The Instigator
Spud
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kenballer
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Science has the ability to address existence of god

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 463 times Debate No: 103722
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Spud

Con

Introduction
Con and I have had a discussion via messages and we have both agreed to debate on this issue. It is important to note that from my observations of Con's previous debates, he's arguing that there is evidence for a specific god - that being the Christian one.

It is also important to note that this debate is not aimed to be a discussion of "scientific evidence"* for a deity. Rather, it is to be about whether science itself can even offer a stance on the existence of a god. In saying that, I will not object to discussing Con's lines of "scientific evidence" for a god as it is relevant to this discussion. I will ask that if Con does intend to do this later on in a debate, there is to be no gish galloping.

Arguments
I maintain that science cannot and does not offer any position on the existence of a god. To do so would make it pseudo-science, as science can only explain natural phenomena. Science most certainly does not have anything to say on the existence of supernatural entities and I do deem a god as being supernatural.

Furthermore, there is a reason why you will find no credible, peer-reviewed scientific journal on whether or not a deity exists and that reason is that science does not offer any stance on the existence of a god. If science does support the existence of a god, I challenge my opponent to bring forth a credible, peer reviewed journal which outlines this evidence for his god.

For something to be considered evidenced by science (which can be done via the creation of scientific theories), it must meet some basic criteria:

i) The subject in question must be potentially falsifiable
ii) A theory must have explanatory power
iii) A theory must make predictions
iv) A theory must have a substantial amount of competent evidence to back it up

The above 4 qualities form the basic cornerstones of scientific knowledge. I maintain that the notion of a god cannot meet any of these qualities nor that any "scientific evidence" for a god can meet these criteria, and thus disqualifies a god from being scientifically vindicated.

* Please note that when I put "scientific evidence" in quotations, I am specifically doing so because I believe that any such evidence supporting the existence of a god cannot be scientific, as it does not meet specified criteria. Thus the quotations. By putting this in quotations, I am not denying the power of scientific evidence, nor that science has tremendous explanatory power; the exact opposite in fact.

kenballer

Pro


Here is a powerpoint presentation I obtained from wikipedia that shows the steps of the scientific method and a summary as to how I will argue for my position:


1. Make observations

A. Origin of the Universe

B. Fine-tuning constants


2. Define a Question

A. Why is there something rather than nothing?


3. Formulate a Hypothesis

A. The God hypothesis

B. A spaceless timeless immaterial cause (i.e. a mind) who possesses unlimited properties.


4. Develop testable predictions

A. If my hypothesis is false, then there is a conceivable world or universe where God does not have to exist or is not necessary to explain it.

B. If my hypothesis is false, we should find variations among the fine-tuning constants from any part or time of the universe.


5. Devise an experiment


A. Confirmation of Sean Carrol's past-eternal universe model.

B. The Planck satellite are the experiments that should reveal any variations among the constants.



I am going to just keep it short in this round since Con has made this into a long debate that I think probably should have been shorter as I mentioned to him before the debate. Its no problem for me though. In the next round, I will go in depth with my arguments I listed above, which will allow Con to have more material to respond and make objections.

Debate Round No. 1
Spud

Con

I'll admit I am slightly confused. Both Con and I agreed that it I was the one to begin the debate and set up the opening round. But Con has essentially doubled up on setting up this debate with a fairly hap-hazard introduction, in which I cannot respond to anything, as it's fairly nebulous. All Con has done in Round 1 is outline his format, which is not what I expected Con to do as I have given Con enough room to work with, but for whatever reason Con opted to not respond to my arguments posted in Round 1 at all, and instead opted to set up his own setting. Which I find extremely puzzling.

In light of this, I will forego posing any more arguments for my Round 2 as I have already outlined why the notion of a god is outside the boundaries of science, and will instead wait for Con to posit arguments in his Round 2.
kenballer

Pro


BTW, I have decided to change the subject in question regarding observations.


