Prove "Triadic Dimensional-Distinction Vortical Paradigm" is NOT very versatile in explaining numerous facets of reality without contradiction
Waiting for the next argument from the contender.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Prove "Triadic Dimensional-Distinction Vortical Paradigm" is NOT very versatile in explaining numerous facets of reality without contradiction
numerous facets of reality; in meaning, it explains many of our realities as in the way we see the world in the normal scale,
without contradiction; for there to pose no opposition to the explanation of many of our realities as in the way see the world in the normal scale.
The Triadic Dimensional Distinction Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) is a theoretical framework that aims to provide a holistic and multidimensional understanding of reality.
I as Pro, support the idea that TDVP is very versatile in explaining numerous facets of reality without contradiction. Con will oppose the notion of my support of the idea that TDVP is very versatile in explaining numerous facets of reality without contradiction.
Keep the usage of semantics minimal to the extent of necessity; only necessarily use semantics within this debate.
All arguments must hold logical value (as in following logical sense).
The use of other external sources are allowed, though sources should be considered the least important element here and logical explanations should be the most important element here. Please do not get hung up too much on sources and evidence here, though the use of evidence can be necessary even though this matter is more theoretical than evidential.
Oh well, still 2 round more rounds left.
Oh crap, i missed out.
Sure, I'll try to post as soon as possible. Better be prepared.
No, not really. I'll wait for you first and then reply accordingly if that's fine for you
You take the first advantage if you'd like. Also if the circumstances are right for you, where you can take the first advantage.
The ending of your debating career on this website is the beggining of mine. How poethic
I hope my contribution to this topic doesn't leave you indifferent either. Lets make your last time be worth it :)
I hope this debate's going to be fun for you.
As it goes the same for me.
This is probably going to be my last debate on this website. Then I may quit and be busy with myself.
It is fine if you think you have already clarified, but I don't think you have.
No one has the balls to take this debate. Good to know. All I'm seeing is a tremendous amount of yapping in the comments.
The answer is: Very versatile.
Your saying of it is an overcomplication of the debate. Why am I seeing too much yapping?
Whats complicated from what I said? Is TDDVP (you skip one D all the time) not a theoretical framework full of complex and abstract concepts that attempts to explain the nature of reality, consciousness, and the human experience (“multidimensional understanding of reality”)? Or am I talking about a different theory with the same name?
Does this theory not attempt to explain emotions, space, time, matter, consciousness, spirituality and the interconnections between all of them?
Is this not by definition versatile? What else can you think of thats not in this?
Are you not aware that the authors call it “theory of everything”? Do you not think “everything” is “versatile”? Isn’t this a lil bit of truism? Why don’t you debate if this thing is true rather than versatile? Let me guess, because its a random unproven theory but it includes a dimension for spirituality (God) and some science so you just like it.
Replying me a comment to specifically not answer my question is not very logical debater of you.
Very versatile.
How versatile is very versatile?
There is a reason I am not accepting this. You cannot present something continuous as something discrete without putting boundaries as to how the continuous can be mapped to the discrete.
The debate is mainly for Con to prove that TDVP is not very versatile in explaining numerous facets of reality.
It shouldn't look as complicated as you had written it. You're overcomplicating it, you're also explaining stuff in your own interpretation that doesn't seem so stable, it is limited interpretation of the context.
I have not read the paper from Neppe and Close but as the authors describe it - it’s a theory trying to explain literally everything. There’s one more theory with the same name but I think it also tries to explain the nature of reality (aka everything). TDDVP is often referred to as a "grand unified theory" by its proponents. You literally put it in the description - “aims to provide a holistic and multidimensional understanding of reality”… how can this be not versatile.
This framework is created with the sole purpose of explaining reality and everything in it so ofc it will be versatile and touch on pretty much everything. So Im not sure what exactly are you trying to debate here. If the theory makes sense or not? If the theory is provable? Because if’s its just “is it versatile” I think it’s pretty obvious. Unless you want someone to challenge the validity of its methods and calculations but you say “do not get hung up too much on sources and evidence here, this matter is more theoretical than evidential”.
#2
That depends on who accepts it and who does not accept it. I believe this shouldn't be too hard to debate, it's got a pretty fun and simple topic.
The topic of the debate is not about "The theory of everything", it speaks of TDVP (Triadic Dimensional-Distinction Vortical Paradigm)… which is a theoretical framework that aims to provide a holistic and multidimensional understanding of reality.
“Prove to me that this “theory of everything” is not about everything” 🤣
One person showed interest
This is not something most people are going to accept because the topic is too confusing.
Debate's renewed. Everyone is free to participate now.