A Mental Model
There's a question that follows you through your whole life. It shows up when you're choosing a career, lying awake at 2am, or standing in the shower on a Tuesday wondering if any of this actually matters.
What should I be doing?
As a kid, you could ask someone — a parent, a teacher — and they'd have an answer. As an adult, you realize nobody actually knows. They're all just doing their best with the same uncertainty you have.
I spent a long time sitting with that uncertainty. Not in an academic way — in the way where you're looking for a reason that any of it matters at all. What I found isn't comforting in the way most answers try to be. But I think it might be true. And for me, that's enough.
The Fork
Here's the core of it.
Every action you take is part of something larger. Brushing your teeth is part of your morning routine. Your morning routine is part of your day. Your day is part of your career, your relationships, your life. At every level, there's an implicit question: is this the right thing to be doing?
For small actions, it's easy. Squeeze toothpaste, not ketchup. But zoom out far enough and the question becomes: what is the right thing to do with your life? With all of human effort?
And the honest answer is: we don't know. As far as anyone has discovered, there is no guidance baked into the universe about what humans should be doing.
This leaves us with three live possibilities:
If there is an objective purpose and we do not know it, then searching for it is non-optional. If there is no objective purpose, it does not automatically follow that nothing matters; people can still build durable commitments, relationships, and shared projects that matter from inside human life.
Even in the bleakest case — no objective purpose and no final answer — we still have to decide how to act. So the practical question is not "which metaphysical camp wins?" but "which decision policy performs best across all camps?"
The strongest policy I know is this: keep searching, and build a life worth living while you search.
The Purpose
That's the idea, and I know it sounds circular. Stay with me.
Under deep uncertainty, our meta-purpose is to improve our model of what is worth doing.
That's not a final truth claim. It's a decision rule. We do not know what we are supposed to be doing, so the most defensible move is to keep refining our best answer while acting on the best evidence we currently have.
A word on why I say purpose specifically. People tend to reach for three related words — meaning, mattering, and purpose — as though they're interchangeable. They're not.
Meaning is interpretive. "What is the meaning of life" is asking what all of this signifies — it's almost a literary question, as if life is a text and we're trying to decode it. Mattering is retrospective. Something mattered because it had an effect after it was over. You look back and judge impact.
Purpose is neither of these. Purpose is forward-looking. It's not "what does this mean" or "did this matter" — it's "what is this for." Where are you headed? What are you aiming at? Purpose is a navigation problem, not an interpretation problem or a measurement problem.
That distinction matters here because this framework isn't asking you to decode life or measure your impact. It's asking you to point yourself in a direction. And the direction it suggests is: toward the answer you don't have yet.
Once you adopt this framework, choices become easier to evaluate. Does this improve my ability to learn what is true? Does it protect my future agency? Does it deepen commitments that would still matter if certainty never arrives?
Think about it from the other direction. If you were designing an AI and wanted to give it total freedom — not a narrow task like driving a car, but genuine autonomy — what goal would you give it?
Self-preservation? That assumes staying alive is the right thing to do. Procreation? That assumes multiplying is the right thing to do. Every specific goal you assign assumes its own correctness.
A robust first goal is: figure out what your goal should be, while minimizing preventable harm during the search.
Humans are not blank slates like a hypothetical AI. We need food, water, safety, and connection. Those constraints shape what good searching looks like. Still, the core logic holds: rational agents should keep improving their model of what they ought to do.
Whose Value Counts?
So far I have mostly spoken in human terms, because this argument is written for humans. But the deeper principle is broader: if a being can experience welfare, suffering, or agency, its interests count morally.
That means this framework should not be "maximize my tribe's outcomes at any cost." It should be "improve what we are aiming at while respecting the legitimate interests of affected sentient beings."
Why Search Still Makes Sense
You might ask: what if there really is no purpose? What if option two at the fork is the truth?
We cannot know in advance which possibility is true. So we need a strategy that is robust to uncertainty, not one that only wins in a single worldview.
Pure nihilism throws away the upside of discovery. Pure "search forever" creates its own failure mode: you can burn your life chasing certainty and never commit to anything concrete. Both extremes are bad policy.
The better approach is bounded search: keep investigating, but protect the foundations of a good life while you do it. This is the same logic as scientific exploration with a budget. You keep looking through the telescope, but you do not sell the observatory to buy one more lens.
Hope is not a free lunch. It is a disciplined bet with guardrails: pursue truth, account for costs, and keep your life livable during the search.
What If I'm Wrong?
I've shared this idea with a lot of people. Most give me a polite nod, or an "hmm, interesting." The lack of engagement makes me doubt myself sometimes.
So what if I'm wrong?
If I'm wrong and the purpose of life is already known — then great. We win. Someone has the answer.
If I'm wrong and the purpose of life is unknowable, the project still has value. Trying to answer the question improves our models, sharpens our ethics, and often leads to better lives even without final certainty.
Either way, I end up back in the same place: searching.
What This Means in Practice
If uncertainty is permanent and our job is to navigate it well, some things follow.
Optimize for opportunity, but not forever. Opening doors matters. But optionality is a means, not an end. At some point, you need to walk through a few doors and commit.
Meet your base needs first. You can't search for the meaning of existence if you're struggling to eat. Isaac Newton didn't discover the laws of motion while hunting for food. Security and stability aren't the goal — they're the platform that lets you pursue the goal.
Build resources. In today's world, this often means money. Not as an end, but as a tool. Resources buy time, stability, and influence. They let you search without living in permanent emergency mode. They also let you support other people.
Make real commitments. A good framework should survive contact with ordinary life. Friendship, family, craft, and service are not distractions from the search. They are part of what makes the search morally grounded.
Care beyond yourself. If value belongs to affected sentient beings, then your choices should include other people and other moral patients, not just your own optimization.
Work together. This problem is almost certainly bigger than any one person or any one lifetime. It took humanity thousands of years to explain the motion of the stars — and those were things we could see and measure. Discovering the purpose of life, if there is one, is likely a multigenerational project. The more people working on it, the better our chances.
Share this framework. If this way of thinking has value, then explaining it to others multiplies the effort. That's why I'm writing this.
Take death seriously, and also life quality. Death ends opportunity, so extending healthy life matters. But years are not the only metric; lucidity, dignity, and relational depth matter too.
Strongest Objections
Objection 1: This is a false dichotomy. Correct — and that is why the framework now includes a middle case: constructed human purpose can be real and binding even without cosmic purpose.
Objection 2: This encourages endless deferral. It can, if done badly. That is why bounded search and real commitments are core constraints, not optional add-ons.
Objection 3: Meaning does not require objective purpose. Agreed. This framework is compatible with that. It asks for ongoing truth-seeking while honoring forms of meaning we can already access.
The Invitation
I don't have this figured out. That's the whole point — none of us do.
But I think the search itself is the most honest and productive thing we can do with the uncertainty we've been given. And I think it's better done together than alone.
If this resonates with you, or if you think it's wrong and can articulate why — I want to hear from you. The idea gets stronger every time someone pushes back on it, because pushing back on it is the idea in action.
What should we be doing? Let's find out.
Join the search
This idea is early. The search is just beginning. If you want to be part of it — to question it, extend it, or tear it apart — come find us.
Get in Touch