The Instigator
Jegory
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Fictional_Truths1
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

It is logical to assume there are parallel universes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 3 votes the winner is...
Fictional_Truths1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,295 times Debate No: 35085
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (3)

 

Jegory

Con

Please note: I have made this debate impossible to accept. Inquire in the comments if you wish to debate this topic.

PRO is arguing that it is logical to assume there are parallel universes. CON is refuting their arguments.

This debate is not relying on evidence; it is not PRO's job to provide evidence of parallel universes but to show how they are logical.

BoP is on PRO.

Definitions

LOGICAL - Goes along with logic, NOT relying on evidence

ASSUME - Used interchangeably with "believe"

PARALLEL UNIVERSES - I'll let PRO define this one.

PRO is to begin their arguments immediately and should forfeit the final round to keep it even. Forfeits result in all seven points going to the other debater. Other than this, rules will be kept at a minimum.

I look forward to a very interesting debate! Please inquire in the comments if you wish to accept.
Fictional_Truths1

Pro

Thank you Con for sending me the challenge :)

The way I understand this, Pro must give logical arguments for the existence of parallel universes, and Con must refute them. Therefore, if even one of Pro's arguments goes unsuccessfully refuted, then it will be a victory for pro. Also, Pro forfeiting the final round should not result in a seven-point victory because it was part of the rules. However any other forfeits rightfully give seven points to the opposing side. Let's dive in.
________________________________________________________________________________

In the first round I will simply list logical arguments based on some widely accepted theories about the origin of the universe

1. If the universe was a random occurrence...

P1: The universe was a random occurrence that actually happened
P2: This means that it has a chance above 0.0% of happening
C: Since the universe coming into being was a random occurrence, it must have happened again because of the laws of probability.

2. If an omnipotent creator made the universe...
P1: The universe was made by a divine entity
P2: Therefore, that divine entity must have lived outside of and before the universe
C: That creator lived/lives in another universe.

3. If the universe was created by two membranes colliding

P1: The universe was created by two membranes of higher dimensions clashing with each other
P2: There are other bodies outside of the universe
C: Their must be at least two other universes existing at higher dimensions.


Debate Round No. 1
Jegory

Con

I thank PRO for his arguments. I will now present my rebuttals.

1. If the universe was a random occurrence...

Here, PRO argues that, according to the laws of probability, the random occurrence that created the universe must have happened again. However, I argue that:

1) The probability would be too infinitely small. While it must have been over 0.0%, it still could, and probably would, have been an absolutely minuscule number.

and

2) Seeing as there was nothing before the universe, the universe is everything. Therefore, nothing could escape the universe thus created and the conditions for that random occurrence could not have happened; any further occurrences would have happened inside our universe.

2. If an omnipotent creator made the universe...

Here, PRO is arguing that an omnipotent creator lives outside the universe. Therefore, seeing as the omnipotent being created every universe, he would be outside them all, not in a parallel universe.

3. If the universe was created by two membranes colliding...

I am unfamiliar with this theory; do you think you could post a link to a website explaining it? I will respond to this theory in the next round.

Please present your rebuttals.
Fictional_Truths1

Pro

1. If the universe was a random occurrence

1. "The probability would be too infinitely small". What Con fails to realize is that no matter how small a probability of something happening is, it can still happen more than once. It is just extremely unlikely. However, given that our universe alone is 14 billion years old(1), and there can't be any sense of linear time in a giant space outside of the universes, it would appear that another universe being created would have or will have happened again at least once, because their is an infinite amount of time for another universe to be created. Since their is an infinite amount of time, their is an infinite amount of tries, roll of the dice if you will, for another universe to be created. Say the chance of a universe happening is 0.0000001%. Well that just means that it would take 10 million random occurrences to make a universe.

2. "Seeing as there was nothing before the universe, the universe is everything" This is false. You see, the universe is infinitely expanding(2). If it is infinitely expanding their must be a much larger space holding it. Also, "there was nothing before the universe" is an unsupported assertion. Their could have been a multitude of universes. Also, if the conditions for the random occurrence could not happen again outside of the universe, then how did it happen in the first place when the universe didn't exist?