1. Observations

Mathematical objects called wave-functions have been confirmed experimentally to exist and are more than just useful fictions. This means that independent ideas do exist objectively. More importantly, these Platonic objects have not only been shown to be real but non-physical. Please focus on reading this source first:
Then, please read another source that briefly explains how the wave-function is real but non-physical and explains how this claim can be confirmed through a different approach [7]. This involves experiments that show instances of counterfactual quantum communication. Then, read this source which provides confirmation for that claim from much more recent experiments where they show these instances [8].


BTW, what I showed above was also suppose to be an explanation for why the phenomena called "quantum fluctuations" does NOT actually emerge from absolutely nothing but from an universal wave-function. Now, I am going to provide evidence showing that only the "mind" (i.e. spaceless timeless immaterial cause) can potentially make the transition from wave function to quantum fluctuations:
"....the values that you obtain when you measure its properties depend on the [observer's knowledge of the system]. So the value of property A, say, depends on whether you chose to measure it with property B, or with property C. In other words, there is no reality independent of the choice of measurement".
https://www.newscientist.com...

As the researcher who conducted the experiment concluded:

“There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a [physical] system has [an independent] reality,”
Here is another experiment showing proof from the "quantum erasure with casually disconnected choice" experiment that space-time emerges from information:
"No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether".
https://arxiv.org...

If the sources are too technical for everyone to accept my argument and evidence, here is the consensus view on this subject to support the claims. A 2013 poll showed that most quantum physicists believe that the observer plays a fundamental role in the practical application of mathematical formulas and they believe these formulas ontologically exist in a objective way. Just read question 9 and 10: https://archive.org...;


2. Why is there something rather than nothing?



3. The God Hypothesis


According to the bible, God created us in his image. More importantly, John 1:1-3 says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

The phrase "the Word" means "the Logos" in Greek and "Logic" in English. Logic comes in many forms, such as math and semantics. In addition, John 1:1 is in parallel with Genesis 1:1. If the God hypothesis is true, then we should find certain aspects of the universe that exemplify a mind who is a personal, eternal, necessary with unlimited power, knowledge, and presence.



4. Predictions

If the God hypothesis is false, then there is a conceivable world or universe where God does not have to exist or is not necessary to explain it. Therefore, if a physicist crafts a model of a past-eternal universe and empirically tests and confirms it, then this would falsify my hypothesis. The only past-eternal model I know that would potentially do this is the Carrol-Chen model Sean Carrol pioneers where they propose a reversal of the Arrow of time, as you pointed out before. Their model not only attempts to violate the assumptions of the BGV or Wall theorems, but they propose materialistic mechanisms for how baby universes are created going backwards in time. Moreover, if we ever discovered evidence showing that the cosmological constant varied during the universe's expansion, then it would damage my hypothesis.



5. Devise an experiment


A. Confirmation of Sean Carrol's past-eternal universe model.

B. The Planck satellite are the experiments that should reveal any variations among the constants.



To do so would make it pseudo-science, as science can only explain natural phenomena. Science most certainly does not have anything to say on the existence of supernatural entities and I do deem a god as being supernatural.


The problem with this objection by Con is that it presupposes materialism is fundamental but as I showed above realism/materialism has been disproven because Idealism has been proven. For example, Realism is the view point that external things (I.e. space, time, matter ,energy) are real and exist independently of mind. Materialism as opposed to idealism is that it is material things, , that shape our ideas and ideologies. This means that scientific realism is essentially materialism, but realism encompasses many more"ideas than materialism. In contrast, idealism states that ideas come first and then changes in material things are pursued in accordance with those ideas.

Thus, the word " natural " does not have meaningful significance in this debate. The natural vs. supernatural dichotomy is a hallmark of substance dualism, but idealism where classical space time emerges from the mental world and only exists as a mental construct. In other words, our reality is still real (not simulated) but only because our minds or information makes it real.


