Instigator / Pro
4
1417
rating
27
debates
24.07%
won
Topic
#3414

A multiverse doesn't exist

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Novice
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1597
rating
22
debates
65.91%
won
Description

Rules:

* Follow website terms of service
* Don't commit these fallacies listed here: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
* Make sure to read all the links the opponent offers
* If you fail to follow the following rules, then your arguments shall be weakened
* If you can't follow the rules, then you already lost before the debate ended
* I, the creator of the rules am also under these rules.

Other rules that you wouldn't be penalized for

* Try to respond as fast as possible, though it's okay of life slows you down
* Try to make arguments as short as possible
* Try to make arguments readable
* Try to be as clear as possible
* other similar tips

-->
@FLRW

Thanks and no problem, I understand people have lives and not everyone has time to vote

Congratulations Novice. I would have voted like whiteflame, but I didn't have the time.

-->
@whiteflame

thanks a lot!

TIme is running out fast, and I hope someone is able to vote on this.
I don't want a voteless tie again

Please note that my round 3 argument is a placement of my ROUND TWO argument

For an explanation: Last round was not forfeited by will of my own, but because of a glitch in the site upon posting my argument, similar to the glitch reportedly experienced by former user Incel_Chud in this debate I had with him https://www.debateart.com/debates/3357-women-should-be-the-property-of-men#
I have contacted the Mods about this but they cannot do anything for now. This was my round two argument and let it serve as my conclusion as well.

As I DID NOT FORFERIT because of my own will, and I have a justified reason, therefore I appeal that conduct is not take from me

Regardless, thanks for your consideration

-->
@whiteflame
@FLRW

Please Vote!

why hasn't nobody voted yet? Seriously I don't want ties, Either pro or con has to win.

-->
@ADreamOfLiberty

Following this, I will accept it as a concession and droping all all my points.

-->
@Novice

I see only repetition of previously debunked assertions. If you have questions or novel arguments I will be available.

-->
@ADreamOfLiberty

---You are incorrect, the error can be demonstrated simply by considering human history, there was a time when the vast majority of humanity fervently believed in animism, that the sky was a fabric dome of some kind, etc.... including the "authorities", a logical form that only works in one cultural context is inherently fallacious as it contradicts the same form in all other contexts. Contrast with valid logic such as a mathematical proof, it does not depend on whether shamans out number PhDs---

Again, following the Neil Degrase Tyson aborition example, normative statements can't be justified by authority. POSITIVE statements absolutely can, because they are grounded in empricism, and evidence. I presented this evidence by explaining cosmic inflation, sourcing that it has been proven to be true, and asserting that this appears to be a scientific consensus.

---Not if the argument is invalid---
The argument is both sound and valid. The premises lead to the conclusion and each premise is true

Perhaps you should admit being wrong on this

-->
@Novice

"Again, if such a large proportion of authorities assert something, it isn't fallacious in any way."

You are incorrect, the error can be demonstrated simply by considering human history, there was a time when the vast majority of humanity fervently believed in animism, that the sky was a fabric dome of some kind, etc.... including the "authorities", a logical form that only work in one cultural context is inherently fallacious as it contradicts the same form in all other contexts. Contrast with valid logic such as a mathematical proof, it does not depend on whether shamans out number PhDs.

"As long as I prove each premise to be true, the argument is sound."

Not if the argument is invalid.

-->
@ADreamOfLiberty

You are so confidently wrong on this, stop embarrassing yourself.

--"That would be like saying "every scientist has accepted models that have proven the earth is round" is an appeal to authority."
It is, and it has no place in formal debate--

You clearly have no understanding of how a debate works, and have never been in one.
Again, if such a large proportion of authorities assert something, it isn't fallacious in any way.
Appeal to Authority: Neil Degrase Tyson says abortion is not wrong therefore aborion isn't wrong
Debate Claim: 98% of physicists have accepted cosmic inflation as various aspects of the theory have been proven

--There are a lot of problems with the framing of this debate, but without getting into those the above argument is a non-sequiter. In order for it to be valid p3 (mislabeled) would have to be: IF cosmic inflation occurred after the big bang THEN multiverse--

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The premise is true, therefore it is a justified statement. As long as I prove each premise to be true, the argument is sound. I have proven each premise to be true and therefore the argument is sound.

