Pantheism

[Inevitable Droid]

This thread will be of more interest to non-scriptural theists than to any other group on this message board.  It's only of interest to me because, well, pretty much everything is of interest to me.

Any way, I did a little research into pantheism, and also gave the topic some independent thought.  I came to realize that I could make use of pantheism as a concept and as a result ask questions I might not have asked otherwise.  The answers, of course, would have to come from science.

First, for purposes of this discussion, I won't be using the term God or god.  Both terms tend to connote personhood, personality, transcendence, and the supernatural.  Instead I'll be using the term deity, which I'll be defining as, "attributes of matter and energy that make existence, order, and awareness more likely than the absence thereof."

Notice what I did there.  Any sense of deity as something separate from everything else is gone.  I've moved beyond merely discarding personhood, personality, transcendence, and the supernatural, though I certainly discarded those things.  I've moved all the way to discarding any separation whatsoever between deity and everything else.  But I didn't merely equate the two.  Merely equating the two would be uninteresting.  Saying God is everything and everything is God tells you nothing informative about God and nothing informative about anything else.  My definition implies something significant if true.  It implies that existence, order, and awareness are more likely than the absence thereof.

Let's say the universe has always been here.  It wasn't created.  A lot of people would find that astonishing, since they would have assumed non-existence was more likely than existence.  But what if that assumption is false?  What if existence is in fact more likely than non-existence?

Other people, to some extent myself, find the degree of orderliness found in organisms to be astonishing, because they, and I, have assumed disorder was more likely than order.  But what if that assumption is false?  What if order is more likely than disorder?

Still other people, to some extent myself, find the emergence of awareness to be astonishing, because, in a universe of matter and energy, a universe of force, awareness seems superfluous, hence unlikely.  But what if awareness is in fact the likeliest phenomenon of all?

All of the above must be categorized as intuition.  There are no testable hypotheses in any of that.  Certainly there are no answers in any of it.  But there are questions.  And the questions may be worth asking, even if, at the present time, we don't know how to go about answering them.

If I have faith in anything, I have faith in questions, and the mighty power and earthly beneficence thereof.  I have posed a question I can't investigate, that perhaps cannot be investigated at the present time, but which one day may be open to investigation, as the ever-escalating depth and breadth of knowledge may open doors whose knobs we can't even see right now.  Is the universe pantheistic?  Are existence, order, and awareness more likely than the absence thereof?

[Stevil]

"attributes of matter and energy that make existence, order, and awareness more likely than the absence thereof."

I feel the term deity would be a stretch. Don't believers need their deity to have a consciousness?
I personally do feel that existence, order and awareness are much more likely than non existence, non order and non awareness. The proof for me is me. I am a result of these things, well, at least I think I am.
Existence and order are rife throughout the parts of space that we can observe, no doubt as we extend our ability to observer further reaches or to a more detailed  degree we will continue to find more existence and order.
I feel that it is highly likey that one day we will find that life and hence awareness is abundant as well.

Maybe one day someone will come up with a Theory of Everything. It will probably be a set of attributes of energy. It will explain how energy comes into existence where previously there was none (existence), it will explain how energy becomes "matter", it will explain how matter and energy attract and repel each other e.g. gravity, electro-magnetic, it will explain how matter can store energy, it will explain how suns, planets, black holes, solar systems, galaxies, universes form (order), it will explain how matter configures to form a state of "consciousness".

Given the set of attributes of energy that are in existence it will be seen to be inevitable that we have existence, order and awareness, and with this inevitability it would be seen that these are all in abundance. Yes, my friend, it is likely that we are not alone, it is likely that there is not just one universe.

If you were to bundle the definition of these attributes up into a "god attribute set" then that is your deity. It has no conscience, no reason, no free will, no objective morality, no purpose just ultimate inevitibility.

[Byronazriel]

I say the universe has always existed, because how could something possibly have come from nothing?

