It is a "prediction" that is entirely unhelpful to differentiate anything.
How exactly does one differentiate between the value of various cosmology theories other than to see what logical predictions they make, and seeing how well that agrees with observation?
For instance, how would you decide if EU/PC theory *without* theistic overtones is 'better than' Panentheism based on EU/PC theory unless you looked at what the differences might be with respect to observations and conditions on Earth?
Does the current scientific theory even "predict" anything rather than 'postdict' something based on observation?
You haven't actually explained anything either, and I am skeptical that you can do so without invoking many elements that would be beyond "supernatural".
I'm unclear what exactly you want me to explain. I can certainly explain where to find the published materials to support a steady state universe theory, circuit theory as it applies to plasma physics, etc. You seem to require me to directly demonstrate that the universe is "aware" while you play the role of judge, jury and executioner with respect to "evidence".
Are you even interested in understanding the physics underpinnings of EU/PC theory as it relates to basic cosmology theory and physics?
Does This Light Experiment Disprove The Big Bang Theory?
Here for instance is a relatively recently published paper that explains how redshift works in a steady state universe theory from the perspective of mathematics and physics. In and of itself it doesn't demonstrate that the universe is 'aware', but it does demonstrate that it could be a "steady state' universe rather than an expanding universe, with would make it more likely for Panentheism to have scientific potential and merit.
Does that kind of information even matter to you?
You can tell how people feel about you based upon how they act.
Is the gift of life and awareness an act which I can subjectively 'judge'?
That doesn't seem to be anything like what I said.
Well, we're going to have to discuss the 'realness' of things like emotions and emotional interactions between "individuals" somewhere in this conversation if we're going to discuss why humans hold belief in God.
God either objectively exists or it does not, and in a world where it does not then people who think they experience God are experiencing something else.
Well the universe certainly exists, and it's existence might go a long way to explaining human experiences on Earth, depending on how one defines that world.
I don't rely on people because they are generally unreliable on things where their experience is not immediate and usual. If they want to demonstrate something uniquely outside their normal experience then I apply rigorous skepticism.
I can relate to your skepticism as applied to topics like dark energy and dark matter and claims that fall outside of normal human experience. I experience gravity to be sure, but not "dark matter", or "dark energy". My spidey senses start to tingle the moment we start deviating from empirical physics in fact.
On the other hand, some experiences might not be "usual" for me personally, like seeing a kangaroo in my backyard, or some other unique human experience, but they might very well be very usual experiences for others. I can't automatically reject the validity of all experiences which might fall outside of "my personal comfort level", or my personal experience set.
The function you have to demonstrate is that carrying current is significantly like the types of biology that produces awareness.
It's significantly "like" biological transfers of electrons and ions. How exactly are we defining "significantly like"? How like? How significantly?
And that seems to be where your ideas begin and end.
How do you figure? I can site *tons* of evidence to support the EU/PC orientation of cosmology theory which is necessary to provide the physics foundation of this whole discussion. I"m not sure that you're even personally willing to look at nor consider the implications of those published materials, observations and mathematical models.
In terms of current flow, mass layout patterns, and various features, I can provide similarities for your consideration, but that doesn't mean that you are personally going to be swayed by those particular arguments. It's not even clear to me what type of evidence that you would accept which I might be actually able of providing given the limits of cosmology and physics.
I can agree with you that one picture looks something like the other and that there are current carrying bodies in space.
So basically I can make two unique predictions which pop right out of Panentheism and which aren't even necessarily "predicted" in current cosmology theory. Is that "evidence' to favor one cosmology theory over another in your opinion?
My general skepticism about what we understand about the universe is indeed fairly broad.
That would be consistent with the rest of your beliefs.
I'm doing you a favor, and I have taken your ideas seriously. This constant complaining about theoretical physics, to me, just sounds like bellyacheing.
I'm only pointing out that "science" doesn't require an empirical standard of 'evidence', particularly as it relates to cosmology theories in general. It's not fair to expect me to *exceed* scientific standards of evidence. That seems to be what you're doing when you just handwave at observations that tend to favor one cosmology theory over another.
If you want to produce an actual empirical theory you should expect to be treated with skepticism from people who will definitely point out the flaws in whatever work you produce. It will never be enough to convince serious people to simply turn around and point at the flaws in other ideas.
I'm not suggesting that Panentheism is right simply because LCDM is wrong. I am however going to look for ways to compare different theories, and the standards of evidence must be consistent across the board.
If you actually did coursework in real science this should be second nature to you.
I hear you, and I've published papers in support of EU/PC theory as well. I really don't see how anyone would or could begin to embrace or even entertain the concept of Panentheism without first embracing EU/PC theory. For starters, a time limited universe seems less likely to produce a living universe than a universe that has existed eternally. Without understanding the electrical aspects, it's probably not going to make much sense either.