Instigator / Pro
Points: 4

# The universe is made from only one particle

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Science
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Con
Points: 6
Description
The science community has created a gigantic fraud on society by creating a complicated universe. The universe can be describe in much simpler terms according to the principles of Occam's razor. (The simplest solution to a problem is most often the best and most correct solution.)
Round 1
Published:
According to Occam's razor - Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor (Latinnovacula Occami); further known as the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae) is the problem-solving principle that essentially states that simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.

Thus, using this principle we can create a universe with the simplest solution. We can start with the fewest number of particles that the universe can be made of. The answer to this must be, only one particle, because that is the smallest possible number that is available and it is a good starting point. Now, we need to give this particle a shape. What is the simplest possible shape that the universe has to offer? The answer being, the sphere. Yes, the sphere is the simplest possible shape. Well, now that we have established a number and a shape of this particle, we will need to add some states or functions for this particle so that it can create a diverse universe of matter, space, gravity, energy and light. Well, that seems to be a pretty tall order for just one simple particle to perform, so how does this particle do such complex functions?

Firstly, I’ll ask Nikola Tesla to see if he has any clues. “Nikola, how does the universe work?” Nikola says “the number 3 holds the secrets to how the universe works”. Thanks Nicola!  I’ll take your advice and have a close look at nature to see how many times that the number 3 appears. Well, Nikola, it looks like you were right! The number 3 appears to be popping up everywhere when I look at fundamental elements and nature in general.

Let’s make a list of what we can find –
1. The atom has an electron, proton and neutron – well that’s 3!   That’s a good start!
2. The electric plug has 3 points - positive, negative and earth.   Getting better!
3.  In chemistry, there is acid, alkaline and neutral (3)    Wonderful!
4. There are 3 states of matter – gas, liquid and solid. (Note – plasma is just a gas which is being pushed by aether flow)     Pheww!! That was a close one!
5. The human eye has 3 colour selection cones. Red, blue and green. Perfect!
6. The brain sees the world in sections of 3 which is called the rule of thirds. It’s too good to be true, surely!
7. All sub-atomic particles come in groups of 3. Marvellous! That’s just the icing on the cake!
8. The universe has galaxies, solar systems and atoms. Again - 3 systems.
9. The Equation E=MC squared - has 3 elements. Energy, mass and light.

Thus, we can plainly see that the universe uses the number three at a fundamental level for all basic things. Thus, we can interpret this as a consequence that the ultimate particle must have 3 states or functions.
Now, we have established that a sphere has 3 states or functions. So what 3 actions can a sphere in frictionless space perform? Well, I can only think of 3 possible movements that a sphere in frictionless space can do which are left spin, right spin or no spin. Thus, we now have a complete picture of the least number of particles; the simplest shape and simplest functions. Thus, according to the laws of parsimony, the universe would make a fundamental particle in this manner, if it was a logical universe which didn’t have any wastage or superfluous activity.

Published:
Alright, let's just dunk this here; Pro is admitting that there is more than one particle in the universe. Pro is arguing that it is one particle-genome with 3 particle-species so to speak.

This is conceding that there's at least 2 particles in the entire universe. I win.
Round 2
Published:
One particle in 3 states. I win. Thanks for debate.
Published:
Multiple particles (you refer to them in the plural) with there being one  type of particle in 3 types of state of particle.

Round 3
Published:
Multiple particles (you refer to them in the plural) with there being one  type of particle in 3 types of state of particle.
No stupid. One particle! I never referred to 'multiple particles'. You have committed a fraud by using many false and misleading references which don't exist.
Note - 3 states of one particle.( Not particleS.) No plural, no sense, no brains, no hope.
Published:
No stupid. One particle! I never referred to 'multiple particles'. You have committed a fraud by using many false and misleading references which don't exist.

7. All sub-atomic particles come in groups of 3. Marvellous! That’s just the icing on the cake!

Well, I can only think of 3 possible movements that a sphere in frictionless space can do which are left spin, right spin or no spin. Thus, we now have a complete picture of the least number of particles; the simplest shape and simplest functions.
^ This explicitly concedes there are 3 particles at the very least.
Round 4
Published:
You must really hate debating because you are trying to win with a small word based technicality and avoid getting into a complex battle of physics because your knowledge of the subject must be close to zero. Thus, all I can do is return the favour and win by the smallest possible margin of one particle. lol

complete picture of the least number of particles
Thus, my quote specifies "least number of particles" which refers to the least amount of particles, which is indeed, one particle.

Its a pity the block function on this website doesn't apply to debating. It could have saved me so much trouble and time wasting.
Published:
If you apply Occam's Razor to reality, it is very blatant that there's more than one particle even if it's just the same type of particle in many forms. In fact all particles are perhaps illusory units of an even deeper fabric of reality that's fields of energy (if this is all physical) or coding (if this is a simulation),.