If nothing existed then nothing would happen, ever. Every effect needs to have a cause, you can't just that one day there's nothing and the next day everything pops out of nowhere for no reason. Something had to happen to make it that way, which means that something had to exist. I'm not saying that something has to be a god, it could just be the remnants of a previous universe or just the expansion of an already existing universe.

No matter how many times you add zero to zero you'll never get anything other than zero, at some point another numeral will be necessarily to increase or decrease the value of zero.

If you were to bundle the definition of these attributes up into a "god attribute set" then that is your deity. It has no conscience, no reason, no free will, no objective morality, no purpose just ultimate inevitibility.

Sounds like a lovecraftian sort of god.

I feel the term deity would be a stretch. Don't believers need their deity to have a consciousness?

Not necessarily, never underestimate people's ability to believe in just about anything.

I had a friend in high school who was a Cthulhu cultist.

[Inevitable Droid]

If you were to bundle the definition of these attributes up into a "god attribute set" then that is your deity. It has no conscience, no reason, no free will, no objective morality, no purpose just ultimate inevitability.

I like that.  Ultimate inevitability.  It gets at the heart of the only thing I ever wanted from deity, which is fate.  A pantheistic universe could have what amounts to fate, in the sense of ultimate inevitability around existence, order, and awareness, yet the universe as a whole would have, as you say, no conscience, no reason, no free will, no objective morality, and no purpose.
 

I say the universe has always existed, because how could something possibly have come from nothing?

That's my intuition too.  Something had to always exist.  Either it was some omnipotent leprechaun or else it was matter and energy.  The latter option is so much easier to accept, because matter and energy are here now, they're empirical, we don't have to imagine them.
 
My intuition goes a step further, however.  I intuit that matter and energy are more mysterious than even physicists yet realize.  The mere notion that matter and energy may have always existed is pretty mysterious, and I think there are at least two more giant mysteries, one around order, the other around awareness.

If you were to bundle the definition of these attributes up into a "god attribute set" then that is your deity. It has no conscience, no reason, no free will, no objective morality, no purpose just ultimate inevitibility.

Sounds like a lovecraftian sort of god.

Specifically, Azazoth, the Blind Idiot God.  In that I believe.  I merely name it matter and energy.

[Stevil]

I say the universe has always existed, because how could something possibly have come from nothing?

That's my intuition too.  Something had to always exist.  Either it was some omnipotent leprechaun or else it was matter and energy.  The latter option is so much easier to accept, because matter and energy are here now, they're empirical, we don't have to imagine them.
 
My intuition goes a step further, however.  I intuit that matter and energy are more mysterious than even physicists yet realize.  The mere notion that matter and energy may have always existed is pretty mysterious, and I think there are at least two more giant mysteries, one around order, the other around awareness.

I agree that it is difficult to perceive that something can come from nothing. We are taught to understand “cause” and “effect”. With effect being the creation of energy what is the cause? How can there be a cause in an environment of nothing?

On the flipside, how can there always have been energy? The biggest issue I have with this stance is the understanding of conservation of energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
If we take conservation of energy as a given then going by the stance that the energy has always been there we would conclude that energy is finite and constant with regards to quantity. The question then just becomes with regards to the dispersing of that energy. I tend to think of Space as a three dimensional set of coordinates, not a substance. Each of these three dimensions go on towards infinity (I can’t perceive why there would be an upper bound and what you would find when you got there). Assuming there is an infinite Space it would seem awkward and unlikely to me to conceive a possibility that there is only one universe (my definition of a Universe being a supposed Big Bang or expansion and possibly contraction of energy and matter from/to a central point in Space). Couple the concept of a Universe with the stance that the existing energy is conservative and has always been there with my assumption that Space is infinite, it seems to me unlikely that all this energy would congregate in a local proximity with regards to forming a functional and possibly perpetual Universe. So, to take the stance of “energy has always been there” you would also need to take the stance that the Universe has always been there and hence order has always been there.

