The Instigator
stellamonika
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

You will discover the same laws of nature in anything and everything

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 6/1/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,627 times Debate No: 16821
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

stellamonika

Con

It is complete madness to say that you will discover the same laws of nature in anything and everything. If all are governed by the same laws of nature, what is the origin of difference?
Tatarize

Pro

The uniform nature of physical laws is the hallmark of science. What works for me, will work for you. Gravity on Earth works the same way as gravity on the moon or on Venus or in the Andromeda Galaxy. Further, we find the same physical laws throughout time. And, in fact, we can test many of these things by looking through the lens of astronomy looking not only away in space but time. We find the same natural laws at present throughout.

My opponents argument is a logical argument from ignorance. "I don't see how this could happen, so it must not be true."

"It is complete madness to say that you will discover the same laws of nature in anything and everything. If all are governed by the same laws of nature, what is the origin of difference?"

The argument, in effect, boils down to a question. What is the origin of difference?

http://youtu.be...

Chaos, as it turns out, arises out of simple rules. From Conway's Game of Life following couple simple rules and being able to produce a Turing Complete computers (while everything obeys the same rules). to fractals, where the same rules can give rise to complex structures like ferns and trees. We get a rather stunning truth, that when everything is the same at one level, you can have infinite complexity at another level. So even being made of a mostly the same few simple building blocks, you can build cows or elm trees, skate parks or skyscrapers, dead barren wastes of planets or rich vibrant life-filled worlds like Earth.

--

It isn't madness to think this, it's a reasonable thing to believe. But, moreover, it's exactly what we *DO* find. The same forces that keep us affixed to the Earth also keep us in orbit around the sun. The rules are the same, the differences are emergent consequences of those rules.
Debate Round No. 1
stellamonika

Con

The laws of nature differ according to the level of organization and complexity. That means, the laws of nature for simple, low level organizations are different from that of complex, high level organizations.
Tatarize

Pro

"The laws of nature differ according to the level of organization and complexity. That means, the laws of nature for simple, low level organizations are different from that of complex, high level organizations."

No.

Those are the different effect of those same laws. Take two seemingly different realms such as one at the size of a molecule vs. the middle world (our typical understanding of the world).

In the molecular level the Brownian motion dominates. It's like a world being constantly bombarded with ping-pong balls. Cells and other things which interact at this level very often do work, not by directly moving an object from one specific place to another, but by making it so that one way of organizing things is more likely than another.

Rather than fight the random motion cellular processes generally just use enzymes to make a result more likely. DNA doesn't replicate because cellular mechanisms go out and find the right bits and toss them in there, but because the right bit is made far more likely to fit than anything else bouncing around. And once it's in place it doesn't bounce away because it sticks there.

Likewise for some things like breathing this is tragic. Because CO poisoning happens because CO binds better than O2 to our hemoglobin, and binds so well, in fact, that it doesn't release on the other end. It just clogs up all the oxygen carrying bits of our blood and we die.

These should perhaps seem like they are radically different rules of nature. But, they aren't. These are the same exact laws of nature, which at different levels gives us different rules. It isn't that things fly at the molecular level, but rather that gravity is so weak compared to the electromagnetic force of things hitting each other at that level that it becomes negligible. And all that bouncing around, that's heat. Every law of nature that works at our level works the same at that level. But, things are way less massive, so gravity becomes rather moot. Things are way closer so electromagnetism becomes hugely important. Likewise if you go to even more massive things like galaxies and black holes, we find the electromagnetic forces become negligible and the gravitational forces can overwhelm spacetime itself.

But, are these different laws? No. They are how those laws work at particular levels. Is the gravity that keeps me on Earth different than the gravity that keeps the moon in orbit? No. Is the electromagnetic force that allows water to stick together or oxygen to bind to hemoglobin different than the force that allows me to touch things (the electromagnetic force is the reason objects don't just pass through each other).

No matter how far the rabbit hole goes down, it's still gravity pulling you.
Debate Round No. 2
stellamonika

Con

If same laws of nature can be found in anything and everything, why do we have different models like quantum mechanics and newtonian mechanics? What is the need to carry out the expensive research?
Tatarize

Pro

"If same laws of nature can be found in anything and everything, why do we have different models like quantum mechanics and newtonian mechanics? What is the need to carry out the expensive research?"

