The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

There can be no parallel universe

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,995 times Debate No: 18532
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (11)

 

sadolite

Pro

If our known universe expands in all directions: Length width and height in all angles and all directions, there can be nothing parallel to it. The all direction theory implies a ball shape or a sphere shape but with no end in its size that the human mind can imagine.

If there were to be another universe this universe would have to be finite in it's size to allow room for another universe under the all directions theory. If this universe implies a sphere shape under the length height width in all directions and angles theory. The other universe should also be a sphere of finite size. Two spheres can not be parallel. Two spheres can only be next to each other touching only on the subatomic level at one point. That point being as small as small can get using the reduce it by half into infinity level. Only two dimensions can be parallel which would make the universe and everything in it flat in order to be parallel to another universe.
Ore_Ele

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate and hopefully this will be a chance for everyone to learn something. We rarely have science debates on DDO.

First, there is a misunderstanding about what a "parallel universe" is. That must first be defined before we can say it is or is not possible.

Parallel Universe - "an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction, but denies the reality of wavefunction collapse, which implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real." [1]

The term "parallel" is used, not because they are parallel in the class 3 dimentions, but that they are parallel in Spacetime. That means that they run parallel in a different dimention than the 3 we can see. Now, I would like to remind that based on the OP, my goal is not to prove that there are parallel universes, but show that they could exist (since Pro is trying to show that there can be no parallel universe).

I believe that this is all that was needed, so I shall end my round here and await refutations.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(science)
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

What is more basic and understandable, human language or mathematical language. Your answer will determine how you vote in this debate.

The hypothesis of the possibility of parallel universes is based on the idea that the universe contains everything. And all that has happened is happening and will happen. In short there is only one universe. The hypothesis of parallel universes (HPU) suggests that each of us lives in a separate universe unto themselves and that there are copies of your self thought the universe also living in separate universes unto themselves. The hypothesis of parallel universes is about perception not dimension. Unless you want to call perception a dimension

You will never see a copy of yourself in this universe other than to imagine it. You will never see a copy of yourself in another parallel universe because you will never be in another universe unless you imagine it. (HPU) requires the rejection of reality in order for it to be considered. (HPU) is born from the unpredictability and inability to explain aspects of quantum mechanics. How particles react at the subatomic level. (HPU) is based on a quantum mechanics level not a "people" level so to speak.

You will only know one universe and you will perceive it the same way everyone else will. We will avoid semantics here. If I see the gulf of Mexico you see the gulf of Mexico and you and I will never occupy the same space. Unlike what has been observed in quantum mechanics.

There is only one universe unless you want to imagine there are more. But you will never see them or enter them. There are no parallel universes
Ore_Ele

Con

It doesn't matter what is more understandable. If we are talking about a astonomical theory, than astronomical terms and words need to be used.

As such, there are two different ideas of what the "universe" is. By basic english definition, it is everything. All mater, all energy, all spacetime, everything. According to science and for all practical purposes, it is the result of the big bang. The universe is about 93 billion lightyears in diameter. This presents a potential logical fallacy, as we do not know if there is more outside the arms of our universe. It is entirely possible that at a distance of 300 billion light years, an entirely different big bang has it's own universe. This obviously shows that the basic english definition and the science definition are not nessicarily talking about the same thing (since that other big bang would be considered part of our single universe by the english definition).

Of course, since this is a debate about science, the science definitions should be what we are using in our arguments.

My opponent argues that we will never see these other universes. Unless my opponent knows the future, this is merely speculation. For countless centuries we thought that we would never be able to fly. We thought that we'd never be able to reach the stars, or the moon, or any other place. This, of course, is not to say that we will get there or that we won't. But only that one cannot say we will never get there. And even if we never get there, that doesn't prove that they don't exist. I can say, fairly surely, that we'll never get to the core of Mercury (probably out of not wanting to), but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As such, there are actually several multi-verse theories, all deriving from different physical theories. The two that I particular enjoy following are the many worlds (which is the belief that everytime a choice is made, the universe splits into two, where one side the choice is made, and the other, it is not). This is derived from quantum mechanics and a denial that the wavefunction can collapse. A common example of wavefunction collapse is observing the spin of a proton. It is theorized that the proton has both a positive spin and a negative spin (both wavefunctions), until it is observed, in which case, one wave fuction collapses and so we observe only one spin. If we look at it later again, we may see the same spin, or a different spin. What MWI theorizes is that rather than the wavefunction being destoried, it merely exists elsewhere (an alternative usiverse where we would see the spin as the opposite as in this universe).

The other common multi-verse theory is based off of M-theory, which is derived from string theory. This is not a theory of divergent universes from wave functions, like MWI. But that there is more than our current universe, and it goes into theorize what existed before the big bang, and what caused it. Namely the collision of p-branes creates a d-brane (a universe) on the surface of the p-branes (which exist in 11+ dimenstions, not just the 4 we experience). This leads to the obvious potential that our d-brane unverise is not unique and that there could be countless more, just like our solar system and our galaxy are not unique.