If our expanding Universe (known because of the red shift observation) is always expanding and coupled with the principle of conservation of energy then given time our Universe will dissipate into virtual nothingness as each shred of energy will become isolated from the rest (This would conflict with the stance that the Universe has always been there). With this stance our Universe’s existence will only be momentary and hence in my mind it is unlikely that we would have existed or if we did exist our existence would be extremely brief with relation to a potential infinite nature of universal time if there is such a thing as universal time. A brief existence doesn’t make sense in that we have infinite time of nothing, a brief blip of existence and then infinite time of nothing.
If our Universe goes through expansion and contraction cycles these would need to be 100% complete in order to retain all the energy contained within the Universe. Light for example is currently travelling at the speed of light away from the centre point of the Universe. This light energy would need to contract as well otherwise over time our Universe would run out of energy and dissipate into virtual nothingness and hence have a brief existence.

The three big questions of mine with regards to energy always being there are:
If energy in Space was constant then where did it come from?
What determined how much energy there is?
How did it congregate to form a functioning and necessarily perpetual Universe?

With regards to my thoughts of energy being created from nothing:
I struggle with the idea that if the effect is “creation of energy” then what was the cause?
Maybe energy is constantly being created, maybe nothing is the cause?. If it is being created I would posture that we get an equal amount of “negative energy” (if there is such a thing) hence the overall sum would total Zero hence conservation of energy. My questions with regards to this:
What causes energy to be created?
What would determine the rate of creation of energy?
Is conservation of energy true?

If there were no limits to the rate of creation of energy then what is to stop it from happening all at once and hence Space could be filled to the point of saturation (if there is a point of saturation with regards to energy) in an instance. If there was an upper bound as to the rate of creation of energy and if energy was forever being created then over time Space would be filled to the point of saturation. Saturation would not allow for order or awareness. If energy can be spontaneously created then it must be possible for energy to be destroyed for existence, order and awareness to be possible. In this situation there must be a point where equilibrium is met. If there is never equilibrium then Space would either become empty or saturated. I feel that if it can be proven that energy can be destroyed then it would give reason that energy can be created otherwise Space would be empty.

I tend to feel that existence, order and awareness within Space is perpetual and not simply momentary, hence ultimate inevitability. I feel that it is likely that a Universe is momentary and will dissipate as I struggle to conceive that light emitted will eventually be retracted. I feel as energy is dissipated some of it could potentially be retracted into a future universe made up largely of the energy remnants of this universe but I also feel that some energy may eventually become part of a different universe made up of energy that never was part of this universe (the assumption here is that there is an absolute Space coordinate system e.g. if there actually were two or more different Universes in existence then given enough time it would be possible to travel through Space from one to the other). There should also be many, many universes out there where none of their energy have come from our universe. Given this feeling of mine I don’t think that the energy has always been there. It just seems wrong to me to suggest that there is a limited amount of matter and energy in Space and that this resource is being used and recycled perpetually and that the Cosmos knows how to do this in such a way that awareness would be possible. That approach may suggest the need for an intelligent designer. But really what we are suggesting is a set of energy attributes which inevitably lead towards existence, order and awareness. If you are stating that existence has always been there then the energy attributes will not explain existence. If you are stating that the Universe has always been there then again the energy attributes will not explain some of the order. Please don't tell me that awareness has always been there.

By the way Inevitable Droid I like your breakdown to these three things, they are important and the origins are as you say a mystery. But inevitably they are here.

[Inevitable Droid]

I agree that it is difficult to perceive that something can come from nothing. We are taught to understand “cause” and “effect”. With effect being the creation of energy what is the cause? How can there be a cause in an environment of nothing?

Exactly.  I would go so far as to say that I disbelieve the universe popped up out of nothing.  Either it was always here, or something else that was always here created it.

