the humans can get a ride on the back of the cool apocalypse horses.
and 12 disciples of Jesus?
and ten commandments?
It's real confusing.
maybe what it means since there's seven horsemen of the Apocalypse and six is the number for the human...7*6=42.
Maybe it means the horseman of the apocalypse and the human beings are going to be friends and the humans can get a ride on the back of the cool apocalypse horses.
4 horsemen, 12 apostles, 10 commandments, 7 deadly sins, 7 holy virtues, 3 aspects of the trinity (the father, the son and the holy spirits), 36 Lamed-Vav Tsadikim, ...
Numerology has been heavily used by the Torah and the Bible.
According to the Talmud, there are meanings behind numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_of_numbers_in_Jud...
So, 6 (days of creation) * 7 (completion) = 42 (one of the letter in one of the name of God)
Or any other combinations you want, because numerology has no true meaning. It's just playing with numbers.
Numerology has been heavily used by the Torah and the Bible.
According to the Talmud, there are meanings behind numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_of_numbers_in_Jud...
So, 6 (days of creation) * 7 (completion) = 42 (one of the letter in one of the name of God)
Or any other combinations you want, because numerology has no true meaning. It's just playing with numbers.
4 horsemen: sword, famine, wild beasts, and plague
The commentary is deeper, the jokes are funnier and the story arc feels a lot less random whilst still being surreal. The scenes at the end of the book with the Golfrinchans is a masterclass in humourous writing with a truly nasty vein of bleakness.
It also features the ultimate question, of course.