The Instigator
SubTh3ory
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
V5RED
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Our Reality Was Possibly Caused by a Being That Can Be Defined As God

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 1 vote the winner is...
V5RED
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,561 times Debate No: 80217
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (75)
Votes (1)

 

SubTh3ory

Pro

My Introduction:
My name is Paul and I hail from Clarksville, TN.
I used to be a devout Christian. I joined the Navy and eventually found myself to be an atheist after studying religion, History, Science, and multiple other general things about our world.
Later on, I started dabbling in Quantum Physics and was finding it hard to maintain my new Materialistic worldview. I was stuck between Atheism and religion and I couldn't go back to religion without being intellectually dishonest. My eventual landing position was Philosophical Theism. This is a position that does not include religious dogma. It is, simply put, the belief in the existence of something that can be generally defined as 'god'.

==============================================================

As this is my first debate, and I am not formally trained in this sort of thing, I apologize for my seemingly rookie terminologies.
I will do my best to clearly articulate my position and define difficult terms to the best of my knowledge.

The topic of debate is focused on the existence of a causal agent that can be described as 'god'.

For the purpose of this debate, the definition of god is going to be defined as:

" Conscious
" Processes Platonic Information
" Has access to our four initial dimensions (x, y, z and time)

Any other characteristics are essentially unnecessary to the definition of such a being. Consequently, any other characteristics are also unnecessary towards the existence or non-existence of such a being.

The conditions for debating this topic are to agree with the general definition of 'god' as defined in this debate. I am aware that the concept of god is essentially abstract and, as a result, is difficult to narrow down.
The purpose of this debate is not to prove the existence of any such being. Rather, the purpose of this debate is to open the possibility to a perspective of a reality with an intelligent cause via experimental data alone.

There are four (4) rounds in this debate:

Round 1 -
I gave the definition of 'god'.
CON will accept the debate by also accepting the definition of god for the purpose of this debate. If CON would like, you can also introduce yourself and tell us a little about who you are (optional, of course).

Round 2 -
I will be providing an argument for the existence of 'god'.
CON will have the opportunity for their first rebuttal of the argument provided in this round.

Round 3 -
PRO's response
CON's rebuttal

Round 4 -
PRO and CON conclude the debate.
V5RED

Con

I am in a very similar debate and much like my opponent in that debate, you have the burden of proof. You must demonstrate that a God is a possible being. I will point out some rebuttals in advance to avoid common apologetics that people use when making the argument you seem to be making.

If you plan to use logical possibility, you should be aware that logical possibility is only useful to rule a thing out as being possible. All logical possibility is is a test for contradiction. That a thing is logically possible only means that your definition for the thing is noncontradictory, but it does not come close to demonstrating that the thing is physically possible.

To do that, you will need to demonstrate a justification for this god being physically possible. Making arguments like "the universe is complicated, so it can't come about without a creator" are old bad apologetics. Even if they weren't flawed(they are just reworked arguments from ignorance), they are more supportive of a universe creating pixie than an all powerful god because the pixies only assume the necessary power and the god throws in many unnecessary attributes. BTW physicists have discovered methods by which matter can spontaneously come into existence. The properties of the universe allowing for this fill the role of your gods very well and unlike gods, we have evidence for this and it makes no unnecessary assumptions.

Another tack people often take is saying the universe was clearly designed because of its complexity. That a thing is big or complex by our standards does not mean it was designed. My body naturally produces very complicated and specific cells to keep me alive, but those are clearly not designed. There is no designer, it is just the natural process of my body functioning. If I draw a square, that square is clearly designed because it has a designer, me, but it is extremely simple compared to cells.

I have no burden of proof since all I am arguing is that there is no justification for your claim that it is possible that a god created the universe. If I claimed that it was impossible for a god to create the universe, then I would need to demonstrate that, but I have no means to demonstrate that.

Hopefully this opening will keep us from delving into arguments that I have heard many times because I am interested in hearing something fresh, and who knows, maybe you will convince me that a god is possible.
Debate Round No. 1
SubTh3ory

Pro

I appreciate the Contender, V5RED, accepting the his/her roll in this debate with me.
I want to point out some things before I type out my argument. One: I do not expect to convince you that god exists in any way. Two: My goal is to show that reality according to Quantum and Digital Physics has opened a more experimental approach to the possibility of something that can be roughly defined as 'god'.

What I want to demonstrate in my argument is this

1.) Local Realism is false and Quantum Mechanics has demonstrated this.
2.) Quantum Mechanics (weirdness) applies to everything.
3.) There are ways in which you can attempt to falsify this via showing Bells Inequality has not been violated.
4.) The universe is computable (i.e. information).
5.) The universe is likely a hologram, and we can test this.
6.) The information that makes up our universe is being processed by a mind.

