Quentin Smith on one argument for God's existence based upon the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith comments:

According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the wave function needs to be collapsed by something outside the system being measured. The wave function of the universe, accordingly, needs to be collapsed by something outside the universe. Now most versions of the Copenhagen Interpretation regard the observer (often explicitly identified with consciousness) as what collapses the wave function. In this respect, the cosmological application of the Copenhagen Interpretation may reasonably be thought to posit God (or a disembodied person who has superhuman attributes) outside the universe. Indeed, it seems to be the best scientific argument for God which is present in the twentieth century science. (Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology, p. 325. Emphasis in blue added).

Smith's argument (or rather, a modified version of it) could be summarized (and suplemented) like this:

1) If the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is true, the wave function of any physical system needs to be collapsed by an external conscious (intentional) observer.

2)The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is (probably) true

3)Therefore, the wave function of any physical system needs to be collapsed by an external conscious (intentional) observer

4)The physical universe as a whole is a physical system.

5)Therefore, the wave function of the universe needs to be collapsed by an external conscious (intentional) observer.

(You can substitute the Copenhagen interpretation by any other which implies the need of the wave function being reduced by a concious observer, and the argument runs alike).

The inmediate implication is that the universe has a trascendent cause. This suffices to destroy metaphysical naturalism (which conceives everything that exists as co-extensive with the physical world and explicitly denies any kind of non-physical causation).

Since we are considering the wave function of the entire physical universe (not just apart of it), and the observer in question is outside the physical universe, it follows that the observer in question is NON-PHYSICAL. Hence, it doesn't have the attributes of temporality or spaciality (which are part of the physical universe). Therefore, the observer in question is TIMELESS (outside of time = permanent = eternal) and SPACELESS. 

The observer in question is CONSCIOUS, but the mere existence of consciousness by itself seems to be incapable of causing the reduction of the wave function (because, if consciousness is eternal and were sufficient to bring about the reduction of the wave function, then universe would be eternal too since its wave function had been collaped an infinite time ago co-eternal with consciousness, which it is not the case as proved by the evidence for the absolute beginning of the universe at the Big Bang). As Henry Stapp and other physicists (and philosophers of science like J.P.Moreland or William Lane Craig) suggest, in addition to mere consciousness, it is needed an INTENTION (freely exercised) to bring about the reduction of the wave function.

Therefore, the observer in question is conscious, free and intentional, which are essential and distintive features of persons. Hence, the observer in question is plausibly personal.

As Smith realizes, all of these attributes of the observer of the universe are precisely the attributes commonly conceived of God, namely, a non-physical, timeless, spaceless, eternal, free, personal (conscious and intentional) being  who consciously and intentionally brings about the universe a finite time ago. Whatever more can one say about God, these attributes are certainly essential to God.

At first glance, this argument seems compatible with a plurality of observers as being the causes of the universe (e.g. a bunch of spiritual observers agreed to create the universe, a view defended for example by Ron Hubbard). But by Occam's Razor, postulating one single cause is simpler than postulating an arbitrary number of causes and since a single cause suffices to produce the effect, in this case wave function reduction, a plurality of causes seem to be ad hoc and hence less plausible  (leaving aside the fact that a plurality of causes seem to be supporting a kind of polytheism, that is, the worldview which is rooted in bunch of mini-gods, which in certain New Age circles, which are extremely ego-centred, arrogant, prone to wild fantasies about "your mind creates everything" and not critically aware of human limitations, such mini-gods are identified with... ourselves).

Smith's insight implies that, if one accepts the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, then ones is (or should be) strongly pushed in the direction of theism (at least, as a more plausible candidate than naturalism, since the latter cannot account for nor accept the external, non-physical personal cause of the universe. And other candidates like pantheism or polytheism seem to be even more inadequate and objectionable than theism or naturalism).

Note that this argument applies to any interpretation of QM which postulates an external observer (or consciousness) as the only cause of the reduction of the wave function.

It seems to me that all the versions of pantheism (which identifies God with physical nature, namely a God inherent in nature) are refuted by this argument too.

Also, all the worldviews which are impersonalistic (like some commonly found on Eastern philosophies) cannot accout for such personal cause either, since such personal cause is basic, not derivative (and causally senior regarding the universe).

This argument seems to me impeccable, with the exception that it is not clear that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is true. I personally have doubts about such interpretation. As I've mentioned before, there are around of 10 different interpretations of QM, some of which seem to imply that "observation" is sufficient, but not necessary, for the collapse of the wave function.

