The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

0=nothing=information, 1=something=matter

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 602 times Debate No: 73590
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




pick up 0 sodas from the floor

i can cut an apple in 4 pieces, and then resemble the apple and have it look like i got a full apple, but i have an apple in 4 pieces

1+0=1 is a false equation, 1 can not be added to 0, so its just 1, 1 banana + 0 bananas dosnt mean 1 banana dissapears and neither is 0 bananas added, it simple cant happen, and i still have 1 banana..

so 1+0(1)





I accept.

1+0=1 by Pro's own logic. Mathematically, 1 banana + 0 bananas means it still remains as one banana, as nothing was added. Pro's logic defies themselves in this matter. Pro must prove that 1+0 is an impossible equation.

The primary aspect of the resolution which I question is that information is nothing.

OB1. Pro must prove every aspect of the resolution, whereas I need to only refute a single aspect to render the resolution baseless.

I challenge "information=o" or "information=nothing".
Debate Round No. 1


there is no your and my logic, logic is determined by existence as it is

0 can not be added to 1. pick up 0 sodas from the floor. imagine a sticker of your choosing, supernatural flamethrowing dragon sticker, and put it on a soda in your hand, or on your table...




As I mentioned in OB1, Pro has to prove that information is nothing, and 1 is matter. 1 may even be a unit to measure energy. Now I will show you how 0 can be something while the net value is nonetheless 0.

According to the zero-energy universe hypothesis, which is widely accepted by physicists because of the homogeneity of the universe, the vector force of gravity acts as negative energy over the scalar positive energy, that cancel out each other in the universe. Therefore, the some of all energy in the universe is zero, but the universe has some energy nonetheless. [1]

1 can also be a value of non-matter energy.


Debate Round No. 2


anything is 1

i dont believe in a universe

positive and negative creates a balancing point.. its not 0, like with a magnet, dosnt mean there is no energy in it... i have never heard anything as silly as that argument really

if i burn you with a lighter, is it nothing?


"Positive and negative creates a balancing point, it's not 0 ..."

This must be demonstrated. 1 +(-1) =0, according to standard mathematics. The zero-energy universe hypothesis perfectly demonstrates that the net value is 0, but there is energy in it. All of Pro's arguments are bare assertions.

I extend all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


energy is not nothing..


Precisely. Energy is not nothing, even when its net value is 0. Therefore, 0 is not nothing. Furthermore, Pro still has not proven that information is nothing, or refuted any of my arguments. I extend all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4


thats what im saying.. energy is not 0


That is a bare assertion. Via. the homogeneity of the universe, I have demonstrated how the sum of all the energy in the universe is zero, but nonetheless there is energy. The resolution is negated. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
hm, either experience is the source of existence, or existence is the source of experience
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
hm my perception of true cant exist without my perception of false*
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
how could there be a true answer, without there being a false answer?
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
true cant exist without false
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
Just to help clarify this (please correct me if I am wrong, vi_spex), he is essentially saying that zero does not exist in reality and therefore, it is false. Treat his usage of "true" and "false" like a binary code indicator of whether the subject exists in perceived, current reality or not. For instance, beliefs (which he deems as future/imagination) do not exist, being a cognitive image/prediction, so they are inherently false (non-existent).

Regarding this debate, since vi_spex never spells out what he means in laymen's terms and never provides definitions, the standard English definitions are assumed. The presentation of mathematical equations without any alternate explanation does not infer any other meaning than the universally accepted basic mathematical principal.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's demonstration of the zero-energy universe was accurate. The sum of all energy in the universe adds up to a net value of zero, but the universe is nonetheless not empty of energy, as clearly illustrated in the image of the zero-energy genesis. The ZEU is completely accurate and proven to be likely by the fact that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous. Con's OB1 allows them to disprove a *single* aspect of the resolution to win, which they did. ALL Pro's arguments were *bare assertions*, and did not aid the resolution. Overall victory to Con.