The Instigator
Willoweed
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
drafterman
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Theoretically the past will exactly repeat itself.

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 6 votes the winner is...
drafterman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,262 times Debate No: 19340
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (6)

 

Willoweed

Pro

So basically my position is that some time in the future we will all live these lifes again without a single change. So for example in the future I will be sitting at this computer typing the exact same thing on the exact same day with not a single difference (except for the fact that time has elapsed).
I will let my opponent first accept the challenge and then I will make my argument.
drafterman

Con

I accept the challenge. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Willoweed

Pro

If you roll a die once the chance of landing on 3 is 1 in 6.
If you roll a die twice the chance of landing on 3 at least once or more improves.
If you have a deck of cards labeled 1-1billion the chance of pulling out the number 5 is 1 in 1 billion, which is very slim odds and anyone betting on pulling out a 5 would most certainly lose their money.
But what if you they had 1 billion chances to pull out a five (assuming after pulling out each card you replace it and shuffle the deck); then theoretically you should pull out a five at least once.
Also if you pulled out a card indefinitely until you got 5 then the chance of you pulling out a 5 becomes a 100% certainty.

So back to the subject at hand; the chance that my life it its whole will be repeated again sometime in the future is astronomically slim, considering that there are trillions upon trillions of factors that could be changed. However theoretically the chance that this occurs is 100% if there is an infinite amount of time/chances. It would be like if you continued to draw a card out of the deck forever you'd eventually draw a certain card, or a certain combo of cards.

To summarize, theoretically the past will repeat exactly how it was at some time in the future given that there will always be a future and a future for that future meaning unlimited amounts of time and chances for said past to occur.
drafterman

Con

First, my opponent's argument, as presented, requires an infinite timeline in order to entail the mathematical certainty that is required. Only when dealing with infinities could we say that any event dealing with probabilities will happen. We don't know if time will go one forever. My opponent needs to demonstrate this for the argument.

Second, the scope of the argument includes the entire universe. However, for the past to repeat itself, that includes every particle that exists now will exist when the past repeats itself. However, the existence of black holes ensures that this cannot happen. Blackholes irrevocably absorb particles, thus permanently alterting the configuration of the universe to prevent exact duplication of any state.

Third, the second law of thermodynamics says that the universe will increasely become more disordered, preventing past, orderly states, from happening by chance. My opponent needs to demonstrate that this law is false, or that the universe is not a closed system.

Fourth, in a more philosophical bent, there is the question as to whether or not an event that is repeated is the same event. Events are uniquely defined by their space-time coordinates. So even if the same particles behave in the same way, those events occupy different points along the time line, and, therefore, are not identical.
Debate Round No. 2
Willoweed

Pro

PS:I read a lot about black holes, the universe etc, etc and a lot of it was beyond me, so I apologies if I am completely misinterpreting/understanding something.

1)Theoretically I'd say that "time" is infinite and the state of matter is what changes. I cannot think of any way to show that time is infinite.
2)Black holes.
In theory there are also white holes which spew new particles into the universe, and which are connected to black holes and are the other side of black holes, meaning that the particles sucked into a black hole will eventually exit out a white hole back into the universe.
3)Second law of thermodynamics.
Some researchers believe they have found another universe that exists alongside our own that has collided with our own leaving a visible imprint; this tells me that outside our universe there is something else were particles, heat etc. can be exchanged.
http://www.popsci.com...
4)The philosophical bent.
In my first post were I explained my position and so forth I excluded the fact that the events would occur at different times on a time line. So I agree with you point; but I feel that it should be excluded.
drafterman

Con

Infinitude of Time

Since your argument depends on what is theoretical, and it is theoretical that the universe (and, hence, time) could exist forever, I will grant you this point. Time could, theoretically, be infinite in the sense that it has not been ruled out as an option within the field of science.

Black Holes/White Holes

White holes are still in the realm of speculation. Firstly, the problems that White Holes allegedly fix vis-a-vis Black Holes are fixed through other, more accpeted means, such as Hawking Radiation. In this sense Black Holes and White Holes are the same object, though being the solution to different mathematical consequences of General Relativity. Other hypotheses which include White Holes place them at the beginning of other universes. Thus, when a black hole is created in our universe, a white hole is created as the birth of a new universe. Neither of these explanations allow for your resolution.
1) The Hawking Radiation consists of the emission of particles that are distinct from the particles absorbed by the black hole. They are, therefore, not the same particles.
2) The past and the future refer to a timeline, ostensibly this timeline, of this universe. Spacetime are part of the fabric of this universe, not indpendent abstract concepts. Another universe would have another timeline and events happening within that universe do not count with regards to this universe.

Universe Collision

This is more speculation and only causes us to regress. If our universe isn't a closed system, but rather a component of a larger system, then the second law still applies, just to that larger system. So, ultimately, it would need to be shown that the second law is, somehow, wrong. Furthermore, you need to posit a mechanism by which such collisions happen ad infinitum. The collision theory posits a collision as an explanation for the beginning of our universe. Your resolution depends on an infinite number of tries in order for the past to reproduce itself. You need to show that the universe will collide an infinute number of times.

