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
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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?
In the first round, pro manages to offer some basic arguments in favour that everything is made up of particles. This fulfills his initial burden of proof.
The rest of the debate revolves around examples that con gives relating to things in the universe that are made up of particles.
1.) fields
This was probably the best part - basically talking a lot about wave particle duality. And the nature of quantum theory. A stand out quote here in round 2 from con was:
“How would the particles interact at a distance without a medium or something else connecting them?”
I think pros responses get lighter and lighter on this, his round 3 appears to deviate towards hand waving. Con doesn’t address the specific claims but does drill home the issues with particle interactions and explaining that particles are just the description used for probabilities and continuous waves.
Pros seems to admit he is unable to explain particle interaction, and at this point there is mostly just a back and forth.
Pro is arguing that everything is a particle - con that it’s a wave - ironically neither side fully realizing that this is the whole point of quantum theory!
2.) Quantum strings
Con offers the examples of quantum strings, as strings not particles. There is little challenge to the proposition itself, mostly challenge of wording - that strings are themselves fundamental particles.
This really becomes a semantic battle over what pro meant by particles - and whether strings would count under this description.
3.) abstracts
Con starts arguing about abstracts being not made of particles. The strategy was mostly to ridicule pros argument about abstracts, and give a couple of examples of paintings and spacetime.
If con wanted to nail pro to the wall - space time was where he could have done it. However the argument here fell too far short for me to grant it. Pro was mostly dismissive and just argues space time was an abstract - though could have been nailed on it.
Arguments summary:
In my view con does not press the advantage on waves or space time enough to win. On abstracts and quantum strings, I felt pro clearly had the better of con. Pro raised a couple of great contentions about quantum waves - that did enough to cast doubt on in he contention, but not enough to prove it in his favor.
As a result: I must award arguments as a draw.
Conduct: the conduct here was disrespectful throughout. Both sides had a part to play, so I won’t award it one to one side: but I will say that pro was worse, and I came close to awarding Conduct to con.
All points tied.
In my current worldview, Space to me is like a vacuum of nothingness. I would picture it as being something that naturally wants to be filled because all space seems to mostly be filled with something. So maybe I could consider it a type of force. I could not even fathom what truly empty space looks like.
So here's my ultimate concession. I could probably be convinced of space existing. That's not completely off the table for me. Maybe it could be pixelated, there's theory for that already so it has precedent. the time part is definitely a no go for me so that's the key reason I reject spacetime. I don't think there's anything that could convince me that time exist because all of the evidence unequivocally points towards it being an abstract.
Ya, I'm not really sure where it fits either.. I'm on the fence with this currently. The more I think about it, the more I teeter back and forth haha. It's definitely an interesting topic..
My type 1 existence involves holding space in reality, so only matter and energy fit into it. However, I guess I wouldn't be totally against something being type 1 if it's objectively rooted in reality. This would kind of blur the line between type 1 and type 2, but I don't really start to worry until people start trying to stick type 3 and 4 into type 1. That's where I start finger wagging. So I wouldn't be against that per se since it would still give you good logic.
Right, so I would ask what specifically is bending light? Is it space? or gravity? or friction? or physical interactions.
see when they say universe is expanding. All that seems to mean to me is that objects in space are expanding. I get what you mean. This is just always the point I get hung up on. I just don't see how there needs to be a physical thing called "space" that accounts for these interactions because they all just sound like events to me. Sorry if I'm being obtuse about it, lol. I'm not trying to be. It's just there's certain things that I believe that I cannot make myself unbelieve. It's not that I can't change my mind. but there's some thing that hangs me on that belief and in order to eschew it, I have to be able to see why my hang up is not justified. I think out of all of the abstracts, space is the best candidate for not actually being an abstract. So I'll give you that.
Are you familiar with the Friedmann equations and Hubble's Law? Long story short, it shows our universe (space essentially) is expanding. It's calculated with recessional velocity.
If you're skeptical about space being between things, how would you explain light arcing around a gravitational curve in space? The bend in space actually stretches space (and light); it's demonstrated in spectral line displacements from red shifted light.
I agree that space may not have a tangible "mass", or whatever you'd want to call it, but it does directly interact and impact things contained within it. To me, this makes it a Type 1 existence because it exists and interacts with reality.
Thoughts?
what do you mean by "when space expands outward"?
To me, that sounds like motion. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm skeptical as to if there actually is "space" between things. Most of the gaps between us is filled with neutrinos just flying right through our body.
To me, what makes up "space" is define by the particles we see. when I see expansion, that just appears as particle interactions. That's always been my biggest problem with it is that space appears to only exist because things are filling it. So how do I know it's not just the result of particle interactions creating the illusion of space?
Welcome! We almost got the whole crew here now haha
I agree and ....slightly..... disagree. I do concede it's a "gray" area/topic, and I'm not entirely sure where I stand on it, yet. That's why I threw it out there to pick your brain..
