The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

knowledge=(is)truth=past=destruction=memory of know

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 3 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 669 times Debate No: 72287
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

vi_spex

Pro

future is false, now is true, now is mattter, past dosnt matter
tejretics

Con

Just to clarify, I will have to show differences between the cited words in the English language; therefore, here, I shall present my argument.

Definitions

As definitions have not been provided, by standard DDO maxims, I shall provide definitions for all the words stated by Pro.

Knowledge - facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject
Truth - that which is in accordance with fact or reality
Past - gone by in time and no longer existing
Destruction - the action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired; obliteration

As "memory of know" is completely inaccurate and incomprehensible, I assume it is "memory of now." To note,
now is the present, occurring time; it cannot be remembered or memorized, as if it can, it immediately becomes "then" and shifts to the past. If it is not "memory of now", I request Pro to correct me. If it is, as it is not comprehensible and inaccurate, it shall not be counted.

Arguments
Time and Destruction
Time is a nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. [1] The second law of thermodynamics states that time is the rate of entropic graduation in the universe, i.e. it is the rate of the gradual emergence of disorder in the cosmic structure of the universe. [2] Pro's claim is that the past equates with destruction. According to most scientific theories, the eventual destruction of the universe occurs after the progress of time, i.e. entropy, which results in the constant dissemination of energy (which, according to some theories, results in cosmic expansion), graduates to cause the universe's eventual destruction. [3] With this, I conclude that the past is not destruction; destruction is heralded by the future.

Definitions
The definitions of these words, as stated above, differ. Hence, this is an easily constructed negative case. Let me rephrase the definitions here:
"Knowledge - facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject
Truth - that which is in accordance with fact or reality
Past - gone by in time and no longer existing
Destruction - the action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired; obliteration."
As seen above, the definitions do not equate. [All definitions from the New Oxford Dictionary of English] This constructs a valid negative case.

Burden of Proof
According to the Russell's Teapot analogy, the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable yet non-supported claims. These claims are technically unfalsifiable completely and absolutely, i.e. the BoP cannot lie completely on me. Therefore, the BoP must either be shared or lie with Pro. Nonetheless, Pro should fulfill their BoP in the next round. [4]



References
[1] "Time." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth ed.) (Houghton Mifflin Company). 2011.
[2]
Bailyn, M. (1994). A Survey of Thermodynamics, American Institute of Physics, New York, ISBN 0-88318-797-3.
[3] Hawking, S. (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-38016-8.
[4] Bury, J. B. (1914). History of Freedom and Thought. London: Williams & Norgate. p. 20.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

it is also memory of now, know is now

kNow=physical experience

destruction is impossible in reality, destruction is from something to nothing, matter can at best transform

im saying, past is, memory of physical experience, without this there is no past, imagination goes to belief, future

destruction=turn my back

the future is creation, false, you have no knowledge of the future

the future and past is information, not real

knowledge is truth, is fact, is subjective, is memory of know

my claims are supported, by your experience. show me objective memory, tell me the truth about what is going to happen in 5 seconds.. you cant, truth is in the past, memory, and the future is false, imaginary
tejretics

Con

Rebuttals
Conservation of matter is disproved by mass-energy equivalence, allowing for hypotheses such as the zero-energy universe hypothesis to remain logically consistent with existing laws. [1] Here, the expansion of matter allows its transformation into energy of greater size; mass-energy equivalence also allows for the complete expansion of matter into energy that can then reduce in size to the point of vacuum state. [2] Thus, destruction in this sense allows for the eventual end of the universe itself, by the three Friedmann models. [3] Past is not defined by memory; that is only according to the human concept of the past. The past is merely a period prior to the current level of entropic graduation, as stated above. Pro seems to be confusing between non-existence and contingencies. The future is contingent, i.e. there is no certainty as to the occurrences of the future; that does not imply the future's non-existence. My opponent stating that future is imaginary simply because of its being a contingency is stating that the universe is sans contingencies. This means that everything is an illusion, but my opponent has no proof; hence, Pro has not fulfilled their BoP. And "memory of know" is absolutely incomprehensible; I request Pro to provide a definition for the same. Pro has not rebutted the "Definitions" argument. Therefore, it still stands and I extend it to this round.