On the flipside, how can there always have been energy? The biggest issue I have with this stance is the understanding of conservation of energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
If we take conservation of energy as a given then going by the stance that the energy has always been there we would conclude that energy is finite and constant with regards to quantity. The question then just becomes with regards to the dispersing of that energy. I tend to think of Space as a three dimensional set of coordinates, not a substance. Each of these three dimensions go on towards infinity (I can’t perceive why there would be an upper bound and what you would find when you got there).

Modern physics seems to disagree with you, if I understand both it and you.  Modern physics rejects absolute space; I.e., space as an immutable grid of coordinates, affected by nothing, affecting nothing.

Assuming there is an infinite Space it would seem awkward and unlikely to me to conceive a possibility that there is only one universe (my definition of a Universe being a supposed Big Bang or expansion and possibly contraction of energy and matter from/to a central point in Space). Couple the concept of a Universe with the stance that the existing energy is conservative and has always been there with my assumption that Space is infinite, it seems to me unlikely that all this energy would congregate in a local proximity with regards to forming a functional and possibly perpetual Universe.

Agreed - if we assume space as an immutable and infinite grid of coordinates.

If our expanding Universe (known because of the red shift observation) is always expanding and coupled with the principle of conservation of energy then given time our Universe will dissipate into virtual nothingness as each shred of energy will become isolated from the rest (This would conflict with the stance that the Universe has always been there). With this stance our Universe’s existence will only be momentary and hence in my mind it is unlikely that we would have existed or if we did exist our existence would be extremely brief with relation to a potential infinite nature of universal time if there is such a thing as universal time. A brief existence doesn’t make sense in that we have infinite time of nothing, a brief blip of existence and then infinite time of nothing.

If the universe only expands, never contracts, then the notion of it always having been here, and it being the only one, seems impossible.  Popping up out of nothing all of a sudden seems equally impossible.  Therefore I speculate that either (1) there are multiple space bubbles with matter and energy inside, with dying space bubbles feeding their matter and energy into space bubbles newly being born; or else (2) our universe both expands and contracts.

If our Universe goes through expansion and contraction cycles these would need to be 100% complete in order to retain all the energy contained within the Universe. Light for example is currently travelling at the speed of light away from the centre point of the Universe. This light energy would need to contract as well otherwise over time our Universe would run out of energy and dissipate into virtual nothingness and hence have a brief existence.

Agreed.  Absent 100% conservation, the universe would, over the eons of expanding and contracting, lose energy.

The three big questions of mine with regards to energy always being there are:
If energy in Space was constant then where did it come from?

It didn't come from somewhere.  It was always here.

What determined how much energy there is?

Luck.

How did it congregate to form a functioning and necessarily perpetual Universe?

The laws of physics.

With regards to my thoughts of energy being created from nothing:
I struggle with the idea that if the effect is “creation of energy” then what was the cause?

Whatever it was, we would have to call it God.

Maybe energy is constantly being created, maybe nothing is the cause?. If it is being created I would posture that we get an equal amount of “negative energy” (if there is such a thing) hence the overall sum would total Zero hence conservation of energy. My questions with regards to this:
What causes energy to be created?
What would determine the rate of creation of energy?
Is conservation of energy true?

Creation out of nothing is so problematic as to not be worth considering, in my opinion.

But really what we are suggesting is a set of energy attributes which inevitably lead towards existence, order and awareness. If you are stating that existence has always been there then the energy attributes will not explain existence.

They could.  Not causally in the sense of a sequence of events through time; but, rather, logically, in the sense of necessity.  Energy may be such that it simply must exist.
 

If you are stating that the Universe has always been there then again the energy attributes will not explain some of the order.

Why not?

Please don't tell me that awareness has always been there.

Some philosophers actually speculate in that vein.  Their viewpoint is known as panpsychism.  Most people find it too implausible to seriously consider.

By the way Inevitable Droid I like your breakdown to these three things, they are important and the origins are as you say a mystery. But inevitably they are here.

It seems reasonable to say so, at least as a starting point for questions.

