The Instigator
captmurk
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
B0NEDUDE
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The purpose of all things in motion is to seek balance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 1/27/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,449 times Debate No: 44688
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (0)

 

captmurk

Pro

I am arguing that anything in motion is ultimately seeking balance. In other words, balance is the purpose, or end game, of all movement. I view the Universe as a strictly physical Universe consisting of opposites (for every entity that exists, an equal yet opposite entity also exits). We can briefly debate my view of the Universe in the first round if you choose. I'm not big on "debate rules", so Con can use the rounds however he or she pleases. The BOP is on me to prove that all things in motion are ultimately seeking balance. I look forward to it!
B0NEDUDE

Con

Ok I challenge.

I have a couple concepts p my sleeve about that theory but I will not exactly be taking a "against" stance, just a "paralell" stance.
Debate Round No. 1
captmurk

Pro

I will start by thanking B0NEDUDE for accepting this debate. I also wanted to explain two challenges I will face in defending this theory. 1) I claimed that ALL things in motion are ultimately seeking balance. For obvious reasons, I cannot give an example of every single thing, large and small, that has ever been in motion. I will have to provide a broad spectrum of examples as evidence that this theory most likely applies to all examples. 2) This theory is rooted in the ancient religion of Taoism (Yin Yang), and as the teachings of this religion state, balance is a concept that must be understood more than it can be explained. The belief is based in simplicity. The more I try to define and explain the theory, the more complicated it becomes; and the more complicated it becomes, the further away from true understanding we get. I do think it can be explained and defined, but my challenge will be to do so in a way that doesn't over complicate the theory. Anyways, I will start the first round by explaining the existence of opposites.

The theory of balance requires the existence of opposites. Without opposing forces and entities, there is nothing to balance. We live in a Universe comprised of opposites. Opposites present themselves in a variety of ways in everyday life that we are all aware of. Light Dark, Good Evil, Up Down, Happy Sad, Full Empty, Loud Quiet, Life Death, Heaven Hell, etc. etc. The opposite of one can be defined as the lack of the other. For this reason, existence and non existence are the two fundamental opposites. Things that exist, can only be defined in relation to how they do not exist. In other words, things are what they aren't. For example, Light can be defined as a lack of Dark. Dark can be defined as a lack of Light. One cannot exist without the other. It is impossible. For every entity created, its opposite also exists. Nobody could by Happy if there wasn't Unhappiness to compare it against. The examples of these opposite are literally endless. Below I will provide quite a long list mathematical and scientific theories and laws that pertain to opposites (duality). To learn more about each of these theories, go to Wikipedia and search "Duality." You will be able to scroll down and click on each one for details. I will explain how these opposites relate to balance in the upcoming rounds.

*Mathematics
Duality (mathematics), a mathematical concept
Dual (category theory), a formalization of mathematical duality
Duality (order theory), a concept regarding binary relations
Duality (projective geometry), general principle of projective geometry
S-duality (homotopy theory)
Duality (optimization)
List of dualities (Mathematics)

*Philosophy, logic, and psychology
Dualism, a twofold division in several spiritual, religious, and philosophical doctrines
Dualism (philosophy of mind), where the body and mind are considered to be irreducibly distinct
De Morgan's Laws, specifically the ability to generate the dual of any logical expression.
Science[edit]

*Electrical and mechanical
Duality (electrical circuits), regarding isomorphism of electrical circuits
Duality (mechanical engineering), regarding isomorphism of some mechanical laws

*Physics
AdS/CFT correspondence, (anti de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence), sometimes called the Maldacena duality
Dual resonance model
Duality (electricity and magnetism)
Englert"Greenberger duality relation
Holographic duality
Kramers"Wannier duality
List of dualities (physics)
Mirror symmetry
Montonen"Olive duality
Mysterious duality
String duality is a class of symmetries
S-duality
T-duality
U-duality
Wave"particle duality
B0NEDUDE

Con

Hi again.

Ok, in order to credit your theory you need to base it off of one of these premises:

1: The universe was and is "whole" or "nothing" and therefore balanced but we don't notice.

2: Something new, reoccuring or lost "unbalanced" the whole or nothing and we are along for the ride to zero point.

3: "Balance" is irrelevant to matter but we have to factor it into our thinking because of the way we developed in our enviroment (Survival).

