Here is the problem, how do you communicate with the universe?
Why would I want to? I have no reason to believe the universe is something that communicates. What would it have to say? Again, it depends on what you mean by 'communicate'.
Without being able to ask the universe, anything you or I say would be a projection of our own perceptions filtered through a language that couldn't possibly convey the "true" meaning of the answer the universe would actually give us.
I have no reason to believe there is a "true meaning of the answer" in general terms. Is there a specific question this answer is in reference to? And I don't think the universe is a being that can give answers. It's an inanimate thing which can be studied but not communicated with.
Vanity is the closest approximation I can find for what I am describing.
OK. I still don't know what you're describing.
might consider what it means for others and refer to the dictionary, but it requires imagination to apply it to anything else.
I disagree. I think it requires one to define the word in a different way to apply it differently.
you have consistently argued that because they dont fit the "dictionary definition" they are invalid.
Because you're using words without defining them, so I assume you're using the dictionary definitions. That is the default for most people.
You dont want to use your imagination? Fine, dont. Just dont expect to ever learn anything outside human experience.
I don't mind using my imagination. I can imagine roses with vanity. I do recognize that that is my imagination however and not reality.
I am a human. Therefore it is by definition impossible for me to learn anything outside of human experience. The same goes for you.
The point I was making, and admittedly not very well, was that while the event that causes the mutation is random (e.g. cosmic rays striking DNA) once the "cause" has happened the effect is predictable or at least follow comprehensible and mostly non-random rules that can be determined.
The point to be made though is that whether or not a mutation is random, it's success/failure is not. It follows the basic premise that the universe operates on (whatever you decide that to be).
It's probable that once something has caused a mutation, then the effect of that mutation can in principle be predicted by beings intelligent and advanced enough. However, the rose has no control over what kinds of mutagens will attack it, when or where they will attack, and therefore what the result will be. From the perspective of the rose, the mutation is random. It occurs entirely independently of any choices the rose could make. Saying roses developed flowers because of vanity is like saying some babies are born attractive because they are vain. It's simply not true.
In this case the dictionary definition is certainly close enough and makes no reference to will or consciousness except as example (dictionary.com).
I looked at the definition and now will stop claiming roses cannot strive, since for the moment I cannot make the case for that. Thanks for clarifying what definition you were using. I guess my intuitive definition wasn't necessarily the common one.
I also find it curious that you say no word has inherent meaning when most of your dispute over my word usage is based on them having exactly that.
That's not true. I claim that when a word is not explicitly defined, people assume you're using the common definition. Since your example did not fit the common definition of vanity, I felt you were using a different definition and not explaining it. Because of this, your argument makes no sense.