[Stevil]

I agree that it is difficult to perceive that something can come from nothing. We are taught to understand “cause” and “effect”. With effect being the creation of energy what is the cause? How can there be a cause in an environment of nothing?

Exactly.  I would go so far as to say that I disbelieve the universe popped up out of nothing.  Either it was always here, or something else that was always here created it.

Do we have proof here or is this a belief system being employed? Stating something else was always here created it becomes a cyclical reference because of course what created that something else, did it just inevitably pop out of nothing? Both stances, created out of nothing or always been here have major issues with regards to trying to comprehend how this can be the case.

If the universe only expands, never contracts, then the notion of it always having been here, and it being the only one, seems impossible.  Popping up out of nothing all of a sudden seems equally impossible.  Therefore I speculate that either (1) there are multiple space bubbles with matter and energy inside, with dying space bubbles feeding their matter and energy into space bubbles newly being born; or else (2) our universe both expands and contracts.

I need to do research on this train of thought. I tried looking up Space bubbles when you mentioned this before but got no hits on search engine. Intuitively it seems impossible and contradictory to the "its always been there" stance. Is a space bubble as big as a Universe could possible expand to or does it grow and contract simultaneously with the energy of the Universe? If it grows then what is the difference with regards to it being a buble or infinite in nature as it does not excert constraints on the energy within? What position does the Universe start off in? (fully contracted, fully expanded or an arbitrary point in between) But then again if it has always been there then there is no starting point. Just magically we have the right amount of energy magically ordered into a fully functioning perpetual Universe and in a current state of potential energy or momentum consistent with the rules governing a perpetual Universe. This would be miraculous! Also a problem I see is that this Space bubble needs to start out with the just the right amount of energy, the energy levels don't grow to a critical mass, they are just always there in massive quantities to be enough for the fully functioning perpetual Universe. If it has always been there then we will not have dying bubbles as they will always be in a state of continuum. If it hasn't always been there but if energy is encapsulated in a bubble then I would suggest there is no path from one bubble to the next so they cannot feed their energy into space bubbles newly being born hence only option 2) is plausable with regard to the space bubble stance or else there are additional options not stated here.

If our Universe goes through expansion and contraction cycles these would need to be 100% complete in order to retain all the energy contained within the Universe. Light for example is currently travelling at the speed of light away from the centre point of the Universe. This light energy would need to contract as well otherwise over time our Universe would run out of energy and dissipate into virtual nothingness and hence have a brief existence.

Agreed.  Absent 100% conservation, the universe would, over the eons of expanding and contracting, lose energy.

"lose energy" is an understatement. loss of energy inevitabily would result in virtual nothingness.

What determined how much energy there is?

Luck.

We both know that luck is a way of stating that Probability comes into play. However probability is based on something, there must be some kind of predictable calculatable law governing this. Are you saying that there are lots of Space bubbles out there and some do not have the required amount of energy to form a universe however they still do exist and have always existed just that they do not produce order and awareness? Maybe a space bubble that simply encapsulates a single black hole singularity, or maybe a space bubble that simply encapsualtes a single quark or a "one dimensional string" as defined in the string theory. What are the odds that we have a whole universe worth of energy within a single Space bubble? Next to impossible in my mind. And already with the order and state required for a functioning perpetual universe? Next to impossible.

How did it congregate to form a functioning and necessarily perpetual Universe?

The laws of physics.

No. You have stated that it has always been. The laws of physics generally have a time based factor and hence define how something will react over time given a current state. But the starting point here is that it was already in this form of order hence the laws of physics did not create this form, they simply maintain it. I am asking how did it get into this form in the first place. I can't really accept that it didn't get into this form as it was already in that form because this form is too complex, too large and too perfect (with regards to a fully functioning perpetual Universe) there must be some rules some energy attributes governing how energy can order itself into a communal state that would form a universe and why it would expand and contract. These attributes would not define rules of expanding a space bubble though, only the rules of the energy contained within.

