I forgot to keep track of my earlier asking of this question. Rather than make similar replies to many comments, I'll elaborate here. I'll use the example of panpsychism: it holds that natural laws such as physics predicts describe how the universe works, but not what it is, and it offers an answer: consciousness—or something. I have more to learn.
But Philip Goff claims every entity, even down to, say, electrons, has some level of awareness ("consciousness"), and that their predicable behavior creates the predictable laws of nature.
I don't see a way to dis/prove this, at least not right now. But I think it could be combined with a recognition that the macrostructure of the universe, which is said to resemble a brain, could suggest it has a "megamacroscopic consciousness" emergent from its subcomponents (like Boyle's gas laws emerge from aggregating descriptions of many molecules' behavior).
I do not believe this! It's an example I thought of that could give people a sense of meaning and purpose not intended by some god. In that sense, it could inspire good behavior (in utilitarian, virtue ethical, or whatever senses) by convincing people they're not "just" incredibly small organisms the universe doesn't care about.
Would there be harm in this? Pragmatically, since it doesn't contradict knowledge of how the universe functions like young Earth creationism, it seems like it could be harmless.
Also, is there a way for me to get notified via email when people comment on this? I just joined SE.