For this reason, I don't think it is a compelling argument for God's existence (except if one accepts the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, or any other version which postulates consciousness as necessary condition for the reduction of the wave function, as the best interpretation).

Just for the record: Quentin Smith is an atheist, and hence he doesn't accept this nor any other argument for God's existence. Moreover, it is hard to see what argument would convince him, since in the same book he says: "The fact of the matter is that the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing... We should instead acknowledge our foundation in nothingness and feel awe at the marvellous fact that we have a chance to participate briefly in this incredible sunburst that interrupts without reason the reign of non-being ." (Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Comsology. P.135. emphasis in blue added)".

If nothingness is a better explanation than God, then it is hard to see what evidence for God he would accept, since any possible evidence could be explained as caused by "nothingness" too. (See discussion of this latter view of Smith here).

Lawrence Krauss: "It is not clear for me that incest is wrong". More evidence of the moral poverty of the atheistic naturalistic worldview

 

The contemporary scientific atheistic worldview, being radically impersonalistic (that is, rooted in the view that "persons" are not fundamental aspects of reality, but just secondary, contingent, later material phenomena which comes entirely from non-rational and non-mental entitites, forces and processes like atoms, fields of forces, natural laws, natural selection, law of entropy, quantum vaccum, etc.) doesn't have the metaphysical explanatory resources to ground objective moral values and duties (that is, moral values and duties which are intrinsic to the objective constitution of reality), because morality is a phenomena essentially related to rational persons (not simply to "sentient beings", which is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for morality, which requires in addition freedom of the will and rationality to identify and freely choose what's is right or wrong, and to be morally responsible and accountable for it). If you're not free, you cannot be moral (even if you're a sentient being), because you're not actually responsible nor accountable for your actions.

Many atheists have correctly realized this and accept its consequences. Look what Lawrence Krauss thinks about the morality of incest (in the context of a debate about God's existence with a Muslim):

 

In an impersonalistic worldview (materialistic, naturalistic or not), it is hard to see exactly where we can root or ground moral properties and other personal properties (like consciousness, rationality, free will, intentionality, meaning, purpose, and so forth). In such worldview, "persons" and their properties are anomalies, in the sense that they don't fit well, comfortably, nicely with such worldview.

In theism, since the ultimate reality is constituted by a perfect person with superlatives properties (God), and since everything that exists besides Himself is created by God, it is not surprising to find moral and other personal properties in the constitution of reality. In fact, not finding such personal properties would be strong evidence (almost a knock down proof) against theism (e.g. a world in which no persons exist, no evidence of teleology in biology or cosmology, no spiritual pheomenona, etc. just brute, mechanical, blind matter and forces operating by unguided and non-mental natural laws alone).

This insight (often misuderstood even by philosophers) underlies all the versions of the moral argument for God's existence.

Ashley Paramore on sexual assaults, harassments and abuses at atheist and skeptical conferences. More evidence of sexual misbehaviours, problems and abuses by "rational" and "scientific" atheists and skeptics

In the following video, you can watch the amazingly beautiful and nice atheist/skeptic girl Ashley Paramore commenting on some of her experiences with sexual assaults and abuses at atheist and skeptical conferences:

I'm astonished that in an advanced country like USA (and some European countries) these "atheist predators" who assault women at "skeptical conferences" are not punished by the law.

To any women reading this: DON'T ALLOW ANY ATTACK ON YOUR PHYSICAL INTEGRITY. Make use of the law, let's stop these assaults against women and girls!

 More evidence on sexual assaults and aggressions against women by "scientific atheists", here.

On the evidence for the Historical Jesus's birth place (Bethlehem or Nazareth?). More evidence of some scholars' pressupositions masked as "facts" and inconsistent applications of the criteria of authenticity.

According to the New Testament, Jesus was born in Bethlehem but was raised in Nazareth and lived here for most part of his life. Thereby, he was called Jesus of Nazareth.

Some scholars, mainly "liberal" ones, are skeptical of Jesus being born in Bethlehem. They claim that Jesus was actually born in Nazareth. Let's to comment on two main arguments, common in the literature, supporting this contention:

1) Jesus was called "of Nazareth", therefore he was born there. The reference to Bethlehem is a later invention by the Church, created when Jesus' figure was already exalted, and hence the early Christians had the theological necessity to create a  Jesus which fits with the Old Testament predictions about the Messiah's birth in Bethlehem.

