Theoretically the past will exactly repeat itself.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
drafterman
| Started: | 11/17/2011 | Category: | Philosophy |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,429 times | Debate No: | 19340 |
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (6)
|
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.
I accept the challenge. Good luck! |
![]() |
|
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. 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. |
![]() |
|
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. 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. |
![]() |
|
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 : ) 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. |
![]() |
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
| Willoweed | drafterman | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 2 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: going based on sources
Vote Placed by esisCOA 1 year ago
| Willoweed | drafterman | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 2 | 3 |
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 1 year ago
| Willoweed | drafterman | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 3 |
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 1 year ago
| Willoweed | drafterman | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: See comment... basing your argument on a faulty assumption = fail.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 1 year ago
| Willoweed | drafterman | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 3 |
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 1 year ago
| Willoweed | drafterman | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: More convincing goes to Con for demonstrating that Pro's argument was based on the belief that time is infinite.



















1) Although the amount of mass in our universe differs slightly, transferring into energy only in black holes, it is reversible (see 2).
2) Although the amount of energy in our universe differs slightly, transferring into mass only in supernovas, it is reversible (see 1).
3) This is where the universe shows incostistency. The volume of space in the universe is constantly increasing and will continue indefinitely (entropy). If one point in time is similar to another, there must be consistency.
If there is a wavering or constant volume of space in our universe (If the fourth dimension were a perfect fourth dimensional sphere), however, the probability of the order repeating after an infinite amount of space in the fourth dimension is infinite.
If the odds of a specific number coming up are 1 in 6, then the odds of that number *not* coming up are 5 in 6. So the odds of that number not coming up for both the first AND second roles is 5/6 * 5/6 or 25/36. The inverse of "never coming up" is "comes up at least once." Thus, the probability of that situation is 1 - 25/36, or 11/36. About 1 third, as Pro stated. If you doubt the math, then simply pull up excel, and write out all the possible combinations (1,1; 1,2; 1,3 ... 6,4, 6,5, 6,6), pick a number, and count how many roles contain that number at least once. You'll find 11 of them.