"Quantum experiments hint at a worldview that has not yet been grasped. The existence of something beyond what we usually consider physics " beyond what we usually consider the "physical world".
- The Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness

1.) Local Realism is false and Quantum Mechanics has demonstrated this.

Quantum mechanics began its tests with particles (i.e. electrons, protons, etc.)
The particles (or matter) behaved like waves of probability when not being measured, and like balls of matter while being measured.
( http://physics.mq.edu.au...;)
( http://physics.about.com... )
( http://web.mit.edu... )
This implied either that the detectors were screwing up the results, or that matter is not really as stable as we originally thought it was.
The results of experiments seemed to show that matter is dependent on observation, or 'measurement', to exist in any defined location.

We also found that two particles connected by Entanglement can somehow communicate with each other instantaneously at any distance in space. This phenomena was called "spooky action at a distance" by Albert Einstein.
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (Later known as the EPR Paradox) came together to find a 'local hidden variable'. This hidden variable is something that would connect the particles somehow to show that reality wasn't as "spooky" or strange as the experiments were implying.
( http://www.drchinese.com... )

Other experiments were devised to remove the problem of the detectors in order to show that it wasn't the detectors causing the problem.
The Delayed Choice Quantum Erasure proposed by Scully and Dr M6;uhl in 1982 ( http://arxiv.org... ) ( http://einstein.drexel.edu... ), was the experiment that drove us further down the rabbit hole.
The experiment succeeded in showing that the detectors played no role in the interference and clump patterns shown by the particles.

However, local realism has been violated:
http://phys.org...;(All loopholes have actually been successfully closed recently)

http://www.pnas.org...;

http://journals.aps.org...;

2.) Quantum Mechanics (weirdness) applies to everything.

The data has been done for large enough objects to see with the naked eye. As the experiments use larger and larger subjects, physicists no longer doubt the results will be the same.
Time moves along less like an analog clock and more like a digital clock with individual, computable states. Each state containing a specific amount of information
As the experiment is scaled up in size, at some point quantum behavior (interference) should give way to classical behavior (no interference). But how big can the particles be before that happens?

Quantum Mechanics shows that not only particles are defined by interference, but much larger objects as well. The results repeat no matter how large the object being used in the experiments.

Quantum Interference is shown in large organic molecules -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;

Imaging of the experiment, as well as the equipment used:
http://www.nature.com...;

Leggitts Inequality:
http://arxiv.org...;

3.) There are ways in which you can attempt to falsify this via showing Bells Inequality has not been violated.

If you can show that Bell's Inequality has not been violated, you will win a Nobel Prize:
The Quantum Randi Challenge: http://arxiv.org...;

Bell"s Inequality:
http://www.nature.com...;

http://www.nature.com...;




4.) The universe is computable (i.e. information)

This fourth premise is highly supported by several different forms of data. However, I am going to focus on one in particular.
Our universe is purely made of information. Much like your computer screens can show virtual worlds like Minecraft or The Sims, our universe acts similar.
Theoretical Physicist Sylvester James Gates has discovered, at the very base of our universe, computer code. This computer code is made of bits of "ones" and "zeros". Our universe is made of binary code.

James Gates Essay on Adinkras:
http://www.onbeing.org...

Physical Review:
http://arxiv.org...

This is a clip of James Gates explaining his discovery:
https://www.youtube.com...


This leads many to the notion that we are, in some way, a hologram of projected data.
And we have evidence for this. Which leads to my next premise:

5.) The universe is likely a hologram, and we can test this.

Physicists such as Yoshifumi Hyakutake and colleagues of Ibaraki University in Japan have previously provided convincing evidence for the idea of holographic universes:
http://arxiv.org...


"In this article we provide the first quantitative evidence for the gauge/gravity duality at the level of quantum gravity. We perform Monte Carlo simulation of the dual gauge theory in the parameter regime that corresponds to a quantum black hole. Our results agree precisely with a prediction for an evaporating black hole including quantum gravity corrections. Thus we find that the dual gauge theory indeed provides a complete description of the quantum nature of the evaporating black hole."
The evidence provided by the Physicists at Ibaraki University of Japan show that the information that is projected into a black hole by information at the edge or the "event horizon", actually occurs at a cosmic scale.

http://arxiv.org...
- Yoshifumi Hyakutake

Is this concept testable?
Absolutely. The concept is currently being experimentally tested at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
http://www.fnal.gov...;
I've sent an email to FNAL with a request for the results of the experiment. The data is expected to be reviewed this year.