-->
@FLRW
@Novice

Whereas my argument was on the basis of
p1) cosmic inflation occurred after the big bang
p2) cosmic inlfation has been proven to be true and is a scientific consensus (like the earth being round)
p2) inflation occurs diversely and inflationary models almost all lead to the multiverse
c) Therefore the multiverse is a possibility

There are a lot of problems with the framing of this debate, but without getting into those the above argument is a non-sequiter. In order for it to be valid p3 (mislabeled) would have to be: IF cosmic inflation occurred after the big bang THEN multiverse. If your opponent knew up from down they would simply challenge that premise, and if you thought that premise was taken for granted you wouldn't have provided it as a quote from a supposed authority.

"That would be like saying "every scientist has accepted models that have proven the earth is round" is an appeal to authority."
It is, and it has no place in formal debate.

"If the authority is legitimate, arguing from authority is the most valid argument possible—the definitive argument."
Incorrect, there are no infallible people, at most a cogent argument is possible and even those ought to be banned from formal debate as it is inference by proxy, no different from ad populum. The reason derivative inference is useless can easily be seen by looking one move ahead. If your opponent challenges the trueness of the authority the only arbiter is a primary inference, i.e. the actual arguments about the actual subject.

What most people don't realize (it seems) is that the fallacy known as Appeal to Authority only refers to when someone cites as the rightful authority something or someone who is not. That is, when it is an appeal to a false authority.
If the authority is legitimate, arguing from authority is the most valid argument possible—the definitive argument.

you are extemely ignorant and it shows

-->
@ADreamOfLiberty

You cherrypicked one statement of me saying
"Many physicists believe these findings give credence to the existence of a multiverse"

Whereas my argument was on the basis of
p1) cosmic inflation occurred after the big bang
p2) cosmic inlfation has been proven to be true and is a scientific consensus (like the earth being round)
p2) inflation occurs diversely and inflationary models almost all lead to the multiverse
c) Therefore the multiverse is a possibility

-->
@ADreamOfLiberty

No, listen.
It's irrelevant who says it, these are facts.
I cited that cosmic inflation has been proven to be true in many aspects therefore leading most astrological physicists to accept it. An appeal to authority isn't such when you cite the specific authorities of a field of study.

That would be like saying "every scientist has accepted models that have proven the earth is round" is an appeal to authority.
If 99% of an authroity in a feild asserts somthing it isn't fallacious

-->
@Novice

"I specifically argue that cosmic inflation models all lead to the multiverse. How can you be dishonest?"
No, you cite purported authorities claiming something they call cosmic inflation models all lead to the "multiverse".

Citing assertions which are supposedly identical to your conclusion is quintessential appeal to authority. Let me put it in a categorical syllogism so you can recognize it:

/ Many physicists believe these findings give credence to the existence of a multiverse.
/ Many physicists constitute an authority and authorities are infallible/probably correct <- unspoken but necessary authority premise
// Therefore the multiverse exists/probably exists.

Without the authority premise you don't get to the conclusion. With the authority premise you're appealing to authority, which is a shortcut appropriate in everyday life but not debate. If you can't make the argument yourself you shouldn't be debating a subject and I certainly won't pretend compiling a list of assertions substitutes for an actual argument. I saw Conservallectual do essentially the same thing in his gun debate btw.

