Instigator / Pro
7
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#657
Everything that exist is made up of elementary particles
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Description
No trickery here. My claim is that: Everything (literally) that exist (type 1 existence, aka physical) is made up of elementary (absolute smallest form) particles.
I don't do contingencies outside of default debate rules. Argue how you see fit.
Round 1
P1a. Everything we observe is physical
P2a. We observe consciousness.
C1. If (P1a and P2a), then Consciousness is physical. MPP
P1b. All physical things are particles.
P2b. Consciousness is physical
C2. If (P1b and P2b), Consciousness is a particle. MPP
.
P1c. If abstracts exist , then abstracts can be observed
P2c. Abstracts cannot be observed
C3. Therefore, Abstracts do not exist. MTT (P1c)(P2c)
P1d. Consciousness is physical (C1)
P2d. Consciousness is a particle (C2)
P3d. Abstracts do not exist. (C3)
C4. If (C1 and C2 and C3) Then everything that exist is particles.
This is a valid proof for my argument. It logically follows assuming that every premise is sound.
The conclusions need not be rebutted directly as they automatically become unsound when any premise supporting becomes unsound. for instance, if premise 1a fell, the whole thing would fall.
This will give us a good hinge to argue off of. I will now state my argument plainly as I know propositional logic is annoying.
My position is that everything that exist is physical (type 1 existence)
I posit that all other of the 3 types are abstracts and falsely equivocated to the word existence. They carry the same name, but in terms of definition, they are different words entirely. Type one existence holds space in reality and can be observed. The other 3 types have completely different qualities altogether and rely completely on thought to manifest at all, so it is not logically sound to place these things under the same definition.
These will be my main points from which to content.
BoP is on me unless you make a positive claim to debunk me, in which case you will need BoP for those claims.
I've only done this topic one other time so I'm excited to see the possible responses.
P1a. Everything we observe is physicalP2a. We observe consciousness.C1. If (P1a and P2a), then Consciousness is physical. MPP
Agreed.
P1b. All physical things are particles.P2b. Consciousness is physicalC2. If (P1b and P2b), Consciousness is a particle. MPP
Incorrect. There are waves, fields and possibly quantum strings and some possible as of yet unknown things of which physical things can be comprised in addition to particles. Examples include space and time which are physically real but not made of particles. Consciousness is observably not "a particle", it requires complex interaction between different forms of particles, fields and waves in order to exist because the existence of consciousness as we know it is contingent upon various forms of sensory input and electro-chemical mechanisms in the brain. Consciousness is not a singular thing of it's own accord which can be broken down into some fundamental unit, it is a compilation of things.
P1c. If abstracts exist , then abstracts can be observedP2c. Abstracts cannot be observedC3. Therefore, Abstracts do not exist. MTT (P1c)(P2c)
Abstracts exist in the same way that a painting exists. Yes, in reality it is just paint on a canvas arranged in a certain way, but the image is still there as a pattern made by the physical paint. Your neurons are the paint, the abstract concept is the painting.
In sum, things exist physically other than particles and things which are abstract are also physical in that they are entirely contrived from physical things, and also you cannot prove that there are not aspects of reality which are not strictly physical because that would require either empirical (which would be inherently impossible to obtain because they would not have physical properties as we can observe them) or rational (which would also be impossible because super-physical things would not necessarily adhere to our notions of logic and rationality) evidence.
Round 2
You said:
"Incorrect. There are waves, fields and possibly quantum strings and some possible as of yet unknown things of which physical things can be comprised in addition to particles"
All of those things are made out of particles. Quantum strings are really obvious, don't know how you messed that one up. waves are just collections of particles moving in a wave pattern. Anyone who has ever heard of the double slit experiment knows this. A field is how physicist think particles actually look, but it's still particles, Also, what unknown physical thing are you talking about? You can't just name off some random thing that has never even be proven to exist. My argument is based off of what we actually know about the universe. So think we should go with the known things before believing in your imaginary object.
You say that consciousness is not a particle, but you're only saying that intuitively without evidence. The conclusion logically follows and is irrefutable if you can't show me something that is not particles. The brain is particles and consciousness is the brain, so how is it not particles? I'm going to need something better than "it's obviously not" That's lazy debating. As for the "explanation" you gave about consciousness, everything you just mentioned happens with particles. You're just proving my point for me. Thanks!!!
You said:
"Abstracts exist in the same way that a painting exists."
No they don't. A painting is a physical object that I can touch and see. I can't see an abstraction of a painting in my head. I can only imagine it. As for what you said about patterns. Patterns are a human invention. The only reason something has a pattern is because we say so. This does not show anything about abstraction except that it's obviously a bunch of human inventions. Which means they're not real. Then you go on to say that abstracts are physical, which is just wrong on so many levels. If abstracts are physical, then where are they? What space do they take up? where do they fall in time? They don't. That's why they're not physical.