With regards to my thoughts of energy being created from nothing:
I struggle with the idea that if the effect is “creation of energy” then what was the cause?

Whatever it was, we would have to call it God.

In this case God is more likely to be a natural phenomena rather than an intelligent being. So the Christains are right to call this God rather than to give it a personal name.

If you are stating that the Universe has always been there then again the energy attributes will not explain some of the order.

Why not?

Because you are not describing how this complex fully functioning perpetual Universe formed, you are assuming it has always been in place. Therefore your definition will include lots of constants. e.g. the amount of energy in the Universe, the maximum size of our Universe, the time for a full cycle of expansion and contraction. There will be no way to predict other Universes of different size as it will be assumed these constants are universal hence we won't be able to concieve other Space Bubbles containing anything other than a Universe that is exactly the same as ours. This is preposperous in my mind to assume that only Space Bubbles containing exactly the right amount of energy all of equal size and carrying out an equivalent perpetual lifecycle, this is not a set of energy attributes, this is a prebuilt, prepackaged Universe defined by a static blue print.

[McQ]

Cool thread, and really interesting. Allow my fifteen year old self to butt in for a moment, get this out of my system, and let the thread go back to its coolness.

I noticed that the terms "God Attribute Set" and "Blind Idiot God" have been used here. I like both of them. But my Middle School prurile self really likes them, because used together as an acronym, they make BIG GAS.
 

Ok, with my best apologies between giggles, I leave you to this otherwise most excellent thread discussion. I will now go sit in the corner for 15 minutes.

[Byronazriel]

We both know that luck is a way of stating that Probability comes into play. However probability is based on something, there must be some kind of predictable calculatable law governing this. Are you saying that there are lots of Space bubbles out there and some do not have the required amount of energy to form a universe however they still do exist and have always existed just that they do not produce order and awareness? Maybe a space bubble that simply encapsulates a single black hole singularity, or maybe a space bubble that simply encapsualtes a single quark or a "one dimensional string" as defined in the string theory. What are the odds that we have a whole universe worth of energy within a single Space bubble? Next to impossible in my mind. And already with the order and state required for a functioning perpetual universe? Next to impossible.

The odds don't matter once you start throwing infinites around! Any finite probability, no matter how astronomically huge or tiny, will ALWAYS have results if you factor in infinites. It could very well be possible that we exist in a goldilocks universe, but it'd by no means be rare since there are an infinite amount of them. It is IMPOSSIBLE for fantastic things to NOT happen if you never stop rolling the metaphorical dice!

No. You have stated that it has always been. The laws of physics generally have a time based factor and hence define how something will react over time given a current state. But the starting point here is that it was already in this form of order hence the laws of physics did not create this form, they simply maintain it. I am asking how did it get into this form in the first place. I can't really accept that it didn't get into this form as it was already in that form because this form is too complex, too large and too perfect (with regards to a fully functioning perpetual Universe) there must be some rules some energy attributes governing how energy can order itself into a communal state that would form a universe and why it would expand and contract. These attributes would not define rules of expanding a space bubble though, only the rules of the energy contained within.

Nothing is TOO anything if you allow an infinite amount of them to be created, especially with infinte diversity. The laws of physics are just tools built for understanding this universe based on observable phenomena. They're not divinely perfect, constant all encompassing rules that govern the totality of existence.

If the game changes, the rules have to change with it.

[Inevitable Droid]

[Stevil]

Why is good fortune preposterous?  Good fortune, incidentally, is at the heart of the theory of evolution.  Mutations occur and just happen, by sheer luck, to be conducive to survival and reproduction in the environment and among the creatures that just happen to be in proximity.

I don't believe in luck, I account for simply the statistical probability of the outcomes given the possibilities of each possible outcome. Good fortune is simply having a statistical probability occur in ones favour in advance of the average (or the odds offered) against. To understand good fortune it is best to have an understanding of the odds against. Maybe what you have called good fortune could actually be classified as inevitable once the odds were known? I wasn't terming good fortune as preposterous, just the thought of having all Universes with the same amount of energy, size, life cycle characteristics. It's just too boring if everything is the same.