Philosophical Uniqueness

I'll defer this point at the moment.
Debate Round No. 3
Willoweed

Pro

Hawking radiation. From what I understand the emissions from black holes would be made of photons. Photons can be removed and added to particles, meaning that just because particles enter a black hole and come out different doesn't mean that matter is indefinitely changed. The photons can be re added to the particles that lost them.

I do not think that the idea that when black holes are created a white hole is created as the birth of a new universe discounts my resolution.
First the white holes doesn't necessarily have to create a new universe it could be just emitting particles into an already created universe.
Second I don't see why the forming of a new universe, and the exchanging of particles from t3o universes makes it so that those functions can't occur in reverse, or be repeated. Another black hole can form in the new universe and send the particles back to the universe that lost them.

As my last post in this debate; I would like to thank my opponent for his contributions. I did a lot of reading and feel that I've learned something from this debate, and rather enjoyed having it. I hope my opponent feels the same, and if not I ask him to not say so because sometimes ignorance is bliss : )
drafterman

Con

Hawking Radiation

Particles generated by hawking radiation are distinct and independent from the particles absorbed by the black-hole itself. They aren't the same particles. Your assertion is that the past would repeat itself without any differences, but using different particles to recreate the past is a difference.

Whiteholes

Again, whiteholes are just speculation, unless they actually exist, they don't support your resolution.

Summary

The argument depends on the universe being a closed system in which it is possible for any state or configuration to occur on a long enough timeline. It discounts the existence of laws and entities which irrevocably alter the state of the universe. Namely: entropy and black holes.

The resolution is not: the past can repeat itself but will repeat itself; the latter require a larger burden than the former.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
Believe me, it was a good diagram
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
I give up
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
fgs!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-I -/\ I /
\I / -\I/
-a----b-- <-This line represents the fourth dimension.
/I \ -/I-I -\/ I \
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
It failed.

-I -/\ I /
\I / -\I/
-a----b-- <-This line represents the fourth dimension.
/I \ -/I-I -\/ I \
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
Two such particles ..a) of the same atom.. would nevertheless have different b) space-time coordinates.

b) The space time coordinates are irrelevent in a debate considering time as the property of our observations of which we are accustomed to. "Theoretically the past will exactly repeat itself" implies the fourth dimention is the only differing factor and theoretically, we must locate the mass in the remaining dimensions.

a) The principle only applies to particles of the same atom, as the principle is to negate the probability of two particles in similar location in EVERY dimension, and so two particles of the same atom in similar location in every dimension other than the fourth. We are allowing the fourth dimention to differ and, in doing so, allowing two different atoms to occupy the same location in every dimension other than the fourth:
I / \ I /
\I / \I/
--a-------------b-- <-This line represents the fourth dimension.
/I \ /I I \ / I \ If this diagram fails when posted, I will cry.
a(1)=b(1), a(2)=b(2) and a(3)=b(3), so, if a(4)=b(4), then a=b (when we do not take into consideration dimensions 5-11, however the same outcome would occur if we did).

Therefore, two different sub-particles of two different atoms can occupy the same location in every dimension other than the fourth.
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
Also, Pauli Exclusion Principle trespasses on quantum physics; although this particular argument can be countered; and as I earlier stated, the argument becomes much more complicated with quantum physics introduced.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
I still don't see how this refutes the fact that any two such particles would nevertheless have different space-time coordinates and could be distinguished that way.
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
I apologise for unreliable sources, however I can still counter. Pauli Exclusion Principle refers to particles of same atom. It merely states that two particles of half-integer spin (a reference to an infinite canceled down to a finite number by Planck's Constant) of the same atom cannot possibly occupy similar amplification. Although unnecessary in an infinite time line, this increases probability of identical atomic particles in a finite time line, as it negates many possibilities, infinitely small as they are, of differing particles in the case, xy=xx.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
Paulis exclusion principle says that no two sub atomic particles can have the same state. They MUST differ.
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
Also, this argument fails when one takes quantum physics into consideration.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
WilloweeddraftermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: going based on sources
Vote Placed by esisCOA 5 years ago
esisCOA
WilloweeddraftermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con successfully debunked pros arguments and proved that pro did not satisfy his BoP. Pro used the only source.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
WilloweeddraftermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Great performance by Con. Pro's argument that the universe is not a closed system through the possible collusion of our universe with another fails to take into account that the second law still would apply to the larger system and so on and on ad infinitum. The infinite time speculation and philosophical bent arguments didn't help or hurt either debater. On the Hawking radiation point, Con argued that the particles generated were different from the original particles , thus showing uniqueness.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
WilloweeddraftermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comment... basing your argument on a faulty assumption = fail.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
WilloweeddraftermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro attempted to use speculative fringe science to prove an unknowable possibility; predictably, he failed. Arguments go to Con.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
WilloweeddraftermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: More convincing goes to Con for demonstrating that Pro's argument was based on the belief that time is infinite.