I applied Occam's sexy Razor to your big dick arguments and I orgasmed at the notion of a threeway between Shiva Vishnu and Brahma, what if everything is actually triangles and not spherical particles?

Who told you it's all a sphere magically transforming into 3 things? Apply Occam's Razor to reality and we reach the conclusion that particles (of which there are MANY) are either multiple units of reality or merely a stepping stone in the process of making it.
Round 5
Published:
If you apply Occam's Razor to reality, it is very blatant that there's more than one particle even if it's just the same type of particle in many forms. In fact all particles are perhaps illusory units of an even deeper fabric of reality that's fields of energy (if this is all physical) or coding (if this is a simulation),.

I applied Occam's sexy Razor to your big dick arguments and I orgasmed at the notion of a threeway between Shiva Vishnu and Brahma, what if everything is actually triangles and not spherical particles?

Who told you it's all a sphere magically transforming into 3 things? Apply Occam's Razor to reality and we reach the conclusion that particles (of which there are MANY) are either multiple units of reality or merely a stepping stone in the process of making it.

Ah ha! You are actually awake! Welcome to the land of the living. Now we have something that kind of resembles a debate. But, alas, it is the last round and you have wasted 4 rounds with utter nonsense, bluff, trickery, word games and fraud.

I have already shown that the sphere is the simplest 3D object that the universe has. It only has one side. Note - A pyramid has 5 sides. Thus, a triangle or pyramid is more complex than a circle or a sphere. Thus, it wouldn't satisfy Occam's razor.

Note - You are meant to defend the standard model of physics which is the default theory of the establishment. Thus, you have not defended the standard model. Thus, we must conclude that you have no case and therefore forfeit the debate. Thanks for participating. (I think?)
Published:
Then I tell you what if no particles exist? You never proved anything exists as a particle at all. Occam's Razor slice your neck, boom dead bye.

--> @Alec
God forbid that the death penalty would be killing me!
Contender
#23
I didn't know you were being a zombie. If you kill and eat a human being, I would want you to be tried for murder and given the death penalty for murder and cannibalism.
--> @Alec
How will you punish a Zombie?
Contender
#21
If you do, you will get severely punished.
I will eat you alive, no fucking doubt.
Contender
#19
I am sure that both you and ramshutu could get real good roles in the Walking Dead Series............ as zombies. lol
Instigator
#18
--> @Ramshutu
My point is, you made me cry as real as I am trying out for a lead role in this 'movie'. It's not entirely false, and not entirely true.
Contender
#17
Either the lead role, or an executive producer.
--> @Ramshutu
Am I trying out for a lead role in that movie?
Contender
#15
--> @Ramshutu
Just remember what happens to those that make the hero cry, as the story progresses.
Contender
#13
And we have another competitor for the leading role in the new film: Captain Butthurt, and the tears of unfairness.
--> @Ramshutu
If you want to, you are blocked because you are a trash voter who is an immovable object.
If an enemy is both non-negotiable and non-defeatable, you either need to make it clear you disapprove, or make it blatant that you "approve" (depending how vengeful the being is).
Contender
#11
Is that how I should view you blocking me too?
--> @Ramshutu
This guy blocked me to abuse weaker prey. I'm both happy I spoke how I did in this debate and proud to be feared by him/her all at once. Teach them that you can make then sadder and angrier than they make you. Until you become truly sadistic without losing yourself, you either end up a pussy or a bully in life. The balance is a rare thing that beasts like me found.
Contender
#9
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro has to establish his reasoning as to why the universe can be considered to be made of only one particle, the closest he came to justifying his position was: “Thus, using this principle we can create a universe with the simplest solution. We can start with the fewest number of particles that the universe can be made of. The answer to this must be, only one particle, because that is the smallest possible number that is available and it is a good starting point”
This doesn’t seem to provide any reasons as to why the universe is made of one particle, and even starts one particle is merely a starting point for consideration.
The remainder of his opening round appears to be stating there is more than one particle in the universe, repeatedly using plurals, and saying that the universe has three particles. It was completely unclear throughout the specifics of what pro was arguing, leave alone what his justification was.
Con, however seems to be doing his best to try and lose the debate by not engaging in any meaningful way, other with a dismissive counter, and rudeness. If pro had done better to express his position, con would have lost this. However con pointing out that pro repeatedly confuses his own point, then pointing out the absurdity of how a sphere is 3 things in round 4 - combined with pros lack of argument tipped me over the edge from a draw.
This was close - and there was no need for it to be close.
Conduct to pro because of round 4+5 rudeness including “Occam's Razor slice your neck, boom dead bye.”.