Instigator / Pro
9
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic

The universe is based on binary code

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
9
Sources points
6
6
Spelling and grammar points
2
3
Conduct points
1
3

With 3 votes and 12 points ahead, the winner is ...

sylweb
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Science
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
21
1534
rating
7
debates
78.57%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
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.

Con
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
Pro
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. 



Con
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
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Extend all arguments.