The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lemontreecmta
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

It is more plausible that more than one universe exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
lemontreecmta
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,547 times Debate No: 19336
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Illegalcombatant

Pro

!!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!

Pro will seek to affirm that more than one universe existing is more plausible than not more than one universe exists.

NO VIDEO LINKS !!!

PROBLEMS ?

If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.

Round 4

Round 4 is the last round, no new material or arguments are to be presented in round 4. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries.

Definitions:

Its seems its hard to get an exact definition for "universe" that we can use in this debate. I can't allow the definition of universe is the totality of all that exists because then Con can win on a semantic point. There can be only one totality of everything that exists ergo there is only one universe.

So as a comparison the "universe" we live in would include this thing with lots of space, which also includes some other stuff like matter, energy. Of course our universe has more stuff than that in it like stars, galaxies, planets, forces etc.

So by "another universe" I mean something like our universe but distinct from our universe.

!!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank Con for accepting the debate.

Its possible that another universe distinct from ours exists

We know that a universe is possible since we reside in one, and we have no reason to believe that its impossible that another universe can't exist.

A personal cause of our universe can create another universe

One of the most popular claims of the cause of our universe is that it is a personal cause, usually described as "God". Now clearly any personal cause that is capable of creating our universe is capable of creating another universe and even another after that, and even another after that and so on.

A non personal cause/s of our universe can create another universe

But what if the cause of our universe is non personal ? what reason would we have for believing that a non personal cause/s of our universe created our universe first and none other than that ? Any non personal cause of our universe is clearly capable of also creating other universes.

The universe didn't have a cause

But what if the universe didn't have any cause ? If our universe began to exist without a cause, that is to say it came from nothing, then its possible that other univeres came into being from nothing too.

Sheer possibilites

We know there is at least one universe since we reside in it so too speak, so we have two options either.......

1) One universe exists (The one we live in)
2) More than one universe exists

If there were 2 universes then that would come under the 2nd option, if there were 3 universes that would come under the second option, if there were 4 universes that would come under the 2nd option, and so on and on approaching infinity.

The 2nd option has alot more possibilities than the first, thus its more plausible that more than one universe exists.

I look forward to Cons reply.
lemontreecmta

Con

I would like to give a few critiques of Pro's points before giving my own arguments.

First Statement: Pro says we know that a universe is possible, then it is possible that another universe exists. That point has nothing wrong in itself. However, it does not help in any way to support the Affirmative in the question It is more plausible that more than one universe exists? I can say with the same spirit of defending my argument that because we have no knowledge of another universe, it is possible that the universe we are living now is the only universe. Those two assertions (in bold), or hypothetical statements about a possibility, are of the same weigh and do not help to support any side. The Affirmative ‘s first claim, then, can be effectively invalidated.

Personal/Interpersonal/Non-existence Causes: Let me repeat briefly Pro's arguments before giving my critiques. Pro says whatever things creating the universe, it will duplicate its action. In my opinion, this argument relies on a debatable, not solid and well-proved, premise. That premise is that, given the ability to duplicate its action, that thing will ultimately choose to do so. However, we have no information of its motives, characteristics or powers (what if it can only produce one universe) and thus, whether it will choose to do so remain a mystery. The fallacy of the premise thus invalidates this claim as well.
Sheer possibility: Pro then uses the qualitative argument to justify his/her claim. Shortly put, because his/her second option (more than one universe exists) has more possibilities than his/her first option (one universe exists), then it is more plausible. Possibilities then become quantitative or countable, with each holds the same level of plausibility; as the choice which has more possibilities win in the race.

However, now I wish to compare two possibilities and attempt to prove that they are not at the same level of plausibility: one universe exists versus, say, 13247 universes exist. Now which one has more degree of plausibility? Undoubtedly our intuition says the former prevails, because the latter seems to belong only to a larger pattern of possibilities, which includes every number which is larger than one. Thus possibility does not hold the same level of plausibility. Consequently, the degree of plausibility can not be judged solely in quantitative term; the possibility claim can be invalidated.

