The Multi-verse according to Ben

[stryder]

The universe is homeostasis for life, it's the environment in which we exist. To term it otherwise would undermine every aspect of anything held to a scientific principle, if that was the result, anything seen as empirical would be based upon "how the universe feels today".

While indeed you might have a smart hub in your home, it doesn't make your house sentient. (Just insecure from hacker incursions) It still is only bricks and cement.

Any posed similarity of how the universe looks in regards to a neural cluster and star clusters is just Anthropomorphism on the part of an observer, not the universe "copying".

[Syne]

^^This.

[Ostronomos]

So in a certain sense, it follows that reality is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent — key hallmarks of a Supreme Being!

Except that we don't know that any of our premises are true.

1. The universe as a whole might not be (and probably isn't) sentient. Even if it was, it wouldn't necessarily be all knowing. The fact that sentient beings exist within the universe doesn't imply omniscience either. (We and the other animals are the only examples of sentience that we currently know and we aren't omniscient.)

You are incorrect. You sound like the long defunct atheistic idiot by the name of spidergoat. 

It does imply that consciousness comes from a primordial origin. Since I have proven that there exists a complex formula that gives rise to consciousness this automatically leads to the conclusion that all reality can generate a consciousness within it as reality and consciousness are one and the same.

And no, the above reasoning is far from circular by your pathetic attempt to justify your pathetic atheism.

2. We don't know whether there are possibilities in the abstract that are impossible to realize in this particular universe. Other ways that a universe might be, so to speak. Does what is possible according to our particular set of physical laws exhaust all possibility in the larger abstract logical sense? Or might there be other possible-worlds in some modal realism sense?

The set of physical laws certainly exhausts all possibility in larger abstract sense because reality is all possibilities in one. Realism and logic would dictate that every possibility is realized in every possible universe. Given that the physical laws were created and programmed by a universal mind.

3. And not just possibilities, actualities too. What justifies the conclusion that everything that actually exists is included in this universe? It's possible to imagine the possibility of things that aren't part of this space-time continuum at all. Realities for which there is no Tardis-traversible continuous space-time path from here to there. Other disjoint realms that might conceivably have different physical principles. Some of physics' multiverse speculations have ideas like that. So even if we assume (with no plausible justification) that every universe is a sentient divine being, why must we be monotheists?

 Who says we need to be monotheists. Don't try to render the argument implausible just because a God is nigh incomprehensible but can be perceived, just as I have perceived on one occasion and felt on many. You are influenced by the atheistic thinking that plagues imbeciles like JamesR.

[Syne]

So in a certain sense, it follows that reality is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent — key hallmarks of a Supreme Being!

Except that we don't know that any of our premises are true.

1. The universe as a whole might not be (and probably isn't) sentient. Even if it was, it wouldn't necessarily be all knowing. The fact that sentient beings exist within the universe doesn't imply omniscience either. (We and the other animals are the only examples of sentience that we currently know and we aren't omniscient.)

You are incorrect. You sound like the long defunct atheistic idiot by the name of spidergoat. 

It does imply that consciousness comes from a primordial origin. Since I have proven that there exists a complex formula that gives rise to consciousness this automatically leads to the conclusion that all reality can generate a consciousness within it as reality and consciousness are one and the same.

And no, the above reasoning is far from circular by your pathetic attempt to justify your pathetic atheism.

It absolutely is circular reasoning, and I'm a theist, so your ad hominems against atheists ain't going to work on me. IOW, if you have no argument against Yaz, except for "you're an atheist", then you have absolutely no argument against me saying it...or at all. You're just a petulant little child, throwing a fit because he's not getting a participation trophy for coming in dead last in the intellectual race.