Such a great debate. Funny thing is that I am in agreement with both of your. You both seem to have the same beginning point regarding the universe but end up with differing conclusions as to its causation. Great debates are founded on common grounds.

What struck me is the distinction between meaning and truth. We make assumptions that yield meaning in our lives, but are ready to sacrifice them in the interests of truth. The best of all worlds would then be to get meaning from truth.

My compromise position is to speculate on the make up of the universe, including god, in such a way that the speculaions are compatible with ohysics. So here is one example that I have mentioned before.

The universe seems to be 26-D with an initial compactification of 16 of these dimensins. These 16 dimensions could contain a detailed program of the laws of this universe, the laws that do not change with time. These dimensions are totally entangled with the remaining 10-D which eventually become space-time and all the particles and/or fields in the universe. So there is a ready mechanism by which the laws can be implimented.

Now all this is speculation. But I like to build mechanistic models of the universe and derive meaning from them. In this case the meaning comes from the coiupling of this model with the evolution of universes, which implies both the evolution of gods in each universe, as well as the evolution of spirits and souls within each universe to the level of gods.

So in a sense I elevate evolution to the status of a god principle. That gives my existense meaning, and it comes from some semblance of truth.

Sorry to butt in on a great debate, but you guys got me hooked it's so good

yanniru

• Not butting in - harvey1 - October 27, 2002 - 16:08 UTC
  • Speculations that are compatible with physics - quiet - October 27, 2002 - 17:56 UTC
    • Population biology, ecology and even casino management - yaniru - October 28, 2002 - 00:24 UTC
    • Population biology, ecology and even casino management - yaniru - October 28, 2002 - 00:24 UTC
      • Please show that evolution has been "energy efficient" - quiet - March 29, 2003 - 21:35 UTC
  • They all involve speculation; they have that in common - quiet - October 28, 2002 - 05:35 UTC
    • I do not have to prove antyjing - yaniru - October 28, 2002 - 10:41 UTC