The experiment is searching for "holographic noise" at the fundamental level.
"If we find a noise we can"t get rid of, we might be detecting something fundamental about nature " a noise that is intrinsic to space-time," - Fermilab physicist Aaron Chou
The noise is found by using two separate interferometers situated on top of one other. Each interferometer sends a one-kilowatt laser beam (the equivalent of 200,000 laser pointers) at a beam splitter. Then, once the light beams are split, they travel down two perpendicular 40 metre arms. Next, the light is reflected off a mirror back to the beam splitter, where the two beams finally recombine. However, during this journey, even the tiniest vibrations can interfere with the light's frequency, causing fluctuations in the brightness of light.
The analysis of the light fluctuations is critical to the results of the experiment. It enables them to discover whether space itself is vibrating.
These vibrations will be the "holographic noise".

Other experiments are being done by a group of Physicists at the University of Washington looking for "signatures" that would indicate our universe is graph-like, much like you would use in a 3-dimensional world in a virtual system.
( http://arxiv.org...;)
And here's the laymen presentation of the PDF:
( http://www.int.washington.edu... )


6.) The information that makes up our universe is being processed by a mind.

If the cosmos is information, where is the information coming from?
We know that simulations of virtual realities can be processed via computers. However, in order to build a computer to process every qubit of our universe, one would need to create a computer larger than the universe itself. It's not practical and largely unnecessary to postulate.
However we do know that our brains can process information much more smoothly and compactly into platonic information.
The above science has shown, however, that the brain is also a part of the hologram. Therefore, the matter that makes the brain is also observer dependent.
That means that the mind is fundamental and can be a separate entity. ( http://m.phys.org... )
( http://www.projects.science.uu.nl... )
If this is true, then our universe can more simply be explained by inferring a mind processing the universe through platonic information processing.
This mind would be a cosmic mind that envelopes all of space-time in our four dimensions.


"What I mean by 'consciousness' is, consciousness is the one thing that cannot be an illusion."
- Sam Harris
V5RED

Con

I will start my rebuttal by seeing what happens if I accept all of your premises at face value.

1.) Local Realism is false and Quantum Mechanics has demonstrated this.
2.) Quantum Mechanics (weirdness) applies to everything.
3.) There are ways in which you can attempt to falsify this via showing Bells Inequality has not been violated.
4.) The universe is computable (i.e. information).
5.) The universe is likely a hologram, and we can test this.
6.) The information that makes up our universe is being processed by a mind.

I don't really see an argument here. I see 6 independent premises. Now going into what you say about these, it looks like the only ones that are material to reaching your conclusion, that it is possible that a conscious being exists that is responsible for our universe, are 4, 5, and 6. The other 3 just are assertions about quantum theory being demonstrably true.

So let's assume that the universe is a computable hologram that is processed by a mind. This would still require an explanation for that mind. The most reasonable explanation would seem to be that a sufficiently advanced race has made a self-aware computer program, not that this is all existing in some magic being's mind. We have evidence of computer programmers and it would be arrogant(and an argument from ignorance fallacy) to assert that a non magical computer programmer could never write a program that would fit our universe just because we can't understand how the programmer would do it. We have no evidence for minds existing without brains. Even a sentient computer program would have a brain of sorts, the computer. Your model would seem to require the possibility of a brainless mind.

This then leads to the problem that if you are calling a sufficiently advanced natural being a God, then I do not see a point in even using that label. I mean technically your definition of god fits me since I am conscious, process platonic information, and have access to 4 dimensions. If you are willing to say that I am god, then yes gods exist, but maybe you meant to add more to your definition. If so, please explain why I am not god.

Now, I have some serious objections to your premises. I will ignore 1, 2, and 3 for now because even though I am not on board with how you discussed these aspects of quantum mechanics, it is not important to your argument. All you need from those 3 is that quantum mechanics is backed by evidence and I agree with that general idea.

4) That the universe can be translated to computer information does not mean that it is actually just computer information. Everyone on the panel in the video you showed and even the guy postulating this theory pointed out that it is a way to describe the universe, not that we literally are a computer code. The article you posted about Adinkras is a long and confusing piece, but the author of that piece does not state that he thinks we literally are computer code, rather he states that if theoretical physicists wanted to see if we lived in a matrix, it would be reasonable to see if our universe could be described by computer code since that would be necessary for this matrix to exist. This evidence neither demonstrates that we live in a matrix nor that it is possible that we live in a matrix.

5) I do not see how any of your evidence posted would lead us to believe that everything is a hologram. Please explain the connection between the experiment to determine that black holes do not violate quantum physics and the idea that the universe is a hologram. Additionally, here is a direct quote from one of your sources. "Presently, there is no indication that our universe is a simulation, or is fundamentally digital" So far, I see zero evidence that our universe is a hologram, I just see something I have seen from other apologists where they bring up things that most people are completely unfamiliar with so that they can make it seem like science supports their ideas. Again, I see no proof that the universe is a hologram or that it is even possible that it is a hologram. Your own sources say that there is no evidence that it is possible.