Space and time are not physical. They're abstractions as well. A tool we use to describe reality around us. That's it. What we call time is just us comparing two states of affairs as they happen. So Thing A was in position 1 and then moved to position 2 and then I measure the frames of movement against the movement of the sun to derive time out of it. Time is just relative motion and an illusion really. Space is just a place holder for the relative position of something compared to you. So object A is in position 1 as compare to position 0 which is my consciousness. Without a person to observe those things. They don't manifest. Things would just move and nobody would call it anything.
I'm a little bummed out, I was hoping for more contention.
Your floor :)
All of those things are made out of particles. Quantum strings are really obvious, don't know how you messed that one up. waves are just collections of particles moving in a wave pattern. Anyone who has ever heard of the double slit experiment knows this. A field is how physicist think particles actually look, but it's still particles, Also, what unknown physical thing are you talking about? You can't just name off some random thing that has never even be proven to exist. My argument is based off of what we actually know about the universe. So think we should go with the known things before believing in your imaginary object.
Quantum strings are not particles, they are oscillating one dimensional bands which theoretically create particles by oscillating in a lattice-like cluster.
"In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings.
It describes how these strings propagate through space and interact
with each other. On distance scales larger than the string scale, a
string looks just like an ordinary particle, with its mass, charge, and other properties determined by the vibrational state of the string."
Clusters of oscillating strings are what create the illusion of point-particles according to String Theory. The strings form layers of hyper-spatial branes which fundamentally would mean that the physical universe is an interconnected fabric rather than a collection of singular particles.
Waves are not exactly made of particles, they are however often created by particles and carry particles with them. Waves can also create particles by interacting with other waves and particles. The double-slit experiment is still up for interpretation and if you ask most physicists they will say it's result is caused by a particle-wave duality rather than by particles alone. Neither is necessarily more fundamental than the other.
A field is not made of particles, a particle is made of fields. Since we are relying entirely on math to deal with the quantum world we are forced to treat things as if they are quantifiable even when they are not, thus despite the fact that we know that the fields are something fluid and connected we are forced to deal with them as a sea of separate particles and measure them only by how the particles in them behave and interact. How would the particles interact at a distance without a medium or something else connecting them?
This video is very telling, if you read between the lines you will see that quantum physics was founded upon the need to quantify the unquantifiable in an attempt to make it make sense within a mathematical framework.
Lastly, the unknown physical thing of which I speak would be unknown. That means you don't know that it doesn't exist anymore than I know that it does. There is, for all we know, a massive amount of things beyond particles/fields etc. that are unknown, you cannot rule it out without claiming to know about things that you inherently don't know about, therefor you automatically will lose this debate because you cannot prove that particles are all that exist without knowing everything. Even just strictly out of the things we know exist, you cannot prove that they are all fundamentally particles firstly because that's simply not true according to modern man's understanding of physics and secondly because you are merely making an assumption based on how things appear to be according to theoretical mathematical constructs meant to make sense of things that are poorly understood.
You say that consciousness is not a particle, but you're only saying that intuitively without evidence. The conclusion logically follows and is irrefutable if you can't show me something that is not particles. The brain is particles and consciousness is the brain, so how is it not particles?
All particles exist in fields and interact with each other via waves and supersymmetries. To say one is more fundamental to the functions of a brain is to say that the tendons, joints, bones or muscles are more fundamental to the movement of your limbs. Consciousness is caused by a system of things working together, there are no magical subatomic consciousness units floating around in your brain in any capacity which you can prove or even logically infer.
You said:"Abstracts exist in the same way that a painting exists."No they don't. A painting is a physical object that I can touch and see. I can't see an abstraction of a painting in my head. I can only imagine it. As for what you said about patterns. Patterns are a human invention. The only reason something has a pattern is because we say so.
A painting is a physical object you can touch and see, and you can also see an image, a series of shapes which truly are there. The Mono Lisa is nothing but paint on a canvas, but still contains a physically observable likeness of something. Patterns are real, they are not just human constructs, and real patterns of electro-chemical signals which are observable in the brain produce conceptual abstractions.
Then you go on to say that abstracts are physical, which is just wrong on so many levels. If abstracts are physical, then where are they? What space do they take up? where do they fall in time? They don't. That's why they're not physical.
The location of an abstraction is in the electricity and chemicals that produce it.
Space and time are not physical. They're abstractions as well.
That's not what Einstein said, Einstein said that space was a physical membrane that could bend and warp and that time is an actual medium which objects move through which is linked to space itself.
I'm a little bummed out, I was hoping for more contention.
I was hoping for less abject butchery of the facts and baseless assertions such as "consciousness is a particle" and "space-time is just an abstraction".
