The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
UnknownOne
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

gravity, reality, are not facts, are not theories

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
UnknownOne
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 463 times Debate No: 73747
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

i know gravity, i dont have to imagine it

facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter
UnknownOne

Con

First, I will rephrase your argument . You are asserting that gravity is a real thing. It is not a "fact" and it is not a "theory". That is to say- you are claiming it exists outside of the human synthetic framework of "facts" and "theory". In your view, facts are measurements or observations from the past. Gravity exists beyond this. Theories are explanatory frameworks, and gravity exists beyond this as well.

Gravity does exist as a part of the framework of facts

Gravity as a phenomena exists primarily as a set of observations. If you drop an object, you see it fall. This becomes a fact at that point- we name this observable fact gravity. We observe objects staying on top of tables and not floating away- this is a fact. We also name this fact gravity. Gravity exists fully within the framework of facts.

The only question with this is- does gravity exist OUTSIDE the framework of facts? Does it exist independently of observation? If an object lies on the table, and no one sees it sitting there, is gravity actually happening, or not? Clearly there is no person there to call it "gravity". But there is an observation point- the universe itself, as it is unfolding, with or without a sentient observer, has the object on the table. If one were to consider the object resting on the table as a fact whether or not it is recorded by an observer, then we must say that yes, indeed, it is a fact that gravity exists.

The only time gravity would cease to exist would be in a universe with a single object, which had no other object to be affected by its gravitational pull. In this universe, there is no fact of gravity. But we will also claim in this universe gravity essentially does not exist at all- as it has no affect on anything. In a universe where gravity has no affect on anything- there is no fact or observation that it is exerting its pull- it actually is not happening. It is not real. Therefore, gravity exists ONLY in the context of its generation of facts or observation, and does NOT exist outside the context of its generation of facts or observation.

Gravity as a phenomena is contingent on the facts it generates. It is not a real thing without these facts.

Gravity does exist as a part of a theory.

There was a preliminary theory of gravity put forth by Newton which explained very accurately the motion of the planets. Very careful observation has demonstrated this first theory needed refinement. Einstein generated a more comprehensive theory of gravity with general relativity, which more accurately describes the phenomena we call gravity. We must recognize that this theory as well, may fall short of fully describing gravity. Does this mean gravity is not a theory? Does gravity exist outside of the framework of theory?

Theories are fully human synthetic constructs. Do things exist outside of human synthetic constructs? Of course. But we attach names to human synthetic constructs that are also synthetic. The word "gravity" is made up. The theory of gravity is made up. When we talk about gravity, we are talking about a made up word with a made up theory about it. And you are claiming that when we use the word gravity, it is pointing to something other than the theory- it exists outside of the theory. You are essentially claiming that a made up word points to something real. The problem with this is that when we use language we are always specifically using it in the context of the shared synthetic fiction. We can't use language outside of this. We can pretend that we can infer a reality outside of our shared notion of understanding. But we can't ever know it is there. If we live in a giant computer simulation, where gravity is a being created by the computer program- then gravity does not "exist" outside of our shared notion of it. It would not be real at this point. When you vanquish a dragon in a computer game, it wasn't a real dragon you defeated. It was a shared fiction. Is gravity a shared fiction?

It is a shared fiction as long as we agree that we always may have an incomplete understanding. Since we have demonstrated again and again we have an incomplete understanding, we already know that gravity as a word exists only as a shared fiction. It exists as the theory with which we describe it.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

theories and facts, are of reality, they are not real



fact=memory=truth=knowledge


if gravity didnt exist out side of facts, facts about gravity could not exist.



you are taking past and now as matter.. now is matter, past is not matter. observation is now and past observation is not now, not real



you got it wrong m8, all knowlege i have involves gravity, dosnt mean gravity is a memory..



no.. the theory of gravity is simply not gravity, gravity is gravity, not a theory. the theory of gravity, is the theory of gravity...



gravity is not made up.. the theory of gravity is made up


UnknownOne

Con

if gravity didnt exist out side of facts, facts about gravity could not exist.

Gravity exists only in the facts of observing it. It exists only in the way it influences the world (the observer being other material objects). Gravity does not exist outside of this observation. Its affect on the world is its only basis for existence. Facts about gravity could not exist if gravity did not exist. Gravity can not exist without the facts about it. It exists only as a set of relationships between parts. Physical laws only exist insofar as they describe the relationships or interactions between physical things. They don't exist apart from those physical things. Gravity does not exist separate from the physical things- the facts of the interaction are its essential nature. Gravity exists only in the facts of the observations about it. It doesn't have an essential nature outside of the observations about it. It is based on the facts.


you are taking past and now as matter.. now is matter, past is not matter. observation is now and past observation is not now, not real

I am hearing you say that the past does not matter- only the present does. You are suggesting that the past observations are not in the present, and therefore hold less validity than observations in the present. According to this, gravity exists outside of the past and in the present, which gives it credentials outside of those historic facts.

When you read something, when you see something, when you hear something- it takes time from the transpiring of the event to your perception of it. It takes time for the light to travel to your eye, or for the sound to reach your ear. We can only see the past. We see a past which is frequently quite close, but it is never in the present. We do not live in the present, and can never perceive the present, outside of our own thoughts. According to your line of reasoning, the only reality would be our own thoughts, since everything else took place in the past. This line of reasoning within its own framework proves that gravity itself is not real, since our perception of it is in the past. It is left as a bystander in this view of the world, and has lost its fundamental nature because you suggest that things in the past hold less weight than those in the present. The only things that actually take place in the present our thoughts.

you got it wrong m8, all knowlege i have involves gravity, dosnt mean gravity is a memory..

The place where you go wrong is where you assert that scientific ideas exist outside of their facts and theories. Scientific ideas only exist insofar as they have facts and theories. The essential nature of science is to take observations, measure, and predict. There do exist concepts which occur outside of observation, measurement, and prediction- but they are not science. They are belief. So I am hearing you say you believe in gravity, outside of observation. Your belief does not make it an objective truth, it makes it a subjective truth. You may be able to get other people to believe that things exist outside of observation, but that does not grant it truth. It merely means you are a good orator.

You can assert that gravity also is responsible for individual good and bad luck. This would also be a subjective truth, not an objective truth. Any aspect of gravity you state that exists outsides of fact and observation will be reduced to a subjective truth. Perhaps a compelling one that you wish to believe in. Fortune tellers are also compelling. You can believe in them, but that does not mean they can actually predict the future. I am hearing you say that gravity has an essential reality outside of how it influences physical objects. This is a subjective truth, not an objective one.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

observation is not fact, past observation is fact, past dosnt matter, now is matter

reality is not a fact... but there are plenty of facts about reality...

no fact can exist without the thing the fact is about

light has no speed, its on or off

light has no limit beyond the limit i put on the light by seeking it

no.. it proves gravity is real, and facts are not..

concepts only exist in the mind.. information is the opposite of matter, not real

false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now

fact=truth=past, not real
UnknownOne

Con

observation is not fact, past observation is fact, past dosnt matter, now is matter

Part of our discrepency in argument is in how we are using the terms. This is a definition of fact from dictionary.com:

fact: a truth known by actual experience or observation;

I am not sure how to infer your meaning of fact. But by commonly accepted usage, a fact is an observation or actual experience. Since gravity exists through experience or observation, it does not exist outside of experience or observation. Gravity is not a thing that exists outside of its observation. Gravity does not have an intrinsic reality outside of how it influences the universe and the objects within it.
no fact can exist without the thing the fact is about

If the thing under discussion is defined by the facts about it, then it actually does not exist without its facts. This is similar to most scientific things. A virus is defined by the way it influences the world- how it makes you sick, how you can isolate it and extract its DNA, how you can observe it. A virus which has no facts- is not observable, does not make you sick, and can not be isolated- it no longer is a real thing, it is just a belief at that point. Our fundamental division is that I am contending that scientific concepts do not exist outside of their observables, and you are contending that they do.

My concluding rebuttal is that things one imagines to exist do not have an intrinsic reality outside of one's imagination, regardless of how compelling they appear to be. And this includes attributes of known physical phenomena that are not part of their observable characteristics.

no.. it proves gravity is real, and facts are not..

And herein is where you are amiss- the only things that are actually real are the observable things - the facts- which we perceive. Other things are beliefs. Beliefs are real within their own mental framework, but not outside them.


Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
vi_spexUnknownOneTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro does not support any of his assertion, nor does he adequately rebut Con. Pro fails to use capitalization and proper grammar throughout.