6) The information is the universe is just its existence and the language is what we apply to it. Your comments in this section rely on the evidence of sections 4 and 5, but your evidence in 4 and 5 does not say what you seem to think it says, so this whole section is being held up on unsubstantiated premises and thus a wash. Additionally, we have evidence of "information" being generated without any requirement from a mind in the form of evolution.

I have actually seen arguments like this before, and every time these kind of arguments are introduced to actual physicists, they are thoroughly dismantled. In every case I have seen where a physicist does this dismantling, it comes down to the person making the argument not really understanding the physics and the fact that these bits of science are being misconstrued or cherry picked to prove a point which is not how science works. Scientists follow evidence to its natural conclusion. They do not start with a conclusion and then try to find evidence/make evidence fit that conclusion.

I am not trying to be rude here, just blunt. I am also not saying that you do not understand physics, but the evidence you presented does not support your premises or conclusion.
Debate Round No. 2
SubTh3ory

Pro

Thank you for your response, V5RED.

To your first comment - "I will start my rebuttal by seeing what happens if I accept all of your premises at face value."
You don't need to accept premises 1 through 5 at face value since I'm providing the sources for these claims. Unless you meant something else.
In any case, I'll continue.

So unfortunately, I was afraid this would happen. I am limited to only 10,000 characters in each round, and that was simply not enough to fully explain everything. I was hoping it would suffice to explain the rest here, but it seems after your response that I need to perhaps explain some fundamental/elementary concepts in Quantum Physics in order to get you to a better intellectual understanding.

Premise one starts with Local Realism because Local Realism refutes the very idea of our universe being a projection of data. If Local Realism were to be proven true, then other theories go out the window. When all we had was Newtonian Physics, the physical laws were very predictable, and we didn't question the 'realness' of our reality.
Quantum Physics effectively destroyed that notion.

Without P1, I don't have an argument.

Premise two owes it's relevance to the violation of the Leggett Garg Inequality ( https://en.wikipedia.org...). This violation brings the Quantum world to the Classical world. Of course we don't experience this because of decoherence. ( https://en.wikipedia.org...;)

This refutes the notion that "Quantum 'weirdness' only applies at the Quantum level".
( http://physicsworld.com...)

Premise three should not have been a premise. Not sure why I made it a premise, It truly is just an independant statement.

As for following from P1 & P2 to P4 & 5, that seems difficult because 5 is relevant, but the only solution seems to make it a sub-premise from 4. I'm obviously not a master at argument-making. Believe it or not, I am no fan of structured arguments like this.
So I would say, to make more sense of this argument, P4 & P5 are the same premise.
Premise four means to say that the universe is made of information. Premise five means to say that that information is a projection of distant data.
Premise six concludes that what is processing said data can be one of two possibilities.

1.) The information is being simulated in a highly advanced computer by our future ancestors. Nick Bostrom makes this argument which is surprisingly taken seriously by a number of people. ( http://www.simulation-argument.com...)
2.) A mind

There may be other possibilities, but they may not make sense. We only know of two things that process information; our brains and computers (in various forms).

I find the first possibility (that we are being simulated by future ancestors) to be problematic because of the massive amounts of qubits that would need to be flawlessly processed. The number of qubits to process every milisecond would be so massive that the computer would need to logically be larg enough to process every qubit. This means that the computer would literally be as large, or larger than our universe since every qubit would actually be processed by another qubit.
Another contention I have with the first possibility is the Indecernibility of Identicals (Leibniz's Law - https://en.wikipedia.org...). If we are being processed by out future ancestors, then they are one in the same. Their world is no different than ours. This creates logical impossibilities and is unecessary to postulate.

Now, before I get to the second possibility, I want to go ahead and clear up an assumption that you've made:
"The most reasonable explanation would seem to be that a sufficiently advanced race has made a self-aware computer program, not that this is all existing in some magic being's mind."
So let me make this clear. I don't assume anything "magical" about this concept at all. I literally am giving this thing no credence to any other characteristics that distinquish it from you or I except it's ability to access all four of our dimensions at will.
You also have a quote on that notion as well:
"I mean technically your definition of god fits me since I am conscious, process platonic information, and have access to 4 dimensions."
This is incorrect. You only have access to three dimensions at will. The forth dimension, 'time', is something you are bound to. You cannot go back and forth through time (naturally). What I am sugesting here is that this being could be within a fifth dimension.
Carl Sagan explains this pretty well:
https://www.youtube.com...

Neil Degrasse explains as well:
https://youtu.be...

So, under my definition, you are not god. Someone who can access all four of our dimensions at will is techically "omnipresent" in the sense of our perspective. So, if you were to be able to be in such a dimension, you would certainly be comparable to a god.
The problem, however, with this contention of yours is that I am only laying the foundation for the possibility for the existence of such a being. That is the point of this debate.