Round 3
Thanks for sourcing my proof for me. You're one heck of guest to do that for me. What you're reading there is what amount to them saying they replace one model of the particle for another. They're talking about the best way to explain the particle. The "string" IS the particle. Give me a little credit now. If I was to make a topic like this without considering string theory first, that would be a little silly of me. Allow me to borrow my source for a moment.
So it says the point like "particles" are "replaced" by one dimensional "strings". So what this is saying is that the point like model for a particle is how they use to think it was shaped, but then they posited a string like particle instead. This is just a semantic argument for the shape of a particle. Therefore, what I said stands. This is a particle. I hope you won't argue in bad faith and simply deny this without a good reason.
Also, you left out the part where string theory was debunked and they've been forced to repackage it at least 3 times that I'm aware of. It' not even the leading theory. The shape observation is true, but the fabric hypothesis has never come close to being proven and even if it was it would still be physical and particles and would still fit in my model so what are you getting at here?
Okay, you're confusing wave patterns with the abstract wave. a wave pattern is a shape that groups of particles make during motion. The kind of waves you're talking about is not a thing but rather an effect of causality. The "wave" is just a bunch of particles crashing into each other to create a domino effect that gets passed down the line. This effect does indeed drag particles. But the "wave" is not a thing. It's just another abstract. Answer me this. If a wave is made in the ocean, is the wave a thing or is it just water being pushed around? Spoiler, it's the second one, but feel free to answer if you want to contradict physics.
On a side note, you seem comfortable using science to reference your proofs. Tell me, what non physical thing does science say exist?
If particles are made out of fields, then the fields are the particle. That's like saying cheese isn't cheese because it's made out of dairy. Btw I'm pretty sure this is a competing theory to string theory. I don't know this to be true for certain, but I will look into it shortly. If that is the case, you can't support both unless you have your own special model to combine them. Just going guess that you don't. Either way it still doesn't debunk my position, so I guess we've been on a detour from the real argument.
Two things here. First. I never said any specific particle was more fundamental than one another. That's a strawman. Second. You keep saying that's the case, however, you can't show me it's the case nor can your model of reality account for consciousness. Furthermore, I posited a logical proof and you're scared to even touch it with real logic. You're just making intuitive arguments against it. I'm guessing that would be because you can't debunk the premises?
Actually, the image is not actually there, it's a bunch of empty space that your brain fills in. It's an illusion. If you seen the atoms exactly how they looked you wouldn't even be able to tell it was a shape. You invented the shape in your mind and then defined things against it. But I'm not going to talk past you. I'll just given an example.
You say abstracts exist. That means they've always existed because humans didn't make them. So I can invent my own math right now. The Greeks did it and so can I. I can use a 7 point decimal system and then borrow the rules of arithmetic. Guess what? That math works!! But wait, it didn't exist before and now it does? How did that happen? Oh that's right!! Because I invented it!! Furthermore, all math theories would fail in this math system because those theories were meant for a different invention. I can go even further with this and have virtually limitless versions of math each with their own theories that didn't exist before. So did all of these exist? No. People invented them until they found the best one for them.
Before anything lived on the planet, there was no maths, no languages, no circles, no triangles. There were patterns, but nobody to name them. What your talking about is not things but states of affairs.
Oh so now my brain is an abstract? I was actually waiting for you to say this. You just sunk your own argument. Please locate math in my brain and pull it out. Bet you can't. I'm not even going to do the dance here because things get easy now. Since you just made my brain the abstracts, that means my brain is particles and abstracts are particles and now everything is still particles. Look at that! You keep ending up at my conclusion. It's almost like it's true or something.
Okay Einstein had an opinion. By the way who provided the proof for that? Oh wait, that's right!! he never proved it!! Oh snap. No problem, just show me your evidence and this all goes away.
Baseless? Well isn't that the pot calling the silver sink black. I presented a sound logical argument and you have yet to show me one single thing that isn't particles. In fact, you gave me my sources!! I won't be too harsh on you. I know I'm contentious. That's my job here. But you need to buckle down because all you've done is showcase more particles to me for my collection.
Your floor. Btw, the floor is made of particles.
.
So it says the point like "particles" are "replaced" by one dimensional "strings". So what this is saying is that the point like model for a particle is how they use to think it was shaped, but then they posited a string like particle instead. This is just a semantic argument for the shape of a particle. Therefore, what I said stands. This is a particle.
I never heard of strings being referred to as particles. The point particles don't exist in string theory and are just vibrational properties of the strings. Even if the strings can be considered particles which is a yes and no kind of thing, that still doesn't prove that nothing exists at all other than strings or particles. You cannot prove that nothing exists other than particles because there is way too much room for unknown things in the universe, and that is why no serious physicist would make that claim. In my opinion, it is pretentious and naive' to make such a claim, because it is a claim you cannot make with any certainty unless you literally knew everything about reality.
Also, you left out the part where string theory was debunked and they've been forced to repackage it at least 3 times that I'm aware of. It' not even the leading theory. The shape observation is true, but the fabric hypothesis has never come close to being proven and even if it was it would still be physical and particles and would still fit in my model so what are you getting at here?
