Instigator / Pro
9
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#194
The universe is based on binary code
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...
sylweb
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
21
1534
rating
7
debates
78.57%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
There are only two possible things, nothing and something. If something is something then it's not nothing and vice versa. Every something has to have something at it's core that makes it something, a deeper "somethingness" to it beyond it's discernible properties. Some say it's quarks or strings or quantum foam or even a "divine spark" but I say NAY. What differentiates something and nothing is a simple 0 or 1. How can I possibly know this you might ask? Well for starters alien illuminati demigods from another dimension told me, but that's not something you can verify for yourself. I have many intellectually smart people who agree with me. They actually found binary code within the oscillations of subatomic particles at CERN.
There are several fundamental flaws with the claim that the universe is based on binary code.
Firstly, "based on binary code" means that the essence of the universe is binary code. Equations resembling binary code are not sufficient proof that the universe is binary code because, as stated in the video, the universe could be of another nature that can be described using binary code.
Secondly, the field of theoretical and advanced physics is full of disputes, such as those relating to the nature of time and space. [1] This is because of a multitude of reasons. Firstly, understanding the nature of the universe requires a deep understanding of particles and phenomena that are too small to measure easily. Secondly, because we are inside space and time, it is hard to peek outside of it. If space and time were different in nature, how would the world be different? We can't tell easily because we are restricted to a sample set of one. Finally, the field of theoretical and advanced physics is still developing; only recently did we realize that Newtonian mechanics were not a perfect description of the world. This means that many of our current theories are bound to be untrue. Science requires repeatability and reassessment of evidence. Currently, scientists have a limited understanding of the universe, and will continue to have a limited understanding for the foreseeable future. Thus, the testimony of one single scientist or a group of scientists is insufficient to conclude that our universe is based on binary code.
The division between something and nothing is arbitrary. I could just as easily divide the world into non-living, living, and nothing, or hot, cold, and nothing. While "nothing" cannot be divided further into different types of nothing, "something" can be divided quite easily. Thus, why not base 3 code? Base 5 code? Base 19923 code?
In order to fulfill their burden of proof, Proposition must show conclusively that the universe is based on binary code. Currently, scientific disputes mean that it is impossible to fully prove any specific model of the universe.
Round 2
Equations resembling binary code are not sufficient proof that the universe is binary code because, as stated in the video, the universe could be of another nature that can be described using binary code.
No it couldn't. I'm a 33rd degree freemason and a member of the Illuminati and a lead professor at CERN and I assure you it's binary.
No it couldn't. I'm a 33rd degree freemason and a member of the Illuminati and a lead professor at CERN and I assure you it's binary.
This argument is flawed because it is an argument from authority: a member of the Illuminati or a lead professor at CERN could still be wrong. Many expert scientists are in disagreement about advanced physics concepts because they are at the frontiers of scientific knowledge. Thus, expert credentials in the field of advanced physics do not necessarily ensure that somebody is correct.
Round 3
Forfeited
Extend all arguments.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Conduct to con for pros forfeit.
After “surveying the arguments”, it seems that pro didn’t provide a meaningful argument, and instead his opening argument appeared to be more of an incoherently rambling opinion: there was little in the way of an attempt on pros part to establish his position logically, or provide any walk through of the supporting logic. Con arguments are therefore more convincing because he correctly points out how con falls well short of his burden of proof. That some is sufficient to win the debate. Con goes further, by pointing out how the tenuous argument pro made was wrong: pointing out that the 1:0 alternatives are arbitrary and subjective.
Grammar and spelling go to con too: “Every something has to have something at it's core that makes it something”, “to it beyond it's discernible” - both should be its. General poor use of grammar, that make the arguments made hard to follow eg: statements like “many intellectually smart people” (redundancy), “How can I possibly know this you might ask?” Too short, needs a comma between this and you, breaks up the flow of the debate, and the choice of grammar in examples such as this makes it harder to read.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter surveys the main arguments and weighs them to arrive at a decision. Forfeiting is sufficient grounds to award conduct so long as arguments are explained, which they are. The vote is sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Virtuoso // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited a round and loses conduct. Not only that but he doesn’t really even try to make an argument.
Pro’s entire argument was how he’s some mason and totally failed to actually provide evidence for his claim. Ultimately the BOP is entirely on him which he fails to uphold.
>Reason for Mod Action: The conduct point is sufficiently explained, but the argument point suffers. To award argument points, the voter must: "survey specific arguments and counterarguments from both sides which impacted their voting decision." The voter fails to survey any counterarguments or any arguments from Con; should the voter update their RFD with these arguments surveyed and weighed, the vote would be sufficient.
************************************************************************