On to another of your counter-points:
"That the universe can be translated to computer information does not mean that it is actually just computer information."
Of course not. And this is where I had to unfortunately cut things short in my argument in order to make the 10,000 character requirement.
What the other person doesn't seem to understand about James Gates' Adinkras is that they 1.) describe our entire universe and 2.) Are not just "codes". They are Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Code that were invented by Richard Hamming ( https://en.wikipedia.org...) This code, called 'Hamming Code' ( https://en.wikipedia.org...) is a bit different than just information. This is what makes saying "The universe is made of information" a different offer than that of analogy.

"The article you posted about Adinkras is a long and confusing piece, but the author of that piece does not state that he thinks we literally are computer code, rather he states that if theoretical physicists wanted to see if we lived in a matrix, it would be reasonable to see if our universe could be described by computer code since that would be necessary for this matrix to exist. This evidence neither demonstrates that we live in a matrix nor that it is possible that we live in a matrix."

Why, after reading my entire argument, would you make the claim that I am using purely James Gates' Adinkras to conclude that we live in a Matrix? I am also quite aware that James Gates does not conclude this with his discovery. He's actually quite the transparent person and responds to emails quite frequently. I've emailed him back and forth about this for the last year (He prefers to go by 'Jim' if you're going to email him).
He has actually stated that the idea we live in a "Matrix" is a possibility given this information. I, however, do not argue that we live in the Matrix.

"I see no proof that the universe is a hologram or that it is even possible that it is a hologram. Your own sources say that there is no evidence that it is possible."

It doesn't turn me around from research every time I hear a Physicist disagree with one or another concept. It honestly shouldn't you either. I take what everyone says with a grain of salt. Many scientists would rather us do our own research of their work and make the best inference we can from the data instead of just taking their word for it every time since many scientists disagree on topics such as this.

So we have the Fermilab that is testing the concept of a simulated universe:
http://www.fnal.gov...
http://www.scribd.com...
This confirms that this concept is testable.
This is Silas R. Beane from the Fermilab explaining how we can test for such a thing:
https://www.youtube.com...

Then we have the behavior of the universe itself that seems to be limited to the behaviors of a computer program - explained by Computer Scientist Brian Whitworth (Page 15):
http://arxiv.org...
His eleven facts are also compelling evidence for this concept.

I'm not convinced of the idea myself because we don't have conclusive evidence that we are living in some sort of virtual reality. However, with the evidence against Local Realism and the experimental data that shows there is something mental about our reality, the idea that we are living in a simulation can be considered. I just find this data to show that it's more like a dream, rather than a simulation.

"I have actually seen arguments like this before, and every time these kind of arguments are introduced to actual physicists, they are thoroughly dismantled. In every case I have seen where a physicist does this dismantling, it comes down to the person making the argument not really understanding the physics and the fact that these bits of science are being misconstrued or cherry picked to prove a point which is not how science works."

Citation needed here. In fact, you haven't been citing many sources/counter-sources at all, unfortunately. I appreciate that you're actually taking the time to read through mine and attempt to understand and counter them yourself. However, I am left with more-or-less just elaborating without recieving proper refutation.

"Scientists follow evidence to its natural conclusion. They do not start with a conclusion and then try to find evidence/make evidence fit that conclusion."

Unfounded assumption. I was very atheistic about this information. There was certainly no desire to come to such a conclusion on my part. I much prefer to actually be physically real and not in someone/something's head (or computer).
V5RED

Con

You may not like forming an argument, but until you form one, all you have is a handful of premises that have no obvious connection to your conclusion. This is like if you handed me a box of bicycle parts with no blueprints or any explanation of how they fit together and claimed that you had developed the world's best bicycle. It might be the case that the parts can be put together to form the bicycle, but you have not demonstrated that they do.

The reason I began by accepting all of your premises was to show that even if they are true, they do not lead to the conclusion that it is possible for a god to have created our reality.

I can't even see how your premises could possibly lead to a coherent argument to reach your conclusion. Your conclusion is that a being that can time travel could have created reality in its mind. None of your premises relate to the possibility of time travel or a being that could time travel. None of your premises demonstrate that a mind or a computer can contain individual self aware entities. There is a huge difference between storing date on things that are self aware and things that are not self aware. You will need evidence to support a mind or computer storing the kind of information that can be aware of itself to create the individuals in our universe.

Right now all you have is an argument of this form:

1) X
2) Y
3) Z
4) A
5) B
Conclusion) C

You need to show how your premises relate to your conclusion. Since you did not make an argument, all I could do was see if any of your sources contained an argument that would reach your conclusion that your time traveler god could possibly exist and could create the universe in the way you claim it is possible for it to exist, that is in its mind.

