The Instigator
escape3
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KhalifV
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Is the universe making God ?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
KhalifV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/30/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 687 times Debate No: 58358
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

escape3

Pro

Debate Is the universe making God ?
The fundamental and minutely small particles or energies that exist can be called quantum stuff. When we view the universe in our mind we can see it is a vast place full of quantum stuff. Within this vast quantum stuff we can see that parts have combined in a way that allows the assemblage to be conscious. These conscious assemblages of quantum stuff "flick" in and out of existence and are probably scattered throughout the quantum stuff whole. They also have the ability to reflect upon the quantum stuff whole and intervene into the way in which quantum stuff assembles. Is there a tendency for these consciousnesses to proliferate and combine?
The quantum stuff assembles in a variety of ways to form the inorganic and organic universe. The number of ways in which the quantum stuff combines is vast. The quantum stuff assembles into fragments that are alive. Assemblages of quantum stuff that are alive have a tendency to proliferate throughout the quantum stuff whole. In effect they have a tendency to convert assemblages of quantum stuff into a form that is the likeness of their own. As they do so, the future proliferation of any particular living form of quantum stuff assembly is effected by other living and non-living assemblages of quantum stuff that surround it and with which it is contact. The developing form of the living quantum stuff fragment depends upon the environment with which it is contact.
However, some living assemblages of quantum stuff have a consciousness that allows reflection on the nature of quantum stuff. Like all living quantum stuff assemblies, quantum stuff that has this "higher" consciousness has a tendency to proliferate throughout the whole of quantum stuff and this proliferation is also affected by the surrounding living and non living quantum stuff assemblages.
But the quantum stuff assemblages that have higher consciousness have a tendency to manipulate the living and non-living quantum assemblages of quantum stuff that surround it so that its own proliferation throughout the whole of quantum stuff is significantly aided and enhanced
All assemblages of quantum stuff that are living have a tendency to proliferate their own type. But assemblages of higher quantum consciousnesses also have a tendency to proliferate in a way that that explores and manipulates the whole of quantum stuff. These sort of assemblages also have a tendency to communicate and combine throughout the whole.
Given these tendencies and given time it seems likely one assemblage of quantum stuff consciousness will proliferate throughout all of quantum stuff. God seems as good a name as any for this proliferation.
KhalifV

Con

Thanks to my opponent for an interesting debate topic.

Now to those who don't actually study consciousness, neurobiology and quantum physics, pro's argument may seem appealing, however he just kinda took a bunch of words that sound scientific and put them in some weird new age spiritual non-sensical coontext.

Pro's Assumptions: Consciousness exists outside of brains.
Virtual particles are conscious.
virtual particles are alive .

-Semantics
Consciousness: Given that pro has taken the following appoach of god:"By god I mean a consciousness that proliferates throughout the whole of quantum stuff. Such a consciousness would pretty be close to a definition of the traditional monotheist god of an entity or consciousness that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent", it is sufficient to say we shall have to take the following definition of concsciousness: A third and yet more demanding sense might define conscious creatures as those that are not only aware but also aware that they are aware, thus treating creature consciousness as a form of self-consciousness.
Virtual Particles: Virtual particles are particles described by quantum physics that exist for an extremely limited space and time. Specifically, less than one planck time. Virtual particles will always appear from the energy of a vacuum.
Completely Unjustified Statements By Pro: "They also have the ability to reflect upon the quantum stuff "
In order for something to reflect, in any sense apart from the field of optics, that something must have a brain. As far as I know virtual particles don't have brains.

"The quantum stuff assembles in a variety of ways to form the inorganic and organic universe"
NO. Virtual particles appear in pairs and cancel eachother out 99% of the time. There is not a variety of ways, there's like one way.

"Assemblages of quantum stuff that are alive"
NO. By any definition of alive, virtual particles do not coincide with this definition.

"All assemblages of quantum stuff that are living have a tendency to proliferate their own type."
NO. Virtual particles don't have brains and are not biotic. Also can you justify that there are various types of virtual particles.

