The SN 1006 Supernova caused when World War Two occurred
Debate Rounds (4)
I will be arguing for the resolution as stated, namely that "The SN 1006 supernova caused when World War Two occurred".
I will use the following definition:
Cause - to mandate the existence or occurrence of
Further definitions will be supplied as necessary. I believe that SN 1006 supernova and World War Two are well understood enough to not require definitions but if my opponent desires one that is fine.
Good luck to opponent.
Thanks to my opponent for accepting the debate challenge. And now onto my opening arguments.
Argument One: General Argument
Premise One: Events occurring cause time to move forward.
Premise Two: Time moving forward causes events to occur.
Conclusion One: Any event causes any subsequent event.
Premise Three: The SN-1006 supernova occurred before World War Two.
Conlusion Two: The SN-1006 supernova caused when World War Two occurred.
Defense of Premise One:
The antithesis of this statement is that when events occur it does not mandate time's movement forward. As time is an ordered sequence of events in which the occurrence of one mandates (or causes) the occurrence of the next, it would be absurd to suggest that by allowing the following events to occur, any event's occurrence does not move time forward.
Defense of Premise Two:
When time moves forward, events occur in their ordered sequence. To claim that the occurrence of these events does not cause the occurrence of the subsequent ones is deny the basic properties of time and events, namely that immediately subsequent events follow based on their basic properties.
Defense of Premise Three:
This is essentially undeniable. World War Two began in 1939, the supernova was observed in 1006. Not much contention here.
Argument Two: Argument from Physics
A "Planck time" is the name given to the shortest possible unit of time, derived from the Planck length.  Let us use the term "Planck frame" to refer to the arrangment of everything in the universe at the time of one Planck frame. Now let us define an "event" as the change between one Planck frame and the immediately subsequent one. We can then think of time as an ordered sequence of these events.
Premise One: When an event occurs, it mandates the existence of the Planck frame it changes into.
Premise Two: When a Planck frame comes into existence, it mandates the occurrence of the event changing it.
Conclusion One: When an event occurs, it causes the immediately subsequent event.
Premise Three: The subsequent-event-causing property of events does not terminate after one iteration.
Conslusion Two: When an event occurs, it causes all subsequent events.
Premise Four: World War Two and the SN-1006 supernova are sequences of events.
Premise Five: World War Two is subsequent to the SN-1006 supernova.
Conclusion Three: The SN-1006 supernova caused when World War Two occurred.
Defense of Premises One and Two:
As the event is merely a change of Planck frames, so by definition the frame following it must come into existence. By extension, when this Planck frames comes into existence, the next event in the sequence will occur after one Planck time. To deny this is to deny the progression of time itself.
Defense of Premise Three:
If we carry out the logical conclusion of premises one and two, we find that, just as the first domino knocks down the whole chain, the event's ability to cause the subsequent event also causes the event subsequent to that one, and to that one, and so on.
Defense of Premise Four:
As these two occupied periods of time, they are not "events" as we have defined them. However, any period of time can be summarized as a section of the sequence of events that is time, and so they are both smaller sequences of events, and the properties of events can be likewise applied.
Defense of Premise Five:
Once again, historical fact.
Because any event moves time forward, and time moving forward causes any event, all events cause all subsequent events. Therefore, the SN-1006 supernova caused when World War Two occurred.
"Any event causes any subsequent event."
Think of this as a small domino chain. We have the first domino knocking down two dominoes. The first, "A", represents the SN-1006 supernova. The second, "B", knocks down domino "C". "C" represents World War Two. However, "A" falling didn't cause "C" to fall.
Sidenote: Your "Argument from Physics" is just your General Argument with short intervals of time. It doesn't change anything.
My opponent has only responded to one part of my argument. I will address their rebuttal now.
"The first, "A", represents the SN-1006 supernova. The second, "B", knocks down domino "C". "C" represents World War Two. However, "A" falling didn't cause "C" to fall."
This is simply not true. Examine our definition of cause (which was uncontested by my opponent), which simply states something causes something else if it mandates the existence or occurrence of it. As A falling down mandates the falling down of B mandates the falling down of C, it is clear to see that the falling down of A mandates the falling down of C, ergo causing the falling down of C. As I stated in the argument from physics, this property of causing subsequent events does not terminate after one iteration.
In addition, the argument from physics was really a physcal formalization, in case you wanted to object with "Your argument doesn't work because it's abstract and does not apply to physical reality".
With that I once again hand it over to Con.
1. Please define "mandate".
2. A doesn't cause B to fall. A and B both fall at the same time. But they are both caused to fall by the first domino.
"this property of causing subsequent events does not terminate after one iteration"
Still, A could cause a chain of other events, but not interact with C. Just because they don't stop causing events, doesn't mean that they cause ALL subsequent events. They only cause SOME subsequent events.
Here's a better explanation:
x->y: x causes y
We know that the following are true:
Can we say A->C? No!
BTW, that sidenote was saying that your two arguments were similar enough to be considered the same argument.
"1. Please define "mandate".
2. A doesn't cause B to fall. A and B both fall at the same time. But they are both caused to fall by the first domino."
1. X mandates Y if X necessitates Y being so, X and Y being truth statements. i.e. X mandates Y means that X⊃Y.
2. In your original example, you said:
"The first, "A", represents the SN-1006 supernova."
You stated that A is the first domino. Now you're saying it isn't. Stop shifting the goalpost.
"Here's a better explanation:
x->y: x causes y
We know that the following are true:
Can we say A->C? No!"
You've set up a scenario in which instead of a timeline, we have a tree of events. Obviously A doesn't cause C, because when C is on a different branch of the tree, it isn't subsequent to A. Ergo your example is not relevant to this discussion. When we model time, we model it as a sequence of events. This means it is linear, i.e. it doesn't branch out.
My opponent's examples are unrelated to the discussion. Vote Pro.
"When we model time, we model it as a sequence of events. This means it is linear, i.e. it doesn't branch out."
This is where you are wrong. Event: Physics. in relativity, an occurrence that is sharply localized at a single point in space and instant of time. http://dictionary.reference.com...
What you say is 1 event is actually multiple events, each affecting others. It is only linear if you say that an instant in time is an event, which is not. What you did was confuse the two terms.
In your round 2 argument, you presume that the SN-1006 supernova and World War II are events. However, this round, you say, "When we model time, we model it as a sequence of events," presuming that an event is an instant in time.
IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT!
Why is there irony? Look at what you said:
"You stated that A is the first domino. Now you're saying it isn't. Stop shifting the goalpost. "
The irony is, you are the one who is shifting the goalpost! (BTW, I never said that A was the first domino. I said it was the first domino that was knocked down.)
You see, events do branch out, but when we model time, we don't use a sequence of these events. We use a sequence of instants. Ergo, events do branch out like I have said.
Voters, decide whether we should extend this debate, as Pro has finally made his argument clear.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.