So I can't physically "grab" you a piece of space, but space does have a direct affect on things that I can grab you, like particles. For example, as space expands outwards, it displaces the spectral lines in electromagnetic radiation as it travels across it; it can also bend light as it travels through gravitational curves. Because space has a direct impact on particles, which do have physicality, I would argue it must exist, even though I cannot cut a piece off. It has real observable affects in reality.
Thoughts?
Unmoderated voting? Go to DDO, whiteflame doesn't moderate them anymore lol.
Athias. I probably shouldn't help you since you're going to vote against me, but in the spirit of fairness. All you need to do is highlight each main point and why it did or did not contribute to your decision then you have to weigh the arguments and state your reason for picking a certain side.
For sources, you have to specifically cite at least one source. You can't appeal to quantity, not saying you did, just stating that for measure. You have to explain why you think the sources impacted the debate.
For conduct, there has to be at least 1 forfeit round or you need to cite specific cases of conduct and why you think they're excessive.
I don't usually vote grammar, but I"m guessing it's along the same lings as sources and conduct.
You can put "tied in all others" when you don't award points and you don't have to explain. However, when you tie and argument point, you still have to explain it.
Hopefully this will help you vote better against me, lol. ;)
Happy voting.
More voters = Better
SUPPORT UNMODERATED VOTING.
@Virtuoso: I did not appeal to quantity as far as the sources were concerned. I stated that Con substantiated his arguments with substantial sources. (I'm well aware that the number of sources in and of itself does not offer substance.) As for the argument point, I do not judge an argument by a standard of "agreement," but whether the logical connection between premise and conclusion is sound. I stated the reason Pro's argument was not convincing was that he abandoned his onus to the major premise of his inductive argument--i.e. "Everything we observe is physical." Without this his entire argument falls apart because it's the major premise. And he failed to substantiate said premise. As for conduct, I did point out specific examples. If this does not constitute misconduct, then fair enough. But I did not know that the standard on which Conduct was awarded would be based on extremes, and not the relatives which the question "Who had better conduct?" implicates.
The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
(2) The source point is not sufficient. In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
(3) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Athias // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: Pro chose to argue by induction without substantiating any of his premises, especially the first inductive argument--i.e. "Everything we observe is physical" (major premise.) Without this his series of sequential syllogisms fall apart. He then goes on to focus on particles and string theory, leaving his obligation to the onus he created in Round 1 unsatisfied. While Con does indulge the same focus on String Theory, he provides substantial arguments and sources to substantiate his contention. As for conduct, Pro mentions, "I'm a little bummed out, I was hoping for more contention," and "you're scared to even touch it with real logic..." etc. None of this has any place in a debate. For that, I am willing to award conduct to Con.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
See above
*******************************************************************
Seriously, though thanks for the vote.
More voters = better.
SUPPORT UNMODERATED VOTING.
Oh god it's Athias. Everybody run!!
spacetime existing is the biggest myth in all of physics. The second biggest myth is eleven dimensions.
right. so can you grab me a piece of space and hand it to me? Space is just what physical things occupy. There's even evidence to show that space isn't what we think it is because particles can ignore distance. So it's not a thing because you can't even have space without at least 2 objects to judge it and you can't have time without at least 3 objects. So how do they exist if viewing them is contingent upon particles?
Where does space fall in here? It's physical, because it has affects on physical things (like red-shifting light). It has particles in it, but space itself is not made of particles. Thoughts?
It's not because the light is ACTUALLY bent. I'm not perceiving the light wrong. The light is just coming in at a strange angle. The problem here is that you think we're seeing the spoon. we're not. We're seeing the light that comes from the spoon which makes a mold of it. However, it doesn't matter because we know it's the light and we adjust our brains for it by consciously adjusting how we treat the spoon.
The light is bent but the spoon is not. Your perception of reality is distorted.
Sure, if I stick a spoon in the water and it creates the illusion of bending. Are my eyes wrong or is the light actually bent?
The difference between seeing a bent spoon and bent image of a star is that the spoon is actually bent, and the star is not. So the thing we perceive is not physically existent in the way that we perceive it.
That would be like saying a bent spoon was an illusion .
1. gravity is an event, not a thing and the things that are having gravity are physical.
2. Some physicists think that gravity is cause by a particle, although that really doesn't change the fact that the effect of gravity does not actually exist.
3. We are not seeing distorted light incorrectly. The brain is processing it correctly, but the light that is entering our eyes has been bent in advanced and we can even tell that it's bent and work around it, so this is far from an illusion. We're not falsely seeing light as bent. It's ACTUALLY bent.
"Everything we observe is physical"
What about gravity distorting light? In other words, we perceive things incorrectly.
Hallucinations are another good example. False perceptions that are just as realistic as reality.
Votes plz.
cest la vie
It's cool mate. I get competitive too.
I realize in hindsight that I came off a bit too aggressive in that last statement. I had no malicious intent. It's just the way I debate and I only intend to attack ideas, not people. Just putting that out there.
My bad. C4 was reached using MPP. I forgot to write it the final time, lol.