String Theory has not been debunked, there are multiple versions which have been made obsolete by the eleven dimensional M-theory version. That is not the same as the theory being debunked. I am not denying that particles exist, just that they are fundamental. If string theory is true, which many people who are more intelligent than either of us seem to believe, then particles are just vibrational notes on a one-dimensional subatomic hyperspace loop called a string. If you want to call strings a particle, well that's fine and dandy because you can't prove that string theory is true anymore than you can prove it is false and you cannot prove that particles are the only thing that exist. Your BoP is impossible to fulfill when you really think about it.
Okay, you're confusing wave patterns with the abstract wave. a wave pattern is a shape that groups of particles make during motion. The kind of waves you're talking about is not a thing but rather an effect of causality. The "wave" is just a bunch of particles crashing into each other to create a domino effect that gets passed down the line. This effect does indeed drag particles.
Explain how particles interact at a distance with no actual contact if there aren't fields and waves which are not made of particles.
Answer me this. If a wave is made in the ocean, is the wave a thing or is it just water being pushed around? Spoiler, it's the second one, but feel free to answer if you want to contradict physics.
If there is a vortex in the ocean, is the vortex like a wave or is it it's own object? the difference between a particle and a wave is like that between a wave and a whirlpool.
On a side note, you seem comfortable using science to reference your proofs. Tell me, what non physical thing does science say exist?
Something few people realize about science is that it's more about knowing what you don't know than it is about making claims of truth. Science is a process of elimination and speculation, not a belief system.
If particles are made out of fields, then the fields are the particle.
Wrong, if particles are made out of fields than the singular particle is an illusion and the truth is a continuous, singular whole of which the particles are just denser portions of.
Two things here. First. I never said any specific particle was more fundamental than one another. That's a strawman. Second. You keep saying that's the case, however, you can't show me it's the case nor can your model of reality account for consciousness.
I don't believe I said that you said that any particle is more fundamental than another. It is kind of a given though, for example atoms are a particle but quarks, gluons, protons neutrons and electrons are it's fundamental constituents. Account for consciousness? You haven't demonstrated how as-of-yet-unobserved consciousness particles account for consciousness better than a whole array of factors coming together in a complex system with many components. The notion that consciousness is a particle is metaphysical in nature, as if imaginary consciousness balls which you assume to exist are floating around in your brain. It's no better than claiming consciousness is created by a soul.
Furthermore, I posited a logical proof and you're scared to even touch it with real logic. You're just making intuitive arguments against it. I'm guessing that would be because you can't debunk the premises?
A bold claim for someone with an impossible to fulfill BoP and nothing to support your claims but assumptions and assertions.
Actually, the image is not actually there, it's a bunch of empty space that your brain fills in. It's an illusion. If you seen the atoms exactly how they looked you wouldn't even be able to tell it was a shape. You invented the shape in your mind and then defined things against it. But I'm not going to talk past you. I'll just given an example.
Unless you are arguing solipsism here or something similar this is unfounded, just because the subjective image of things that we see is subjective doesn't mean the subject we are perceiving or it's shape is an illusion.
The rest of your argument is just ranting basically. I don't think you realize that you are the one claiming that the literal only thing in existence is particles and that it's your BoP to prove that. You act as if your assertions are a given and I'm the one making the assertions when I am basically just postulating ways for you to be wrong, which by default makes me the winner unless you can prove yourself right and patch all the holes I poke into your theory.
Round 4
I never heard of strings being referred to as particles. The point particles don't exist in string theory and are just vibrational properties of the strings. Even if the strings can be considered particles which is a yes and no kind of thing, that still doesn't prove that nothing exists at all other than strings or particles. You cannot prove that nothing exists other than particles because there is way too much room for unknown things in the universe, and that is why no serious physicist would make that claim. In my opinion, it is pretentious and naive' to make such a claim, because it is a claim you cannot make with any certainty unless you literally knew everything about reality.
I'm afraid that you're arguing in bad faith here. The source clearly states that it's the "model for a particle" that means it's the theory meant explain the composition of the particle. You're saying the particle doesn't "exist" and that the string is what is really there. That's just a word trick. What you're really saying is "The particle doesn't exist in the way we think of and it's really a string" Which is fine, but it still supports my position.
The next thing you do is make an argument from ignorance here. You're saying "I don't know it's true, so it's not true" The problem is, I've empirically shown that science has not EVER discovered anything that wasn't a particle. So by disagreeing with me, what you're really saying is that you deny the scientific consensus yes?
