The Instigator
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
DakotaKrafick
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Randomness is more likely even though standard logic leads us to fate/determinism. [Shared BOP]

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
DakotaKrafick
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,120 times Debate No: 27100
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

RationalMadman

Pro

PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS A SHARED BURDEN OF PROOF, CON MUST NOT ONLY COUNTER BE BUT ALSO PROVE THEMSELVES CORRECT

Please do not use sources or references for this debate. I want purely original work only.

This is not supposed to be a two way debate.

The first, and preferably only, line of debate is that randomness is more likely than fate.

The second line of debate is that fate/determinism making more sense than randomness is not actually reason to see it as more probable.

I would prefer if the second line of debate was ignored and that acceptance of abstract logic as opposed to standard logic was in use.

I shall define key terms and then outline my case.

Round one is not acceptance, it is the raising of my opponent's case no rebuttals in round one. The rest is freestyling. No new points in last round preferably though.

Definitions

Randomness: The theory that everything happening is a coincidence, without pre-determination or systematic arrangement and that any apparent systematic arrangement is only coincidental since it is interpreted by random subjective incapability to comprehend randomness.

Standard logic: The system of finding truth from lies that relies purely on interpreting what is known and proven as opposed to considering what is unknown or immeasurable.

Fate/determinism: The theory that everything is bound to happen, no matter how much one wishes it not to happen, nor how much we attempt to change it happening, that even our attempted changing of it is predetermined and that absolutely nothing is random or uncertain.

Randomness does make less apparent sense than fate, because if we base our opinion purely on what we have seen or can comprehend as subjective beings limited to our five senses and the maximum capacity of our brains (which considering that we can often forget where you just left your keys quite often, is clearly not superb). Our limitations of comprehension via the five senses and logic based purely on our understanding of reality and truth mean that standard logic is not a sufficient method of separating truth from lies in this universe (if the universe is even what we actually exist in). Just because we think that since everything fits together nicely by physical laws and mathematical equations doesn't mean that this wasn't randomly, coincidentally apparent to us and one day might completely be untrue whereby for complete unknown reasons we all turn into dogs or gain superpowers or defy gravity or generate magnetic fields from our own bodies (heavy X-men reference there). We think that because our equations fit, that the equations themselves aren't random and that the theory of relativity was always E=mc^2 Well what if it was actually always C=em^2 but just a second before I wrote this our memories of what it was, all records of Einstein and reality and all evidence of the theory relativity having ever existed were randomly rearranged to all fit that E=mc^2? Can you really say that this is not just a plausible as it all being predetermined and perfectly arranged for eternity? Standard logic is thus an ineffective system of reasoning to refer to for this debate, we shall be using abstract logic only. If my opponent disagrees they must read all of what I wrote and give a detailed rebuttal as to why not.

Abstract logic: Pure reasoning based on discussable likelihood alone and not scientific certainty.

Randomness is more likely because everything could have happened an infinite number of ways, yes only ends up appearing to happen one way. Now although it is perhaps a cute idea that there are parallel universes whereby all forms of fate are occurring at once, when did they being and when will they end, why do they run on time if they exist eternally and all at once? All unanswerable questions. Randomness theory is simply that for no reason whatsoever you exist, I exist, even God might exist (hence me being agnostic as opposed to atheist). However, even if God predetermined us, God itself (or himself) was random and his will and predetermination thus is equally random and indeterminable. I do not se how the assertion that absolutely everything is predetermined and 100% certain and predictable is more likely, and even equally likely, to the assertion that everything exists for no reason with no system other than one randomly apparent for a temporary amount of time, if time even exists that is (perhaps it is randomly ingrained into our minds and in fact everything is happening at once, or you and the rest of reality were created at this instant with false memories).

Best of luck to my opponent.
DakotaKrafick

Con

Thank you, Madman, and the audience for making this debate possible.

As my opponent has stated, we will share the burden of proof in this debate, and he has made it very clear that I must not only refute his arguments, but provide ones of my own. So far, however, I hardly see any argument posed by my opponent in need of refuting. They are, in fact, little more than cute thought experiments. "What if"s and "Maybe"s.