Yes, you have many sources, but all that can do for you is demonstrate that it is reasonable to use the claims you make as premises. When I showed that your sources don't even support the claims you make as premises, you made some comment about not being dissuaded when scientists disagree with you. That position is fine, but it doesn't change that the premises I objected to are not supported by the sources you cite. I literally quoted your sources which contradict the claims you make based on the sources.

You then ask me to cite a source for my personal observations, that is not something you cite sources for. My experiences are my experiences.

You also seem very infatuated with sources. All that sources do for you is show that claims you use in premises are reasonable claims. In the bicycle example, the sources would be verification that these parts are actually used in bicycles, but it does not show that the parts can be put together to form a complete bicycle.

I am not sure why you chose to engage in a formal debate if you had no intention of presenting an argument.

Now, if I wanted to demonstrate that something is possible, here is how I would do it. Let's take unicorns.

1) It is possible for any animals to develop horns via evolutionary mechanisms
2) Horses exist
3) Horses are animals
C) It is possible for horses to develop horns via evolutionary mechanisms.

1) If it is possible for horses to develop horns, then horned horses are possible creatures
2) It is possible for horses to develop horns
C2) Horned horses are possible creatures

1) Unicorns are horned horses
2) Horned horses are possible creatures
C3) Unicorns are possible creatures.

I could cite sources for evolutionary mechanisms, but the point is if all you have are claims and you never linked them in any logical fashion, you will never reach your conclusion. In this example, maybe you could reach the conclusion if all I did was throw out facts, but that is because it is such a simple example.

You used complicated scientific claims that have no obvious connection to your conclusion. The onus is on you to make that connection apparent since you are the one making a claim that a thing is possible. I am not going to write your argument for you.
Debate Round No. 3
SubTh3ory

Pro

So we come to the conclusion of this debate and I want to first go ahead and thank V5RED for being a part of this debate. This has been a good first debate for me. I appreciate your civility throughout our discourse and wouldn't mind debating you again in the future.

=======================================================================

I want to first point out that in Round 2 I laid out, to the best of my ability, my argument for the possibility of the existence of something that can be defined as 'god'. In CON's response, it was explained that my argument was not structured correctly and that the conclusion could not be reached via the premises.
In Round 3 I fixed the technical details of the argument to better articulate the premises, where they follow from each other, and why they can reach the conclusion.
I have proven my argument to be logically sound and coherent.
In a more simplistic format, I can also structure my argument in this way:

P1: Matter is observer-dependent.
P2: This observer-dependet matter applies to the classical world. Not just the Quantum.
(P3 is not an accurate Premise)
P4: This observer-dependent reality is functionally information - specifically, Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Code.
P5: The information that makes up our universe functions much like a hologram, or some sort of projection of data.
P6: The information (P4 - P5) can be processed by only two things (that we know of): Computers & minds. (You can also argue that the brain is basically a computer, but that may be something for another debate).
Since brains have been demonstrated as observer-dependent in P1 & P2, it also concludes that our minds can be considered separate from our brain as the brain is contingent on observation from consciousness. If our universe is being processed in a mind, this mind can, likewise, be separate from a brain.

The conclusion was that it is therefore possible that our world is being processed by a mind. This mind fits the definition of 'god' outlined in my introduction.

Without the premises structured as they are, the argument falls apart.
My argument may not have been structured flawlessly, however I was able to quickly fix the technical details.

Unfortunately, CON focused on the structure of my argument instead of a refutation of the argument itself.
In this way, I believe this argument still stands as it is and has not been effectively refuted by CON.

I'll go ahead and comment on a few of your points to conclude this debate:

"Your conclusion is that a being that can time travel could have created reality in its mind. None of your premises relate to the possibility of time travel or a being that could time travel."

That is incorrect. I did not make an argument, nor conclude in a being that can 'time travel'. I concluded that such a being would appear to be omnipresent due to it having access to all four of our dimensions - at will. I demonstrated this via example and the explanations from Carl Sagan and Neil Degrasse Tyson.
My premises need not be related to time travel for this reason.

"None of your premises demonstrate that a mind or a computer can contain individual self aware entities. There is a huge difference between storing date on things that are self aware and things that are not self aware."

Sell-awareness is not a subject within this debate. The only thing required for any of my premises is consciousness (i.e. which-path knowledge).
Any sort of conclusion would simply logically follow as self-awareness does not refute the reality of the self-aware entity.
Also, if self-awareness refuted any claim within this debate, it would more likely refute the claim that a self-aware entity can reside in a computer simulation.
This would also bring into the discussion: How can one know that said entities are self-aware? One can only factually know one's own sentience. However, this is another discussion.

