The Standard Big Bang Model Entails A Contradiction
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style:  Open  Point System:  7 Point  
Started:  3/29/2017  Category:  Philosophy  
Updated:  2 years ago  Status:  Post Voting Period  
Viewed:  949 times  Debate No:  101529 
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)
I am going to argue that the standard Big Bang model entails a logical and mathematical impossibility.
First round for acceptance.
I accept. 

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate; I am going to show that the standard Big Bang model entails a contradiction.
Argument For The Standard Big Bang Model Entailing A Contradiction P1: The standard Big Bang model entails a singularity P2: A singularity entails a contradiction C: Therefore, the standard Big Bang model entails a contradiction The argument follows valid form: A implies B, B implies C, therefore, A implies C This is called a Hypothetical Syllogism in deductive logic [1]. However, even though the argument is valid, the only way the argument can be sound is if both premises are in fact true. This is what I will prove in the following sections. Premise 1 P1 is true as the singularity is simply a prediction of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity used in standard Big Bang Cosmology [2] [3]. Nobody actually has doubt about this premise so I do not need to further justify it. However, it is widely accepted that some new theory of Grantum Gravity will do away with the singularity, but some physicists like Aron Wall believe the singularity will likely remain regardless of Quantum Gravity [4]. Either way, this new theory won't actually be the standard model as the standard model only assumes General Relativity and doesn't take Quantum Mechanics into account (this debate is about the standard model). Therefore, any potential theory of Quantum Gravity has no bearing on the classical standard Big Bang model. Premise 1 is uncontested and is controversial to no physicist or cosmologist; I have a feeling this debate will revolve around P2. Premise 2 Matter has extension, and thus, necessarily requires it be within spatial dimensions to exist (if no spatial dimensions exist then there is no "room" for any matter). However, at the supposed Big Bang singularity all matter was packed into a point with zero dimensions; this entails the following contradiction: i) It is the case that matter exists only within spatial dimensions (as matter has extension, therefore, requiring spatial dimensions) ii) It is not the case that matter exists only within spatial dimensions (as the singularity posits that matter exists within a point with no spatial dimensions) As Philosopher of Physics Quentin Smith notes: "The universe state that would exist at t0 if there were a fist moment of time would be a zerodimensional point in which there is packed all the threedimensional matter of the universe; this is what physicists mean when they call that point 'infinitely dense'. But the existence of such a point is both a mathematical and logical impossibility."  Quentin Smith [5] There is another way to illustrate this problem by pointing out another contradiction with regards to the singularity. Density = mass/ volume. When dealing with a point with no spatial dimensions we are dealing with density that is some number n/0. However, of course, dividing by zero is nonsensical: "What's 10 divided by 2? It's 5, because 10 split up evenly in 2 groups have 5 in each. 10 divided by 1? 10 in 1 group has 10. But 10 divided by 0? What does that even mean?" [6] Let's say we have some real number and it is divided by zero; a contradiction arises. Division is splitting up numbers into different groups or leaving it, as is, in a group of one. However, if we are dividing by zero, then there are zero groups. This leaves us with the contradiction: i) Division only deals with a group or groups (as this is what division actually is) ii) Division does not only deal with a group or group (if we do the nonsensical and divide by zero, then we are dealing with zero groups) Dividing by zero goes against what division actually is (leaving a group as is by 'dividing' by one, or splitting up said group in evenly distributed groups). But dividing by zero means no groups. However, if there are no groups (not even one) then there is no original number to be divided in the first place; which is clearly logically contradictory. Conclusion The argument I presented was logically valid, which means if the premises are true then the conclusion logically follows. The first premise is trivially true and is contested by nobody, while the second premise is true because the singularity is riddled with logical and mathematical contradictions (packing threedimensional matter within a zerodimensional space, dividing by zero etc.). Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable... ... The resolution has been affirmed. Sources [1] http://krypton.mnsu.edu... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.space.com... [4] https://arxiv.org... [5] https://infidels.org... [5] http://www.math.utah.edu...
Your whole argument is based on the premise that only 3 dimensions exist, excluding time. The singularity could just be an opening between another dimension and ours. To use an analogy, imagine a flat sheet of glass as a 2 dimensional universe. Beings living in this universe can percieve forward/back and left/right but not up/down. Dropping a beaker of water on the glass it would appear to the beings of flatland that the water materialize from nowhere at a particular spot. The spot would have to be infinitely dense to contain all that matter. They have neither the sense organs to detect up, nor the concept that up even exists. Sound familiar? 