Thus, this derivative is substantially refuted.


References
[1] Einstein, A. (1905), "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?", Annalen der Physik 18 (13): 639–643.
[2] Christopher Ray (1991). Time, space and philosophy. London/New York: Routledge. Chapter 10, p. 205. ISBN 0-415-03221-0.
[3] Hawking, S. (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-38016-8.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

transformation=from something to something

there can be no light of a match without a match burning, so a match burning is the light of a match

make the matter that is an apple nothing, i dare you

how do you experience 5 seconds ago without your memory?

now is true, the future is not true, and the past is not false, memory is not false, and imagination is not truth

imagination goes to future, not past, i can imagine jesus, and believe he was real on that basis, but i have no memory of it, therfore it all goes to belief, which goes to imagination

hm, memory of objective experience is the opposite of imagination

if destruction didnt happen you wouldnt be able to remember the headline of this message

thing=true
tejretics

Con

Rebuttals
Destruction does not refer to forcing an object x out of existence; destruction transforms x to a point of practically no repair without change in mass-energy density. Take the quantum vacuum, for example. The quantum vacuum contains particles that randomly pop in and out of existence. [1] Thus, the transformation leads to eventual annihilation; not wiping out its existence, but rather changing its form majorly.

Memory, as Pro states, is the only way to measure experience of the past, but not the past itself. The past is not governed by any personal agency; your past is governed by memory, but not past by the arrow of time itself. The past sans the future would mean non-existence of the universe in the future, viz. the future determines probable and coming existence; there would be no probable existence without the future. If existence is a contradiction without it being contingent, then there is no existence whatsoever. Lack of existence of anything implies that the resolution itself is non-existent, hence nothing is equal to anything. Thus, the resolution is still in my favor.

If
imagination is false and not contingent, then even a highly plausible contingency is absolutely impossible. Here, I state that the universe itself, and, thus, everything, is contingent. The explanation lies in a Higgs field. All particles have contingent mass via. the Higgs effect, where conditions for symmetry are broken because of the existence of Higgs bosons. [2] The Higgs field is an energy field of the Higgs boson existing everywhere in the universe. If the field becomes unstable, viz. the energy density changes, then it could result in minor wave-like shifts in the universe that virtually break the laws of physics [at 100 billion GeV, it could result in megastable vacuum decay that could destroy the universe]. [3] As the universe itself is contingent, if contingencies do not exist, then the universe doesn't exist. This implies that evaluations such as this are non-existent, still keeping the resolution in my favor.

"Thing=true" means everything is true. If everything is true, nothing can be false; hence, the future cannot be false. Even here, the resolution is in my favor.

Pro has not rebutted my "Definitions" argument, nor have they rebutted my Round 2 arguments. Once more, I extend all my unchallenged arguments.

The resolution is refuted.

References

[1] Walter Dittrich & Gies H (2000). Probing the quantum vacuum: perturbative effective action approach. Berlin: Springer. ISBN 3-540-67428-4.
[2] Del Rosso, A. (19 November 2012). "Higgs: The beginning of the exploration." CERN bulletin. [47-48]
[3] Israelian, Garik; May, Brian; Hawking, Stephen (2014). "Preface." Starmus: 50 Years of Man in Space.
Starmus Press. ISBN 1-627-95026-5.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

hmm, that is a transformation, like with an apple, burn it and you get smoke or something, or eat it, it dosnt get destroyed

knowledge=machine=skill=technology(take knowledgy)

there is no small particles jumping in and out of nothing.. nothing is information, 0

pick up 0 sodas from the floor

particles are, nothing, information

there is no time in the past, time=now

true can not exist without false, everything that exist has an opposite for it to exist, but non existence, cant exist

matter is true, something, physical, information is false and truth, mental, 1 and 0

a universe is an imaginary idea, not real, unles you define universe as personal physical experience of now

the future is something? the future is false
tejretics

Con

Rebuttals
The "nothing" referred to here is the quantum vacuum. As I clearly illustrated, there are particles that are virtually creating themselves via. the limited energy of the quantum vacuum. Pro is still ignoring my definition of "destruction." As
I said, destruction is a variable word; my definition states that even a major transformation is a form of destruction. Pro says that everything is imaginary unless there is personal experience; this leaves no contingencies. If so, by the same application, even objects which have been experienced personally are non-existent.

