Originally posted by rwingett
The former being said, however, I don't think pantheists would agree with the necessity of coming up with an alternate term. They would, I'm sure, feel that 'god' was precisely what they meant. Nothing more, nothing less.
Hi rwingett, best to you and yours!
Since the differ states of the observer universe share both an epistemological and ontological role, they are both simultaneously a description of the current state of the observer universe and of everything that is contained in it. Since epistemology and ontology are inseparable, the epistemological acts alone (acts of perception) is the agent that creates ontology. Once more, It’s only Us.
To me, the universe is neither a machine neither synonymous to G-d but a world self-synthesized out of huge causal fields; each bit of information we have at our disposal as regards the observer universe (compressed information that can be well depicted as thick algorithms that they are in and by themselves and simultaneously mutually dependent, that is), constitutes our wide world of spacetime and the rest observers;
Since the observer universe (and all the other observers it contains) are coming into being through latent karmic imprints out of a vast pool of potentialities, the becoming into being of these causal imprints is forming whatever has form –and thus whatever has form lacks of inherent existence; because everything comes into being (into Form, that is) out of the development and of the propagation of these mind-only latent karmic potentials;
To point towards a transcendental G-d “with personality” as is the case with our Christian friends, is to me an unjustified superstitious assumption; and to argue that the observer universe is synonymous to G-d, as it appears to be the case according to the seemingly pantheist rant of yours, drives me nowhere and so I discard it as well
😵