Number 3 is basically my argument.
Debate Round No. 2
captmurk

Pro

First I want to address the 3 statements Con made.
#1 implies that the Universe is already in balance and we just don't know it. I disagree. If we were truly in balance, there would be absolute serenity. A timeless equilibrium in which nothing moves or has purpose; like a still, infinite ocean without a single wave, ripple or currant. We do not live in such a Universe.
#2 is more closely aligned with my belief. I believe there was once a perfect stillness and balance, and then something (God perhaps) splashed his hand in the ocean setting off massive chain reactions as a response to the unbalancing. These chain reactions, seen everywhere around us and within us, have been striving to get back to that equilibrium the Universe once was. The real question is, why did something, or God, unbalance the equation in the fist place? That I will not pretend to understand.
#3 Honestly, I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this assertion. Please elaborate on what you meant by #3 in the following rounds.

In round one, I explained the concept of duality. Essentially, for every entity that exists, its opposite also exists. One cannot exist without the other. I will now explain how those opposites dance with one another to ultimately achieve balance (equal presence/force between one entity and its opposite). To do this, I will provide a variety of examples that clearly exemplify an act of balance in both human behavior, and in later rounds, the physical world around us.

Human Behavior

In one of the comments on this debate, a person asked, how is going down the street to grab a cup of coffee an illustration of balance?
We must first ask, WHY is he going to grab a cup of coffee? The simplest way to understand much of human behavior, in terms of balance, is acquiring what we don't have. Typically, we act to fill a void of some sort, or to acquire what is missing in our lives. When something exists in the world, but does not exist in us, we often seek it.

Example: Food exists in the world, but at this moment does not exist in my belly. My body is craving the nutrients present in food, and therefore, instructs me to fill that void, with food. When we eat more than what we need, our body initiates another act of balance, and disposes of the excess.
The same could be said about thirst, or even the man mentioned above seeking a cup of coffee. In anyway you want to look at it, at its core, he is filling a void. Acquiring what he wants, but does not yet have. This void may be a chemical one in the form of caffeine. It may be a comfort in the form of taste and satisfaction. It may even be a social void, in which getting a cup of coffee is simply a means to interact with others at the shop; or a sexual void being satisfied by the affair he's having with the barista! All joking aside, what ever is motivating this man to grab coffee, at its core, can be explained as a person seeking to acquire what is currently missing.
When the void is filled, when the need is met, when the emptiness (one entity) is balanced with fullness (the opposing entity), that particular matter is resolved, and no longer requires action until that balance is upset.

Another type of human balance, which is not related to satisfying internal voids with external entities, is the internal balancing act which dictates our moods and feeling. Simply put, there are highs and lows, happy and sad feelings, along with a few others such as, confident and afraid, euphoria and pain, energized and depressed. These conflicting entities represent the opposites.
Internally, our bodies strive to balance the chemicals that create these conflicting feelings. People who have mood disorders are prescribed medication to aid these imbalances. Some drugs raise serotonin levels to achieve this, some lower the levels. It depends on which side of the spectrum the unbalance is occurring, which depends on the patient of course. Some people self medicate with hard drugs. The problem with these drugs is that they are designed to unbalance, not balance. They take the user way too high. Extreme highs (even without drugs) inevitably lead to extreme lows. It can be viewed as one's body swinging back and forth like a pendulum until it finally settles in the middle. A few other brief examples of the human balancing act are listed below:

We seek opposite yet complimentary partners (male and female...usually)
We have questions to which we seek answers (problem and solution)
We work hard so we can play hard (cost and return)
We define the wrong so that we can live right in comparison (good and evil)
We live, and then we die. We were once dead, and then we lived (life and death)

The examples many, many examples. If there are are any actions, including the above, that you don't feel represent an act of balance, please point them out, explain why, and I will attempt to address them.

In the next round, I will explain the forces of balance in the physical world. These forces are the most interesting and persuasive in my opinion. I look forward to it.
B0NEDUDE

Con

PRO: "#2 is more closely aligned with my belief. I believe there was once a perfect stillness and balance, and then something (God perhaps) splashed his hand in the ocean setting off massive chain reactions as a response to the unbalancing. These chain reactions, seen everywhere around us and within us, have been striving to get back to that equilibrium the Universe once was. The real question is, why did something, or God, unbalance the equation in the fist place? That I will not pretend to understand."

First of all, if something is balanced, then it is not whole or "perfect" therefore proving premise #3, in which there is a WHOLE (not two seperate parts).

We are merely a broken off concept from the whole as pairs in our enviroment.

We could have broken off into quads or negatives, what would our enviroment look like then?

There are infinite possibilites when dealing with the WHOLE thereby proving again the legitimacy of premise #3.
Debate Round No. 3
captmurk

Pro

I will first address Con's previous statements.

Con: "First of all, if something is balanced, then it is not whole or "perfect" therefore proving premise #3, in which there is a WHOLE (not two seperate parts)."

I disagree. If something is balanced, then it IS whole or "perfect". If something is balanced, it has achieved equilibrium. This can be exemplified as a perfect symmetry (balance) between opposites.