Furthermore, there is a reason why you will find no credible, peer-reviewed scientific journal on whether or not a deity exists and that reason is that science does not offer any stance on the existence of a god.

As Con has alluded to, this debate is not about scientific proving God but whether science can address the God question at all. So I don't understand why he is requiring me to do both with this example that mainly involves scientific theories NOT scientific hypothesizes, which is the beginning stage. So we would not expect it to be in a scientific journal since its a new hypothesize that has never been proposed as being "scientific" .
Debate Round No. 2
Spud

Con


Observations


Con’s source of [7] in his round 2, is bafflingly ridiculous. It’s little wonder why that journal has no citations as it uses vague terminology and uses equations to stump lay people in this discussion. Whilst I cannot comment on the validity of the mathematics which are addressed in this journal, I can most certainly point out that this journal is far too nebulous. “Quantum weirdness?” Are you kidding me? This is what you think is acceptable in a scientific journal? Good lord.


Putting aside the nebulous terminology that is in that journal, none of the relevant sources Con has given, even address the notion of quantum fluctuations. To the audience, please look at Con’s 3 relevant sources he gave in Round 2 of this heading, and see for yourself. Nowhere does the concept of “quantum fluctuations” nor that the concept that “quantum fluctuations” come from “nothing,” appear in any of the relevant 3 sources that Con has used. I suggest that Con actually gets into the habit of reading his sourced material for future reference.



Even more embarrassing is that Con has quote-mined a blog-piece from new Scientist [1]. I’m going to quote Con verbatim:



Now, I am going to provide evidence showing that only the "mind" (i.e. spaceless timeless immaterial cause) can potentially make the transition from wave function to quantum fluctuations:


"....the values that you obtain when you measure its properties depend on the [observer's knowledge of the system]. So the value of property A, say, depends on whether you chose to measure it with property B, or with property C. In other words, there is no reality independent of the choice of measurement".



And now for the actual quote


In 1967, Simon Kochen and Ernst Specker proved mathematically that even for a single quantum object, where entanglement is not possible, the values that you obtain when you measure its properties depend on the context. So the value of property A, say, depends on whether you chose to measure it with property B, or with property C. In other words, there is no reality independent of the choice of measurement.”



As you can plainly see, that quote doesn’t have anything to do with a mind, and K-S theorem (which is what is being discussed) doesn’t have anything to do with a mind either. The original state-independent proof was experimenting with projectors [2], not minds.



Con references [3], but has not explained why this journal is even relevant to his argument.



God Hypothesis


There’s not much to say on this one; Con is setting up what a god would be.



Predictions


Unfortunately, Con’s arguments are nothing more than a house built on sand (anyone gets that reference, I’ll raise my cup of tea to you). Anyways, Con has not given sufficient reasoning as to why his god can be explained by science. He’s brought up irrelevancies and then acted as if said irrelevancies is somehow linked to his argument. These irrelevancies are spattered all throughout Con’s round, and unfortunately this does not give me much to work with. I’m not a miracle worker. I can only work with what I’m given. And Con has not given me a lot to work with by any stretch of the imagination.



Devise an experiment


I have absolutely no idea how the Planck satellite is relevant here.


What utter nonsense. Essentially, what Con has typed is nothing more than word salad. Regardless of what Con says, we can differentiate between the natural and the supernatural. Let’s take an extremely famous legal case [4]. This goes over why Intelligent design is pseudo-science, and whilst you are not proposing Intelligent Design, if we look at pg. 22


The court concluded that creation science “is simply not science” because it depends upon “supernatural intervention,” which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable.”


Your god is an example of a supernatural intervention. No matter how much word salad you throw my way, you cannot get around this fact Con. Furthermore, considering that science only deals with the explanation of natural phenomena, I’d say that this is very relevant to this debate.



