The Omniverse is infinite
Debate Rounds (3)
Omniverse: The Omniverse is all that exists. By definition nothing can exist outside it.
Infinite: Something without limits: limitless time, space, or distance.
My argument is simple. If something is finite, it is literally nothing compared with something that is infinite. Therefore something finite cannot exist, because it would have a 0% chance of existing, since anything else could have existed. Even if you include with our universe billions of others, with their own laws and possibilities, it would still be finite. If however, we live in an omniverse with infinite universe and modes of existence, it would make a lot more sense. An infinite omniverse would have a 100% chance of existing.
It is up to whoever accepts this debate to disprove this.
Thanks to Pro for presenting an interesting topic. I'm amused that the term 'world' has changed into 'universe' and then into 'omniverse' (or perhaps multiverse) throughout our linguistic history. Humans have had to learn the hard way that their assumptions of importance in relation to the whole of existence is dubious.
Let's consider first the statement 'If something is finite, it is literally nothing compared with something that is infinite'. Is this true? It is not. Rather, the proper conclusion that one could draw from a comparison of this kind would be that the finite thing is infinitely smaller compared to the infinite thing. Consider the following analogy:
I have a copy of the Stephen Hawking's book 'a Brief History of Time' which is 200 pages long. It is finite, spatially and temporally (space can be lumped in with distance). It is resting on a table. Lying next to it is a copy of Roger Penrose's 'The Road to Reality'. However this is a special edition. It has been lying on the table for eternity. Furthermore, each page is one half the thickness of the preceding page ad infinitum, such that there are an infinite number of pages. The pages of this book are limitless.
However, what can we conclude about the number of pages in each book? Not that there are 0 pages in A Brief History of Time. That is false: there are 200. Rather, that in relation to The Road to Reality, A Brief History of Time has an infinitely fewer number of pages. By analogy, a finite omniverse would not be nothing compared to an infinite omniverse, but rather infinitely smaller than an infinite omniverse.
Let's continue with Pro's case. He says 'something finite cannot exist, because it would have a 0% chance of existing, since anything else could have existed'. If this is true, then neither he nor I exist! Humans are not infinite either spatially or temporally, therefore we have a 0% chance of existing according to this line of reasoning. Pro's line of thought seems to be something like this: there are an infinite possible number of finite universes that could have existed. If the universe were finite, it would be one amongst an infinite number of possible universes; therefore the probability we can assign the universe is infinitely small, or zero percent. However, infinitely small is not equivalent to non-existent. Scientists hypothesise that there are infinitely dense collections of matter called 'black holes' - but they clearly do not hypothesise that these black holes are nonexistent.
Rather, if it is true, as Pro seems to assume, that there is an infinite number of ways in which the universe could have been, this leads to the conclusion that each possible configuration of the universe is equally probable - infinitely small.
Let's come to the conclusion of Pro's round. He says 'If however, we live in an omniverse with infinite universe and modes of existence, it would make a lot more sense. An infinite omniverse would have a 100% chance of existing'. But why is this the case? Is it not true that there are an infinite number of ways an infinite omniverse could be? An Omniverse filled with an infinite quantity of rubber ducks, for example, as opposed to an infinite quantity of trees? Is not an infinite omniverse also competing probabilistically with all the possible finite universes? Hypothesising an omniverse does not lead to the conclusion that the hypothesised omniverse is 100% probable any more than hypothesising that godzilla is eternal and infinite in size make it 100% probable that he exists.
Back to you Pro. ^^
For the first point, Con claims that a finite universe would not be nothing next to an infinite one but that it would simply be infinitely smaller than it. However, this is based on the idea that the two are somehow different things. If you add up all the finite numbers you can think of, you would never reach infinity, nor would you ever get any closer. "Infinitely smaller" is just another word for "nothing compared to infinity".
His next two points are other clear examples of a lack of understanding about infinity. But before I move on to his second rebuttal, I must address the first. Con states that 'Is it not true that there are an infinite number of ways an infinite omniverse could be? An Omniverse filled with an infinite quantity of rubber ducks, for example, as opposed to an infinite quantity of trees? Is not an infinite omniverse also competing probabilistically with all the possible finite universes?'
I believe his misunderstanding is my fault, as I did not make myself clear enough in the first round. By infinite, I did not mean infinite in the sense that the omniverse was neverending in three dimensions. I meant infinitely infinite, in which there are an infinite number of infinities. While this omniverse is physically COULD be filled with rubber ducks or trees, the odds of that are 0%. This "ifiniverse" must have every type of existence possible, every possible universe must exist, because in an infinite omniverse eventually there must be infinite exact copies of our own universe, and then infinite exact copies, but with an atom floating this way and not that.
This disproves his second point, as there would be a certain universe, with an infinite number of clones, with certain laws, in which matter would come together and form galaxies, stars, planets, life, and would evolve a certain species called humans. I hope I have made myself clear enough this time and look forward to my opponent's response.
Thanks to Pro for his reply, though I fear his confidence that he has solved the problem of solipsism and most of cosmology is premature.