String Theory has not been debunked, there are multiple versions which have been made obsolete by the eleven dimensional M-theory version. That is not the same as the theory being debunked. I am not denying that particles exist, just that they are fundamental. If string theory is true, which many people who are more intelligent than either of us seem to believe, then particles are just vibrational notes on a one-dimensional subatomic hyperspace loop called a string. If you want to call strings a particle, well that's fine and dandy because you can't prove that string theory is true anymore than you can prove it is false and you cannot prove that particles are the only thing that exist. Your BoP is impossible to fulfill when you really think about it.
Arguing in bad faith again. How does a theory get debunk? By become obsolete. A new theory replaces it that explains it without as many errors. Furthermore, The newest version of string theory is completely unsupportable. It's an Ad Hoc model which makes it dubious at best. The people who started adding "dimensions" did so because the current model didn't work. Sounds a lot like when theists change around their god arguments to me.
The fact is, the only reason we have an eleven dimension theory, was because they kept adding dimensions and the theory still wouldn't work, so they added more. String theory is nothing more than the theism of quantum physics. Particles can be demonstrated. Eleven dimensions cannot be demonstrated. So why should I take up your theory when reality gets thoroughly explained in a model with only particles.
Explain how particles interact at a distance with no actual contact if there aren't fields and waves which are not made of particles.
Well, if you look into physics, you would know that distance doesn't necessarily stop movement. There are entangled particles that can interact with each other no matter how far away we are. That doesn't mean they're not physical, it just means we don't understand everything about movement. We don't have to have a complete induction of the universe to know what we've already inducted. Furthermore, just because particles have space between them, doesn't mean they can't touch. I could have space between you and then reach out my hand and touch you and there would still be space between us even while I touched you. In this anaology, the hand is the electron. All particles have either a charge or no charge and that is what causes literally all motion in the universe. That means motion is once again accounted for by particles. It's all particles.
If there is a vortex in the ocean, is the vortex like a wave or is it it's own object? the difference between a particle and a wave is like that between a wave and a whirlpool.
Nice. You completely dodged my question, but it's cool because you proved my point by doing it. The whirlpool is not a thing itself. It's merely a collection of moving water. Just like a "wave" is not a thing either, it's just a collection of moving particles. Next time maybe just answer the question though.
Something few people realize about science is that it's more about knowing what you don't know than it is about making claims of truth. Science is a process of elimination and speculation, not a belief system.
Well that is a half truth. Science does feel much more comfortable saying what it doesn't know. But science can also do complete inductions and know things with 100% certainty. Scientists don't say "gravity probably happens, but we don't know". They say "We KNOW gravity happens, but we don't know everything about WHY it happens" So you're misrepresenting science when you say this. I won't say you're lying, because you might have been unaware of what I just told you.
Wrong, if particles are made out of fields than the singular particle is an illusion and the truth is a continuous, singular whole of which the particles are just denser portions of.
Okay, this is going over your head. Yes, the particle "as we know it" will not be right. Let me put it this way. If why you say is right, then my statement would turn into "Everything that exist is fields and strings" Which is identical to saying it's all particles because that's what particles are made out of. You're trying to mischaracterize what I'm saying like I think that particles have to be point like. That's not true. I never professed to say what a particle looked like. I just said that everything that "science" calls a particle is the only thing that exists. Now the funny thing here is that you're using science to tell me particles don't exist. But science says particles do exist. So I think you're the one who is mistaken because it's their work you're using to prove this, not yours.
I don't believe I said that you said that any particle is more fundamental than another. It is kind of a given though, for example atoms are a particle but quarks, gluons, protons neutrons and electrons are it's fundamental constituents. Account for consciousness? You haven't demonstrated how as-of-yet-unobserved consciousness particles account for consciousness better than a whole array of factors coming together in a complex system with many components. The notion that consciousness is a particle is metaphysical in nature, as if imaginary consciousness balls which you assume to exist are floating around in your brain. It's no better than claiming consciousness is created by a soul.
who says they're unobserved? That's a lie. I have an observable brain made of particles and you can observe me using it to type out this sentence. There is nothing on observed about my hypothesis. Furthermore, how do you account for consciousness? Magic? I'm not going to argue whether or not you strawmanned me cause I don't care. As long as you don't try to link me to that false claim you made about me.
Ralph Said:Furthermore, I posited a logical proof and you're scared to even touch it with real logic. You're just making intuitive arguments against it. I'm guessing that would be because you can't debunk the premises?Sparrow Said:A bold claim for someone with an impossible to fulfill BoP and nothing to support your claims but assumptions and assertions.
It's a bold claim that you haven't touched my logical proofs? No it's not. This is literally the third time I asked you to address my premises. You're the one who denied that premise by saying that "These things here aren't particles" and then when I showed you using your own sources that the things you were talking about are particles. You start arguing in bad faith and denying what the article actually tells you. At that point, A good faith opponent would have went back to my premises and found a new critique or repackage their argument in a way that disproves me. You did neither. My argument was set up using propositional logic and you couldn't debunk one claim in it. So I am justified to find it sound for the purposes of this debate.
