An actual infinite is possible and does exist.
Debate Rounds (4)
BoP will be on me, but con must provide a refutation to my argument.
1. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
2. No trolling or lawyering.
3. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.
Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.
X is true
Above is true
Above is true
Above is true
We can argue mathematically, abstractly, or philosophically.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu..., "we are, by definition, stuck within the space that makes up our universe and have no way to observe anything outside of it, this ceases to be a question that can be answered scientifically. So the answer in that case is that we really don't know what, if anything, the universe is expanding into." This essentially means that finding the definite answer to that question for sure is likely impossible. Anyways the universe could end in the big freeze or run out of force pushing it apart and be pulled back into itself but I will avoid arguing about this too much because it is a pointless and futile debate.
As for the mathematical portion of this I will argue that numbers don't truly "exist". I don't really have a better word than exist for this. Anyways my stance on this topic is that numbers are really just a way of expressing the physical world. This article http://homepages.math.uic.edu... says that "Numbers do not exist eternally. We have made them" meaning that numbers are really just a clever way of humans describing the world around us. We could use smell, or some other sense instead of numbers to convey information but humans tend to work best through something like numbers. It is again a pointless argument that will likely end in one of us using semantics or something that doesn't pertain to the topic. We can argue this but it will eventually come down to philosophy and not science which I prefer because it provides solid evidence.
As for facts I will argue that there isn't an endless number of facts . The first question is simple. Does a fact have to be true? The second question is simple as well. What constitutes a fact? I will argue that fact is also a way of expressing the world but that they mean something and therefore exist. I believe that 1 fact would be 1=x,x=1,x is one and so on instead of each one being a different fact. Each one sums up the same idea and so they are the same fact stated multiple times. My next point will be that each fact must describe something or is not a fact. There are a limited number of things to describe and so there are a limited number of facts. If a fact must be true then we need a definition of true but I think that the most obvious one is going to be that for something to be true it must accurately describe something in the physical world. The physical world is limited and therefore a limited, though huge, number of true things may be said about it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.