The Instigator
way12go
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FuzzyCatPotato
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Everything or 100% Existence and, Life the subset of Everything is a Machine.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
FuzzyCatPotato
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 863 times Debate No: 63506
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)

 

way12go

Pro

We live in our home. Our home is 100% Finite Existence or World or Universe or Everything.

This Everything collectively known as Single Entire World or just World is a Machine.

World is a Machine.

Life is a subset of this Machine.

Life is a Machine.

Entire World is one Changing World. Changes are localized or can be said to have Frames of reference.

So one World has many events or different parts changing or having different clocks.

Everything is a variation or picture or event. There are unlimited variations or pictures or events.

Life also has unlimited individuals differing is something chemical and also differing in patterns.

Life is a machine.

Some machines have logic, some reasoning and, some both.

Every word in dictionary is related to Life's patterns, stories, emotions, possibilities, memories, simply put variations.

Life is a machine.

Machines have variations.

You are a machine.

I am a machine.

We are machines.

Machine or Machines are constantly changing.

My final word: No no I'm not dieing... lol

Life is a machine.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Definition of a machine from https://www.google.com...:
"an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task."

Pro must prove that the entire universe has several parts that work together to perform a particular task. Pro has not fulfilled any of these three burdens.
Debate Round No. 1
way12go

Pro

I'm the author of a Mathematics-Physics theory, which is named as "Fundamental Theory Of Existence". I provided the reasons why our World is a machine in my blog. Here you go.

http://sagargorijala.blogpot.in...
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

First, the blog post that Pro is referencing (http://sagargorijala.blogspot.in...) has 84,507 characters. It is impossible to post any arguments over 10,000 characters on Debate.org without breaking the rules. As such, I choose not to respond to Pro's blog post, because it would not be possible for it to appear on Debate.org. Instead, I ask Pro to provide a concise version of his argument.

Second, the blog post that Pro is referencing never gives an argument for the universe being a machine. The entire blog uses the word "machine" only 11 times, 2 of which are the titles of the blog post, and the other 9 of which occur in the statement "World is a machine. Life is a machine. Sagar Gorijala: I'm a machine and, I've to become a better one," which appears 3 times. As such, there's no argument for the universe being a machine in the cited source.
Debate Round No. 2
way12go

Pro

What my theory proves is ... Gods can't exist. You do agree non-life is mechanical in nature, don't you? Evolution is non-life turning into life. World is a machine and life which has a beginning unlike World and, Life being the subset of World is also a machine.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

RESPONSES

Pro: "What my theory proves is ... Gods can't exist."

This is irrelevant to whether or not the universe is a machine.

Pro: "You do agree non-life is mechanical in nature, don't you?"

No. If non-life is a machine, then non-life would have to work together to perform a function. I do not see any function that non-life is performing. Thus, I cannot say that non-life is a machine, though it is possible.

I remind Pro that the burden of proof is on Pro, not Con.

Pro: "Evolution is non-life turning into life."

No, that's abiogenesis [1][2].

Pro: "World is a machine"

Where was this demonstrated?

Pro: "and life which has a beginning unlike World and, Life being the subset of World is also a machine."

First, even if life is proven to be a machine, it is only a portion of the world, as Pro agrees. This debate is over whether "100% Existence" is a machine.

Second, life has not been proven to be a machine.

REFERENCES

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
way12go

Pro

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

ma"chine (m-shn)
n.

4. An intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body.

An intricate natural system - Everything
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Pro states that the entire universe is a machine because a machine may be defined as "An intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body."

This definition fails in three ways.

First, Pro must prove that the entire universe is an intricate natural system, not just parts of the universe. Pro has not proven that everything is an intricate natural system.

Second, "intricate" is defined as "having many interrelated parts or facets; entangled or involved: complex; complicated; hard to understand, work, or make:" [2]. An intricate entity must have many interrelated parts (ie, parts that work together), which Pro has not proven that the universe has.

Third, this definition clashes with my definition of a machine, and we have no evidence that Pro's definition is any better.

Thus, Pro has not yet proven that the universe is a machine.

REFERENCES

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 4
way12go

Pro

My blog address has been changed to the below address...

http://19january1980.blogspot.in...

If you take a glass of sand, every sand particle below is responsible for the position of every sand particle above. This is our World, a machine.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

My opponent likens the universe to a glass full of sand, where particles below hold particles above upwards. My opponent has proven neither that a glass full of sand is a machine, or that the universe is comparable to a glass full of sand.

Vote Con.

Reasons to vote Con:

Grammar: Pro stated that, "No no I'm not dieing... lol," which has numerous grammatical errors.

Arguments: Pro has not made any unrefuted arguments, defended any attacked arguments, or even come up with a better definition of a machine. Con has refuted all Pro arguments. Since the BOP is on Pro, Con wins.

Sources: Pro has used 1 source. Con has used 3.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
I wish I had voting privileges =P
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
Have you studied any science?
Posted by way12go 2 years ago
way12go
My blod address is changed to the below address...

http://19january1980.blogspot.in...
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
That is not how a theory is formed. You don't yet have a theory.
Posted by way12go 2 years ago
way12go
If you want to help me, can you please watch the 48 minute video again and again and, can you read the blog again and again and come with your own postulates? We then will have two authors and a new theory.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
Which journals have you submitted to? Many journals accept papers that are much more abstract than what you wrote.

Of course it wouldn't be accepted as is. It needs to be written up properly. If you think it is a legitimate theory, however, you should write it up properly and submit it for review. It is not proper to claim it is a legitimate scientific theory if it hasn't even been reviewed and confirmed as a theory yet.

I can tell you right now that anyone with a university education in pure mathematics will have problems with some of your interpretations.

If you want, I will debate you on your theory from a scientific and mathematical perspective to point out where you need to make improvements to gain acceptance.
Posted by way12go 2 years ago
way12go
I don't know how to compile it as a research paper. It contains basics and the abstract would be funny to read. When I submitted the theory to one or more journals (in its crude form) they said they don't accept such theories.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
Oh, so it's not that they contradict. They're just poorly written.

Again, do you plan on submitting this to a scientific journal at some time?
Posted by way12go 2 years ago
way12go
There are two types of time.
Time = Change = Is relative time. This TIME is always inite.
Second type of TIME is calender time.
Calender TIME = Number and this is infinite.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
If there is no beginning or end to the world, for how long does the world exist?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
way12goFuzzyCatPotatoTied
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: pro's arguments make no sense. Also, fuzzy, there's like 177 days left so don't rush it too much.