With regards to evolution, isn't there an understanding that the majority of mutations are failures and are simply either bred out or are destroyed due to being non viable or non favourable based on the current environment?
BTW Did you know that 50% of human pregnancies miscarry. 20% of human pregnancies that last past the first month miscarry. This may have something to do with the mutation/evolution process http://miscarriage.about.com/od/onetimemiscarriages/qt/reasons.htm

The odds don't matter once you start throwing infinites around!

Infinity is a fantastic thing. If something is possible then it is probable. If it has happened then it has probably happened again. If it has happened twice then it has probably happened an infinite amount of times. Given this there are probably an infinite number of beings out there with the exact same DNA makeup as yourself. The problem is trying to find just one other, you may need to search a hell of a lot of planets, solar systems, galaxies and universes.

Thanks for the link Inevitable Droid. The Space Bubble as mentioned within the article from the link you provided is within a neighboring galaxy hence it is within our Universe hence within our Space. So not a bubble of Space but merely a bubble within our Space.

Some more thinking that I have done with regards to Space Bubbles
Our reality is a 3D reality, there cannot be a 1D or 2D reality as there cannot be width and hight with no depth as you cannot depict 2D, even a 2D drawing has some substance of depth e.g. the thickness of a pencil scratching. It has been stated in a book that I read once that the effects of gravity somehow preclude the possibility of a 4D reality. This book was authored by Stephen Hawkings, but I can't remember the specifics. If 3D is all we have in reality then it would be reasonable to assume a 3D coordinate system would be universal, at least this is what I am thinking right now. I will definately get round to finding some information with regards to the Space Bubble you have mentioned as this seems like an enlightening concept. But maybe as you have stated it comes by a different name.

[Stevil]

The laws of physics are just tools built for understanding this universe based on observable phenomena. They're not divinely perfect, constant all encompassing rules that govern the totality of existence.

If the game changes, the rules have to change with it.

"If the game changes", within our universe it is assumed that the game does not change. Instead they assume the model is incorrect, e.g. the differences between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, hence they search for a new model. It would be an assumption to suggest that the correct model for our universe would be the same model for another universe.

I agree with regards to the laws of physics, they are not really laws but just a model of the past observations which acurately predict future observations. Because this is based on observations it can only apply to our current universe as that is all we can observe unless there is overlap with another universe. To my knowledge there has not been any observed evidence to suggest there is currently an overlap between our universe and another. This would make it extremely difficult to propose a model of totality of existence and impossible to validate if it were correct for observations outside our universe. We can only summise by applying logic and making assumptions which can never be validated.

Therefore it would be reasonable to suggest that no effort is to be applyed towards modelling or understanding existence beyond our universe as it can never be validated. This would also apply to any god theory unless of course a god is deemed as observable in which case tell us where to look for these observations. This could also apply to a stance that our universe and the energy that it is made up of has always been there. We could apply our intuitive logic towards this to have a personal stance but I am unsure on how this could be tested hence I don't feel any effort should be made towards this stance other than documenting it as a possibility. With regards to energy being created from nothing, as preposterous as it sounds, I feel this could be tested by trying to destroy energy, maybe finding this -ve energy and using it to neutralise +ve energy. However this could be an eternal wild goose chase if this stance is incorrect.

One strange feeling I have is with regards to the peculiar behaviour of the force known as gravity. General Relativity does not see gravity as being a force but simply as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime. Gravity doesn't seem bound to the speed of light limitation of energy and matter. With this in mind potentially gravity can be used to observe other universes, but then again I don't know whether this is possible or not. I do get a feeling that General Relativity is incorrect, curvature of Space Time does not make sense to me but this is another area that I need to get a much better understanding of in order to feel strongly about my feelings here. The experts know much more than me so am happy to run with GR but I have my doubts and can see on Wikipedia that there are known discrepancies and that other people also have doubts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

[Inevitable Droid]

I don't believe in luck, I account for simply the statistical probability of the outcomes given the possibilities of each possible outcome. Good fortune is simply having a statistical probability occur in ones favour in advance of the average (or the odds offered) against. To understand good fortune it is best to have an understanding of the odds against.