He throws an unhealthy amount of skepticism on reality itself and tells us he does not see how the assertion that everything has a reason behind its existent is equally as (or more) likely than the assertion that everything has no reason behind its existence. That, it seems, is the strongest evidence my opponent has to offer to try to convince us his theory of randomness is more probable than not: his own personal skepticism, which has not proven itself to be justified at all.

Instead, I offer you a much more reasonable theory: that everything in the universe is the way it is, not because it just randomly is, but because it is the only way it could have been. I'm not proposing there are an infinite number of parallel universes or any other such nonsense. This, to me, would be an impossible thing to try to prove.

I propse the existence of only one universe (at least that we know of) which has certain constant physical laws which govern the outcomes of every event in history. For example, when I hold a brick out a second-story window and let go, there are an infinite number of directions we could logically concieve it to move and an infinite number of speeds we can concieve it to move with. We can even concieve it to not move at all, and instead just float there, completetly still.

My opponent would have us believe all of these conceievable options are, in fact, valid options that may actually happen. But they stimply are not, as the law of gravity tells us there is only one direction that brick will fly: straight down at an acceleration of 9.81 meters per second per second, because that is where the closest, greatest ceneter of gravity is, the core of the Earth.

My opponent states, "Randomness is more likely because everything could have happened an infinite number of ways, yes only ends up appearing to happen one way." This is demonstradably false. We may be able to concieve, in our imaginations, things happening an infinite number of ways, but that does not mean they literally could happen an infinite number of ways. There is only one way the brick can fall.

It cannot fly upward, it cannot fly toward the ground at a rate quicker than 9.81 meters per second per second, and it cannot alchemise itself into a bar of gold randomly. These are phenomona we would only expect to happen if true randomness did exist. Clearly, though, we do not expect these things to happen as true randomness does not exist.

I am not, according to my opponent, supposed to make my point with scientific certainty, but that is my stance: that the physical laws of the universe, if completely understood, could be used to predict the outcome of everything. Madman says that for all we know, these physical laws were not always what they are today, that maybe they were once something entirely different and then one day, for seemingly no reason at all, they changed to be some other random thing. This, though, is a very bold claim, and one that I ask my opponent to prove, else expect me to not take it seriously.

For the record, I am not accusing my opponent of adhering to the belief that the physical have randomly changed in the past, only that they might have. I would even concede to this. They might have. But again, "what if"s and "maybe"s serve no purpose in serious debate. Unless my opponent provides sufficient reason for us to believe the physical laws have randomly changed, or could randomly change, then we shouldn't.

I propse that it is far more likely these physical laws have always remained constant, or at the very least, if they ever did change, it would be because of some explaniable phenomenon, not an uncaused, random occurance.

Well, I think that's certainly enough rambling on my part. Over to you again, Madman.
Debate Round No. 1
RationalMadman

Pro

What ifs and maybes are EXACTLY what this debate is about. This a purely philosophical debate about probability and possibility being discussed aside from standard reality. So my relation to this is very relevant to explain why randomness is more likely than fate.

My opponent essentially has two, extremely flawed, contentions which I shall now point out the fundamental flaws in, after this I shall reassert my entire argument (why my opponent rudely calls cute 'what ifs' and 'maybes' as opposed to a mature string of argumentation).

My opponent's first clear-cut contention is that There is only one way things could happen, which is namely the reality in which we exist and the entire perceived future which is yet to occur. The second contention raised is essentially merely a justification for the first in that if we were to try to let go a of a brick it could not fly and would most certainly land on the floor having fallen at an exact rate of 9.81 m/s^2.