Brains and Awareness and Life:
Per my prior definition, we are aware that consciousness implies awareness. What produces awareness? Awareness has its origin in the insular cortex. The right anterior insula aids interoceptive awareness .
How can one measure self-awareness? Well it's trivially easy, you just place a mirror in front of an animal and if they recognize themself, they are self-aware. Simple right? Wrong, only ten animals are reported to have passed this test, they are listed as follows:







        1. Humans
        1. Orangutans
        1. Chimpanzees
        1. Gorillas
        1. Bottlenose Dolphins
        1. Elephants
        1. Orcas
        1. Bonobos
        1. Rhesus Macaques
        1. European Magpies






Life:"living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction. "
In order to demonstrate his argument, not only does my opponent have to show that these virtual particles have the capacity to intentionally fufill the qualifications of life, he must show that these particles can do anything intentionally, and he must furthermore show these particles have the capacity to perform as advanced, sentient life, such as the animals that pass the mirror test.
Why Consciousness Is A Brain Function: The brain is responsible for all of the functions that are associated with consciousness. As for as we know, objects without brains, don't have the capacity to do any of the aforementioned qualities(TO ALL YOU BOTANIST: shut up, I know plants do some of these things without brains, i'm trying to make a point.) Furthermore, the mere fact that a physical event that effects the brain can render you unconscious, is compelling evidence that consciousness is essentially physical and related to the brain.
Debate Round No. 1
escape3

Pro

Thanks for con for accepting debate.

Con has completely misunderstood the argument in round one.

Round one contained what I believe to be statements of rational and progressive fact... it had nothing to do with new age or the spiritual.
Con stated.....'Pro's Assumptions: Consciousness exists outside of brains'.
No where in my argument have I stated that consciousness exists outside what people call brains. It was stated that parts of the quantum stuff whole have combined in a way that allows the assemblage to be conscious. If my opponent prefers to label these assemblages of quantum stuff brains that’s ok. But are not brains assemblages of quantum stuff? If not then perhaps my opponent can explain what brains are fundamentally are made of?

Pro "The quantum stuff assembles in a variety of ways to form the inorganic and organic universe"
Con stated ....NO. Virtual particles appear in pairs and cancel each other out 99% of the time. There is not a variety of ways, there's like one way.

This is an interesting scientific fact. But can con explain if quantum stuff has not assembled to form the inorganic and organic universe then what has? Until my opponent does, I will still maintain that it is the very smallest and fundamental particles/energies (quantum stuff) that have assembled to form the inorganic and organic universe.

Pro "Assemblages of quantum stuff that are alive"
Con stated....NO. By any definition of alive, virtual particles do not coincide with this definition.

Really? My opponent and I are alive. If my opponent accepts this statement.. then if not an ‘assemblage of quantum stuff’ what are my opponent and I fundamentally made of? People and all other living things are proof that assemblages of quantum stuff can become complex and alive. Although I agree, a couple of quarks may not be.

Pro "All assemblages of quantum stuff that are living have a tendency to proliferate their own type."
Con stated ....NO. Virtual particles don't have brains and are not biotic. Also can you justify that there are various types of virtual particles.

A theme seems to be starting here. I am stating that complex assemblages of quantum stuff that become alive , tend to proliferate their own type. My opponent is talking about the nature of individual quantum particles. Living things are assemblages of quantum stuff. Perhaps my opponent can come up with a better way of describing how living things are made of at the very fundamental level? To me 'assemblages of quantum stuff' seems to fit the bill.

For the rest of his response my opponent has reiterated that consciousness resides in the brain.....I repeat what are brains if not assemblages of quantum stuff?

My opponent also informs me that higher ‘self aware’ consciousness resides in humans and perhaps only ten other animals. I have met some people who aren’t too self aware but I accept the premise and the present scientific understanding. My opponent neglects to mention the scientific probability of other conscious beings (assemblages of quantum stuff) elsewhere in the vast universe (throughout the quantum stuff whole).

But the quantity of each type of higher conscious assemblages of quantum stuff throughout the quantum stuff whole was not part of my original statement. My original point was that quantum stuff assemblages that do have higher consciousness, have a tendency to manipulate the living and non-living quantum assemblages of quantum stuff that surround them so their own proliferation throughout the whole of quantum stuff is significantly aided and enhanced.

Higher conscious assemblages of quantum stuff have an ‘in built’ tendency to proliferate throughout the whole of quantum stuff.

Con stated......In order to demonstrate his argument, not only does my opponent have to show that these virtual particles have the capacity to intentionally fulfill the qualifications of life, he must show that these particles can do anything intentionally, and he must furthermore show these particles have the capacity to perform as advanced, sentient life, such as the animals that pass the mirror test.

For the sake of understanding I will use the term virtual particles instead of quantum stuff.

