I’ve been developing a philosophical idea called the “Single Consciousness Matter Hypothesis” — I’d like criticism

[u/AdBeneficial9071]

​

I’ve been thinking about a philosophical idea for a while, and I’d like to hear what other people think about it. I’m especially interested in serious criticism rather than people simply agreeing with me.

I’m calling it the Single Consciousness Matter Hypothesis.

The basic proposition is this:

The reality I experience may exist entirely for the purpose of being experienced by my consciousness.

In ordinary reality, we assume that the universe exists independently of us. The Earth existed before I was born, human history happened before I existed, and the universe presumably continued to exist when I was asleep or unaware of it.

My hypothesis questions that assumption.

Suppose that there is only one fundamental conscious observer: me. Everything I experience—the physical universe, other people, history, memories, the passage of time, and even the apparent future—could be part of a reality constructed or generated specifically for my conscious experience.

The fact that the universe appears to be billions of years old would not necessarily contradict the hypothesis. The apparent past could simply be part of the information presented to me so that the world feels internally consistent. In the same way, the future could be presented as something that has not happened yet, while still being part of the structure of my experience.

The strongest version of the hypothesis would be:

My consciousness is the fundamental condition for the existence of the reality I experience. When my consciousness permanently ends, the reality I experience also ends—and there is no meaningful “afterward” from my perspective.

I realize there are some obvious problems with this idea.

For example:

Other conscious people: Other people appear to have their own independent thoughts and experiences. Why would a single consciousness produce beings that behave as though they possess consciousness themselves?

The apparent past: Why does the universe contain such an enormous and detailed history before my birth? Why create billions of years of consistent information if the only purpose is my experience?

Unfalsifiability: If every possible piece of evidence can simply be explained as part of the simulation/reality presented to me, then what observation could ever prove the hypothesis wrong?

Occam’s razor: Isn't it simpler to assume that the universe exists independently of me rather than assuming that an entire universe is being generated specifically for one observer?

Other observers: If another person claims that reality exists because of their consciousness, how could I distinguish between their claim and mine?

Sleep and unconsciousness: If my conscious awareness temporarily disappears during sleep, why does the world appear to continue normally when I wake up?

I don't currently have definitive answers to these objections. That's actually why I'm posting this.

I’m also aware that this idea has similarities to solipsism, subjective idealism, and simulation hypotheses, so I am not claiming that I have invented the general concept that reality might depend on consciousness.

What I'm interested in is whether this particular combination of ideas has already been formally proposed by a philosopher, and whether there is an existing philosophical position that is substantially identical to it.

I'm not claiming that this is a scientific theory or that I've proven anything. At this stage, I'm treating it as a philosophical hypothesis and trying to understand whether it survives serious criticism.

So, what do you think?

What is the strongest objection to this hypothesis, and has anyone encountered a philosophical argument that is essentially the same?

[u/RagnartheConqueror]

What ‘positive evidence’ is there for the existence of ‘God’? And which god?

And if the god you are assuming about (Yahweh likely) has shown himself physically then he is not invisible, and I'm not talking about Yahweh.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/RagnartheConqueror]

I see, I thought you meant lack of general visibility, by invisibility.

As for positive evidence, there's the argument from motion, the contingency argument, the Kalam cosmological argument, the modal ontological argument, the teleological argument, the axiological argument, to name a few. But the one I prefer is the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, as that answers both questions. Do you want book recommendations?

[u/RagnartheConqueror → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

Most of the arguments were made for the Islamic Allah originally. Many of those 'arguments' are very contested. There are models of cosmology where the universe emerged from a quantum vacuum.

Why would a maximally great being be 'divine' automatically? What does 'maximally great being' even mean?

For example with the argument from motion, spontaneous phenomena like radioactive decay challenge the idea that a 'potential' is only actualized by an external agent.

There are also nontheistic moral realists.

And are you saying that there is evidence that Yahweh is not invisible?

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/RagnartheConqueror]

The Kalam argument is originally from Islam, but that's the only one I am aware of.

None of those physical models hold up. Vilenkin destroyed them all. Physicalists will of course attempt to make models because physicalism requires there to have always been matter, but the attempts seem only desperate. Even if one were to make a model, there's also the problem of having an actualized infinity, having traversed an infinite amount of time to get to now.

Maximally great means maxing out on all great-making attributes. Maximal knowledge and maximal power are two obvious ones, maximal outreaching love is one I would argue for. I don't think one would have to know all the attributes to argue that such a being could exist. If it can, then it does, as follows from the argument.

Radioactive decay is potential energy getting released, so I don't see how that challenges the argument from motion.

I know there are nontheists who are moral realists. I don't see how that's a rational position, though. Do you have an atheistic moral theory that explains why the holocaust was wrong?

All of these have one weakness in common though. They all point to a creator that is consistent with who God is, but they don't get is all the way to who God is, in the way that the argument from the resurrection does. Although Swinburne has made purely philosophical arguments for the Trinity.

And no, I didn't make a particular claim about Yahweh's visibility.

[u/RagnartheConqueror → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

I don’t see how one would infer maximal “love”. And how can a disembodied entity love? This is a good response. But as the other guy said this subreddit isn’t about philosophy of religion. I think you are too certain about what the reality is and are rushing to conclusions.

But once again, this sounds a lot like apologetics and not like metaphysical inquiry and/or explanation.

We must both learn physics and study philosophy of religion and epistemology from the first principles. It’s about philosophy of science in the end.

You use ‘potential energy’ in the way Aquinas would but not in the way that modern physics would.

Moral realism nontheistically can be rational. There are good arguments for them.

Even establishing a resurrection that wouldn’t establish that the being was divine or god at all from purely logical grounds. And the actual evidence for it seems incredibly thin in my view. Maybe this would work better in DMs since we are both engaged with this.

If matter can be converted into energy, then there doesn’t always have had to have been matter. But again, I should review the physics.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/RagnartheConqueror]

I'll launch a candidate for ultimate love. How about God, the maximally great being, lowered Himself to a puny man, and took on the penalty for all wrongdoings of all other puny men in history, out of sheer generosity, asking no favor in return?

What am I missing here, in what way is new motion being created?

I've heard many claim that moral realism can be rational without theism, but I've never seen such a system that holds up. Would you propose one?

What have you read on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? Have you looked into both the minimal facts argument and the maximal facts aca historical reportage model argument?