Pro writes in support of his claim that a finite universe is nothing in comparison that: 'If you add up all the finite numbers you can think of, you would never reach infinity, nor would you ever get any closer'. This is, of course true - one could never reach infinity starting from 0 or any finite number. However, this does not entail that finite numbers are equivalent to nothing.
Imagine that I decide to count to infinity. I have been counting for ten years and have reached 1015 (1,000,000,000,000,000). I suddenly realise "Oh no! I'm not really any closer to infinity! One can't count from a finite number to infinity!". My lifelong dream shattered, I prepare to commit suicide. But then it occurs to me: it isn't like I've achieved nothing. After all, it's unlikely anyone has counted to one quadrillion before. Quadrillion might be infinitely smaller than infinity, but it isn't nothing; it's a whopping great big, entirely existent finite number.
Besides, Pro doesn't address my examples: A Brief History of Time does not have 0 pages. Black holes are not non-existent. Infinitely small(er) is not a synonym for non-existent - the two are distinct concepts.
Pro clarifies that what he intended to say in the first round was that there is that what he intended by an omniverse was a sort of collection of all possible worlds. Everything that can possibly exist does exist in the omniverse, so there are an infinite number of rubber ducks in one universe, an infinite number of trees in another and so on. However it's difficult to see how this saves his argument. The question was: isn't this omniverse competing probabilistically with all the other possible ways the universe could be? Assuming for the sake of argument that Pro's omniverse is possible (pace Hilbert's Hotel for example), it is still one possibility amongst many others. For example, the currently hypothesised finite universe began to exist at some point in the past 13.7 billion years ago and is spatially finite. This is also a possible way the world could be. There of an infinite number of other finite configurations the universe could possibly be, so the probability of Pro's omniverse is exactly the same as everything else - infinitely small.
Besides, this would lead to the conclusion that neither he nor I exist. If finite things have a 0% probability of existing, then since he and I are finite, neither of us exist. Pro's blowing up of his omniverse into all possible worlds doesn't save his argument.
My opponent, unfortunately, still misunderstands my argument. I do not need to specifically address his Brief History of Time example, as I have logically demonstrated that any finite number is nothing compared to infinity, which renders his argument invalid. From a finite perspective, a quadrillion is "something" but from an infinite perspective, it is nothing. Take into account this example: If a number were randomly generated, any number between one and infinity, what are the odds that it will land on four? Infinitely small is not an acceptable answer, it must be given as a percentage above zero. Con may claim that my example is impossible, or that it doesn't make logical sense, but this only proves my point, that anything finite is essentially nothing compared to infinity.
As for the black hole example, if a black hole really was infinitely dense, it would have infinite gravity, which would instantly suck the universe into the black hole in literally no time at all. The infinite omniverse must exist- within it all possible modes of existence are actualized, refuting Con's argument that he or I would not exist. If everything that can exist does exist, doesn't that prove that we can and do exist?
In essence, Con's arguments are the same ones from round one, but restated in a different way. He claims I did not address his arguments, but this his due to the fact that he did not understand my points, and I hope he does not repeat this in the final round.
Your turn :)
Unfortunately, Pro, while still arguing that a finite number of things is 'nothing' compared to an infinite number of things. has dropped the argument that an infinite omniverse would be 100% probable. Considering that that is what is required for the resolution to be true, he loses by default. To reiterate, even if there were a possible infinite omniverse, it would still be competing probabilistically with all the possible finite universes. Nonetheless, I will respond to his remaining points:
Pro asserts that he does not need to respond to the book example since he has "logically demonstrated that any finite number is nothing compared to infinity". I'm interested that he thinks this, since as far as I can tell there is no such logical demonstration anywhere in this debate. However, even if he has made an argument to that effect, the analogy shows that the conclusion is clearly false. Pro gives the example of a number generator that could generate any number. This demonstrates my point perfectly! If Pro is correct, such a generator is logically impossible, since the probability that it could generate any one number is 0%! Since I think that such a generator clearly does seem possible, add it to my side of the debate.
Pro says "if a black hole really was infinitely dense, it would have infinite gravity, which would instantly suck the universe into the black hole". Now, I'm no physicist, but I assume that the reason this is not the case is that gravitational attraction increases with *mass* not density. Black Holes have a finite amount of mass. They also have an 'event horizon', a finite border outside of which it is possible for things to escape its gravitational pull.
Pro sort of makes an argument: "The infinite omniverse must exist- within it all possible modes of existence are actualized, refuting Con's argument that he or I would not exist". However, as it stands, like the rest of the debate, this is just a bare assertion. He says that an omniverse containing all modes of existence 'must' exist but never says why. He never gives a probabilistic argument as to why such a universe necessarily exists, as it would have to have a 100% probability of existing.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: "Hypothesising an omniverse does not lead to the conclusion that the hypothesised omniverse is 100 probable any more than hypothesising that godzilla is eternal and infinite in size make it 100 probable that he exists." - yes, and correct point about the black hole as well . interesting argument from Pro however.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.