It would be conjecture to ascribe individual virtual particles with intention and sentience. But what is certain is these virtual particles have assembled into sentient life. These assemblages of virtual particles (or quantum stuff) have a strong tendency is to intervene and proliferate their own conscious type throughout the universe. These assemblages of sentient virtual particles have a tendency to proliferate in a way that tries to explore and manipulate all of the virtual particles. These sentient assemblages of virtual particles also have a tendency to communicate and combine throughout the whole.

In the next round , I invite my opponent to:-

Explain what brains are fundamentally are made of if not a complex assemblages of virtual particles?

Explain what sentient life is if not a complex assemblage of virtual particles?

Give some thoughts to what will could result if sentient assemblages of virtual particles proliferate throughout the whole.

KhalifV

Con

sorry forgot my sources.
Round 1 sources:
http://www.britannica.com...
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://plato.stanford.edu...

Round 2:
Equivocation: Pro states:"these conscious assemblages of quantum stuff "flick" in and out of existence and are probably scattered throughout the quantum stuff whole"

When pro uses "quantum stuff" in this context, pro is talking about virtual particles. Virtual particles are the only things that pop in and out of existence, and they usually cancel each other out. Furthermore these particles only do so in vaacum states. EVERYTHING IN QUANTUM MECHANICS IS NOT A VIRTUAL PARTICLE. It's like asking "are all clocks gears"? well in some degree it's true but it's extremely disingenuous.
Also can you define the distinction between the "organic" and "inorganic universe".

"But can con explain if quantum stuff has not assembled to form the inorganic and organic universe then what has?
I'm not saying fundamental particles don't make up the universe, and us. I'm saying when you state " a variety of ways" you're wrong.

"Really? My opponent and I are alive. If my opponent accepts this statement.. then if not an ‘assemblage of quantum stuff’ what are my opponent and I fundamentally made of? People and all other living things are proof that assemblages of quantum stuff can become complex and alive. Although I agree, a couple of quarks may not be."

This vague and completely equates the cause and effect. You seem to be saying:
A.the universe is made out of fundamental particles
B.We are alive and made out of fundamental particles
C.Therefor fundamental particles are alive.
You might as well say everything in the universe is the exact same since everything is made out of the exact same fundamental particles.

"A theme seems to be starting here. I am stating that complex assemblages of quantum stuff that become alive , tend to proliferate their own type. My opponent is talking about the nature of individual quantum particles. Living things are assemblages of quantum stuff. Perhaps my opponent can come up with a better way of describing how living things are made of at the very fundamental level? To me 'assemblages of quantum stuff' seems to fit the bill."

Again, I am NOT saying the universe is not made of fundamental particles.

Also I'm not saying their is not other life in the universe.
N = R_{\ast} \cdot f_p \cdot n_e \cdot f_{\ell} \cdot f_i \cdot f_c \cdot L
N=36.4 Million(usually). there probably is, however I don't see how that is important.

Pro's main point is:
A. Virtual particles are responsible for the universe existing
B. Virtual particles make up fundamental particles in some disingenuous way
C. We are fundamental particles
D. We are conscious
E.Therefor fundamental particles are conscious

Well this is true in some vague and way oversimplified regard, it really solves no problems.
While it is always fun to talk about consciousness and quantum mechanics, how are these things making god? Which is the motion.
Your arguments don't say anything about how quantum mechanics produces a god.
You have conceded that consciousness is purely in the brain.
You state: "Given these tendencies and given time it seems likely one assemblage of quantum stuff consciousness will proliferate throughout all of quantum stuff. God seems as good a name as any for this proliferation."
Well the universe is fundamentally quantized. So you are saying that eventually the universe will become a brain or that the universe will become 100% filled with Boltzman brains?

And this brain "would pretty be close to a definition of the traditional monotheist god of an entity or consciousness that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent"?
Can you justify this.

Let's get to the motion:"Is the universe making God ?"

We can later have a forum discussion on if there's any meaningful link between consciousness and quantum mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://physics.about.com...

Debate Round No. 2
escape3

Pro

escape3 forfeited this round.
KhalifV

Con

My opponent has forfeited, but I would like to make a few comments.
Now we both view that consciousness only exists in organisms that pass the mirror test.
Now given that the motion is: Is the universe creating god and given that gods are conscious, in order for Pro to fulfill his BoP. he would have to show the universe is essentially becoming a higher functioning organism, but way more than that to assume the god traits.