2) In John 7:41-43, we can read a testimony (from the lips of Jesus' enemies) regarding Jesus' birth place: "Others said, “He is the Messiah.”  Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived? Thus the people were divided because of Jesus"

Let's to critically examine both arguments:

 Objections to argument 1

Against argument 1 militates the fact that the only specific birth narratives in the Gospels can be found in the Gospels of Mattew and the Gospels of Luke, and they explicitly AGREE that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Moreover, those traditions are contained in the specific, early, independent sources used by each Gospel, and hence provide an example of multiple attestation.

The criterion of multiple attestation is one of the most important criteria of authenticity for the study of the historical Jesus. Used properly (that is, as a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition of historical reliability) the criterion provides supportive reasons to think that a given tradition goes back to the historical Jesus. 

Marcus Borg explains with simple words the rationale for this criterion:

if a tradition appears in an early source and in another independent source, then not only is it early, but it is also unlikely to have been made up (The Meaning of Jesus, p.12)

Note that a tradition being singly attested is not a reason for non-historicity (because it is possible that Jesus did or said something which only one source of information recorded). But if the same tradition is multiply attested by independent, early sources, it gives us a reason to think that it is historically reliable, since it is unlikely to have been invented.

Precisely for this reason, just on the grounds that Jesus' birth narratives are found on independent sources which agree about Jesus being born in Bethlehem provide a case of multiple attestation and hence of historical reliability.

Please, note very carefully that the argument that such tradition is a later invention is based on the following (anti-Christian) assumptions (not on facts):

a)That the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah's birth in Bethlehem is false or cannot be true.

b)That Jesus was not the Messiah referred to by such prophecies

c)That the early Christians were NOT interested in the truth about their loved master.

d)That (contrary to Jesus' ethical teachings and the view that lies come from the Devil) the early Christians were intentionally dishonest  and deliberately and fully knowing the truth about Jesus' birth place, twisted it for theological reasons.

e)That the Gospels' traditions about Jesus are guilty until proven innocent.

f)That the mere assumption of inventions (or the sheer possibility of it) overrides the positive and concrete application of the criteria of authenticity when the latter supports the Christian view of Jesus.

g)That the widely accepted criterion of multiple attestation, which is applicable in this case, is absolutely irrelevant and doesn't count at all to counterbalance all the above assumptions.

When you ask for specific EVIDENCE for each of these specific assumptions (that is, specific evidence which passes positively the criteria of authenticity), you get NONE. What criteria of authenticity supports, for example, point a)? Or point c)? Or more importantly, point f, (which is itself a self-serving methodological assumption about the value of anti-Christian assumptions!)?

I've dedicated my best efforts to find concrete, positive evidence for each of these assumptions, and I've only found... more assumptions.  For some scholars, it suffices to claim "that's an invention" when a given tradition supports the divine view of Jesus, and this regardless of the evidence supporting such tradition. For these scholars,  It doesn't matter that the evidence supporting the divine view of Jesus passes the criterion of multiple attestation, dissimilarity or embarrasment, IT HAS TO BE AN INVENTION. To the hell with the criteria of authenticity!.

I call this the "fallacy of making assumptions more important than evidence and historical facts".

Not even in the heated and long debate on parapsychology between "skeptics" and "believers" I've seen so strong and committed bias against a given position (in this case, the Christian view of Jesus). It is just astonishing.

Note very carefully (because I'm sorry to say that some of my readers seem to be impaired or seriously challenged to do accurate reading and understanding) that my argument here is NOT theological. I'm NOT saying "Hello everybody, I believe that Christianity is true, and I'm angry because mean, dishonest, biased atheist or liberal scholars are bad and want to deny the truth of Jesus our savior".

NO. My argumentation is purely methodological and historical. It is fully compatible with the possibility of Christianity being false. Even an atheist, provided he knows the literature and has mastered the criteria of authenticity (and has not an axe to grind against Christianity), could see that all the above anti-Christian assumptions don't pass any historical criteria of authenticity and are sheer speculations.

The truth of the matter (which can be tested by any person) is this: For many radical and skeptical scholars, (specially atheist and liberal ones), any High Christologocal view of Jesus is itself a criterion of non-historicity which overrides any positive, concrete evidence (based on the standard criteria of historicity) for such divine view of Jesus. This biased and self-serving methodolology guarantees, in advance, that any reconstruction of the historical Jesus will be anti-Christian. Pure pseudo-scholarship and charlatanism.