Having by far given my critiques, I now process to the presentation of my arguments.

First we need to have a proper definition of the word "plausible." In the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (7th edition), Plausible (adj) means reasonable and likely to be true. I will take the latter meaning, for the sake of simplicity, for this debate. To paraphrase this, the topic will be: It is more likely to be true that more than one universe exists.
Now I will negate this claim. There are two possible positions for me to choose: I can support the idea that "It is more likely to be true that one universe exists" or "It is equally likely to be true that one or more than one universe exist." I wish to defend the second position.

My first argument is that the best resource we have from this elusive matter is sheer speculation, which can't ensure the degree of plausibility (or likeliness to be true) of each side. As I mention in my first critique, saying that "we know that a universe is possible then it is possible that another universe exists" is equally convincing in our intuitionist mind to saying that "because we have no knowledge of another universe, it is possible that the universe we are living now is the only universe." Saying that "the thing [which creates this universe] chooses to duplicate its actions" can be as persuasive as saying that "the thing [which creates this universe] chooses not to duplicate its actions." Such arguments may not exceed the position of speculation until science or logic can sufficiently prove otherwise.

My second argument is that any attempt to invent new techniques to assess the degree of plausibility of the speculation, as far as it remains a speculation, is likely to end up in trouble. An early attempt to convert it into quantitative "possibilities" has problems in itself. Counting the number of supporters for each speculation does not help either. Although detailing the problems in each technique does not help claiming that all techniques do not work, it lends somewhat credentials to the ideas that new techniques is unlikely to succeed. A successful critique of this opinion must point out a technique that could actually work.

Therefore it is safe to say that neither sides win in the race of plausibility. Consequently put, it is equally likely to be true that one or more than one universe exists. If this is true, then what the Pro is claiming of the superiority of the degree of plausibility of one side is false.

I look forward to Pro's reply.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank Con for their response.

Definition of Plusability

Con says..."To paraphrase this, the topic will be: It is more likely to be true that more than one universe exists."

I agree with this definition. I am seeking to show that when considering the proposition that more than one universe exists, that this is more likely to be true than false. Not shown to be 100% true, not beyond reasonable doubt, just more likely to be true than false.

The possibility of other universes existing

Con says..."Pro says whatever things creating the universe, it will duplicate its action." That's not the argument, I just made the point that if our universe has a cause, then its possible that what ever the cause of our universe can also be the cause of other universes.

I don't think we have any reason to believe that its impossible for other universes to exist.

Sheer possibilities

Remember there are only two possible answers here either........

1) One universe exists = 1 universe exists
2) More than one universe exists = Anywhere between 2.............infinity.

In response to these two options Con says..."Those two assertions (in bold), or hypothetical statements about a possibility, are of the same weigh and do not help to support any side. The Affirmative ‘s first claim, then, can be effectively invalidated."

I dis-agree, just because you have two propositions doesn't mean they are equally likely to be true so they don't automatically cancel each other out. I have given a reason based on sheer amount of possibilities that of more than one universe existing.

To emphasize this point, consider how many scientists and people respond when asked is there other life in the universe? We don't have any evidence of other life existing, but we do know that life exists at least in one spot (earth), and even with the concession that any given spot you point to in the universe its almost certain that no life exists there, never the less when considering the question due to the sheer scale of the universe and therefore the sheer number of possibilities that exist for life to exist then this tips the balance in favour that other life does exist some where else.

That's why I don't think Cons response about when considering whats more plausible that one universe exists or 13247 exists is an effective reply. Of course its alot more plausible that one universe exists when compared to the proposition of 13247 exists. But that's not the comparison that is been made in my argument, the comparison is between one universe existing and more than one universe existing (anywhere from 2 and up to infinity)

Any number you pick between 2 and infinity will be alot less plausible that one universe existing, just like picking any random spot in the universe will almost certainly not have life, but its the totality of all the possible answers combined that tips the balance that its more likely true that more than one universe exists.

I look forward to Cons reply.
lemontreecmta

Con

I thank Pro for his arguments. I want to begin this round by giving my critiques of the Pro’s defense of his view.