I'm using fortune and luck as synonyms.  Fortune/luck is any event or condition that wasn't caused by me and wasn't caused by someone else with me in mind yet it impacts me.  Fortune/luck comes in two flavors, good and bad, good if favorable to me, bad if unfavorable.  It also comes in two colors, amazing and unamazing, amazing if improbable, unamazing if probable.  The flavors and colors mix and match, such that, fortune/luck can be (1) amazing and good; (2) amazing and bad; (3) unamazing and good; and (4) unamazing and bad.

I wasn't terming good fortune as preposterous, just the thought of having all Universes with the same amount of energy, size, life cycle characteristics. It's just too boring if everything is the same.

I have no idea if multiple universes even exist, much less what characteristics they have.

With regards to evolution, isn't there an understanding that the majority of mutations are failures and are simply either bred out or are destroyed due to being non viable or non favourable based on the current environment?

Yes.  Where mutation is concerned, most luck is bad, but some luck is good and some of the good may even be amazingly so.

One of the reasons some people instinctively balk at the theory of evolution is their instinctive distrust of any theory that relies on amazing good luck sometimes occurring.  So let's be clear.  The theory of evolution absolutely, without a doubt, relies on amazing good luck sometimes occurring.  The reason scientists accept the theory as plausible is because it plays out over immense time scales with an immense abundance of independent opportunities at any given moment.  Think of it this way.  The odds against flipping a coin ten times and having it come up heads all ten times is two to the tenth power, or 1024 to one.  If it's just me flipping a coin, I would be nuts to expect ten heads in a row.  But if we gather 1024 people and have them all flip a coin ten times, we would expect at least one of them to get heads ten times in a row.  If we reward whoever does this with a gift certificate worth 1024 dollars, the recipient(s) will consider the day's fortune to be amazingly good.  Yet from our perspective, it was almost inevitable that we would hand out at least one check.  Amazing good fortune relative to the individual can be almost inevitable relative to the greater whole.

There is still plenty of mystery in our current knowledge of how evolution has played out.  Some of what we see around us is so astronomically improbable per current knowledge that even a billion years isn't long enough to make the good fortune unamazing, even at the macro level.  In the face of this mystery, we can decide to do theology, or we can decide to do science.  You know where I stand on that one.

What will make the good fortune less amazing will be laws of nature newly discovered, laws conducive to the complex order we see all around us.  These order-friendly natural laws will be one leg of the pantheistic tripod I expect science to eventually construct.  The other two legs will be (1) existence-friendly natural laws and (2) awareness-friendly natural laws.  What are natural laws?  Unchanging attributes of energy.  Events seem governed by laws because energy has attributes that don't change.  Why does energy have these attributes?  If energy was always here, then we aren't required to give, and have no motivation to seek, reasons why energy is the way it is.  If energy was always here, then energy is the primary reality whence all arises.  Energy becomes that which we would have to call God.  Energy's attributes wouldn't need explanation.  Rather, energy's attributes would be the explanation for everything else.  Energy's attributes would function the way axioms do in mathematics.  Mathematical axioms aren't explained.  They just are.  And by virtue of their being, all else is explained.  If energy was always here, then energy's attributes will be the axioms of nature.  Unexplained, they will simply be, and by virtue of their being, they will explain all else.

[Stevil]

Just discovered this from the "Why is there something rather than nothing" thread

[youtube:3k9qzkcr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo[/youtube:3k9qzkcr]

Here's a lecture by Laurence Krauss on the topic of a universe from nothing. It's an hour long, so have snacks handy, but it's really good.

I found this extremely interesting, and I learnt stuff too!