Conclusion


If you’re going to state that science can address the notion of a god, it would be in the scientific literature, regardless of it being a hypothesis. Take [5] for example. Gravitons are hypothetical particles which aim to combine quantum mechanics with our current understandings of gravitation.



To summarise, Con has not given sufficient reasoning as to why some of his arguments are even relevant to the conversation of whether a god can be addressed by science. There was a lot of word salad, a lot of referencing material with no context as to how material is related to conversation and he’s quote-mined once. Whilst I am appreciative of the fact that I’m not bashing my skull against a brick wall, as has been the case with previous debates of mine, I find Con’s arguments to be lack-luster.



[1] https://www.newscientist.com...


[2] https://arxiv.org...


[3] https://arxiv.org...


[4] https://ncse.com...


[5] https://arxiv.org...



kenballer

Pro

I am afraid I made a minor mistake in how I crafted my presentation before, which would explain why some of Con's responses seem to be misguided or misdirected. So here it is briefly again.


1. Observations


The observations I see would be Quantum flucuations and that's it. The present Null hypothesis regarding this phenomna is that these quantum particles pop in and out of existence from nothing (i.e. without a physical cause).


2. Why is there something rather than nothing?

"This stage frequently involves finding and evaluating evidence from previous experiments, personal scientific observations or assertions, as well as the work of other scientists. If the answer is already known, a different question that builds on the evidence can be posed. When applying the scientific method to research, determining a good question can be very difficult and it will affect the outcome of the investigation." https://en.wikipedia.org...


As mentioned before, The experiments show the existence of independent ideas that actually represent objective reality instead of Materialism. In other words, space-time, matter and energy is not all that there is. They also show how the "observer" who posseses a mind is the mechanism that can potentially make the transition from wave function to quantum fluctuations .

Again, If the sources were too technical for everyone to accept my argument and evidence, Please rely on the consensus view on this subject: A 2013 poll showed that most quantum physicists believe that the observer plays a fundamental role in the practical application of mathematical formulas and they believe these formulas ontologically exist in a objective way. Just read question 9 and 10: https://archive.org...


Operational definitions


The wave function: a spaceless timeless immaterial object, which represents a possible mathmatical configuration of a universe.
..
The mind: a spaceless timeless immaterial cause, where there is no pre-existing antecedent physical cause that predetermines our decisions completely involuntarily all the time rather than simply influence our decisions.


3. The God Hypothesis


According to the bible, God created us in his image. More importantly, John 1:1-3 says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.


The phrase "the Word" means "the Logos" in Greek and "Logic" in English. Logic comes in many forms, such as math and semantics. In addition, John 1:1 is in parallel with Genesis 1:1. If the God hypothesis is true, then it will explain several other observations.


Explanatory power


Consciousness and Awareness


Since dark energy is consistent with general relativity and affects the expansion of the universe, then the cosmologic constant would apply to the smaller universes created within the regions of our universe as well. For example, the cosmological constant is placed at a precise measurement of 10 to the 120th power , and when scientists trace the expansion back one second after the Planck scale of our universe, the degree of precision becomes an astounding value of 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power.


Hypothetically, this means that if our universe’s expansion rate had different values with larger amounts of dark energy, the sample size of those universes created in the expansion that try to clump together to form planets and stars would have most likely blown the cosmic material apart instead. If our universe’s expansion rate had different values with smaller amounts of dark energy, the sample size of those universes created in the expansion would have most likely collapse back into a singularity before it ever reached its present size.

Thus, the right values could only have occurred if they were carefully chosen that way with full awareness of the consequences of not doing so. More importantly, these values essentially came into being the same moment the universe came into being and ,thus, had to be created by the same causal entity.


Self-consciousness and Personal identity


The genetic code within DNA carries inherent meaning and information that is communicated between us on a regular basis. For example, Church and Kosuri (2012) were able to create a biotech version of an e-reader, with the highest storage capacity to date. This involved encoding an entire book (along with illustrations) in DNA. The book consisted of 53,246 words, 11 JPG images, and even a javascript program [4]. Thus, Since there could not be any conscious life before simple life emerged, God would not only have to be the explanation for the DNA information but a personal being like us who has intrinsic desires to create life.