"You need to show how your premises relate to your conclusion."

I have accurately done so. Unfortunately, you have been unable to notice this, so I tried to simplify the argument even further.

"Since you did not make an argument, all I could do was see if any of your sources contained an argument that would reach your conclusion that your time traveler god could possibly exist and could create the universe in the way you claim it is possible for it to exist, that is in its mind."

This is a mistake in your approach to this discussion and to my argument.
I am not required of my argument to give a source that outlines an argument for me. Requiring this of someone would be as if you were arguing with someone about abortion and didn't like how they structured their argument, so you looked for an argument from the sources that were provided in order to refute that instead. The structure of my argument wasn't completely academic, but it still had enough structure to keep itself logically coherent and sound.

"...the premises I objected to are not supported by the sources you cite. I literally quoted your sources which contradict the claims you make based on the sources."

You did object to some of the premises, but you failed to provide any sources or solid substance to effectively refute the claim. You only seemed to have personal objections.

Aside from the personal objections you provided for the premises, your main objection was to the structure of my argument, and less towards the argument itself.
I will certainly take note of this and find a way to bring out more sub-premises with the material I already have that may create better flow of the argument and encourage discussion of the material itself while taking away the unecessary attention to argument structure.

"You then ask me to cite a source for my personal observations, that is not something you cite sources for. My experiences are my experiences."

Your personal observations are anecdotal, and do not apply to this debate. Therefore, I asked for citation in order to give you the benefit of the doubt.

"You also seem very infatuated with sources. All that sources do for you is show that claims you use in premises are reasonable claims."

I may not be a professional debater, but I do understand how important sources and citation is in an argument. Without sources, any claims you make within an argument are simply unfounded claims.
Showing that my premises are reasonable claims is very important in an argument. If you fail to show this, then the argument loses validity.
I see nothing wrong with my use of these sources.

"I am not sure why you chose to engage in a formal debate if you had no intention of presenting an argument."

I had every intention of presenting an argument. You're misinterpreting my statement of "Believe it or not, I am no fan of structured arguments like this.". In other words, I prefer talking directly to people. I prefer making presentations and explaining things in more exhaustive details (without 10,000 character limits). This format is something I just need to get used to.
I appreciate formal debate for what it is. I just also think it is limiting.
So to finally conclude, I will summarize my take on this debate:

1.) Roud 1:In the introduction I laid out the definition and expectation of what I would be concluding in my argument.
2.) CON accepting to debate me under these terms.
3.) Round 2: My argument was presented.
4.) CON responded to the structure of my argument as well as some personal objections to some of the premises.
5.) In Round 3: I fixed the technical issues with my argument and further elaborated on the details of the argument.
6.) CON further objected against the structure of the argument and personal objections to the premises/conclusion.

In the end, I believe this argument to stand as valid granting the possibility of our universe being the informational structure of a mind that fits a general definition of 'god' as outlined in this debate.

Thank you for your time, and thank you for this debate, V5RED.
V5RED

Con

Pro claims to have formed a valid argument. This is a false claim and pro needs to educate himself on the rules of logic.

A valid argument is one where if all the premises are true, the conclusion must follow. Pro's conclusion does not follow from his premises. Validity is just a reference to the structure of an argument.

Here are some valid argument forms.

If X then Y
X
Therefore Y

X or Y
Not X
Therefore Y

X and Y
Not X
Therefore Not Y

X
Therefore X

X=Y
X
Therefore Y

If X then Y
Not X
Therefore Not Y

What Pro has presented is the following
X
Y
Z
Therefore A

This form shows no logical connection between premises and conclusion, so this is NOT a valid argument.

Soundness refers to the truth value of the premises of a valid argument. An argument is sound if it is valid and all of its premises are true. Pro does not present a valid argument, so whether his premises are true or not is irrelevant.
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

I would appreciate it if you did not refer to your arguments as valid or sound until you learn what these terms mean. One of my degrees is in philosophy and seeing terms like valid and sound thrown out there like marketing slogans bothers me.

You accuse me of trying to pick at technical flaws instead of dealing with your argument. This shows me that your understanding of logic is so poor that you can't even recognize the fact that your argument does not lead to your conclusion and this lack of understanding led you to think you presented a good argument when you did not. I am fine with informal arguments if the connections can be easily inferred. That is not what you presented. What you presented is neither formally nor informally valid. This is a common psychological phenomenon. People lacking a skill often think they are skilled because they have no idea what it would look like if they executed the task properly.

"The Dunning"Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate." https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

As to your final post, you still failed to make any logical connections between your premises. You also redefined your God. You were very specific to define a god as a time traveler that can occupy our reality while still keeping it in his mind which makes no sense. That would be like me claiming to physically enter my own imagination. In your final post, you define him as a mind that can contain reality.

