Instigator / Pro
4
1495
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#3632
3D space is the only existence. (The 1st, 2nd, & 4th dimension can't exist).
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 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Dimensions that exist.
Height
Width
Length
"3D"
We can conceptualize what it might be like to live in a 2D world... but not really. Our perception of that idea is just a fun thought experiment. When you are looking at drawing of a circle, you are actually looking at something that has 3 dimensions. The fibers of the paper, the ink from a pen. The things you perceive are not what are existing.
This is why the a 4th dimension can only exist in theory. It can never take up physical space.
If you can define a 4th dimension you find it is something that already exists in out 3D world. Some might say "Time" is a 4th dimension, which yeah ok, if you are going to define a 4th dimension time seems nice. But Time doesn't take up 3D space. Time also exists in our 3D world... which is why it isn't a very good example of a 4th dimension for this debate.
Just because we can perceive what it might be like to be in a 2D existence, doesn't mean its possible. Take any one think in the real world that exists and eliminate height width or depth. It can no longer exist. It would be like dividing by zero.
I think the 4D is just as realistic as 2D. Entirely hypothetical.
1. Self-contradiction
Pro must prove these two claims to be separately but simultaneously true in order to win this debate due to the default BoP on Pro.
- Only 3D space can exist
- The 1st, 2nd, and 4th dimensions do not exist
However, as we know, the 3D space requires 3 separate dimensions, whether being understood as time or space. For example, the chair that I am currently sitting on as a 3 dimensional being space-wise has a length, width and a height, all three of them counting as dimensions.
Of course, any existent space with three separate dimensions in space could be considered 3D. However, what Pro is proposing in the latter part of the topic statement is that the 1st and 2nd dimensions cannot exist. This would leave us with only the 3rd dimension in the space, which is a single dimension no more distinguishable than the average 1D space to be considered.
Not only that, the assumption of there existing a 3rd dimension without having the 1st or the 2nd would be logically fallacious, as the first and the second makes the third dimension...the third dimension. The second place of a competition, for example, exists based on the assumption that a first place entity exists. The Second movie of a series is based on the notion that there would be a first one. Removing the first two, and the third dimension would be the first(and only) dimension in existence if there is nothing else. You don't call the only dimension in 1D space the "third dimension". The second part of the topic assumes that the third dimension as well exists not, which hints that a 3D space NOT existing, contradicting the first part of the topic.
2. Blatant concession
Dimensions that exist.HeightWidthLength"3D"
So the 1st and 2nd dimensions do exist according to my opponent. Case closed. Vote Con.
Round 2
- Only 3D space can exist.
I.E. To exist in reality, these three dimensions (no more, no less) can are required.
what Pro is proposing in the latter part of the topic statement is that the 1st and 2nd dimensions cannot exist
Height Length Width are a total of 3 Dimensions. All of which are required for a single existence.
The 1st, 2nd, & 4th dimension can't exist.
The Second movie of a series is based on the notion that there would be a first one.
If you are thinking any value of this debate could be had by ~"if you can count to 3 that means you prove 1 and 2 exist" then I'll concede. I'll take the loss under the frame that you couldn't grasp the question. I have to admit though, I'm shocked you would want to debate that topic. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Perhaps I update the frame of the topic so you can understand:
"Only 3D space can (have an) exist(ence) in physical reality. Meaning you need all 3 dimensions to be physically real. No less. No more."
For example:
- An object having exactly 1 dimension - imaginary
- An object having exactly 2 dimensions - imaginary
- An object having exactly 3 dimensions - Real
- An object having exactly 4 dimensions - imaginary
- An object having exactly 5 dimensions - imaginary
- etc.
Up to you if you want to continue.
I'll concede and say I messed up if you didn't understand the purpose of the debate and thinking it was against an opponent who couldn't count to 3.
My bad....
If however, you understood the debate, or can actually grasp it now (especially after readying my first argument), then I'd love to continue.
I don't feel there's any need to say more than I did the first round since it is all still valid and you'll probably ask to stop the debate. I won't be mad. Just disappointed if you or anyone else would have an actual valid counter argument "newly understood topic".
Misc. Rebuttals
Height Length Width are a total of 3 Dimensions. All of which are required for a single existence.The 1st, 2nd, & 4th dimension can't exist.
Pro is confusing the 3rd dimension with the existence of three dimensions, and if we interpret these two statements with logic, we can realize that the first one negates the second one from being true.
If you are thinking any value of this debate could be had by ~"if you can count to 3 that means you prove 1 and 2 exist" then I'll concede. I'll take the loss under the frame that you couldn't grasp the question. I have to admit though, I'm shocked you would want to debate that topic. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The responsibility is on Pro, the instigator of the topic. Pro did not make his "real" question clarified enough, but Con has made himself pretty clear that his interpretation is directly based on the topic statement. I have to admit though, I am shocked you would want to debate that topic.
I'll concede and say I messed up if you didn't understand the purpose of the debate and thinking it was against an opponent who couldn't count to 3.
Except this is against an opponent who DID count to three then denied the thing he collected counting to three. At best, Pro gave an argument that does not prove what the topic says. Also, a debate topic has no other inherent purpose than having itself existent to be discussed by two(or more) parties. I have attempted to do that, as shown.
Reiteration
- The existence of a third implies that a first and a second must have existed or should exist. The second floor suggests there being a floor under it, at least planned. Negating the existence of the "first dimension" in a 3D space would negate all dimensions from existing, which negates a 3D space from existing, thus making the debate topic impossible to prove to be true.
- Pro concedes the fact that there are 3 dimensions, length\width\height. This alone negates the latter part from being true, meaning that this is essentially concession.
- My interpretation is strictly based on what the topic says, so there should not be any doubt whether I understand the question correctly. If any misunderstanding were to take place in this debate, it is simply not my fault.
- Case closed, vote Con.
I will vote on this debate, please vote on mine.