This is an extremely invalid assertion. He is essentially refusing to accept that there are an infinite number of outcomes of any present scenario and that the future is completely unknowable and indeterminable by merely stating that it is possible to determine one of an infinite possible out comes of a scenario! Surely even the most novice of philosophers can see the fundamental flaw in this line of argumentation. He assumes that the brick cannot fly, that it will 'fall' and that it will do so at an acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2. Firstly it would not necessarily 'fall' at that rate due to air resistance and due to us being able to let go of it on any planet or region in space where we perceive a second story window to be. Second of all, if might not even 'fall' since falling is a purely subjective matter whereby we assume an up and a down and see a person who we assume should be standing up colliding with a perceived ground in the direction we perceive as down and thus assume that a fall has occurred when in fact it might all have been an illusion in the first place. Lastly, how do we know a brick can't fly? What is a brick? The definition of brick that is running through your mind, the image, sound, taste, smell or texture you are imagining and apparently 'recalling' from what you assume is your memory, is in fact merely what, at this instantaneous present moment you happen to assume a brick to be. A brick might indeed be able to fly, in fact we might have had flying bricks for millenia but because suddenly we picture blocks and assume we need wings to fly then bam bricks can't fly... But only for that instantaneous moment of everything!

My argument is that everything happening is a coincidence, without pre-determination or systematic arrangement and that any apparent systematic arrangement is only coincidental since it is interpreted by random subjective incapability to comprehend randomness. I would like to understand how exactly my opponent even began to disprove this, and how he is supposed to explain why fate is more likely than this.

He states a flaw in my argument is that I rely on my interpretation of belief and skepticism. However, all I see in his argument is personal belief in 9.81 metres per second per second and in fate. So truly personal skepticism and belief is what this entire debate must revolve around.

My opponent has the most obnoxious request of me proving that everything was changed in an instant. However how can I prove this if it has changed? I cannot prove what it was before because al the evidence has randomly changed too! Thus, I do not see why this request is valid and decent in any sense or form.

In summary, only randomness can be truly accepted as a more likely theory. fate is a string of asserted assumptions of the subjectively interpreted objective reality in terms of certainty and determinibility.
DakotaKrafick

Con

Thank you for your response, Madman. May I just say, firstly, that I sincerely apologize if my calling your argumentation "cute" offended you in any way. In fact, it is the opposite. I love cute things. Kittens, penguins, your extreme skepticism to everything in the universe.

Anyway, my opponent has offered two objections to my case (specifically my example of the brick):

1) It may not fall at the rate I mentioned (9.81 m/s^2) due to a number of possible variables, inluding air resistence or the location of this brick (maybe it's on the moon, which has a much weaker graviational pull).

2) It may not "fall", since the concepts of "falling" and "up" and "down" and "brick" are entirely subjective and maybe it's all just an illusision or something.

Needless to say, if the brick did fall at a slower rate due to being on the moon, then that too would be entirely predictable as long as you knew the exact mass of the moon. I think my opponent got too caught up on the exact number I mentioned (which is understandable considering I probably repeated one too many times) and failed to see the point: the end result of you or I letting go of a brick is entirely predictable so long as you know all of the physical factors involved. There is nothing random about it.

As for the second objection, I think my opponent has become far too intimite with semantics to properly indulge the example. Maybe "up" is "down", and "down" is "up". Maybe "bricks" can fly without "wings", because what is a "brick" and a "wing" outside of our subjective interpretations? Well, nothing at all. That's the point of words: to clearly communicate so others can understand you. "Down" is the direction toward the ground. "Bricks" are units of ceramic material used in construction. If you are talking about some object that can fly through the air at will, then you are not talking about a brick. A brick will fall when dropped.

In the last round, I asked my opponent to prove his theory of randomness, to prove that the laws of physics can indeed randomly change. To this, he merely said my request was "obnoxious" and refused to provide any evidence. I quote, "However how can I prove this if it has changed? I cannot prove what it was before because al the evidence has randomly changed too!"

Then, "In summary, only randomness can be truly accepted as a more likely theory." I do not see how my opponent can so happily go from "My theory is impossible to prove" to "My theory should be accepted as the most likely theory" without anything in between. Once again, unless my opponent provides us with sufficient evidence to believe in this theory of his, we shouldn't. And thus far, he hasn't.


Debate Round No. 2
RationalMadman

Pro

I shall now conclude a nice debate.

Fate, it seems, is base don wishful thinking and hope for certainty. Randomness, as I have shown, is the acceptance that no matter how much we wish to know things for certain, nothing at all is certain, even reality itself. My opponent has failed to rebut this the entire debate and merely says that I am making the possibility of everything in history being rewritten this instant up from my imagination. Whilst this is actually true, it is a valid point and my opponent failed to successfully refute it's probability, let alone it's possibility.