Between these two theories (and the many more lesser known) and our current, limited understanding of physics, astronomy, and cosmology, it is entirely pausable that there may be more than just our universe.
Debate Round No. 2
sadolite

Pro

It's not that we can think there are parallel universes and what they might look like or how they might work.

"The illusion is in the fact it simply can't Exist"

Multi universes depend on the big bang hypothesis being valid. The big bang hypothesis depends solely on the red shift being a Doppler shift. But this is not backed up by any other type of observation and the red shift could easily be from other causes. Perhaps a gravitational interaction with masses in space for instance. Or a Raman effect from photons hitting ions with an uneven charge in space.
Without knowing with absolute certainty that the big bang and Doppler red shift are what they are, a multi universe hypothesis is as useless a hypothesis that light is being shifted by a sorcerer waving his magic wand at photons.

Saying there are multi universes is the same thing as saying anything is possible. To believe multi universes are possible is to believe anything you are told. You must believe you currently have a platypus head with equal zeal to that of multi universes being possible. You have a platypus head but everyone else sees it as a human head.

(HPU) is a hypothesis and is un testable. It isn't even a theory it is a hypothesis based on untested unconfirmed theories. It is an ox before the cart.

My opponent is right, all he has to do is show that they are possible. What do we have so far. Un testable hypothesizes based un untested theories. Simply saying that it is possible for parallel universes to exist is the same thing as saying anything is possible. There is no difference in the possibility that you have a platypus head and everyone sees it as a human head as parallel universes being possible. Occam's razor There can be no parallel universe. What is more likely you have a platypus head or there are infinite multi universes or ….There is only one universe and one reality that has been tested and observed.
Ore_Ele

Con

Since this is the last round, I will only address what has been said in this round.

"The big bang hypothesis depends solely on the red shift being a Doppler shift. But this is not backed up by any other type of observation and the red shift could easily be from other causes."

This is actually not true. The redshift is perfectly explained by special relativity (in fact, according to special relativity, redshift has to exist) [1] and Doppler effects, because light always moves at c in respect to the person viewing. Since we've proven through countless tests that Doppler is accurate, and we've proven through countless tests that special relativity is accurate [2]. We have also seen redshift work on other galaxcies, where the side spinning towards us is blue and the side spinning away is red. This makes the theory extremely strong by scientific standards. While there are other alternative theories, redshift best fits with what we observe, what we've tested, and what the numbers predict would happen.

"Saying there are multi universes is the same thing as saying anything is possible. To believe multi universes are possible is to believe anything you are told. You must believe you currently have a platypus head with equal zeal to that of multi universes being possible. You have a platypus head but everyone else sees it as a human head."

This is, of course, not true. It dismisses the fact that multi-universes are theorized based on confirmed scientific principles. They fit within the known laws of physics. It is more true to say, "To believe multiverses are possible is to believe that anything that fits within the known laws of physics is possible." To that, I'd agree, anything that fits within the known laws of physics is "possible," might not be true or fact, but it is possible.

"Occam's razor There can be no parallel universe."

There are three things that I wish to point out about the use of Occam's razor.

1) By accepting it, my opponent concedes the debate. Occam's razor only applies when two competing hypotheses have equal merit. That means my opponent is accepting that multiverses and paralell universes are possible, which was the purpose of this debate.

2) Occam's razor does not prove, nor disprove anything. It is merely a tool for which hypotheses to accept, not which one is right.

3) Max Tegmark has already addressed Occam's razor in regards to multiverses [4]. He stated, "A skeptic worries about all the information necessary to specify all those unseen worlds. But an entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler. Similarly, the set of all solutions to Einstein's field equations is simpler than a specific solution. The former is described by a few equations, whereas the latter requires the specification of vast amounts of initial data on some hypersurface. The lesson is that complexity increases when we restrict our attention to one particular element in an ensemble, thereby losing the symmetry and simplicity that were inherent in the totality of all the elements taken together. In this sense, the higher-level multiverses are simpler."

With this, I've addressed my opponent's arguments in his last round and have not added more arguments except in direct response to counter his.

Thank you,

[1] http://www4.ncsu.edu...
[2] http://www.popularmechanics.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor
[5] Parallel Universes, Sci Am. 2003 May pg 40-51
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
assuming the contridiction holds up. Looking at the twin's paradox for special relativity, it would seem that there is a logical contridiction, even though we know fully well that the time dilation for special relativity has been proven, many times.
Posted by tBoonePickens 6 years ago
tBoonePickens
"...This fits well with in the laws of physics. Not reality or nature though."
Who says they're in opposition? They are not, otherwise they wouldn't make very good laws.