Unless you are arguing solipsism here or something similar this is unfounded, just because the subjective image of things that we see is subjective doesn't mean the subject we are perceiving or it's shape is an illusion.
I'm not going to call this a straw man. I think you genuinely misunderstood my argument on this point. My argument wasn't "reality is false" My argument was that what we perceive is a translation of actual reality. Particles basically have a bunch of empty space between them, but we don't see it because our brain uses light to see and not atoms. So we can never see how the human body actually looks, but rather a caricature of it from the bouncing light. Shame you misunderstood it. I would have liked to see the real strawman you planned to set up against it. We'll never know.
The rest of your argument is just ranting basically. I don't think you realize that you are the one claiming that the literal only thing in existence is particles and that it's your BoP to prove that. You act as if your assertions are a given and I'm the one making the assertions when I am basically just postulating ways for you to be wrong, which by default makes me the winner unless you can prove yourself right and patch all the holes I poke into your theory.
Oh I didn't realize it huh? I think you misunderstand what your job is when you DON'T have the BoP. Your job is to refute me from achieving the BoP. Which means debunking my premises. I gave you every opportunity to do so and even tried to help you out and remind you throughout the debate, which I didn't have to do. I could have just sat here quietly and let you sink yourself. But I'm here for knowledge so I wanted you to be as strong as possible. You on the other hand decide to argue in bad faith and tacitly deny everything I say whether it was logical or not. Plus you insult me by saying I'm "rambling" which is just a way to imply that my argument is nonsense via ad hominem because to attack my arguments would be too hard right? I wouldn't call it rude, but I'd certainly call it bad conduct.
Good Debate.
I'm afraid that you're arguing in bad faith here.
I'm not arguing in faith at all actually, that is what you're doing. You believe that particles are all that exist, something which you cannot possibly know or prove.
The source clearly states that it's the "model for a particle" that means it's the theory meant explain the composition of the particle. You're saying the particle doesn't "exist" and that the string is what is really there. That's just a word trick.
Either way it's a word trick really, a string can be thought of as a particle or not, it comes down to semantics. Like I already said it's a yes and no kind of thing but even if we agree to say it is a particle, string theory proves that point particles are an illusion if it is true and it is one less particle for you if it's not true. Either way you are losing a class of particles.
The next thing you do is make an argument from ignorance here. You're saying "I don't know it's true, so it's not true"
Well this is fallacious, I am saying "it cannot be proven, therefore your BoP cannot be fulfilled." You are making a claim which you can't possibly know and asserting that it is true.
The problem is, I've empirically shown that science has not EVER discovered anything that wasn't a particle. So by disagreeing with me, what you're really saying is that you deny the scientific consensus yes?
Even if we discovered something which is not a particle, we would act like it's a particle because mathematical equations have trouble dealing with things that are not quantifiable. This means that for all we know particles may not be particles and we only consider them as such because we have no other way of creating equations which can deal with them. Also what you say is simply not true, because space/time, energy, fields and waves are not particles.
How does a theory get debunk? By become obsolete. A new theory replaces it that explains it without as many errors. Furthermore, The newest version of string theory is completely unsupportable. It's an Ad Hoc model which makes it dubious at best. The people who started adding "dimensions" did so because the current model didn't work. Sounds a lot like when theists change around their god arguments to me.
A new version of string theory debunking an old one is not the same as string theory itself getting debunked. Many things in particle physics can be described as "an ad hoc model which simply adds more particles because the current model doesn't work". The fact of the matter is no one really KNOWS what he universe is fundamentally and the majority of theoretical physics is literally just theoretical equations which ASSUME everything can be quantified because we have no other way of dealing with it. In fact, string theory itself can be thought of as a way to remedy that by making everything unified yet still quantifiable. In string theory, everything is a membrane made of strings because that makes more sense than everything being a singular particle which is not connected to other particles and interacting with other particles via magic.
The fact is, the only reason we have an eleven dimension theory, was because they kept adding dimensions and the theory still wouldn't work, so they added more.
That is not a "fact". The only reason we have a particle-based standard model is because they kept adding more particles whenever their theories didn't work.
Particles can be demonstrated. Eleven dimensions cannot be demonstrated. So why should I take up your theory when reality gets thoroughly explained in a model with only particles.
Particles cannot be demonstrated, we are technically only interpreting things as particles. Reality cannot be explained by a model with only particles and I would be rather shocked if you could find a single credible physicist making that claim. Explain instantaneous (spooky) action at a distance if there is only particles, it would require higher dimensions or fields to happen, and it does happen.
Well, if you look into physics, you would know that distance doesn't necessarily stop movement. There are entangled particles that can interact with each other no matter how far away we are.
How can they be entangled if all that exists are tiny singular balls of matter?
That doesn't mean they're not physical,
you are conflating "particle" with "physical".
it just means we don't understand everything about movement.