Another undisputed point is that despite reality itself being objective, the only things we can every know, and know at present, of reality is purely subjective and thus is 1005 possibly fake and merely an illusion. We are limited by our five senses, and even if we evolve into the next stage of primates and develop a sixth sense of some kind, six is very almost as limiting as five when compared to infinity since infinity is boundless.

My opponent rebuts the unpredictability of falling of the brick with this statement: 'Needless to say, if the brick did fall at a slower rate due to being on the moon, then that too would be entirely predictable as long as you knew the exact mass of the moon.' Firstly we can never positively know the exact mass of the moon since we are limited to subjective interpretation of it, thus always leaving room for doubt and error. Secondly, the moon itself is merely a concept, one which is very malleable and easily distorted with each and every passing second that you think of it. You think the moon is round? How do you know it's not square? What if your eyes are fooling you, what if what you think is a square now is what, one second ago, you termed a circle? These are all the undeniable limitations of the subjective experience of reality that leads to limitations in comprehending objective reality. My opponent has failed to refute this throughout his debate.

On another note, it is compatible that I cannot prove that everything was changed a second ago whilst still claiming randomness to be more likely. One can never prove that history was changed because to prove something we rely on evidence from history itself.

In conclusion, fate is merely base don unjustified assumptions such as that we know true reality and that everything is perfectly predictable whist randomness is the acceptance that the only concrete and certain truth is that nothing of objective reality is certain to beings of subjective limitations and that objective reality itself has no reason, meaning or purpose behind it it is merely one of an infinite possible realities and hence is truly 'picked out of a hat' so to say and of pure random chance happened to be the reality as it is at this instant in time.

On a final please to rebutt predictibility and knowledge, consider this. What is there's a bi fat blubbery monster that you are inside right now? What if it exists as something we never have comprehended before by laws of physics, chemistry and biology and is undetectable by any of our five senses yet exists as a form of reality that we are yet to ever comprehend? Just a thought.
DakotaKrafick

Con

I will begin my round with what my opponent ended his with. I quote, "What is there's a bi fat blubbery monster that you are inside right now? What if it exists as something we never have comprehended before by laws of physics, chemistry and biology and is undetectable by any of our five senses yet exists as a form of reality that we are yet to ever comprehend? Just a thought."

My opponent is spot-on here. It is just a thought, and nothing more without evidence. As is his entire theory of randomness.

He says it makes sense that he can't prove the laws of phsyics have changed, or will change, because any evidence of the change would have changed as well. Despite this, I hope my opponent forgives me if I still don't believe in this theory, because there is no evidence.

Take, for an example we've all probably heard, the invisible monster in the garage. A man tells his friend there is an invisible, silent monster in his garage. His friend suggests pouring flour on the ground so the monster's footprints would appear in it, as that would certainly prove it is real. But to this, the man says the monster passes through all material things, like a ghost. You can't see it, touch it, smell it, or hear it. So it stands to reason the man would not be able to prove it exists. But does the man's inability to prove an unprovable thing make that unprovable thing more iikely to actually exist, then?

Of course not. It simply makes the man a fool for claiming this unprovable thing exists in the first place.

Forgive me if I keep this round short, but there is nothing left to say. My opponent has not once offered any serious warrant to his theory nor has he refutted my own: If all factors of a phenomona are understood, then the result of that phenomona can be predicted.

Thank you, Madman, for an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
:O DAKOTA!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?

-mindblown-
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
You tear my theory apart but never met your own BOP. Sly dog.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
RationalMadmanDakotaKrafickTied
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: Not really too much to say other than con demolished pro's arguments and proved that there's no reason to look to randomness and fate is a much more likely alternative. While pro doesn't do an amazing job upholding his BOP, he does a better job than pro, and this I vote that way.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
RationalMadmanDakotaKrafickTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost the debate quite clearly in terms of arguments. I will give him the conduct, however, as Con did not clearly fulfill his BoP.