"I think having a theory of "anything is possible within the laws of physics" is quite genius. One never has to explain what one has observed because anything is possible."
That's because you are asking the wrong question. Perhaps you should ask about probability rather than possibility. For example, while parallel universes might be possible, there is ZERO empirical evidence for it! Ergo, the probability of it being so is quite low.

There are certain things that you can always count on being impossible: contradictions. Frame a debate in a manner that allows you to show that your opponent is stating a contradiction and then you've got yourself an instant impossibility!
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
perhaps I should have said "laws of science" as to include biology, chemistry and other sciences. I cannot have a platypus head, because the biological functions of a platypus head are not consistent with my head. If I gently slice a knife over my lip, I will bleed. This would not be the case if I had a platypus head because I would have a duck bill wich would not be cut, nor bleed. Not without a lot of force.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
So anything is possible "as long as they fit into the laws of physics"?

So you could have a platypus head in proportion to your body and muscle strength. This fits well with in the laws of physics. Not reality or nature though. I think having a theory of "anything is possible within the laws of physics" is quite genius. One never has to explain what one has observed because anything is possible. There are no answers just an endless list of possibilities. One could spend ones entire life dreaming up stuff and getting paid for it. Genius pure genius.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
got my A@@ wooped.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
"If anything is possible than you have moved no closer to understanding"
Posted by drafterman 6 years ago
drafterman
I can't vote yet, but here is my opinion:

It seemed that Pro relied mostly on flawed linguistic interpretations of the words used, rather than the actual scientific concepts referred to by those words. In order to show that a scientific concept is impossible, then you must, at some point, invoke the appropriate science. This wasn't done.

In short, this was an attempt at equivocation: multiple universes can't be "parallel" in the Euclidean Geometric scence, therefore they can't be parallel in any other sense. This denies the other senses that parallel is used in science.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
I'm in suspense for the rebuttal. I'm wondering if it's gonna be a bunch of math theorems that I can't understand or make rebuttals to.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
No voting for me allowed, as if I would get any. LOL I don't vote for debates, so no one should vote for me. I'm only interested in the content of the debate. You can give reasons for voting for con, but it doesn't matter to me. Just type incoherent letters if you want so as not to waste your time on something that doesn't matter.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
sadoliteOre_EleTied
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: see Roy's RFD
Vote Placed by Ramshutu 3 years ago
Ramshutu
sadoliteOre_EleTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides were equally polite, and I saw nothing untoward (tied conduct). I didn't notice any errors in spelling or grammar on either side (tied grammar). CON correctly brought up different multiverse theories, and relative plausability (dealing with the maths vs human langauge, unobservability and concerns about the big bang), and as PRO did not demonstrate the contention of the debate and thus loses arguments (Although I felt Occams razor argument could have been much better). Only CON produced sources of any kind, and thus wins on sources.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
sadoliteOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I really had to go with pro on more convincing argument. Even if there were a parallel universe, it would be fully contained within itself and would be unable to occupy the same space the one we live in. If the parallel universe occupied the same space as the one we live in and if it did occupy the same space, it would be the same universe that we live in. Con was excellent in her description of the multiple universe theory, but in conjunction with pro, any infinitesimal number of universes that could exist simultaneously with one another would collapse as physical action were taken according to quantum time. Meaning that at this time only this time exists and no other time exists. Or During this universe, only this universe exists and no other universe exists. (I'm referring the mention of parallel universes and not the universe as it encompases planets and galaxies). Because all other universes have collapsed, they do not exist.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
sadoliteOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: countering the idiot
Vote Placed by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
sadoliteOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: 1/2 of a good vote
Vote Placed by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
sadoliteOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides were basically polite, resulting in a tie of conduct. That much aside, Pro made an idiot of himself. Pro also had faulty grammar, and sometimes nonunderstandable statements. Con made excellent use of information, and wielded her facts very well, and in a very composed manner. Con also listed good resources, of which Pro listed none. Pro charged headfirst into a debate about which he knew practically nothing, under the illusion of knowledge, and consequently failed.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
sadoliteOre_EleTied
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: Pro proposed the challenge with a understanding of the basic subject matter. Con had every aspect of it correct.
Vote Placed by drafterman 6 years ago
drafterman
sadoliteOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: It seemed that Pro relied mostly on flawed linguistic interpretations of the words used, rather than the actual scientific concepts referred to by those words. In order to show that a scientific concept is impossible, then you must, at some point, invoke the appropriate science. This wasn't done.
Vote Placed by wiploc 6 years ago
wiploc
sadoliteOre_EleTied
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: Con refuted Pro's significant arguments.
Vote Placed by Lickdafoot 6 years ago
Lickdafoot
sadoliteOre_EleTied
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: Con showed how parallel universes are possible and fit into our current scientific knowledge through the Mwi and string theory. Pro's refutations weren't that effective and were mainly refuted well by con (occams razor etc.) Pro had a large burden to fill by saying something cannot be possible, and he didn't have any scientific facts to back it up besides some math concepts that don't really fit with the definition of parallel universe.