2. If an omnipotent creator made the universe.

"Seeing as an omnipotent creator created every universe, he would live outside them all". This is an admission by con that their are indeed parallel universes. Also, whose to say that an omnipotent being wants to live in a void for eternity? Wouldn't you think a being with literally infinite power might want a domain of his own to live in?

3: "If the universe was created by two membranes colliding"
Here are the links you asked for.
http://www.wisegeek.com...

http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

Those two pretty much sum it up. Also, they show with purely mathematical and logical reasoning that their are indeed parallel universes.

Sources:
(1). http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

(2). http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...




Debate Round No. 2
Jegory

Con

I thank PRO for his arguments. I will now continue with my rebuttals.

1. If the universe was a random occurrence

However, given that our universe alone is 14 billion years old(1), and there can't be any sense of linear time in a giant space outside of the universes, it would appear that another universe being created would have or will have happened again at least once, because their is an infinite amount of time for another universe to be created

There is not necessarily an infinite space of time outside our universe. If space outside the universe was eternal, time would not exist; how, then, would a universe with a sense of time come about? There could not be an infinite amount of time, therefore there would not be an infinite amount of time so other universes could not exist.

If [the universe] is infinitely expanding their must be a much larger space holding it.

Not necessarily. We have no proof to support either argument here; however, it is logical that there was nothing before the universe. If there was something before, it, how did that come about? It goes on; the only feasible answer is an eternal universe but, as demonstrated in my previous point, this would be theoretically impossible and, therefore, illogical.

2. If an omnipotent creator made the universe.

This is an admission by con that their are indeed parallel universes.

I apologise for miswriting my statement. I'll reiterate my point.

If an omnipotent creator made the universe and there are parallel universes, he would have created the others as well. Therefore, seeing as he lives outside the universe, he would live outside every universe, not inside one of the ones he had created.

Wouldn't you think a being with literally infinite power might want a domain of his own to live in?

The "void" would be his own domain.

3. If the universe was created by two membranes colliding

Thank you for posting the sources, as requested. They have been very interesting and thought-provoking.

Although I am not in any way an expert in either M-Theory or String Theory, it seems to me that the theory proposed relies heavily on the existence of infnite parallel universes. However, an infinite number of something is a theoretical impossibility.

In addition, if the universe is infinite, how could it possibly create a finite universe? Again, another illogical conclusion.

I now pass you back to PRO.
Fictional_Truths1

Pro

1. If the universe was a random occurrence


"If the space outside the universe was eternal, time would not exist, how, then, would a universe with a sense of time come about"

Here Con makes a few mistakes. First of all, if something exists for any length of duration, it has time. Time may not flow the same way that our universe does, but that does not mean it is not there. The void has to be infinitely existing because it is a void, and their is nothing to destroy it. It is just an empty space. I guess you could say that if the universes are gone, the void is destroyed, but the void is still there. Every space in our universe is occupied by some form of matter, but that is not the case in a void, so a void does not have entropy. Also, the void may be eternal, but the universe within the void that has it's own laws of physics could very well not be, since the void is just an empty space and the universe has matter and entropy.

2. If the universe is infinitely expanding their must be a larger space holding it.

"We have no proof to support either argument"

Con specifically asked for no empirical evidence, however we do have mathematical proof that the universe is infinitely expanding, which is pure logic. Logic follows that if the universe which contains matter is expanding, their must be some kind of space holding it.


"It is logical that their was nothing before the universe"

That is not logical. That is an unsupported assertion. This is under the presumption that their were no parallel universes. You cannot just assume that you are correct about the resolution. That is not how logical debate works.


"If their was something before it, how did it come about?"

Perhaps the same way our universe did. If their are indeed parallel universes, then some of them would have been created after our universe. Therefore, our universe would be the "before" universe. The resolution was not about answering the question of where the first universe came from, rather, it is just saying that it is logical to assume that their is at least one other universe. I have shown that it is indeed logical to believe in parallel universes, while Con has committed one fallacy after another by basing his arguments and rebuttals on the assumption that their are no universes. What this means is that he uses circular logic, because "there was nothing before the universe" is both P1 and C.