Objections to argument 2

Remember that the second argument used by some skeptical scholars to support the claim that Jesus was born in Nazareth is that in John 7:41-43, we can read a testimony (from the lips of Jesus' enemies) regarding Jesus' birth place: "Others said, “He is the Messiah.”  Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived? Thus the people were divided because of Jesus"

Comments:

1)John's Gospel is considered unreliable by most scholars (mainly due to the more explicit view of Jesus as divine in such Gospel, which is, remember, itself used as the overriding criterion of non-historicity by "skeptics"). Since this Gospel is the most explicitly Christological, it is therefore the most unreliable. 

Obviously this is another assumption, since it assumes, without proving, that the divine view of Jesus is false. But let that pass.

Despite of this, some scholars argue that a testimony put on the lips of Jesus' enemies (even if found in John's Gospel) has historical value. Let's call this the "criterion of enemies's testimonies" I fully agree with it, but as shown below, this criterion of enemy's testimonies is not used consistently by such scholars (see evidence discussed in point 3 below).

2) It is true that the testimony coming from enemies may be good evidence, since enemies won't support your cause. They have not motivation at all to defend your interests, so if their implicit or explicit concessions are favourable to you, this is evidence in your favor.

But read carefully John 7:41-43, what is exactly being claimed there? Clearly, what John is showing is that some of Jesus' enemies THOUGHT that he was born in Nazareth. But does it imply that Jesus was ACTUALLY born there? How exactly you can infer from what the some enemies' thought to the historical conclusion that such thought was true?

Moreover, note that John is simply reporting the debate between the people in Jesus' time. He says some said "Jesus is the Messiah" and others disagreed. In John's word "Thus the people were divided because of Jesus". John's intention seems to be to simply report the fact that Jesus caused controversy among people, not to settle factual problems about his nature (Messianic or not), or his birth place, nor to assess the plausibility of the arguments of each side in the debate.

Reporting, as a historian or reporter, that in Jesus' time did existed some competing views or disagreement about Jesus is not, itself, evidence that some of such competing views were true. It would be wholly a different matter whether John itself, or Jesus or his family, explicitly claimed that he was born in Nazareth. But such claim from a reliable source like Jesus, or his family (Mary or James, let's say), or his disciples, or the Gospel's authors is never found (except, as said above, in the birth narratives of Jesus contained in Matthew and Luke, which mutiply attest to Jesus's birth in Bethlehem).

In conclusion, the evidence provided by John 7:41-43 is at most strong evidence for what some people (specially some enemies of Jesus) in Jesus' time THOUGHT about him, but by itself it cannot settle the question about the place of Jesus' birth.

How could the mere testimony and beliefs of Jesus' enemies to settle the problem about his birth place? Why exactly Jesus' enemies are in better position to know Jesus' birth place than Jesus' followers and the multiple, early, independently attested traditions contained in Matthew and Luke?

3)The skeptical scholars don't apply consistently the criterion that the enemy's testimonies have probative value. For them, it is only valuable when (in the skeptic's interpretation) it supports anti-Christian conclusions. (Note that the criterion of appealing to the enemy's testimony is different than the criterion of embarassment. The former appeals to what an enemy says, implying that an enemy is not interested in supporting your cause; the latter appeals to the fact that nobody intentionally creates or invent something which is contrary or problematic to his own interests).

The inconsistency, misapplication and selective use of of the criterion of "enemies' testimonies" by skeptical scholars to support anti-Christian conclusions may be seen in the following examples:

In the Gospel of John, we also find interesting testimonies from Jesus' enemies about Jesus' own claims of divinity. In John 19:7 we can read:

The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.

So, in that example, that Jesus' claimed to be the Son of God doesn't come from Jesus' lips (nor from the lips of his followers), but from his enemies! Why exactly such testimonies of enemies supporting Jesus' divine self-perception are false, but the testimonies of enemies about Jesus' birth are accurate, true and even have overriding force over the criterion of multiple attestation?

In Matthew's Gospel, the enemies of Jesus ALSO implied that Jesus regarded himself as the Son of God. In Matthew 27: 39-41, we can read:

Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads 40 and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!” 41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him.

And in Luke 23:35 we can read more comments from enemies of Jesus:

The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is God’s Messiah, the Chosen One.

