Will money still have any value in the fully automated world? Moved from the personal finance &amp; money SE:

The following question is somewhat of an existential nature and may not necessarily be related to finance or economics in the strict sense.

Reading various articles about professions, or things in general, that are progressively being automated (and it's not just about work in factories but doctors, brokers, lawyers, artists (sic!) and heck! even programmers themselves...), the development of medicine and biology (let's just grab CRISPR for example) I often imagine a world in which literally everything is automated: from agricultural production through everyday things (maybe even maid robots) to high-end jobs. Since in such a world literally everything is done for people, what is the meaning of work and money? When there is no work that people can do, I imagine that there are no costs associated with it, and consequently, everything is free for everyone. We live in times when people could completely give up using physical money (and some countries have already done so, I guess Sweden have forbidden using physical money and left only cards). Hence I can not fight the feeling that in today's world money is such a virtual thing, something that has no "real" value: it's just printed pieces of paper or stamped metal pieces, and people have agreed on how much they are worth, and that whole economy has been built on top of these ephemeral, imaginary things, and the finances basically come down to the database entry and the fact that someone could just type in the UPDATE TABLE query with the new amount of money that is in the account (of course, I know that it is impossible that there is inflation, etc.).

Summing up:
there is certainly a lot of mistakes or misunderstandings in my thinking, but I wonder what role the money will have (or any other means of payment) in the world at the moment when there will be no more jobs for humans on the planet? Is it possible that the money will still exist at all? I know that there is a fairly fierce debate on this subject and that different approaches to the topic, such as universal basic income, are invented, but again I have the impression that it comes down to the thing above, that is subtracting the amount in one cell and adding in the other.
Your argument is built on this assumption:


  When there is no work that people can do, I imagine that there are no costs associated with it, and consequently, everything is free for everyone


That assumption is not true, and so your conclusion does not stand.

We usually classify production factors into labour, land, capital, enterprise. As you can see, labour is only one of the four factors. But all four factors incur costs: land still needs rent, enterprise still needs profit, capital still needs investment.

Another way of looking at it, is that even if the supply of labour is effectively unlimited (because so little of it is needed to produce anything), the supply of other things is still limited, i.e. there is still some scarcity. There is still a limited amount of iron in the world, or copper, or cabbages. And money is part of markets, which are the main mechanism for managing those limited supplies.