The possibilities of other universe existing

Pro says “if our universe has a cause, then its possible that whatever the cause of our universe can also be the cause of other universes.” I agree that this possibility can not be refuted. Yet it is another story to use this argument to support his claim, that it is more likely that this possibility prevails over the other. This argument makes use only of possibility, not of comparison to the other side. To succeed, Pro must be able to prove that his claim has a higher degree of plausibility, not that his claim is plausible.

Sheer Possibilities

I would like to give a paraphrase of Pro’s argument: each possible answer from 2 to infinite is certainly not as plausible as 1, but the totality of all the possible answers (from 2 to infinite) combined that tips the balance that its more likely true that more than one universe exists. The possibility that one universe exists is a basketball, and the possibility that two (or three, or four, ...) exists is a tennis ball. The basketball could be bigger than a tennis ball, but it can’t be bigger than the combination of an infinite number of tennis balls.

Here is my critique: Pro admits that the first one’s possibility is smaller than the combination of the rest, but he does not cite the method to assess the degree of possibility. He directs us to the example of basketball and tennis ball without clearly show us why the first possibility has the size of the basketball. How can you assess the amount of possibility? Do you use a formula, a theory, or your intuition to assess it? The question of How is still left amiss; I expect Pro’s answer in the final round.

Now I would like to re-strengthen my points.

Pro says “just because you have two propositions doesn't mean they are equally likely to be true so they don't automatically cancel each other out.” No, of course not. I do not only have two propositions. In my presentation, I do give sufficient arguments and analysis to prove that because of the lack of necessary understanding and method required, we have troubles measuring the degree of plausibility of each possibility (one universe exists versus more than one exist). Briefly put, my arguments are that the lack of resources (the best resource we have is sheer speculation) and the lack of method (as far as I know, no method proves workable enough) that hinder a greater insight into the question which can throw its support to one possibility. However, at the present time, a greater insight is simply unachievable. Consequently put, it is equally likely to be true that one or more than one universe exists. This challenges Pro’s claim that the likeliness of more than one universe exists is higher than another.

I expect Pro’s response in the final round.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Pro

The possibility of other universes existing

There is no reason to believe that other universes can't exist.

Cons question

Con says..."Do you use a formula, a theory, or your intuition to assess it?"

The assessment is a side by side comparison of the two possibilities that either one universe exists or more than one universe exists. It's the same kind of comparison when asking the question does life exist only on earth or not only on earth, its a judgment call.

Refuting the claim that its just as likely that one univere exists as more than one universe exists

Con says..."Briefly put, my arguments are that the lack of resources (the best resource we have is sheer speculation) and the lack of method (as far as I know, no method proves workable enough) that hinder a greater insight into the question which can throw its support to one possibility. However, at the present time, a greater insight is simply unachievable. Consequently put, it is equally likely to be true that one or more than one universe

This argument refutes its self, if Con is of the view that we can't make a judgement of the what is plausible concerning the number of universes then Con can't even argue that its just as plausible that one universe exists as more than one universe exists as this is also making a plausibility claim.

To argue that we can't make a plausibility judgment concerning the number of universes while also arguing that its just as plausible that one universe exists as more than one universe exists is a contradiction.

Also Consider the following argument...........

1) We don't know whether one universe exists or more than one universe exists
2) Therefore its just as likely that one universe exists than more that one universe exists

Its a non sequitur, lack of information doesn't make two competing propositions just as plausible. For example going back to the last round when considering which is more likely that one universe exists or 13247 universes exists. Just because we don't have all the information does that mean we are going to claim that these two claims are just as likely to be true ? Of course not.

Point being, we can make plausibility judgments even if information is lacking.

Sheer possibilities and summary

Remember there are only two possible answers here either........

1) One universe exists = 1 universe exists
2) More than one universe exists = Anywhere between 2.............infinity.

Con hasn't provided any argument as to why its more plausible that one universe exists and I think I have effectively countered Cons justification for claiming its just as plausible that one universe exists than more than one universe exists.