And in Mark 15: 31-32:

In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! ³² Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him

But obviously, for these skeptical scholars,  the bunch of testimonies from Jesus' enemies claiming that he was God's Messiah, the Chosen One and the Son of God (with the power of saving others) don't count as evidence in this case, because (remember) any tradition having High Christological components is seen as non-historical!

Keep in mind that, in the case of Mark, the above passage is preceded by another in which Jesus himself explicitly claimed to have a divine status and such claim increased the charges of blasphemy. In Mark 14:61-65:

⁶¹ But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

⁶² “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

⁶³ The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. ⁶⁴ “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

They all condemned him as worthy of death. ⁶⁵ Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him.

But all of this is irrelevant to some skeptical scholars. They are fixed (by emotional and theological reasons) to the view that Jesus never claimed such a thing. The evidence supporting the authenticity of these claims is worthless. It doesn't matter that Jesus' divinity was put in the lips of his enemies too. All of these HAVE to be a later invention, period.

To the hell with the criteria of authenticity!!!!

Yeah, sure...

Juan Carlos Aguilar (aka Huang C): False Shaolin Monk from Spain is a serial killer and mutilator of women

A reader from Spain alerts me about the recent case of Juan Carlos Aguilar (Huang C), who falsely claimed to be a Shaolin monk and kung fu world champion, and who recently brutally killed two women (and presumibly, many more, since in his "dojo" were found some pieces of mutilated human bodies). 

According to the Huffington Post:

A Kung fu world champion and Shaolin master was arrested Sunday after Spanish authorities found a woman brutally beaten and tied up in his martial arts gym in Bilbao. But the vicious assault may not be 47-year-old Juan Carlos Aguilar's only crime.

After police searched his gym and home, they found other remains, believed to be human. According to sources close to the case, Aguilar confessed to the murder of another woman during his interrogation at a Basque police station, El Huffington Post reports.

Authorities discovered the injured victim Sunday after receiving reports that witnesses saw Aguilar drag a woman into his gym, according to the Associated Press.

More from the AP:

Spanish police are trying to determine whether bones found in the gym of a martial arts instructor belong to multiple crime victims. Police in the northern city of Bilbao discovered the bones Monday after they said witnesses saw Juan Carlos Aguilar drag a woman inside the gym by the hair. Officers found her inside, brutally beaten.
Authorities say they believe the bones found in garbage bags are human. Forensic testing is under way for confirmation and to determine how many people the bones belonged to and how they died.
Searches were also happening at the home of Aguilar, 47, and in a nearby river.
The woman who was beaten and tied up in the gym was in a coma at a Bilbao hospital Monday.

As El Pais notes, Aguilar was crowned a world champion in Kung fu three times. He was later inducted as a Shaolin master, a title rarely given to martial arts experts outside China. Aguilar, who adopted the name Huang C. Aguilar after he received the title, also founded a Buddhist monastery named Ocean of Tranquility in China.

According to the Shaolin Temple's website, the martial arts form practiced by monks at the temple "fully reflects the wisdom of Chan Buddhism."

 
In the following videos, we can watch Aguilar showing some of his martial skills:

Clearly, Aguilar knows some martial arts techniques, but according to people who has fought with him, he was a mediocre fighter. Aguilar's claims of being a world kung fu champion are also FALSE. Moreover, he is NOT Shaolin master at all. His supposed credentials (both martial and academic) are pure fiction.

He's very well known in the martial arts community in Europe (mainly due to the promotion of his videos by the martial arts magazine Budo International). In America, he's largely unknown.

Among martial artists in Europe, Aguilar was always seen as a kind of eccentric and more or less insane man. Searching in my archives of old martial arts magazines (I'm a collector of them), I found an article from Budo International in which Aguilar intentionally misrepresented the words of a kung fu master in Hong Kong in order to create a conflict with another Kung Fu master... Fortunately, both masters discussed the matter in private and clarified the problem, exposing Aguilar as a liar.

When I read such a thing in that moment (several years ago), I thought "This guy is a disgrace for the martial arts community". Several years after that, I saw him again in specialized magazines "transformed" into a Shaolin monk and an self-proclaimed expert in Chi Kung and Buddhism...

Clearly, Aguilar is a mytomaniac and a psychopath. Initially, he argued that he suffered from a brain tumour (as a way to "explain" to the police his misbehaviours against women), but the police didn't find any evidence for it. Moreover, hardly a brain tumour makes a normal person to become a serial killer.

