How worlds may emerge in an Atheistic Deistic model
If the world is logical it must have a logical reason for being. If it does not have a logical reason for being it is not fundamentally logical. As the world appears to behave logically it must be assumed it is. And if it is it can be explained. This is one attempt to do just that.
Arguments for the existence of God almost always devolve into the question "why is there something instead of nothing?" But that assumes our common definition of nothingness as a void that is completely "without property" is correct.
There are only two ways we can legitimately derive definitions; induction (experience), and deduction (the syllogism). Since we see "something" when we look around us we cannot experience nothingness so we the only way we can define it is by deduction.
You can strip away all the permutations of existence simply by putting a form of the words "is not" in front of "being as a whole". But you are still left with the idea of nothingness (you're thinking about it right now after all). So it is not a void "without property". It is a completely neutral concept. So how can the world emerge from that?
Imagine a straight line that extends outward in both directions (click the links they are essential) http://personal.inet.fi/private/ilkka/truerta/after_calibration.png . Such a one dimensional line is analogous to nothingness because nothingness has but one property- it is a concept (this is called the principle of equivalence and was used by Einstein to relate gravity with acceleration when he formulated the theory of relativity). There are an infinite number of waveforms that exist in potential in such a line http://plus.maths.org/issue38/interview/sine.gif . If things happen simply because they can happen and they can happen because they don't result in contradiction then as long as the probability of an event does not equal zero (which is what happens when two identical but opposite waves try to emerge at the same time http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may00/images/synth.fig1.l.gif ) it may occur for no reason other than the fact there is nothing to prevent it from occuring. Therefore any of these waveforms may emerge spontaneously by themselves or in combination by simple addition http://blog.pandora.com/archives/tour/MPI-HarmonicDistortion.JPG . By themselves the most basic waveforms (sine waves) have no meaning but merged with others they can create radically different patterns which are analogous to universes with different physics. Compare how this square wave emerges from it's constituent sine waves http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/22017.png with this sawtooth waveform http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/02101/images/Law_of_Superposition.gi....
However concepts must be observed so what is observing the concept of nothingness? This "problem" is really no problem at all. Lines may curve in many ways. One is a circle. http://www.8palm.com/arrow.gif . That makes it self referential or self observing and that makes it conscious. I call this foundational state the Prime Observer because it is literally observing itself. The circle is perfectly smooth and therefore in equilibrium but contains within it an infinite number of potential worlds which may emerge spontaneously as an epiphenomenon or side effect. In other words the world doesn't just obey mathematical rules it is mathematics- manifest.
Because it is a concept we can say nothingness is not nothing. That is a contradiction thus such a state cannot exist. But an unobserved concept is also paradoxical and therefore unstable. It must collapse into a state that is stable but in order to do that it must have something in common with that state. Since the only property nothingness has is that of a concept it can only be reduced to something else that is also a concept to avoid a non sequitur and all it has to do to accomplish that is bend back on itself, nothing more. Therefore if this argument is correct "God" must exist necessarily. But even though all being is contingent on it the world is not a purposeful creation. And that is why I am an Atheistic Deist and not a Theist or pure Atheist.
Here's a couple more to illustrate the principle:
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/physics17/chapter10/fundsecondthird.jpg
http://universe-review.ca/I13-15-FourierSyn1.jpg
Each of these is analogous to different universes with different physics.
The way I see it universes are arrayed in a spectrum. There are an infinite number of types (though the conservation laws may not allow every variation of a type to occur, notice the two examples of square waves linked above are not identical but are variations on a type so which one will emerge as its final form is uncertain http://www.korguksupport.co.uk/upload/image062.jpg which is distinct from the idealised versions of other types http://technoflash.chez-alice.fr/HTMLF/PIM/FOU1.GIF that can be approached but never reached) and just as there is a region in the spectrum of light which is visible there is an area where the universes that occupy it are conducive to the evolution of life. Which solves the problem of why our universe is so finely tuned. In a cosmos that contains an infinite number of worlds of different properties one must have the ones we see.
But as this requires the cosmos be concept in nature and concepts require an observer then there must be a Prime Observer. However as you can see there is no need to consider It as supernatural or mystical. In fact It seems to be very similar to M theory which says universes may just be ripples in higher dimensional "membranes" of energy.
For a more complete explanation of the theory and critiques of materialism check this link: http://godvsthebible.com/node/83
The Paradox Of Nothingness And The Case For The New (A-theistic) Deism