2. If an omnipotent creator made the universe

"Seeing how he lives outside of the universe, he must live outside of every universe".

Why is that necessary? What logical process of thought got you to that conclusion? Whose to say he wouldn't create his own universe to live in?



"The void would be his own domain"

So your telling me a being with no constraints on his power would choose to live in a barren void? The refutation is self evident.



3. Membrane theory

" An infinite number of something is a theoretical impossibility"


I think you and me have different definitions of infinity. Infinity in my book means constantly producing new ones. You could say life is infinite, if it weren't for those pesky natural disasters.


"If the universe is infinite, how could it produce a finite universe?"

Whose to say the new universe it creates is finite? A universe with infinite size is different than a universe with infinite duration. It is very important not to switch those terms. Just because a universe cannot stop expanding in size does not mean it cannot cease to exist once all of the matter is expanded and gone.

====================================================================================
My arguments have logically proved that their is parallel universes while Con has committed one fallacy after another. I will accept Con's request not to post in the last round, however, it won't matter. I ask voters not to consider any new rebuttals because pro will not have a chance to refute them.




Debate Round No. 3
Jegory

Con

1. If the universe was a random occurence

"if something exists for any length of duration, it has time"

I disagree. Time is the progression of cause to effect; the progression of beginning to end. If something is infinite it has no beginning and no end, so time does not exist within it.

2. If the universe is infinitely expanding there must be a larger space holding it.

"we do have mathematical proof that the universe is infinitely expanding"

Again, I disagree. We have proof that the universe is expandping, but not infinitely so. The universe is qround 13.7 billion years old and, seeing as the speed of light is finite, we can only see into space as far as the light has travelled in that period of time. The universe could be expanding in our area of space while, elsewhere, it could be shrinking back together. We simply do not know.

"[The idea that there was nothing before the universe] is not logical" (and the concurrent point)

It seems PRO has wilfully neglected my arguments in this area. I pointed out that an infinite universe is neither logical nor theoretically possible and has failed to respond to my points in this area.

2. If an omnipotent creator made the universe

"Why is that necessary? What logical process of thought got you to that conclusion? Whose to say he wouldn't create his own universe to live in?"

Earlier in the debate, PRO claimed that an omnipotent being would live outside the universe and now it seems he is going against his own points. If, as PRO said, he lived outside the universe, he wouldn't be inside another one; this goes against his point.

"So your telling me a being with no constraints on his power would choose to live in a barren void?"

Again, PRO claimed God lived outside the universe and, accordingly, outside every universe. Again, he is going against his own points.

3. Membrane Theory

"I think you and me have different definitions of infinity. Infinity in my book means constantly producing new ones."

Yes, I think we both have very different definitions of infinity. In my opinion, infinity is, as I pointed out earlier this round, with no beginning and no end. I apologise for not clarifying this earlier in the debate; if I ever debate this topic again I'll be sure to add infinite to the definitions.

"Whose to say the new universe it creates is finite?"

Time is finite in our universe; why, then, should the universe itself not be?

Conclusion

I thank PRO for this very interesting and thought-provoking debate; it has been my pleasure to debate this topic with you and I hope we can debate together again soon. I request voters are unbiased in their voting and judge this debate fairly. I'll end by sincerely urging you to vote CON.
Fictional_Truths1

Pro

I'll honor CON's request for PRO not to post in the last round, however, I ask voters to strongly consider that PRO has no oppurtunity to rebutt the points stated by CON in the last round.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jegory 4 years ago
Jegory
I'd like to congratulate Fictional_Truths1 on his very well-deserved win. It has been a pleasure debating this topic with you and I hope we can debate again in the near future.
Posted by Jegory 4 years ago
Jegory
In any case, please don't view the last round as a forfeit.
Posted by Jegory 4 years ago
Jegory
Oh, I see what you mean. Sorry :P.