He's a liar, a dangerous and pathological one.

We have to expect that the Spanish police and legal system will punish him with all the rigour of the law.

Royce Gracie submitted Ken Shamrock in UFC 1 with a REAR NAKED CHOKE, not with a lapel choke. Photographic evidence refutes common misconceptions about the Gracie/Shamrock first fight

As way of background (for readers unfamiliar with the martial arts world and the MMA circles), contemporary mixed martial arts competitions had their origins in the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) held in the United States in the 90s.  In the beginning there were NO RULES (just a couple of restrictions) in the sense that the figthers could use ANY kind of unarmed martial arts technique for winning the fight.

Under these conditions, Royce Gracie was the undisputed winner of 3 of the first 5 tournaments (in one of them Royce won his first fight but couldn't continue due to deshydratation and hypoglicemia; and in the other one, Royce didn't fight in the tournament, just in a special fight).

Everybody agrees that, in UFC 1, the most serious rival for Royce was Ken Shamrock, an expert in strinking techniques and a master of submission holds (specially of leg locks) and a body of a bodybuilder. In fact, Shamrock won his first fight in the UFC 1 very easily, with a ankle lock.

Shamrock was a seasoned figther and wrestler in Pancrase (a kind of Japanese precursor of the UFC). I was familiar with Shamrock skills since 1990, and even watched him live a couple of times in wrestling matches in Japan.

Like everybody else, I was convinced that Shamrock, due to his mastery of submissions holds, would be the most serious opponent for Royce in the UFC 1 (in fact, I personally thought, obviously mistakenly, that Shamrock would win that tournament and kick Royce's butt in the process).

For surprise of all (except perhaps of the Gracie family), Shamrock was defeated by Royce in 51 seconds! And via a choke.

From that moment, Shamrock began to spread the idea that he lost because Royce used his gi (kimono) to choke him (this technique is known as a lapel choke in judo/jiu-jitsu circles). Currently, Shamrock still claims that Royce used his gi to choke him, as you can see in this recent interview with Shamrock.

Watching carefully the fight, the trained observer can see that Royce used a rear naked choke (a choke which uses only the arms, not the gi), so Shamrock's excuse is false. However, it is true that when you watch the fight, the angle of the camera cannot allow us to see the choke clearly and only the most competent, martial trained eye could discern the kind of choke being used by Royce. Watch the fight for yourself:

Note that the angle of the camera doesn't allow us to see clearly the kind of choke being used by Royce, because from that angle a rear naked choke and a lapel gi choke look very similar. (Again, the trained observer could discern the difference despite of such misleading angle).

Fortunately, I've found a pic of the choke from a perfect angle which leaves no doubt at all about the kind of choked being applied by Royce:

Royce is using the standard rear nake choke, using the right arm to squeeze both carotid arteries and the left hand to push the back of the head in order to clinch the choke (this choke is known in japanese martial arts as Hadaka-jime):

This choke is one of the most effective holds in martial arts. It could produce unconscious in a matter of seconds (between 5-15 seconds from the moment of the application), and even death if the pressure continues being applied after the person has been put unconscious (obviously, trained martial artists know when to release the pressure in order to prevent death or serious brain damage to the opponent. This is why in judo/jiu-jitsu competitions and in MMA fights, we never see deaths by chokes or any other submission hold. This kind of hold can be trained in very safe ways, without risks of injuries).

Just for the record:  I'm a fan of Ken Shamrock, but I'm  more a fan and lover of the TRUTH. That Shamrock and his fans have spread the false view that Royce used a lapel choke instead a rear naked choke is something which has always bothered me.

Shamrock lost via a rear naked choked simply because he understimated Royce's grappling skills, and thought that he could beat him with a leg lock (Shamrock's speciality). As you can watch in the video, after taking Royce's leg, Shamrock seems obsessed with holding Royce's leg (even after Royce got the mount position!), trying to apply a leg lock, as you can see also in this picture:

Meanwhile, Royce was astutely searching for Shamrock's neck and he got it!.

That's it.

The proper defense for Shamrock should have been to forget Royce's leg (in the moment in which Royce got the mount position) and defend his own neck to prevent the choke. This is basic self-defense and grappling on the ground.

Shamrock knows all of this, because he's a seasoned grappler and martial artist. But he simply cannot accept that he made a amazingly silly mistake (from a technical point of view) which put him literally in Royce's hands.