Because the models are simply progressions from the more wrong to the less wrong. And ultimately the fact that things like General Relativity do not mesh with QM is a strong indication that there is some deeper laws that unify the theories. There's some bits like E8 and others which may do this, but as we have seen from the past these are often things which, when solved, prove hugely important. There was once a shift from the Physics of Maxwell and the traditional physics of Newton. The idea that gravity worked instantly whereas light was found to travel at a specific speed. If, for example, the sun was to vanish. We should fling out off away from our curved path, and then seven minutes later suddenly see the sun vanish. Or the Physics of Aristotle which should tell us that vacuums cannot and do not exist, because things would move infinitely fast and gravity would no longer affect them and all manner of strange on goings. We have always found these forces, unified them, and found that they were all part of the same thing. The force that pulls us to the Earth is the same that makes the planets orbit. What makes magnets work, also keeps the magnets from passing through our hands. That light travels the same speed even at speeds, demands that there is no center of things.

We have different rules, in different places, because the rules are imperfect. We try to make the rules match the world, and we do experiments and make them match better. And become less wrong, but the rules are imperfect. The reason we spend money and do research to try to figure out about the world, is because we know there's something to be figured out, we know this because they don't agree. And we know they should, because in the long run they always have.

There's the old parable about blind men and elephants, which gives different views of the same animal by the limited perspectives we have available. We know what the tail is like, and how the ears feel. We know there's more so we build massive particle colliders, etc.

http://chem.tufts.edu...

-

Not to dis the Socratic method, but you might want to give some reason they should be different at different levels. It's not like you need to offer a debate to learn these things. You can really just Google them rather than ask here. We find they really do work the same everywhere we look, and the more we look the more things drop away and the fewer constants we have but rather interplays between the various laws we find everywhere, and at various levels. -- If you look at an elephant under a microscope it looks different, but its stil lhe same elephant.
Debate Round No. 3
stellamonika

Con

If the same laws of nature can be discovered in anything and everything, then everyone will have same knowledge about each and everything. The Knowledge Expansion Manual [http://www.archive.org... ] also claims the same - the laws of nature are same for everything. If the laws of nature are same and if there exists a correlation between the laws of nature and human knowledge, then everyone should have the same knowledge. But, people differ in terms of their knowledge. Since people differ in terms their knowledge, the proposition "you will discover the same laws of nature in anything and everything" must be wrong. It May be true only for the authors of 'Knowledge Expansion Manual' and my opponent.
Tatarize

Pro

"If the same laws of nature can be discovered in anything and everything, then everyone will have same knowledge about each and everything."

If anybody cannot see through this tissue paper thin assertion right off the bat, I beg you, just vote for con straight down the line.

What next, if the traffic laws are all the same across the United States (they differ slightly in places but for the sake of analogy) are we to believe that everybody is equally skilled at driving? That if gravity is the same on Earth as on Mars that I should remember your father's last birthday? I'm sorry but one of the rules which is the same everywhere is that we exist as distinctly different people and in different locations and have different perspectives and different knowledge. But, this has nothing to do with the sameness of the underlying rules.

Your arguments have gotten stranger and less coherent. And you've never given a reasonable reason for the any broken symmetry. Nothing about the asymmetric nature of weak nuclear force, nothing supposing the slight muon bias towards matter, no arguments about variations of the speed of light near the big bang. Just generally a bunch of really silly questions.

I had hoped for more out of this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
stellamonika

Con

stellamonika forfeited this round.
Tatarize

Pro

I've seen the errors of my ways with that stunning fifth round. Please vote for my opponent.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by stellamonika 5 years ago
stellamonika
It is something like saying that you will discover the same biochemical plan in each and every organism, discover the same genetic mechanism in each and every organism
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
I'm not entirely sure I understand the resolution. What is the "anything and everything" you are referring to as far as finding the same laws of nature?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
stellamonikaTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff. No contest
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
stellamonikaTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, also must I explain?
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
stellamonikaTatarizeTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was clear, concise, and dominant across the board. Con would do well to structure her responses a bit more and provide additional explanation during rebuttals.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
stellamonikaTatarizeTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I stumbled upon this debate and saw that poor Pro didn't have the vote he deserved due to the forfeit. Seriously, though, Pro did provide good explanations for his position while Con... well... didn't.