The Consciousness Cosmological Argument


(Juan Romero) #1

This argument is not mine. I found a comment on Facebook that contained it and I decided to give it a name: The Consciousness Cosmological Argument. I gave it a try and, to my surprise, it helped me win some debates against atheists. I would like to share it with you. What you will read in a moment is the FB comment just as I found it. I would like to know your opinions about it.

P1.) Spacetime emerges from entangled information. (AdS/MERA(1) -experimentally established from tests of Bell’s(2) and Leggett’s inequalities(3))

P2.) Entangled information is integrated information (consciousness). (IIT(4) -experimentally established via quantum biological effects in gamma synchrony in anesthesia(5))

C1.) Spacetime emerges from consciousness.

P3.) A single universal wavefunction exists that entangles all information into a single integrated information state. (Wheeler-DeWitt equation -experimentally tested in 2013 (6))

C2.) Physical spacetime emerges from a single universal conscious being. (God exists)

1.) Carroll et al, Space from Hilbert Space: Recovering Geometry from Bulk Entanglement (2016) https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08444
2.) Aspect et al, “Experimental Test of Bell’s Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers”, Phys. Rev. Lett., (1982) adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhRvL..49.1804A
3.) Zeilinger et al, An experimental test of non-local realism, (2007)
http://www.nature.com/…/jou…/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html
4.) Giulio Tononi, Consciousness as integrated information: a provisional manifesto. (2008) Footnote 14: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19098144
5.) E. Roy John, The neurophysics of consciousness, (2002) http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/article/pii/S016501730200142X
6.) Moreva et al, Time from quantum entanglement: an experimental illustration (2013)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4691


(Matthew Pevarnik) #2

Wait… what? I don’t understand any of this. Who are you winning arguments against exactly now? Cosmologists? Random people who understand perhaps even slightly less than I do?

The first idea P1 is completely new to me. After poking around Sean Carroll’s blog, I found this article to perhaps get me up to speed just a little bit:

I don’t really know where to go after this. Sure, I have a PhD in Physics, but am completely lost in all of this. Maybe you can elaborate in laymans terms what you are talking about?


(Casper Hesp) #3

There’s this thing we call “tech bluff”. Works pretty well if you’re only goal in life is to “win” internet discussions.


(Juan Romero) #4

I just wanted to share this argument. My only goal in life is not to win arguments, I just shared my experience with this argument.


(Casper Hesp) #6

Sorry, I realize my comment comes across as an accusation leveled at you, since you started the post. However, you are not the author of this “argument”, correct? Have you considered the possibility that the one who penned this down had barely any idea what he/she was talking about? The expensive terms do not make the argument clearer but actually create a “smoke and mirrors” effect. That confuses the reader and makes it rather difficult to formulate a reply.

Still, I’ll give it a go. I think that using claims P1 and P2 to produce the conclusion C1 is a non-sequitur. Similarly, using P3 to conclude C2 is a shot in the dark. It looks like saying, “Information is important, ergo God exists.” That simply does not follow.


(Steve Schaffner) #7

The argument fails to support its premises and employs the fallacy of equivocation. References (2) and (3) do not experimentally establish the claim in P1. They rule out classes of hidden variable theories, a finding that does not imply P1.

The equivocation occurs when “information” in reference (1) is treated as having anything to do with consciousness. Information – specifically mutual information – in (1) is simply a measure of correlation between elements in a quantum mechanical system.


#8

What exactly were you debating with atheists? If you have used this argument against atheists, hasn’t it become your argument also?


(Juan Romero) #9

I was debating about the existence of God. It’s not my argument because I didn’t create it. I can use the KCA, but I didn’t invent it.


#10

I don’t think you should use false arguments to argue for the existence of God. The only converts you’ll win are people who don’t know any better. And if a convert realizes he’s been lied to all along, he’ll lose his faith.


(Christy Hemphill) #11

Isn’t the whole point of bringing the arguments up on this site to get input from scientists about whether or not they are good arguments? It’s not like he had this big strategy to use false arguments just to win debates.


(Juan Romero) #12

Exactly. I wanted to know what people here think about the CCA so I can improve it or just stop using it.
I never really wanted to win debates, what I really want is to win people for God. To reach atheists, I need to use what they use: logic and science. That’s why I’m reading a lot about those topics (especially about the last one).
Nowadays, when people pay little and no attention to God (especially in countries like mine, which are extremely secular), it is important to let them know that one does not need to ignore science in order to believe in God.


(Brad Kramer) #13

@archicastor1 I’m sure this thread as come across as somewhat accusatory, and that’s not the intent. We just get frustrated by sub-par “science apologetics” which end up doing more harm than good.

Sounds like your heart is in the right place. We’ve got the same passion here at BioLogos. But we want to be careful and rigorous in those efforts, respecting scientific expertise.


#14

Well, he must have thought that it was an argument with something going for it, since he says he used it on atheists to win debates. And I still don’t think that it’s much of a strategy for scoring points against atheists. He wanted opinions. And that is my opinion, even though others don’t share it. Please don’t get me wrong, @archicastor1


(David Heddle) #15

I renew my call to the government that only properly trained individuals (with certificates suitable for framing) be allowed to invoke any of these in a religious or philosophical argument:

  1. Quantum superposition and/or entanglement
  2. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
  3. The many world interpretation of QM
  4. Bayes’ Theorem

People don’t ruin arguments, Quantum Mechanics does.


(Stephen Matheson) #16

Uh, he wrote that he has used this preposterous argument to “win some debates against atheists.” It seems to me that @beaglelady is expressing the kind of basic respect for atheists (and other targets of crap like this) that should be encouraged.


(Brad Kramer) #17

I think we should strongly consider the option that the OP genuinely had no idea that his arguments were “crap,” and genuinely was not trying to disrespect scientists or atheists or anyone else. Especially since this is exactly what he already told us.


#18

Thanks for your support, Steve.


(George Brooks) #19

@archicastor1

I have to say, for C1 to be true, it would be some kind of Cosmic Conscious Field which provides morality and meaning to the entire Universe. [C1. Spacetime emerges from consciousness.]

P1 and P2 don’t seem to have much to do with establishing C1.

But I am happy with P3 emanating out of C1. [P3. A single universal wavefunction exists that entangles all information into a single integrated information state. (Wheeler-DeWitt equation -experimentally tested in 2013)]

I’m not quite sure whether sub-points 1. to 6. have much to do with anything.


(Juan Romero) #20

So, should people like Richard Carrier stop using Bayes’ Theorem to prove their points? I don’t know, I’m just asking.


(David Heddle) #21

Hmm. That’s a trick “Have you stopped beating your wife” question in two ways. The first is that “people like Richard Carrier” is the null set. As for the second, I can answer it if you allow me to change it to:

So, should people like Richard Carrier stop using Bayes’ Theorem to claim to prove their points?

Then the answer is: Yes. Yes they should.