Forfeit, as used instead of "Pro shouldn't produce any new arguments", or something like that.
Posted by Jegory 4 years ago
Jegory
I'm afraid I was forced to forfeit the last round, as agreed with my opponent and as stated in the debate.
Posted by orangemayhem 4 years ago
orangemayhem
"Pro should forfeit the final round" - surely this clashes with "forfeits result in all 7 points going to the other side"? Not very well thought through.
Posted by Fictional_Truths1 4 years ago
Fictional_Truths1
Also, I'm rather curious as to why you gave the conduct point to Con.
Posted by Fictional_Truths1 4 years ago
Fictional_Truths1
What defines space? If "space" is the entirety of existence, it follows that it wouldn't be able to expand because it wouldn't have any boundaries, because their would not be anything around it. "Space" by itself cannot be infinitely expanding if you define it as empty. If you define "space" as fabric that is not made of matter, then it wouldn't truly be a void. For something like "space" which is a fabric to be expanding, their would have to be a void outside of that space. If "space" itself is the void, and you say that matter does not expand along with it, that is a logical impossibility. A void is the absence of stuff, of things, where nothing exists. It cannot expand, because it does not have a frame of reference. For something to expand, it must have a frame of reference, be it a container or an object some distance away.

Also, even if I am ultimately wrong about this, Con failed to refute me. Voting based on your own prior knowledge if it is not included in the debate is a bias vote.

Not only that, but your entire complaint is about one of my points. Con had to refute all of them to win the debate.
Posted by gordonjames 4 years ago
gordonjames
Pro does not understand space in round 2
"You see, the universe is infinitely expanding(2). If it is infinitely expanding their must be a much larger space holding it."

Expansion of the universe = expansion of space-time/
It is not matter flowing out from the Big Bang into empty space, but space itself expanding.

Also, there seems to be some confusion between the "string theory" postulate of multiple dimensions and the thought experiment of philosophy and the postulate of a universe outside our own.

note - the definition of universe - http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence,[1][2][3][4] including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy.[5][6] Similar terms include the cosmos, the world and nature.
Posted by magi800 4 years ago
magi800
No, it is not logical. To assume there are parallel universes means to assume there is an infinite number of possibilities in these universes. The problem is, in an infinite number of these universes, a machine has been made to travel between universes, and an infinite number of owners of these machines will have travelled to this universe. Our universe would be clogged up with people using these machines. Problem?
Posted by Unix 4 years ago
Unix
Logical, possible and probable? Yes.

Anything more then just a thought experiment? No.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 4 years ago
gordonjames
JegoryFictional_Truths1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: pro did not define universe as requested - conduct Both arguments failed to convince me, but pro had BOP so argument goes to CON.
Vote Placed by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
JegoryFictional_Truths1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither party seemed to have a good grasp on what they were debating. They both seemed relatively unversed in cosmological theory. However, Pro knew so much more than Con. I particularly enjoyed Pro's initial syllogisms using probability as a proof, an excellent proof. Con's dogged dismissal of that point illustrates a fundamental lack of understanding for probability mathematics; in an infinite range, any percent possibility of occurrence that is above 0 is equal to a 100% possibility of occurrence. Because of Con's blustering lack of any convincing argument whatsoever, and because of Pro's calm command of logic, I award convincing arguments to Pro. Because Pro actually used sources, I award sources to the Pro. I wanted to award either Conduct or Spelling/Grammar to Pro because of Con's bothersome overuse of allcaps, but I decided it wouldn't be quite fair, especially since Con will likely get no votes.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
JegoryFictional_Truths1Tied
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: A wesk debate because neither side seemed to be very familiar with current theories of cosmology. The resolution debated was "Parallel universes are logically possible." con insisted that evidence not be involved, but the logic works if it's consistent with evidence, and Con ultimately demanded evidence. Con stipulated the existence of a "void" outside of the known universe. con said that God resides in the void, but it implicitly grants a place for parallel universes to exist and thereby grants the logical possibility. Con won argument one; time sequential universes are not parallel universes. However, Pro wins Arg 3 and the debate. Modern cosmology posits 11 or 12 dimensions with parallel universes coexisting in the higher dimensions. Some theories claim a large but finite number of universes.