Everything that exist is made up of elementary particles
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
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.
P1a. Everything we observe is physicalP2a. We observe consciousness.C1. If (P1a and P2a), then Consciousness is physical. MPP
P1b. All physical things are particles.P2b. Consciousness is physicalC2. If (P1b and P2b), Consciousness is a particle. MPP
P1c. If abstracts exist , then abstracts can be observedP2c. Abstracts cannot be observedC3. Therefore, Abstracts do not exist. MTT (P1c)(P2c)
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?
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.
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.
I'm a little bummed out, I was hoping for more contention.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Explain how particles interact at a distance with no actual contact if there aren't fields and waves which are not made of 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
All particles have either a charge or no charge and that is what causes literally all motion in the universe.
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.
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.
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.
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.
how do you account for consciousness? Magic?