[4] Church, G. M., Gao, Y. & Kosuri, S. (2012). Next-generation digital information storage in DNA. Science 337, 6102.

Omni-potent, Omniscient and Omnipresence


According to Eternal inflation, the expansion rate of the universe will continue to accelerate forever and create an endless amount of configured pocket universes within the black hole regions of our universe. These small regions (i.e. gravitational waves) that are created by inflation have a background radiation that is nearly the exact same temperature as the background radiation of other regions where their space-time curvature is evolving lock-step with ours, but separating apart from each other in all directions. This acceleration of the expansion from inflation is supposed to be produced from an explosion or collision of quantum fluctuations of particles called "dark energy" that permeate the entire universe where a billion (plus one) of positive particles and a billion of negative particles come into existence at once. Then, they annihilate each other out of existence, and the leftover positive particle creates a smaller universe and accelerates the expansion of our universe in the process. Finally, these quantum fluctuations emerge from a universal wave-function describing the totality of existence and extend out to infinity where each one represents a different possible configuration of matter or a universe.

Thus, these observations demonstrates that this mind is causally active everywhere by expanding the universe in all directions using a quantum entanglement process (i.e. omnipresent). Moreover, it suggests that this mind knows every possible configuration of matter by creating every logically possible world eternally into the future from the universal wave-function (i.e. omniscience). Finally, it suggests that this mind has infinite power by using dark energy to accelerate our universe forever (i.e. omni-potent). For instance, in physics, power is the rate of doing work. It is the amount of energy consumed per unit time. As a physical concept, power requires both a change in the physical universe and a specified time in which the change occurs (wikipedia).



4. Predictions

If the God hypothesis is false, then there is a conceivable world or universe where God does not have to exist or it's not necessary to explain it. Therefore, if a physicist crafts a model of a past-eternal universe and empirically tests and confirms it, then this would falsify my hypothesis. Sean Carrol himself has suggested how this would falsify the God hypothesis in this video:

https://www.youtube.com...



Con’s source of [7] in his round 2, is bafflingly ridiculous


I was simply trying to give an additional source that would help everyone understand Source 8# better since quantum physics is a difficult subject to understand. Source 7# explains how the wave-function is non-physical and can be confirmed through a different approach, which source 8# empirically supports.


Even more embarrassing is that Con has quote-mined a blog-piece from new Scientist [1].


Again, I was trying to help everyone understand the material I presented. This is why I also gave a source that provided the consensus view on these subjects just in case the material was still too complex to accept.


Regardless of what Con says, we can differentiate between the natural and the supernatural. Let’s take an extremely famous legal case [4]. This goes over why Intelligent design is pseudo-science, and whilst you are not proposing Intelligent Design


A judge is not a valid source for Con to argue that my hypothesis is unscientific nor is a courtroom an appriopriate place to determine science. So this is clearly an appeal to authority fallacy.

Furthermore, considering that science only deals with the explanation of natural phenomena, I’d say that this is very relevant to this debate.

First off, science has essentially confirmed the existence of the supernatural in the case of the wave-function. Secondly, we don't have to have direct evidence for a cause of a phenomna in science, like in the case of nuetrinos. Indirect evidence from the effects for a cause is totally accepted in science and thus whether a cause is potentially supernatural or natural is not a problem, especially since the scientific method is inherently inductive.


If you’re going to state that science can address the notion of a god, it would be in the scientific literature, regardless of it being a hypothesis

If
this debate was titled "The God Hypothesis should be considered a Scientific theory", then I think Con would have a point since theories in science are accepted and well tested hypothesizes. This is not the case in this debate though, as I explained before. With that said, I will actually provide some evidence in the next round that suggests it is within the literature.