You don't know, so how do you know everything involved is a particle?
All particles have either a charge or no charge and that is what causes literally all motion in the universe.
Wrong, what induces the motion required to create charge? Why do things move due to gravitational pull?
You completely dodged my question, but it's cool because you proved my point by doing it. The whirlpool is not a thing itself. It's merely a collection of moving water. Just like a "wave" is not a thing either, it's just a collection of moving particles. Next time maybe just answer the question though.
Okay, so a particle is not fundamental it's just a vortex. Thanks for clearing that up.
Well that is a half truth. Science does feel much more comfortable saying what it doesn't know. But science can also do complete inductions and know things with 100% certainty. Scientists don't say "gravity probably happens, but we don't know". They say "We KNOW gravity happens, but we don't know everything about WHY it happens" So you're misrepresenting science when you say this.
You're misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say we can't know anything,, just that science is not a belief system. You making a claim which you can't know such as "everything is made of particles" is unscientific.
Okay, this is going over your head. Yes, the particle "as we know it" will not be right. Let me put it this way. If why you say is right, then my statement would turn into "Everything that exist is fields and strings" Which is identical to saying it's all particles because that's what particles are made out of.
That's not your position in this debate, your position is that everything is made of tiny singular units of force because that's what a particle is. You don't get to switch positions in accordance to whatever I say when I prove you wrong. If particles are made of something which are not particles (which they must be because how else could particles have been created without the force preceding the particle) then everything is not made of particles.
who says they're unobserved? That's a lie. I have an observable brain made of particles and you can observe me using it to type out this sentence.
You said consciousness itself is a particle. I am waiting for evidence of these consciousness-force-carrying particles.
how do you account for consciousness? Magic?
I already told you.
In my current worldview, Space to me is like a vacuum of nothingness. I would picture it as being something that naturally wants to be filled because all space seems to mostly be filled with something. So maybe I could consider it a type of force. I could not even fathom what truly empty space looks like.
So here's my ultimate concession. I could probably be convinced of space existing. That's not completely off the table for me. Maybe it could be pixelated, there's theory for that already so it has precedent. the time part is definitely a no go for me so that's the key reason I reject spacetime. I don't think there's anything that could convince me that time exist because all of the evidence unequivocally points towards it being an abstract.
Ya, I'm not really sure where it fits either.. I'm on the fence with this currently. The more I think about it, the more I teeter back and forth haha. It's definitely an interesting topic..
My type 1 existence involves holding space in reality, so only matter and energy fit into it. However, I guess I wouldn't be totally against something being type 1 if it's objectively rooted in reality. This would kind of blur the line between type 1 and type 2, but I don't really start to worry until people start trying to stick type 3 and 4 into type 1. That's where I start finger wagging. So I wouldn't be against that per se since it would still give you good logic.
Right, so I would ask what specifically is bending light? Is it space? or gravity? or friction? or physical interactions.
see when they say universe is expanding. All that seems to mean to me is that objects in space are expanding. I get what you mean. This is just always the point I get hung up on. I just don't see how there needs to be a physical thing called "space" that accounts for these interactions because they all just sound like events to me. Sorry if I'm being obtuse about it, lol. I'm not trying to be. It's just there's certain things that I believe that I cannot make myself unbelieve. It's not that I can't change my mind. but there's some thing that hangs me on that belief and in order to eschew it, I have to be able to see why my hang up is not justified. I think out of all of the abstracts, space is the best candidate for not actually being an abstract. So I'll give you that.
Are you familiar with the Friedmann equations and Hubble's Law? Long story short, it shows our universe (space essentially) is expanding. It's calculated with recessional velocity.
If you're skeptical about space being between things, how would you explain light arcing around a gravitational curve in space? The bend in space actually stretches space (and light); it's demonstrated in spectral line displacements from red shifted light.
I agree that space may not have a tangible "mass", or whatever you'd want to call it, but it does directly interact and impact things contained within it. To me, this makes it a Type 1 existence because it exists and interacts with reality.
Thoughts?
what do you mean by "when space expands outward"?
To me, that sounds like motion. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm skeptical as to if there actually is "space" between things. Most of the gaps between us is filled with neutrinos just flying right through our body.
To me, what makes up "space" is define by the particles we see. when I see expansion, that just appears as particle interactions. That's always been my biggest problem with it is that space appears to only exist because things are filling it. So how do I know it's not just the result of particle interactions creating the illusion of space?
Welcome! We almost got the whole crew here now haha
I agree and ....slightly..... disagree. I do concede it's a "gray" area/topic, and I'm not entirely sure where I stand on it, yet. That's why I threw it out there to pick your brain..
So I can't physically "grab" you a piece of space, but space does have a direct affect on things that I can grab you, like particles. For example, as space expands outwards, it displaces the spectral lines in electromagnetic radiation as it travels across it; it can also bend light as it travels through gravitational curves. Because space has a direct impact on particles, which do have physicality, I would argue it must exist, even though I cannot cut a piece off. It has real observable affects in reality.