Some supporters of the multiverse claim they have found real physical evidence for the multiverse. Joseph Polchinski of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Andrei Linde of Stanford University—some of the theoretical physicists who dreamed up the current model of inflation and how it leads to island universes—say the proof is encoded in our cosmos.This cosmos is huge, smooth and flat, just like inflation says it should be. “It took some time before we got used to the idea that the large size, flatness, isotropy and uniformity of the universe should not be dismissed as trivial facts of life,” Linde wrote in a paper that appeared on arXiv.org in December. “Instead of that, they should be considered as experimental data requiring an explanation, which was provided with the invention of inflation.”

Similarly, our universe seems fine tuned to be favorable to life, with its Goldilocks expansion rate that’s not too fast or too slow, an electron that’s not too big, a proton that has the exact opposite charge but the same mass as a neutron and a four-dimensional space in which we can live. If the electron or proton were, for example, one percent larger, beings could not be. What are the chances that all those properties would align to create a nice piece of real estate for biology to form and evolve?

In a universe that is, in fact, the only universe, the chances are vanishingly small. But in an eternally inflating multiverse, it is certain that one of the universes should turn out like ours. Each island universe can have different physical laws and fundamentals. Given infinite mutations, a universe on which humans can be born will be born. The multiverse actually explains why we’re here. And our existence, therefore, helps explain why the multiverse is plausible.

ADreamOfLiberty, I think your criticisms are very valid but the reasons my arguments are strange is because I wanted to try new things.

"Many physicists believe these findings give credence to the existence of a multiverse.
Following the big bang, the dispense of energy and matter created the inflation of the Universe or as Nasa states the "extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe during its first few moments."
As these theories assert "when the universe grew exponentially in the first tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, some parts of space-time expanded more quickly than others" [4].
Following this idea, subsections or "bubbles" of spacetime likely were created and developed; leading to the possibility of their development into other universes. "

"it's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. "It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously" [7]"

I'm sorry but you have to be completely bonkers to say my whole argument is an appeal to authority.
I mean, did you even read?
I specifically argue that cosmic inflation models all lead to the multiverse. How can you be dishonest?

-->
@ADreamOfLiberty

What appeals to authority? I just quoted scientific consensus, made an argument for the multiverse, and pointed out that PRO dropped it. As in, they literally did not even adress it, even when I was glitched out of a round

This is unjudgable. Let me boil it down:

Pro: There is no evidence (all his other 'arguments' for preclusion were non-sequiters, take the claim that the definition of a universe makes it impossible for example)
Con: Appeal to authority, again, and again, and a third time.

To claim someone had better arguments would be to presume any arguments landed, none did.

The idea of a multiverse multiplies causes beyond necessity which is a big no no in Occam's razor. Which is simpler, multiple universes with different laws of physics or 1 supernatural cause?

vote!

Although you may prove that a multiverse exists, you must also answer the ontological arguments:

First of all what is your definition of a universe?
How would differentiate the difference between a universe and a multiverse?

FLRW, I respect you but your argument can also be used to proven an intelligent designer, so you have to clear out all other possibilities.

One of the most successful theories of 20th century science is cosmic inflation, which preceded and set up the hot Big Bang. We also know how quantum fields generally work, and if inflation is a quantum field (which we strongly suspect it is), then there will always be more "still-inflating" space out there. Whenever and wherever inflation ends, you get a hot Big Bang. If inflation and quantum field theory are both correct, a Multiverse is a must.

Ok Novice, the debate is winning, please make the best rebuttal possible.

-->
@Conservallectual

Something went wrong with my round.
It was not supposed to forfeit

extra link I want to add: https://biologos.org/articles/universe-or-multiverse-god-is-still-the-creator

I'm not a very patient person, so Novice, I hope you respond as soon as possible with the best argument of yours as possible.

In point 16 u meant to say “If 15 is true” rather than “if 16 is true”.

Any thoughts so far?

Multiverse: multiple universes

-->
@Conservallectual

I advise defining your terms in the description. Right now, the movies featuring it existing could be used as a type of existence onto itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWzlQ2N6qqg