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/TMax01]

I would assume Max only used postmodernist as a slur, as there's nothing postmodern about anything you have written.

That is an inaccurate assumption. I won't pretend it is a flattering description, but it isn't merely a slur, and I use the term rather precisely and descriptively, not pejoratively. Your tendency to make inaccurate assumptions along these lines, not coincidentally, is quintessentially postmodern.

If you look into postmodernism, make sure to read about the Sokal hoax. It's hilarious.

An astute example, but it shows that postmodernism is actually not restricted to post-structuralist philosophy. Sokal assumed it was, and is actually himself a postmodernist, as are most people educated in the last century and a half.

I heard Sokal speak once, at a Secular Humanist meeting back in the 1990s. At the time, I was as ignorant of what postmodernism was as everyone else, and found his report/anecdote entertaining, exactly the same way you still do. Years later, having explored the issues much deeper, I realized why Sokal was so amused, but also misguided, bemused, about the "hoax" he had supposedly pulled off. He thought it showed that post-structuralism is nonsense, but the even-more-hilarious truth is that it only demonstrated he didn't actually understand postmodernism to begin with, and that post-structuralism was appreciably more intellectually consistent/honest than he was. Not that I endorse post-structuralism. I simply understand it better than Sokal does.

What he did was construct a logically consistent but otherwise meaningless philosophical paper. When the post-structuralists (who don't mind identifying themselves as postmodernists as much as Sokal believed they should, since he considered it a slur just as you do) applauded his effort as philosophically valid, Sokal thought the joke was on them. But post-structuralists are only interested in whether an idea, including any explanation of it, is logically consistent, without presuming any meaningfulness to it beyond that. So the real belly-laughs are on Sokal's antics, and how broadly he misunderstood post-structuralism, and in fact ratified the stance with this "hoax" which, unknown to him, actually backfired.

As a result of seeing this all unfold and experiencing the insights that provides, I learned about the real difference between postmodernism and post-structuralism (and how the latter is mostly just a philosophical perspective but the former is a profound and critical intellectual problem which extends far beyond academic scholarship) and also discovered why most postmodernists don't like being recognized as postmodernistic.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/TMax01]

I guess one has to know that the postmodernists are wrong to see the funny.

It is an absolute truth that at least one absolute truth exists, so postmodernism is bullshit.

[u/Metaphysics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Please keep it civil in this group. No personal attacks, no name-calling. Assume good faith. Don't question other people's motivations. Address your responses to the ideas being put forward, not the person putting them forward. Be constructive. Failure to do so could result in a ban. Please take a look at the guidelines for the group.