Let us move to ontology here.
P1: It is possible that nothing exists anywhere.
P2: If it is possible that nothing exists anywhere, then nothing exists anywhere in some location.
P3: It is impossible to exist without being.
C1: Nothing exists.

This argument, derived from ontology, refutes all Pro's claims via. Pro's own logic. By the definition of the temporal dimension, the future will become the present (i.e. "now") and will come into existence. Now let us see this argument:

P1: The future will exist.
P2: If the future will exist, it has to be created.
P3: If anything is already conceived of and created, it exists.
P4: The future is conceived of and created.
C2: The future exists.

I extend all my arguments as Pro has not refuted them with proof and, hence, has not fulfilled their BoP.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

creation is impossible in reality


particles are not real, they are imaginary


there is no destruction going on in reality.. its a transformation.. no part of an apple is becomming nothing when you burn it..



thing=true



do you not have memory? does memory not exist?..


possibilities are nothing, not real


lies exist


there is no, your and my logic, logic is not of the mind



the future and past is information, and my imagination only happens now






tejretics

Con

Rebuttals

No statement in this round has any proof whatsoever. I assert that particles are real; as Pro is making the positive claim that they are not real, Pro must prove that particles are not real. This transformation is destruction - not complete destruction, but destruction nonetheless. "Thing=true" is an invalid and void argument.

Possibilities are possibilities, not "nothing." Let me prove it:

P1: If x is asserted to be x, then x has a value.
P2: If x has a value, it cannot have no value.
P3: If it is implied that x does not have a value, it has a value because of subjective envisioned conclusions.
P4: It is implied that x does not have a value.
C1: X has a value.

Memory is a personal experience; this is a biocentric idea of memories existing without existence. For something to have being, there must be a concept of having being. This is refuting Pro's own philosophy.

"Logic" is defined as "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity"; reason is "a psychological analysis of a situation". Psychological attributes are of the mind; hence, logic is of the mind.

Pro's assertions have no proof whatsoever. Pro makes bare assertions without enforcing them; Pro does not refute any of my arguments. I extend them to this round.

This resolution is negated. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YoshiBoy13 2 years ago
YoshiBoy13
I would give a full seven-point-sweep, but I'm trying to figure out how to register without opening out my phone number.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
objective experience*
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
hmm, knowledge is memory of objective
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
1=1, a=a
Posted by Will22 2 years ago
Will22
For clarification purposes, is your debate resolution "there isn't any difference in meaning between the words and phrases 'knowledge', 'truth', 'past', 'destruction', 'memory of know'"?
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
destruction dosnt happen in reality
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
time=now
past=no time
Posted by ClashnBoom 2 years ago
ClashnBoom
Time?
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
beyond letters..
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
name any difference between either of the Words i have equated above
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by YoshiBoy13 2 years ago
YoshiBoy13
vi_spextejreticsTied
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: Grammar to Con: He *used* some // Arguments to Con: Negated Pro's arguments well // Sources to Con: He *used* some. NB I honestly can't make heads or tails of this topic title, so can't really say I changed my mind.
Vote Placed by PatrickTheWise 2 years ago
PatrickTheWise
vi_spextejreticsTied
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: Con - Spelling and grammar is obvious Con - Arguments were well composed and and successful in refutation of the Pro. Con - Sources were provided.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
vi_spextejreticsTied
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: Sources is an obvious Con vote. Spelling and grammar is another obvious. Con refuted every single one of Pro's arguments solid. Even if the argument was barely even an argument. BOP was on Pro, so Con didn't need to do any arguments, just as he did. He refuted Pro's argument every round, arguments to Con. Overall, Pro failed to prove the resolution was valid, so Pro loses argument section.