Thoughts?
Unmoderated voting? Go to DDO, whiteflame doesn't moderate them anymore lol.
Athias. I probably shouldn't help you since you're going to vote against me, but in the spirit of fairness. All you need to do is highlight each main point and why it did or did not contribute to your decision then you have to weigh the arguments and state your reason for picking a certain side.
For sources, you have to specifically cite at least one source. You can't appeal to quantity, not saying you did, just stating that for measure. You have to explain why you think the sources impacted the debate.
For conduct, there has to be at least 1 forfeit round or you need to cite specific cases of conduct and why you think they're excessive.
I don't usually vote grammar, but I"m guessing it's along the same lings as sources and conduct.
You can put "tied in all others" when you don't award points and you don't have to explain. However, when you tie and argument point, you still have to explain it.
Hopefully this will help you vote better against me, lol. ;)
Happy voting.
More voters = Better
SUPPORT UNMODERATED VOTING.
@Virtuoso: I did not appeal to quantity as far as the sources were concerned. I stated that Con substantiated his arguments with substantial sources. (I'm well aware that the number of sources in and of itself does not offer substance.) As for the argument point, I do not judge an argument by a standard of "agreement," but whether the logical connection between premise and conclusion is sound. I stated the reason Pro's argument was not convincing was that he abandoned his onus to the major premise of his inductive argument--i.e. "Everything we observe is physical." Without this his entire argument falls apart because it's the major premise. And he failed to substantiate said premise. As for conduct, I did point out specific examples. If this does not constitute misconduct, then fair enough. But I did not know that the standard on which Conduct was awarded would be based on extremes, and not the relatives which the question "Who had better conduct?" implicates.
The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
(2) The source point is not sufficient. In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
(3) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Athias // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: Pro chose to argue by induction without substantiating any of his premises, especially the first inductive argument--i.e. "Everything we observe is physical" (major premise.) Without this his series of sequential syllogisms fall apart. He then goes on to focus on particles and string theory, leaving his obligation to the onus he created in Round 1 unsatisfied. While Con does indulge the same focus on String Theory, he provides substantial arguments and sources to substantiate his contention. As for conduct, Pro mentions, "I'm a little bummed out, I was hoping for more contention," and "you're scared to even touch it with real logic..." etc. None of this has any place in a debate. For that, I am willing to award conduct to Con.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
See above
*******************************************************************
Seriously, though thanks for the vote.
More voters = better.
SUPPORT UNMODERATED VOTING.
Oh god it's Athias. Everybody run!!
spacetime existing is the biggest myth in all of physics. The second biggest myth is eleven dimensions.
right. so can you grab me a piece of space and hand it to me? Space is just what physical things occupy. There's even evidence to show that space isn't what we think it is because particles can ignore distance. So it's not a thing because you can't even have space without at least 2 objects to judge it and you can't have time without at least 3 objects. So how do they exist if viewing them is contingent upon particles?
Where does space fall in here? It's physical, because it has affects on physical things (like red-shifting light). It has particles in it, but space itself is not made of particles. Thoughts?
It's not because the light is ACTUALLY bent. I'm not perceiving the light wrong. The light is just coming in at a strange angle. The problem here is that you think we're seeing the spoon. we're not. We're seeing the light that comes from the spoon which makes a mold of it. However, it doesn't matter because we know it's the light and we adjust our brains for it by consciously adjusting how we treat the spoon.
The light is bent but the spoon is not. Your perception of reality is distorted.
Sure, if I stick a spoon in the water and it creates the illusion of bending. Are my eyes wrong or is the light actually bent?
The difference between seeing a bent spoon and bent image of a star is that the spoon is actually bent, and the star is not. So the thing we perceive is not physically existent in the way that we perceive it.
That would be like saying a bent spoon was an illusion .
1. gravity is an event, not a thing and the things that are having gravity are physical.
2. Some physicists think that gravity is cause by a particle, although that really doesn't change the fact that the effect of gravity does not actually exist.
3. We are not seeing distorted light incorrectly. The brain is processing it correctly, but the light that is entering our eyes has been bent in advanced and we can even tell that it's bent and work around it, so this is far from an illusion. We're not falsely seeing light as bent. It's ACTUALLY bent.
"Everything we observe is physical"
What about gravity distorting light? In other words, we perceive things incorrectly.
Hallucinations are another good example. False perceptions that are just as realistic as reality.
Votes plz.
cest la vie
It's cool mate. I get competitive too.
I realize in hindsight that I came off a bit too aggressive in that last statement. I had no malicious intent. It's just the way I debate and I only intend to attack ideas, not people. Just putting that out there.
My bad. C4 was reached using MPP. I forgot to write it the final time, lol.