P.S. remember I am Pro and you are Con so be sure to label me properly next time so the voters won't be confused.

Debate Round No. 3
Spud

Con

I'm having to forfeit my round. Haven't had the time to even begin typing a response.
kenballer

Pro

In this round, I am just going to do what I said I was going to do in the last round.

Since God is defined as a second space-time dimension or spaceless timeless being, there is actually an important aspect of the God hypothesis that has been pioneered by a scientist, named Itzhak Bars, in a peer-reviewed journal and confirmed.

In fact, I actually contacted Itzhak Bars, the physicist who espouses the two time physics model, through email. Here is the exchange we had:

Kenballer

"Hello, my name is Ken. I just want to say that I am strong supporter and big fan of your 2T physics model, which includes a total of six dimensions. I have very important questions to ask you about your model. Would you say that your model is truly a theory of everything and another candidate among others like string theory that seeks to unify all the forces making it the final theory?

If you say yes, then I am confused as to why it is not even on the table with theories of everything or spoke of among physicists in big speaking engagements or in the press. In fact, Many physicists even claim that string theory is the only candid despite having many problems. Lastly, has any of your predictions from your model been tested or confirmed yet?

I will be honored if you can respond to my questions."

Itzhak Bars

Dear Ken,

"As you may be aware, nobody knows yet what the unified theory is in any approach. Ideas at the frontiers of knowledge rise and fall as they get replaced by better and more comprehensive concepts. The popularity of some ideas at any given time is tied to historical paths of development of new concepts. After undergoing a lot of birth pains, string theory enjoyed a period of popularity, but now this is in decline. I don't know a better theory of quantum gravity than string theory. Hence the decline is not because this good aspect of string theory has been replaced, but it is because of what it lacks. String or M theory is known in bits and pieces - there is no comprehensive formulation of the theory based on a unique principle. So fundamental principles and better concepts are lacking - this is why string theory is in disarray and unable to make reliable testable predictions.

2T-physics is a new framework, beyond string theory, that does aim to reach the unifying theory through deeper and more fundamental symmetry principles that are absent in 1T-physics (classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and particle physics in 3+1, string theory in 9+1 , M-theory in 10+1). The symmetry demands the extra two dimensions (classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and particle physics in 4+2, string theory in 10+2 , M-theory in 11+2).

The 2T-framework is still under development. At this stage 2T-physics does include successfully classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and particle physics. In particular the Standard Model and Gravity in 4+2 dimensions are in place and producing results. In that sense 2T-physics already covers all the physics we know at all levels of distance or energy. So it is a correct description of nature as we know it. 2T-physics has not yet dealt with gravity in the context of quantum mechanics. I am also a string theorist. The 2T version of string theory or M-theory is only partially developed. I refrain from speculation any further.

In the meantime, it has been demonstrated that 2T-physics goes well beyond 1T-physics in unifying physical systems and making testable predictions that 1T-physics gives no clues about. This includes everyday classical and quantum physics (see examples of dualities and hidden symmetries in my papers and lectures), as well as the physics of the large and small systems, including some aspects of physics at frontiers such as M-theory. For example, in cosmology the 2T approach has produced new understanding of the behavior of the universe at the time of the big bang, including new phenomena, that no other approach managed to understand before. I have followers and collaborators among leading cosmologists that work with me on this topic. So 2T-physics is demonstrably a larger unifying framework, and I believe it is needed to find the truly unified theory.

