The Instigator
bubbatheclown
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
logicaljustice
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Size Is Relative, and This Statement, if True, Has Huge Meaning.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 637 times Debate No: 40294
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

bubbatheclown

Pro

If you were shrunk to the size of an ant, and put inside a domed environment, full of small buildings that compared to you in size as a normal building would compare to you in normal size. Everything in this dome was shrunken to become a small equivalent, in a way that you couldn't tell that you were shrunken. Through your shrunken eyes, which saw small things as normal size, you would not be able to tell that you had shrunken. Do you understand what I am saying?
Anyway, I do not think that there is such think as a smallest or largest possible size for an object. If you were the size of the planet Jupiter, and you lived in a star-sized world, if you discovered an amoeba you would deem it so small in comparison to you that it would have to be the smallest possible object, but in reality it wasn't. There's still atoms, and protons, and electrons, and neutrons, etcetera.
It is possible that there are entire universes so tiny that they are like a speck of dust inside of our universe, or it is possible that our universe is a speck of dust inside of someone else's universe. That universe, in turn, could be a speck inside someone else's universe, and it could go on Ad Infinitum.
I await your response, but first, make sure you understand everything I just said.
logicaljustice

Con

alriiight! now at first glance I would agree with you. perfectly plausible that there are "layers" of worlds existing, just think of the structure of our own solar system. very like the structure of an atom no? However, if you are assuming atoms are all the same, which you implied when you said "There's still atoms, and protons, and electrons, and neutrons, etcetera." then the world we know could not be shrunken down because the atoms will still behave in the same way. I will use a toy boat as an example: a full sized boat traveling at 30kph with create a fair bit of wake and white water, right? so if a boat 10 times smaller (say) traveling at 3kph will not make wake and white water relevant to its size. understand? this is simply because atoms (and therefore our universe) behave the same way, regardless of the size of whatever they are making up. being the size of an ant, things like kicking a football or drinking water would be completely different. so if there smaller or larger "worlds" they would be vastly different to our world. I think I have understood what you're arguing... here is my argument :)
Debate Round No. 1
bubbatheclown

Pro

First, I was not referring to layers of worlds. I was referring to layers of entire universes, an entire universe being a speck of dust or something inside another universe. Such a concept was used in Men in Black, I believe it was.
You mentioned a boat on water analogy. Indeed, a shrunken boat would not have the same effect on normal sized water as a normal sized boat would on normal sized water. However, what if the shrunken boat was moving on shrunken water? Let's just say you, who were normal sized, rode the normal sized boat on normal sized water at 30 mph. Then, you somehow shrunk yourself and rode in the shrunken boat on the shrunken water at 3 mph. From your perspective, both experiences would seem identical.
As what you were saying about atoms, there are units of matter smaller than protons, neutrons, and electrons. What if there were units of matter smaller still? What if these units of matter got so small that you had the building blocks for a universe where a galaxy was the size of an atom?
And also, you've forgotten to address the possibility of a universe where ours is the speck.
logicaljustice

Con

Yes. If the water was "shrunken" then yes things could go on getting smaller and there would be no limit. For this to work though atoms would have to get smaller and behave in the same way relative to size. which, in the world we know is impossible. You did mention smaller than atom particles but again I return to the fact that these would not create the same substance (such as water) or at least that can behave in the same way relative to it's size. furthermore, if (assuming) that these smaller than atomic particles could make up a universe, there would only be one size exactly that could exist. If you follow. 1000 grains of sugar make up a sugar cube of a certain size, if I wanted a sugar cube 1/10 of the size with the same number of grains I would use grains 1/10 of the size. Obviously with grains of sugar I could make various sizes. but translating that example into neutrino (I have been informed by google that this is the smallest particle that has a rest mass) there is only one size that can be made. Also doesn't your point about our universe being the speck contradict what you originally argued? If you were right then there would be no said "speck" would there? sorry If I have miss-interpreted what you were getting at.
Debate Round No. 2
bubbatheclown

Pro

By mentioning neutrinos you are implying there is an absolute smallest possible size for an object before it becomes nothing. Or perhaps it's the smallest known unit that our current level of technology can pick up? And you do have a good point. Particles smaller than an atom could not create a universe that looked like ours. It would have to be a drastically different universe, but it could still exist. And what I said about us being the speck, that is not a contradiction of what I've been saying at all. What if the smaller universe was a speck inside our universe, and we in turn were a speck inside someone else's universe? Some scientists have already suggested that our universe is inside a larger universe.
logicaljustice

Con

The technical side of how small particles go is irrelevant to this debate. the theory that particles (not universes) can keep on getting smaller and there are infinite sizes is difficult to argue about because there is no evidence suggesting either way. however, I am still going to argue that there is a limit to how small things can get because of the way atoms and sub atomic particles behave. If you were going to make the point that in a different universe atoms are different sized and behave like our atoms relative to their their size, then you would be right. The only rebuttal I have for that is; because atoms/sub atomic particles are the "essence" of all matter. These tiny, or massive "building blocks" would have to exist across all universes. Because (assuming we agree) there is nothing but atoms making up our universe. Where are the larger building blocks? If the larger "atoms" shared any of the characteristics our atoms have then hypothetically speaking there would be giant concentrated singular particles of mass that would basically tear our universe apart because of the energy and magnetic fields etc. the reason I focused on the larger atoms is because the smaller atoms could be potentially undetectable, if what you are arguing is correct.

In conclusion, particles are one sized and cannot occur in larger or smaller forms, because of the way atoms behave in our universe I am confident to argue this. Also, it is my belief that if there were layers of universes the particles that make up each one would have to be present in every universe, and if the sizes were infinite so would be the size of the atoms. therefore I deem that theory impossible. I am in no way educated on this topic, this is purely my opinion and beliefs of how the universe works.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by autodidact 3 years ago
autodidact
i know the winning argument, but since i am not con i will not make it. con has a good start with the science and that is all i can say right now.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
...what bench typed
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
You realize that nobody knows what the f*** youre trying to argue right?
No votes have been placed for this debate.