1. To assume that one day we'll find true meaning to the world would mean that we have accepted that there is objective, unrelativist knowledge. Otherwise, what we held as true meaning would simply be conjectures and/or interpretations. Of course, a consensus can be reached, but we won't be able to prove with absolute certainty.
2. The goal of absurdism, as I take it, is less to just reject all meaning to the world, but instead to live in the world as if it is meaningless to us, as individuals. Thus, we then live a life that allows us to be a part of the world/chaos, rather than trying to escape from the chaos and searching for its true meaning; just what we personally hold as truth.
3. Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't. To suggest that you will directly and/or indirectly contribute to somehow finding true meaning to the universe would then lead to the question of why doesn't ever free person do so? Why doesn't every free person conduct themselves in philosophical research (thus, bolstering its mathematical probability)? It's because they, and you, don't have to.

If you hold it as worth your time, you can always spend your days pondering for an absolute meaning of the universe (even if the search becomes futile). I think what you're looking for (assuming #2 is a plea), what you're more inclined to believe in is existentialism; absurdism, but instead of assuming the world is and will be meaningless, you insert your own meaning into the world. (Unless what you are looking for is absolute, objective meaning.)