I do speak about 2T-physics in international conferences or workshops several times every year. There are no objections from my colleagues to 2T-physics (e.g. no such papers exist) and in private I get encouragement from leading physicists. There are followers, although I would have expected many more followers. But I have learned that for something that is a game changer this comes extremely slowly. I realized that this is a common phenomenon in every field, arts and music, science and technology, and of course lots of examples in physics (including string theory). One additional reason is the job opportunities for younger researchers at the frontiers of research in physics: jobs are too few and extremely competitive, so young physicists have the pressure to work on currently popular topics to increase their chances to get a job. Usually it is the younger generation that helps the development of newer aspects of a field while the older generation is stuck in its older concepts and sometimes even rejects what is about to become the new successful idea. This happened to relativity when Einstein was young, and Einstein did it to quantum mechanics. Fortunately there is no rejection of 2T-physics, while any resistance seems mainly due to lack of familiarity with the details which requires effort and investment. So, I don't worry about that, and continue to develop my ideas. I am confident that physics will be better off eventually when 2T-physics becomes the standard formalism to describe all phenomena."

Itzhak Bars


** Commentary **

Let me be clear, I am NOT suggesting that Itzhak Bars is espousing a universal mind creating and controlling everything. However, Itzhak Bars' model is the closest at doing so because it confirms that there is a second space-time dimension that creates matter and energy from digital information processes. For example, here are quotes from those papers he spoke of that support my contentions:

"Additional data related to the predictions, that provides information about the properties of the extra 1-space and extra 1-time dimensions, can be gathered by observers stuck in 3+1 dimensions. This is the probe for investigating indirectly the extra 1+1 dimensions which are neither small nor hidden." [2]

"This suggests that, as a general phenomenon, there are hidden relations and hidden symmetries that conventional 1T-physics does not capture, implying the existence of a more unified formulation of physics that naturally supplies the hidden information. In fact, we show that 2T-physics in (d+2)-dimensions is the generator of these dualities in 1T-physics in d-dimensions by providing a holographic perspective that unifies all the dual 1T systems into one." (emphasis added)[3]

Finally, the only difference between what Itzhak Bars espouses and myself is that he has not been made aware of consciousness being a valid alternative to string theory in regards to a quantum theory of gravity. As he alluded to in the email, this is why he thinks his model is incomplete because he did not include string theory, which is the only known or accepted quantum gravity theory among physicists. However, I contend that his model is complete and I explained why within the source I gave you before where I show that the mechanism is consciousness (i.e. Metaphysics).



[2] Itzhak Bars, Gauge Symmetry in Phase Space, Consequences for Physics and Spacetime, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25 (2010) 5235-5252.

[3] Ignacio J. Araya, Itzhak Bars. Generalized Dualities in 1T-Physics as Holographic Predictions from 2T-Physics. arXiv:1311.4205v2

Debate Round No. 4
Spud

Con

I'm forfeiting again. I really can't be bothered to type up a lot in response to this; I think I've run out of steam for debates. My apologies to Pro and I recommend that people vote Kenballer.
kenballer

Pro


Don't worry about it Con. I was not totally gungho myself to do this debate.


Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Spud 10 months ago
Spud
@kenballer Hmmm. Didn't realise the formatting of my round was that bad (I use MS Word to type up argument, then copy & paste that to post my argument). I'll make sure that doesn't happen again, and thanks for reminding audience of my slip-up by referring to you as Con. Had 2 wisdom teeth out recently and had to make argument day after wisdom teeth were taken out, so I just wanted to finish my round and go to bed lol.
Posted by Spud 10 months ago
Spud
But I've already given my stance as to why I don't think the notion of a god cannot be tested. That was the reason of my round. You've screwed me over here as there's nothing of substance I can respond to, as you've essentially doubled up on the opening round.
Posted by kenballer 10 months ago
kenballer
Then, address whatever you can and make your own case as to why you think God can't be tested or is not a scientific question. Use your imagination. The next round I will lay out my whole case in detail.
Posted by Spud 10 months ago
Spud
@Kenballer I was kinda expecting arguments in your round dude XD. I can't really touch on anything you've said as it's just setting up. You've kind of wasted our rounds tbh... I mean, I can't refute anything as it's just set-up. I was kinda expecting for me to just open up the debate, set it up, if you disagree with my set-up, move on, and then get into arguments
No votes have been placed for this debate.