Composition Of The Universe:


Now <0.03 of the universe seems to allow for conscious life, given that only a small portion of earth is hospitable. It seems to me that the universe seems to be great at not producing consciousness. Also our universe seems to be expanding, ultimately returning to nothingness. The universe will ultimately destroy consciousness. Given the universe has taken so long to produce our level of consciousness, it seems impossible that it will produce godly consciousness.

percent of known conscious life in the universe:
There are 10 truly conscious animals.
There are 8.7 million species.(probably more)
0.00000115% of known life has the consciousness were operating under.
0.03% of the universe has heavy elements(which life needs)
less than 0.00000115% of the universe should have life that is conscious.

http://astrojan.hostei.com...
http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
escape3

Pro

Apologies for missing round. Thanks to khalif for patience. Not sure if this means debate/replies are over but I’ll comment on the major points of my opponent in the previous round anyway....

Con stated

Pro's main point is:
A. Virtual particles are responsible for the universe existing
B. Virtual particles make up fundamental particles in some disingenuous way
C. We are fundamental particles
D. We are conscious
E. Therefore fundamental particles are conscious

Con misunderstands, the reasoning is:

A. Fundamental particles exist

B. Fundamental particles assemble to form the non living universe and living universe

C. Fundamental particles assemble to form conscious life

D. These assemblages of fundamental particles are conscious

E. These conscious assemblages of fundamental particles exist throughout the whole of the fundamental particle ‘soup’

Con stated

‘Well the universe is fundamentally quantized. So you are saying that eventually the universe will become a brain or that the universe will become 100% filled with Boltzman brains?’

Infinity is not required for random assemblages of fundamental particles to form into conscious brains. It appears me that assemblages of fundamental particles have already randomly formed into conscious life throughout the universe and, if the big bang theory is accepted, in only 13.8 billion years.

Con stated

‘Now <0.03 of the universe seems to allow for conscious life, given that only a small portion of earth is hospitable. It seems to me that the universe seems to be great at not producing consciousness.’

My opponent makes a good point. It would be true if it were not for some underlying tendencies or traits of the groups of fundamental particles that assemble into consciousness.

Trait one ..... the tendency to reproduce and proliferate their type

Trait two..... the tendencies to explore and manipulate other living and non living assemblages of fundamental particles which will tend to enhance the proliferation of their type

Example:- human beings explore and manipulate the fundamental particles of their environments and manipulate fundamental particles into the form of machines, computers, travelling devices etc

Trait 3... the tendency of the conscious assemblages of fundamental particles to communicate and combine throughout the whole particle ‘soup’

Example conscious assemblages of fundamental particles create computers and phones that allows communication and exchange of information over distances outside immediate environment

Only < .03 of universe may allow conscious life but we have to look at the evidence of how humans have manipulated and used their environment, machines and computers in such an incredibly short space of cosmic time. There will be an exponential growth of proliferation, communication, combination and control. If this effect is reproduced in other conscious assemblages of fundamental particles throughout the universe then proliferation of consciousness throughout the whole is likely. This proliferation would require much less than infinity.

Con stated

Also our universe seems to be expanding, ultimately returning to nothingness’

As my opponent is aware there are many theories for the life span of the universe. Multi-verse theories propose the universe is infinite. The current theory holding sway is the flat/expanding universe. In this theory the ‘death’ of the universe is a very long time away.. estimates are over a googolplex years and a googolplex is a very large number.

Modern sentient humans have been on the earth only 200000 years – minute period of time in universal terms.

In that time humans have populated 96% of the earth’s land mass with an average density of >40 people per square kilometre. We have also controlled the surrounding environment and organic food sources to enhance planetary wide proliferation. Developed the means to travel and communicate throughout the planet and developed artificial intelligence and machines that can also manipulate the surrounding environment.

If we consider the earth, the whole of it is made up of fundamental particles.

On the ‘surface’ fundamental particles have assembled into forms that are consciousness.

These conscious assemblages of fundamental particles have proliferated over much of the surface

This proliferation is a result of the traits stated above. i.e. such groups of conscious fundamental particles proliferate by exploring, manipulating and controlling other fundamental particles that ‘surround’ them. i.e. those with which they have contact

This process is happening all over the universe. The conversion of fundamental particles into consciousness and/or under the control of those consciousnesses.

