What implications? Boring gods?
No, the implication that the universe itself is "aware", and that "God" remains an empirical "possibility". It's the supernatural dark sky gods of Lambda-CDM that have been rather impotent and boring, particularly in the lab in controlled experimentation. They exist only as an affirming the consequent fallacy.
Indeed. You don't have a theory.
Sure I do. EU/PC theory is support by hundreds of published papers, and if consciousness is in fact the product of electromagnetic brain activity, then the possibility that the EM fields of spacetime give rise to consciousness on larger scales remains a viable option. You just have a tough time admitting that God is even 'possible'. That's the key sticking point apparently. I'm not even trying to provide you with any evidence, just get you to acknowledge it's *possible*.
Unsubstantiated opinion.
Subjective judgement call on your part.
Yet that is all I see from you. Have you anything new?
You aren't even interested in anything "new', you've already made up your mind, and you subjectively play judge, jury and executioner all by yourself.
Here's the deal. With or without 'consciousness' being an intrinsic property of nature, EU/PC theory is in every way a purely *empirical* theory of the universe. Nothing 'supernatural' need exist to explain the universe we live in. Even *if* the universe itself is 'aware', awareness exists on Earth in a myriad of forms, so even that would not be a 'supernatural' discovery.
On the other hand, what passes as so called 'science' these days requires *four different acts of pure faith* on the part of the believer in *four different* supernatural constructs. You really have no right to complain about panetheism/pantheism, and they will forever remain entirely empirical 'possibilities'.
Upvote
0