Con: "We are merely a broken off concept from the whole as pairs in our enviroment."

I'm not sure what you mean by this assertion, or how it applies to your position. Please elaborate.

Con: "We could have broken off into quads or negatives, what would our enviroment look like then?"

Who knows? A lot of thing could of happened. I prefer to define what I think DID happen.

Con: "There are infinite possibilites when dealing with the WHOLE thereby proving again the legitimacy of premise #3."

You have referenced "premise #3" a few times now, and I am still not sure what you meant by it. To reiterate:
Con: "3: 'Balance' is irrelevant to matter but we have to factor it into our thinking because of the way we developed in our enviroment (Survival)."

What exactly do you mean by, "'Balance' is irrelevant to matter..."? Regarding the rest of the premise, are you trying to say that we invented the idea of balance in our minds as a form of survival? What do you mean by this? What exactly is your argument? How does it negate my examples of balance in the physical world provided below? These examples aren't man made.

I will conclude this debate by providing examples of balance in the physical world.

Elements
The entire Universe is made up of building blocks that scientists refer to as the periodic table of elements. The only difference between each object (e.g. plastic vs rubber) is the arrangement, or combination, of those various elements. The next obvious question would be, why do these elements arrange themselves in different ways to create different things? What causes different elements to be drawn to one another? The answer is balance. The elements are made of atoms. Atoms cling together because of a process called, ionic bonding. Essentially, this is the process of atoms balancing their electrons and protons..
Example: If atom A has 3 protons and 1 electron, and atom B has 4 protons and 6 elections, they will cling together if they become close to one another. The reason they cling together is because as a whole (if you add the protons and electrons between A and B) you get atom "AB" with 7 protons and 7 elections. As a pair, they have achieved an atomic balance that was missing before they connected. They were driven by their desire to seek balance. This is a very simplified explanation of ionic bonding, but it suggests that the primary motivator between molecular arrangements is the desire for atoms to balance their protons and electrons. These atoms are dancing all round us at this very moment. They are searching for the dance partner that balances them. The partner that gives the couple an equal amount of electrons and protons (two opposite, yet equal forces).

Weather
The two most commonly known opposites in weather are cold and hot. Cold air is classified as high pressure (dense), hot air is low pressure (light). Cold air always moves into warm air to balance the pressure levels. Simply put, cold air has more particles than warm air, so cold air spills in to fill up the emptiness in the warm air. It's like water being poured into a pot. It distributes itself evenly amongst all the areas absent of water. This is clearly an act of natural balance. Hot and cold climates dance with one another on massive scales creating large wind and weather patterns. Once the low pressure system has been filled up and balanced by the high pressure system, an equilibrium is reached, and the air becomes still and calm.

Osmosis
Osmosis is the spontaneous net movement of solvent molecules through a partially permeable membrane into a region of higher solute concentration, in the direction that tends to equalize the solute concentrations on the two sides. -Wikipedia
Similar to weather, osmosis is an act of balance. It also explains why we prune up in the pool or tub. Our skin acts as the membrane as the water in our bodies is pulled through our skin into the pool until the solute concentrations are balanced. The water being pulled out of our bodies is what causes the skin to shrivel up.

Physics
I am not a physicist, so I do not understand the forces and equations of physics; however, I do know that one of the most famous physicist of all time, Sir Isaac Newton, said,
"For every action, there is an opposite, yet equal, reaction."
I couldn't agree more!

Economy (could also be in the human behavior section)
The acting opposites in economies are supply and demand. When they are in balance, a company, industry, state, or country can run at optimal efficiency. When supply begins to outweigh demand, you have a surplus. When demand begins to outweigh supply, you have a shortage. These imbalances prompt action. When there is a surplus, prices must be lowered to generate more demand. When there is a shortage, prices must be raised to maximize the supply. Both actions are an attempt to reach an equilibrium between supply and demand. The concepts of supply and demand can be attributed to the work force.

Mathematics
What is the most common symbol in mathematics, that can found in every single equation without exception? An equal sign. Think about what that equal sign represents in any given equation. It represents balance. It symbolizes how one side of an equation can be different, yet equal, to the other side of the equation. Both sides of the equation can be manipulated in a variety of ways, so long as those manipulations respect the rules of balance implemented by the equal sign (what you do to one side of the equation, you must do to the other). There could be much more said about balance and mathematics, but I am growing tired with these definitions, as I'm sure you are with reading them at this point.