The vast distances between planets with sentient life and the destruction of worlds are two obstacles to this ‘conversion to consciousness’. But the speed of the proliferation compared to the lifespan of the universe (if it has a life span) would appear more than enough to cope with any set back.

If all of the fundamental particles in the universe are converted to consciousness or under the control of consciousness...then this appears to me to be god like.

KhalifV

Con

The universe refers to our local universe.
The cosmos refers to all universes. The multiverse holds that the cosmos is infinite.
My opponent seems to be equivocating the two.

I fine with his syllogism until he states this:"E. These conscious assemblages of fundamental particles exist throughout the whole of the fundamental particle "soup""
By conscious assemblage he has to mean the 10 species who passed the mirror test, because those are the only conscious life we know. These species are not scattered throughout the universe. I'm assuming by particle soup he means universe.

"Infinity is not required for random assemblages of fundamental particles to form into conscious brains. It appears me that assemblages of fundamental particles have already randomly formed into conscious life throughout the universe and, if the big bang theory is accepted, in only 13.8 billion years"

I am not disputing that conscious life developed however for the resolution to be affirmed, it would have to be shown that the universe is becoming a conscious being or brain.

Pro states: "My opponent makes a good point. It would be true if it were not for some underlying tendencies or traits of the groups of fundamental particles that assemble into consciousness.
Trait one ..... the tendency to reproduce and proliferate their type
Trait two..... the tendencies to explore and manipulate other living and non living assemblages of fundamental particles which will tend to enhance the proliferation of their type
Example:- human beings explore and manipulate the fundamental particles of their environments and manipulate fundamental particles into the form of machines, computers, travelling devices etc
Trait 3... the tendency of the conscious assemblages of fundamental particles to communicate and combine throughout the whole particle "soup"
Example conscious assemblages of fundamental particles create computers and phones that allows communication and exchange of information over distances outside immediate environment"

This doesn't accomplish anything. I'd say it even affirms my points. Even though these tendencies exist, way less than 1% of the universe is known to contain conscious life. As for as I know, there's no evidence that more conscious life is being produced.

My opponent appeals to human progress. While it is true we are advancing quickly, it is no where near the type of progress and innovation that would suggest us populating anywhere outside of the <0.03% of the universe that contains the elements we need to live.

This statement from pro comes completely from out of left field: "If all of the fundamental particles in the universe are converted to consciousness or under the control of consciousness...then this appears to me to be god like."

I didn't read anything in his response that justifies such a leap.
Once again we have established consciousness only exist in a select species on this planet(that we know).
There is no evidence to suggest that conscious beings exist outside of the 0.03% of our universe that contains heavy elements.
What is the evidence that the universe is becoming a brain?
(note on the multiverse: In most multiverse models, the vast majority of universes are not life permitting and the ones that are seem to inhabited by Boltzman brains. Boltzman brains are fluctuations, so they would be unable to manipulate particles.

In most universes this conversation would not be possible, the multiverse does not help my opponent's case.
Also, if there is other conscious life, the whole of conscious life still would constitute a vast minority, like an unrealistically small percent of the universe.
Distinction: If the whole universe became a single consciousness, then that might be god like. If the universe is completely filled with separate consciousnesses then that is not god like.
Debate Round No. 4
escape3

Pro

escape3 forfeited this round.
KhalifV

Con

Sadly my oppoent has forfeited.

Final Thoughts/ Closing:

I will concede, I slightly misunderstood the opening argument, but a lot of my points still remain.
We have established consciousness only exist in brains.
Gods are conscious.
So in order for the universe to be producing a god, it would have to be shown that the universe is moving towards a single consciousness. There is no reason to belive this. Refer back to my points about the composition of the universe and the small percentage of conscious life.A really really really small percent of the universe allows for life none the less conscious life and there is no reason to ever think it will (in this universe).
I enjoyed this debate, however due to forfeitures and failure to show that the universe is becoming a brain or even that it's possible for conscious life to exist outside of the <0.03 of the universe containing heavy elements, you should vote for con
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Carpe_Diem 2 years ago
Carpe_Diem
jesus i need me some "quantum stuff"
Posted by escape3 2 years ago
escape3
By god I mean a consciousness that proliferates throughout the whole of quantum stuff. Such a consciousness would pretty be close to a definition of the traditional monotheist god of an entity or consciousness that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
What do you mean by god?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mray56 2 years ago
Mray56
escape3KhalifVTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture