The Instigator
induced
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
thedebatekid
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

it is impossible for an infinite amount of universes to exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
thedebatekid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,857 times Debate No: 30164
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (6)

 

induced

Pro

1st round for acceptance, not arguments.
thedebatekid

Con

I accept. I will be arguing that an infinite amount of universes may exist. My opponent has the BOP. Please explain how this cannot be.
Debate Round No. 1
induced

Pro

consider the following premises:
1. no matter how many of something exists, there could always be one more.
2. an infinite number of universes exist
in order for the above premises to be true you must conclude that you could have more than an infinite amount of universes. this is a contradiction because there is no such thing as "more than infinity". therefore, we can conclude that premise 1 and/or premise 2 is false. premise 1 is undeniable (as it is merely saying you can add 1 to any amount), therefore, premise 2 must be false.
thedebatekid

Con

To start my main argument I would like to thank Induced for opening this debate to the public, then continuing to let me accept.

When asked the question: Is it possible for an infinite number of universes to exist?
I must say yes.

Since my opponent did not provide any I will give some definitions that might be needed in the debate or argument.

Universe- the whole body of things and phenomena observed [1]
Multiple- consisting of, including, or involving more than one [2]
Infinite- extending indefinitely or endless [3]
Exist- to have real being whether material or spiritual [4]

By these definitions I present my Argument.
1. How big is a Universe?
2. Would it be possible to know?
3. Can "infinite" explain it?

Contention 1: How big is a Universe?
When asked this question I say a universe is about as far as a human, with the help of a machine or via the naked eye, can see. My definition say that a universe is the whole body of things and phenomena observed. In prehistoric time the universe extended just to the stars. When man went into space the universe extended itself further. Since the univers is only as big as a human may see or imagine then there is no way in telling if the universe has an end.
Picture this:

In the year 3000 humans have visited the end of our galaxy. We invented teleportation to take us to other galaxies. While exploring these other galaxies we go as far as we can. Eventually the universe just... stops. We have no where else to go.

Compared to the universe we are nothing but atoms. Therefore there is no telling what is beyond the end. Maybe, another universe. Beyond that one, another. Technically there is no way to define a universe and therefore there could be more of them.

Contention 2: Would it be possible to know if there were more universes?

There would be no way of telling an individual or group of people if there are more universes. If there are then some may be different. The only theorized way of knowing of alternate dimensions is via the multiverse. [5]
If we were to find the multiverse then i could definitely tell you there are Multiple Universes (hence the name multiverse). But as I cannot, then I am technically arguing a theory and not a statement.

Contention 3: Can "infinite" explain how many dimensions there may be?

I conclude that, yes, there amy be an infinite number of universes. According to the multiverse theory I am a talking jellyfish made out of peppermint that speaks gibberish right now in another dimension. Dinosaurs could also be alive. Then again the change could be as simple as JFK wasn't assassinated. There is an infinite number of possibilities and therefore an infinite number of universes.

As I am running out of characters I will conclude my argument by saying good luck to my opponent. I hope you can see from my argument that there is a possibility of infinite universes.

Thank you and vote Con.

Sources:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
induced

Pro

i find your first 2 points ultimately irrelevant. this isnt a debate about whether or not other universes can exist. in fact, i agree that multiple universes may exist, just not an infinite amount of them.

in your 3rd point, you make two relevant claims, but dont offer a justification for either:

1. "there may be an infinite number of universes"
2. "there is an infinite number of possibilities and therefore an infinite number of universes."

-ive already proven how 1 is impossible, and would like to see you find a hole in that proof.
-as for 2, you havent given proof for it, and if i have proven a statement that contradicts 2, then 2 must not be true.
thedebatekid

Con

I would like to begin my rebuttal by Thanking my opponent for his argument, although I do see flaws in it.

In this section of the debate I will be attacking my opponents case. If have time I will rebuild my own case and show you how there can be, in fact, multiple universes.

My opponent begins his first argument by asking you to consider his premisses:

1. no matter how many of something exists, there could always be one more.
2. an infinite number of universes exist

He then continues to state:

in order for the above premises to be true you must conclude that you could have more than an infinite amount of universes. this is a contradiction because there is no such thing as "more than infinity".

This is completely false. The word infinite, as described in my definitions states, extending indefinitely or endless. I do say yes that you can't have more than infinite but you can in fact have infinite. The fact that the debate is about "an infinite amount of universes" and not "more than infinite" shows that this argument is invalid. In fact you do not need to conclude that more than infinite exist. "more than" is not needed in that statement. This therefore renders his argument useless.

The rest of his argument revolves around this "more than" explanation. This means the rest of his argument is false as well.

In this round he has attacked my case by stating:

i find your first 2 points ultimately irrelevant. this isnt a debate about whether or not other universes can exist. in fact, i agree that multiple universes may exist, just not an infinite amount of them.

I would like to state that my first two points are completely relevant. My fist one states that there may be a size to the universe.With the ever expanding space there may be even more universes. Here is classifications of our known space from smallest to largest. Worlds (Earth), Galaxy (Milky Way), Universe. By classification logic we can conclude that there may be yet another stage in the list. Thereby creating the space for an infinite number of galaxies. Contention 2 explains that there is no way known to man to find out the answer to the debate topic. We dont know therefore it is not impossible for multiple universe, or infinite universe to exist.

By the way this is in fact a debate on whether or not more universes may exist. I am debating that more universes may exist beyond our comprehension. Hence the term infinite, which is just a human concept.

My opponent then states the following;

in your 3rd point, you make two relevant claims, but dont offer a justification for either:

1. "there may be an infinite number of universes"
2. "there is an infinite number of possibilities and therefore an infinite number of universes."

-ive already proven how 1 is impossible, and would like to see you find a hole in that proof.
-as for 2, you havent given proof for it, and if i have proven a statement that contradicts 2, then 2 must not be true.

I admit that I made to relevant claims. Which you continue to ramble on about how you disproved them. This is not true because I have proved earlier that your main argument is invalid. By that logic my third point stands. You have not in fact disproved number 2. There is no statement proving that there is not an infinite number of possibilities in todays world. Therefore with an infinite number of possibilities, you can conclude an infinite number of universes.

Again, as I am running out of characters I thank my opponent for the debate. I wish him good luck as the Voting begins.

Thank you very much for reading my side of the debate.

I strongly urge a vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
Opinion: Pro needs to empty his head for a few moments and make another attempt to grasp the construct of the ideas being presented.
Infinity - something that doesn't stop adding to itself, gaining in number without stop, without fail, until the end of time. If at least one earth-like planet is created once every trillion years, then, by applying an infinite amount of years, we have an infinite amount of worlds parallel to time. This is based on the assumption that time is infinite. I think people can generally agree on that point.

There was a debate about how you cannot know anything.. I agree with that since everything, even the infinity of time, is based on assumption. Time may end, who can tell?
I mean, you can stare at your computer and be 99.999999999999~% sure that it is a normal computer, but there is a 1x10^-x (assign y number to x) possibility that it really is something else (maybe some creature in the shape of a computer that seems to perform the functions of the computer, I don't know, use your imagination. There are as many possibilities to an alternate existence as the number of possible theories you can create.
When it comes to knowledge, nothing is 100%.

*Note: This explanation of infinity has no relevance to the debate as worlds =/= universes.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
thedebatekid wrote:
: : I would like to point out that pro should lose conduct points for continuing to debate the resolution in the
: : comments after the debate has expired. Please take this into consideration when you vote.

dylancatlow wrote:
: thedebatekid, why is that bad? I do that.

It's at least a gray area. There are rules for the debate, including number of rounds and number of characters, and who posts in which order. If you didn't have enough room in the debate post, so you continued in the comments, you would definitely be cheating.

If you argue in the comments because you weren't sufficiently persuasive in the debate itself, you are cheating.

On the other hand, what if voter George votes against you because you never addressed X, and you post in the comments to say, "George, If you look at the second paragraph of my second-round post, you'll find that I did address X. You may want to reconsider your vote." Is that cheating? I don't think so.

You don't want to just wade in, though. Often, the comments will raise good points that you want to address, and you should wait until the voting closes before doing so. Or perhaps post, "Oh, once the voting closes, I am so going to discuss that with you!" Or perhaps, "Argument X is worth discussing, but note that Con never raised that argument in the debate, which means I never got a chance to refute it. You cannot fairly let argument X affect your vote. But I'll be happy to discuss it with you later."

The upshot is that you should use restraint. And you shouldn't make the voting period last a month, because that's a long time to be restraining yourself.

Sometimes people are cheating in the comments, but not every time.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
thedebatekid, why is that bad? I do that.
Posted by thedebatekid 4 years ago
thedebatekid
I would like to point out that pro should lose conduct points for continuing to debate the resolution in the comments after the debate has expired. Please take this into consideration when you vote.
Posted by x2MuzioPlayer 4 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
@induced- No, it's not... and if it suits you, erase the term "value" from the immeasurable. It's still a false equivocation. I was simplifying the thought process a little with an arbitrary equation, but I guess I'm just going to be bashed for semantic reasons that don't even refute what I'm saying. All numbers are hypothetical constructs: negatives, fractions, limits, positives, etc. Infinity is the construct "without bound." I'd rather not debate this in the comments. If you'd like, I'll debate this very resolution with you. I don't really feel like debating this in a comments section, though.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
"@x2MuzioPlayer
-"immeasurable value" is an oxymoron"

No it's not.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
@ induced, it's fine to have questions, but you won't be winning any debates with questions as your sole argument.
Posted by induced 4 years ago
induced
@x2MuzioPlayer
-"immeasurable value" is an oxymoron
-infinity is a hypothetical concept used in mathematics like irrational numbers, it's not a value.

@dylancatlow
-i will ask a question if i want to.
Posted by x2MuzioPlayer 4 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
That cluster (∞) was supposed to be an infinity sign, but the formatting decided it didn't want to allow the sign itself.
Posted by x2MuzioPlayer 4 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
@induced- You're equivocating measurable values with immeasurable values. Your questions are like asking how f(x)=x^2 can have a particular solution f(2)=4 when the value of f(x)=∞ as x->∞. They are two separate values. f(2)=4 is counting the universes, plugging in values for the function. f(x)=∞ as x->∞ is the existence of boundless universes, finding the non-existence of a limit to the function.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by TheSaint 4 years ago
TheSaint
inducedthedebatekidTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to prove that infinity as a concept was not real... Pro loses grammar due to the fact that he failed to use proper capitalization or punctuation. An easy vote overall.
Vote Placed by chainmachine 4 years ago
chainmachine
inducedthedebatekidTied
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: That was a simple vote.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
inducedthedebatekidTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro only talked about the actual number infinity, and not about the resolution. He seems to be trying to disprove the validity of the idea of infinity, and failed badly at that. Sources go to con for HAVING sources rather than the assumed source by Pro of a mentally ill mathematician gone rogue Spelling and grammar go to con because pro had many spelling and grammatical errors while con did not
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
inducedthedebatekidTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by x2MuzioPlayer 4 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
inducedthedebatekidTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: First, I'm granting Pro the conduct point because the definition Con provided for "Universe" continues with, "...or postulated," and Con constructed an entire contention around the Universe being only what we can observe. Although Con's contentions weren't particularly strong, Pro's case hinges on trying to give a finite value to the infinite. Since Con answered this, Pro hasn't affirmed the resolution. I can expand on my RFD in the comments section if anyone wants me to.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
inducedthedebatekidTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: "No matter how many of something exists, there could always be one more. " The pretense here is that infinity is a number, when mathematically it's not. Con called Pro on this and provided a reasonable definition: "Infinite- extending indefinitely or endless". Thus, the assertion fails without supporting evidence. Con also presented the only sources and they were reasonable.