The closest thing to a connection you have between premises and conclusion is with P4 and P5. These premises, however are not backed up by your sources. P4 is based on a source that says that the universe can be described by language. That is not the same as being functionally information, whatever that would even mean. P6 is an unverified claim. You have not presented anything that would suggest that a brain or a computer is capable of containing multiple simultaneously extant sentient minds. You also seem to think that minds can exist independent of brains, that is not something you can demonstrate, but I can demonstrate that this is unlikely.

Brain injuries can result in massive changes to one's personality. If the mind exists independent of a brain, then it would not be affected by damage to the brain. The mind is clearly affected by damage to the brain in that the personality changes, therefore the mind is not independent of the brain.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Your god would require the following things to be possible, things you gave no evidence for and are therefore unjustified in claiming that they are possible:
Minds can exist outside of bodies
Time travel is possible
Minds can exist independent of reality
Minds can contain multiple simultaneously self aware independent characters
Minds can contain a universe of information
Minds can keep consistent track of their information (laws of physics and identity)
Minds can physically enter their own imagination
Life is possible without a body

There may be more, but all of these must be possible for your god to be possible and you demonstrated none of these.

I would not debate you again, this was frustrating because you never presented an argument that could even be modified to be valid.
Debate Round No. 4
75 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SubTh3ory 1 year ago
SubTh3ory
V5RED if you don't mind, provide me the name and contact information of this philosopher you spoke to. I wouldn't mind going through his/her credentials and getting the feedback from the person and why they came to the same conclusion you did. I am open to changing some things to better the argument. I've gone through it a couple times and it looks like the only thing that made my argument incomplete is that I placed some information inside the details of the premises that should have been premises themselves and would have completed the argument. This is what I would like to talk to said person about and see what they say.
The argument based off of experimental data and used to come to the most logical conclusion based on the information we have.
The intention of making this argument is to invite criticism of the material itself in order to test it's validity. I am not a philosopher and I don't do arguments very often, but the concept of our universe being the product of pure information is not exactly a brand new concept.
This is something that is supported with evidence, so the argument is still to be had, I just need to make sure and refine it.

As far as educating myself in logic, I don't mind that at all. I do, however, recommend you refresh yourself as well since you made some logical errors as well that I pointed out in the debate. You also repeated yourself after my direct responses to you instead of accurately responding to my rebut. Normally I would assume someone is being a smartass when they respond like that. I'm trying not to assume that was your intention, however.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
I agree that self-plagiarism should be allowed, but it would be helpful to indicate that you are quoting yourself to avoid confusion. I also do not think that it should be something that you can lose points for.

To Paul, that is gracious of you to say.

I want this next thing I say to not come off as rude, but it probably will. I ran this debate by a philosopher who can usually find the flaws in my logic or in my premises and when he does, I concede the argument or reword my argument. I went to him because I was hoping I had missed some connection. You seemed so sure of yourself, and I saw nothing of value in the argument you provided. He came to the same conclusions I did. Your premises do not lead to your conclusion. You would be greatly helped by learning how logical structures work. I say this because I hope you will actually go and watch some videos to learn how logical arguments are formed and work.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I agree, it's worth having a general discussion of how plagiarism should factor into decisions, and that should include the concept of self-plagiarism.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
I copy/paste my own arguments a lot... I thought it over, and self-plagiarism can't exist.

"the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own."

The term "someone else's" means that if it's your own work, it's not plagiarism. I think we need to bring this up in the forums, or at least with Airmax, and come to an acceptable definition of plagiarism.
Posted by SubTh3ory 1 year ago
SubTh3ory
Congratulations, V5RED.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
@tejretrics

The system for responding to plagiarism by way of votes is really not well established on this site, and in particular the way we're allowed to view self-plagiarism isn't established (this is literally the first time I've seen it come up). It's not the job of moderation to decide what is and is not a worthy version of plagiarism, even if we fundamentally disagree.
Posted by SubTh3ory 1 year ago
SubTh3ory
tejretics, I don't think it was specifically the copying and pasting of my own argument that merited the loss vote. It was that the voter interpreted the argument as plagiarism and that simply did not warrant the removal of the vote.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@whiteflame

Why is C/Ping one's *own* argument enough to merit a loss?
Posted by SubTh3ory 1 year ago
SubTh3ory
Fair enough.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Self-plagiarism is always a bit wonky. Personally, I don't find any problem with it, but some people do.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
SubTh3oryV5REDTied
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 entire argument was copy and pasted from this source. Since this is a voter's union debate I would have liked to have expanded of this RFD however I cannot when Pro's entire argument has been copy and pasted. Starting from what they want to demonstrate. I will post the link to the copy and paste in the comments since it wont come up as a direct link here.