I will close by thanking Con, and any viewers and voters, for partaking in this debate. I believe my position to be true, regardless of my ability to verbalize it effectively. My objective was to provide enough well rounded examples of balance, both internal and external, macro and micro, to persuade readers that achieving balance is a highly probable motivator of all things in motion. It is my best attempt at a "universal philosophy," and my hope is that just one of you, maybe, took something away from it. Thanks again for reading and/or participating.
B0NEDUDE

Con

Ok, after a little explanation in the comments section...

PRO "
I disagree. I believe that a "whole" is the result of balanced parts.

whole adjective \G2;h!3;l1) complete or full : not lacking or leaving out any part
(http://www.merriam-webster.com......)

In other words, 'whole' means 'complete'. It means having all necessary parts. So yes, something that is complete or "whole" does consist of multiple parts. If a part is missing, it is unbalanced (incomplete).
Examples: A debate is 'whole' when both Pro and Con's arguments have equal representation. My perspective is 'whole' when I see both upside and downside, cost and reward, positive and negative. Atoms become 'whole' when they balance their electrons and protons by connecting with other atoms."

Here is where you are wrong. Balance only exists in OUR dual-particle system/reality . Anything could have come out of the "whole/nothing" (which you agreed) which would have completey different meaning than balance because it is a competley different dimension of existence. You would not percieve it as balance if the setup did not manifest its existence.

Therefore balance is not our end game, it is only a step until it further dissolves or manifests itself as the whole which is not balanced or inbalanced because it is complete & nothing.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by A906500a 2 years ago
A906500a
(For what it's worth)
Posted by A906500a 2 years ago
A906500a
Some say that the purpose of all things IS motion.
Posted by captmurk 3 years ago
captmurk
Haha, ground breaking indeed. This is only my second debate. The first one had only 1 vote decide. Cool website, but the lack of votes is a bit frustrating so far.
Posted by B0NEDUDE 3 years ago
B0NEDUDE
I hope we get some votes on this. It is truly ground breaking philosophy!
Posted by captmurk 3 years ago
captmurk
I disagree. I believe that a "whole" is the result of balanced parts.

whole adjective \G2;h!3;l1) complete or full : not lacking or leaving out any part
(http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

In other words, 'whole' means 'complete'. It means having all necessary parts. So yes, something that is complete or "whole" does consist of multiple parts. If a part is missing, it is unbalanced (incomplete).
Examples: A debate is 'whole' when both Pro and Con's arguments have equal representation. My perspective is 'whole' when I see both upside and downside, cost and reward, positive and negative. Atoms become 'whole' when they balance their electrons and protons by connecting with other atoms.

Maybe I'm not understanding your meaning of "whole." You say, "it is a solid which takes precedence over the over concept". Can you provide an example of these "whole" solids and what they take precedence over? Please elaborate in R5.
Posted by B0NEDUDE 3 years ago
B0NEDUDE
Ok, lets replace the word "equation" with the word "formula" because that is more what I meant.

I was trying to show how anything could have been our universe but I should have used an ODD number of particles with made-up names (Ca Ka Poo Pu Pi Pee Shire vs. our dual-particle system)

But here is the thing, balance is not what our dual universe is ULTIMATELY striving for because according to premise #3 that balance (when achieved) would "dissolve" becoming WHOLE again and a whole is not "two balanced parts", it is a solid which takes precedence over the over concept.
Posted by captmurk 3 years ago
captmurk
Are you agreeing that the Universe DID manifest into opposites (duality), but it is a complete mystery as to WHY it happened this way? If so, I agree. I'm not pretending to know the source or the reason for the creation of opposites. I just know that duality is what we got, for reasons only our Creator could explain.

Furthermore, the examples you gave still seem to fit the duality model. You said any equation could have come out from the whole/nothing; 'equation' being the operative word. There can only be two sides to an equation. You also said there could be quads (positive/negative/eastive/westive). This broken down is just two sets of opposites, positive and negative, and eastive and westive (2 separate equations consisting of opposites).
Posted by B0NEDUDE 3 years ago
B0NEDUDE
I am not sure what you dont understand about #3.

It means that "in the beggening" there was nothing or a whole - balance or duality came into existence BUT DID NOT HAVE TO BE in pairs (Duality/Balance). You say there is an opposite to everything which is mostly true (positive/negative), I am saying ANY equation could have come out from the whole/nothing.
Our universe could have showed up in quads (positive/negavite/eastive/westive) and would have physically changed our enviroment (universe) and survival.
Why it decided to manifest itself into good/evil or pos/neg is anyones guess.
Posted by captmurk 3 years ago
captmurk
This will be my final comment. If you would like to challenge my assertion, begin with round 1.
Posted by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
The laws of Entropy & Thermodynamics negate this resolution:

All things tend towards disorder.
No votes have been placed for this debate.