Is the future already written/predicted(pro), or it is unstable and dependent upon our choices(con)?
Debate Rounds (3)
If the B-Theory of Time is true, then eternalism is also true.
In order for the future to be able to change, either presentism or possiblism must be true. If presentism or possiblism is true, then the A-Theory of Time is true.
Under the A-Theory of Time there is a definite "now", meaning time is a constant. General and Special Relativity refute the A-Theory of Time and actually support the B-Theory of Time (thus supporting eternalism).
Furthermore, delayed wait in quantum physics can be explained with retrocausality, which would be direct support for eternalism.
Last, recent experiments in quantum physics has time as an emergent property, which goes against the A-Theory of Time and supports the B-Theory of Time.
Now, with all this support of eternalism we can safely say that the future exists, thus making it so the future cannot be changed.
I will provide my sources used in another round.
lord_starscream forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con forfeits the final round, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. Thus, conduct to Con. S&G - Tie. Both sides maintained fair and adequate S&G. Arguments - Pro. Con did not respond to any of Pro's arguments, that related to determinism being vindicated by the B-theory of time that is entailed by general relativity, special relativity and experiments from quantum mechanics. Con does not respond to these, requesting Pro for their sources to respond--Pro provides the sources, but Con forfeits the final round, thus being unable to refute Pro's contentions. Sources - Tie. Pro was the only one to present sources, so a standard of "more reliable" is incoherent here. Thus, conduct and arguments to Pro. And, as always, I'm happy to clarify this RFD.
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.