I have consistently argued that the sheer number of possibilities of option 2 makes its more likely to be true when compared to option 1.

I submit that its more plausible that more than one universe exists.

Vote Pro.

I thank Con for the debate.
lemontreecmta

Con

Counter Argument/ Rebuttal/ Summary

First I want to give my last critique of Pro’s argument of sheer possibility, or a quantitative approach to measure plausibility in term of intensity.

Pro says what measures the degree of plausibility is his judgment call. I will give no critique of his opinion as long as it is subjective. I want to point out, however, that judgment call does not provide a clear reason why I (or anyone) should believe in his case.

Subjective or objective, however, his quantitative approach has a serious problem. Let me repost his claim:

1) One universe exists = 1 universe exists
2) More than one universe exists = Anywhere between 2.............infinity.

If there were 2 universes then that would come under the 2nd option, if there were 3 universes that would come under the second option, if there were 4 universes that would come under the 2nd option, and so on and on approaching infinity.

Now consider a claim.

1) Novak Djokovic is currently the best male tennis player in the world.

2) Novak Djokovic is currently not the best male tennis player in the world.

A supporter of choice 2 could claim this way: Roger Federer may be currently the best male tennis player; Rafael Nadal may be currently the best male tennis player; Andy Murray may be; or, I may be the best tennis player, as far as I play tennis. Because the number of possibilities in option 2 outweigh option 1 (the number of male tennis players in the world versus 1) then option 2 must be more plausible.

But we know, of course, that claim 1 is better. My point is that we can’t use a quantitative approach, or weighing the sides by counting and comparing their possibilities in some problems because it clearly misrepresents the fact. The Pro’s quantitative approach is, therefore, unjustified.

Now I wish to rebut my position: to deny that the degree of plausibility of the fact that more than one universe exist is higher than the fact that one universe exists.

It is true that we can’t discuss this issue with facts and evidences. Saying that many universe exists because one exists is as persuasive as saying that one universe exists because we can’t prove the existence of other. Saying the cause does create another universe is as persuasive as saying the cause creates only one universe.

Therefore, what Pro says in my opinion is true, but he misses only one word. He says Con is of the view that we can't make a judgement of the what is plausible concerning the number of universes. Well, I am of the view that we can’t make a judgment of what is more plausible concerning the number of universes. This argument only, as stated above in my first presentation, has been sufficient to prove that Pro’s claim of the superiority of plausibility of one side is wrong, regardless of the claim that whether two sides are equal or not.

Summary

My job in this debate is to prove that the claim “It is more plausible that more than one universe exists” is wrong. In three parts of my critque, I believe I have done the following job: to counter Pro’s arguments of quantitative approach (sheer possibilities), of causes that create universe; to point of the impartiality of his claim that if one universe is possible, the other is possible (which does not support his case); and to present my own arguments of the lack of methods and evidences that keep us from deciding the degree of the likeliness to be true of both sides. I believe what I have done is sufficient to convince you of the falseness of the claim that is posted on the head of this page. Thank you for your judgment, no matter of what you choose. I also want to thank Pro profusely because of his great choice of topic and his commitment to the debate.

Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Interesting topic and very well argued by both sides. DDO needs more debates like this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
IllegalcombatantlemontreecmtaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro never gave solid evidence that could imply there is another universe or more than 2
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
IllegalcombatantlemontreecmtaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons argument that plausibility can only be measured by sheer speculation which proves neither side, was very well countered by Pro. However Pro never gave a valid reason as to why it is more likely for one universe to exist so he never affirmed the resolution. Counting the number of possibilities achieves nothing without assessing the weight of those possibilities. When asked to provide a metric for this Pro responds "it's a judgment call". That is fine for supporting faith, but not a debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
IllegalcombatantlemontreecmtaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro anticipated that Con would argue that it was implausible for another universe to exist and did not anticipate that Con would grnt the point and argue that the probability was unknown. Pro could have cited M-theory, which provides reasons why other universe might exist as a mechanism for solving problems in physics. Based solely upon logic, the burden of proof is not met.