I would like to thank my opponent for his response. Unfortunately, his comments miss the mark completely.
Leaving Out Time Con claims that my whole argument assumes only spatial dimensions and leaves out the time dimension. This is false, I clearly acknowledge the time dimension as I quoted Quentin Smith who clearly mentions "t0", which is the first moment of time under standard Big Bang cosmology at which the supposed singularity exists. Perhaps what my opponent is mentioning is this comment: "i) It is the case that matter only exists within spatial dimensions" I was referring to spatial dimensions as opposed to no spatial dimensions, but I can see how someone would read that and think I was excluding time (I may have used sloppy wording, for that I apologize). The question that remains is that if we take time into account, are the contradictions resolved? Well, of course not. Since matter is dimensional by definition and by its very nature (whether spatially or temporally), then it existing in a zerodimensional point is still clearly a logical contradiction. Matter cannot both be: i) Dimensional (which it has to be in order to be matter) And ii) Not dimensional (which it would have to be to exist in zero dimensions) Therefore, whether or not we take time into account is a redherring; the contradiction is still unresolved. Additionally, my argument against the contradiction of dividing by 0 was not even addressed. Thus, my argument in that regard remains unscathed. The Singularity Being An Opening Between Another Dimension And Ours My opponent mentions that the singularity could be the opening between another dimension and ours. However, this is impossible as a singularity cannot exist (as it is logically and mathematically contradictory). Something nonexistent cannot have any properties in reality. My Opponent's Analogy While my opponent's analogy was interesting, it has nothing to do with the contradictions of a singularity so he is going off topic I'm afraid. He is talking about how twodimensional beings would perceive something threedimensional. However, the singularity entails something dimensional existing in no dimensions (a clear contradiction). If there is more to the story that we do not know with regards to extra dimensions then this is when Quantum Gravity becomes relevant (such as MTheory which posits eleven dimensions). However, it is widely accepted that this theory won't contain singularities. This debate is about standard Big Bang cosmology which is only about four dimensions (three spatial dimensions and one time dimension), which cashes out from General Relativity and entails a singularity. Therefore, any talk about other dimensions would be to speak outside the scope of the resolution I am afraid. Conclusion Nothing my opponent said even came close to undermining the fact that the singularity is logically contradictory. Since the standard Big Bang model entails a singularity then the resolution has, without a doubt, been affirmed.
I'm not talking about time. I apologise if I did not make this clear in my previous response. The reason I excluded time is because time is not a spacial dimension. My claim is that it's possible more than 3 spacial demensions exist but us 3 dimensional beings can not percieve or even contemplate the 4th dimension. Something entering our 3 dimensional universe from this 4th dimension would appear to materialize out of nowhere. Not only would it seem to appear from a point but it would also appear to be denser than anything we can imagine as it would keep spreading. 

It is possible that there exist other dimensions. However, this response to my argument is what we call a redherring in logic; it is a fallacy.
"It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener tries to divert and arguer from his argument by introducing another topic." [1] The debate is about the standard Big Bang model and whether or not it entails a contradiction. My opponent mentioning other dimensions has no bearing on the contradiction of the singularity predicted by General Relativity (which is what the standard Big Bang model assumes). If there are other dimensions that still wouldn't change the fact that the singularity posits spatially threedimensional matter being packed into a zerodimensional point (a contradiction), or density which is mass/ volume; dividing by zero (which is a contradiction). In order for these contradictions to be resolved, we need a theory of Quantum Gravity. However, a theory of Quantum Gravity would make the standard Big Bang model obsolete. The point is that the standard Big Bang model entails a contradiction, and if there are any solutions available, then we wouldn't be talking about the standard Big Bang model (which is what we are debating). Essentially, my opponent hasn't even explained how this possibility of other dimensions would even solve the contradictions, and even if they did, we wouldn't be taking about the standard Big Bang model anymore. Conclusion I have shown that the Big Bang entails a contradiction by pointing out the logical inconsistencies posited by the singularity assumed in standard Big Bang cosmology. My opponent mentioned the possibility of other dimensions, but didn't explain how they would resolve the contradictions mentioned. Even if other dimensions did resolve the contradictions, we would be talking abut something else (not the standard Big Bang model). Therefore, my opponent has committed the redherring fallacy making his argument invalid. The resolution, still, is strongly affirmed. I thank my opponent for the debate. Sources [1] http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
Firstly I want to thank my opponent for an interesting debate. It is impossible for us to grasp a space of zero dimensions. Even when we imagine a singularity we picture space around it. The fact is that 3 dimensional space existed within the singularity. The reason I used the example of flatland was to show how impossible it was for 2 dimensional beings to visualize 3 dimensions. The laws pertaining to matter in a 3 dimensional universe do not apply in a 2,1 or 0 dimensional universe. A singularity is not a contradiction. It is unfathomable. Thanks. 
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119  Furyan5  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  3  0 
Reasons for voting decision: #9 in comments.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119  Furyan5  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  3  0 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used logic of A implies B, B implies c, therefore A implies C when showing their two premises of the standard big bang theory having a singularity, which no one disputes, and they showed how the singularity is a contradiction by pointing out how 3D matter can't be packed into 0 dimensional space. Con didn't offer anything that pertained to that, arguing that there could be more dimensions through which the matter came from. This didn't apply due to the argument being about the original big bang theory which doesn't make claims about possible other dimensions beyond the third.
Pro has to show that Pro's P2, a singularity entails a contradiction, is true.
The singularity mentioned is necessarily from the Standard Model of the Big Bang.
That's all I'm voting on.
Pro claims:
1. matter needs space, but the singularity had zero space.
2. the density of no space is like dividing by zero, which is necessarily impossible and contradictory.
Con claims:
1. with other dimensions, outside of space and time, the singularity could exist without what we 3ders perceive as space.
Pro even agrees that there could be other dimensions, which would seem to solve that whole singularity problem, but as Pro correctly and wisely points out, the resolution is about the standard model of the big bang, which, as far as I can tell and given no rebuttal to this point from Con, does not mention anything about higher dimensions.
So higher dimensions would tip this debate in Con's favor, except we're talking about the standard model which has no such thing mentioned.
Therefore, given no response from Con about dividing by zero to calculate the energy density of zero space and the fact that the standard model of the big bang has a singularity in it, which remains uncontested by Con to be matter without space, Con does not cast enough doubt on the idea that the standard model as presented by Pro to be has a contradiction within the idea of the singularity.
While I remain unconvinced by Pro's arguments, Con never touched on any of the reasons Pro was off.
Con merely tried to solve the singularity issue.
In fact, Con sort of squandered his characters on rehashing the flatlander idea, when in reality Pro already understood it and had already understood that the flatlander idea is irrelevant to the standard model and Con never got that.
Arguments to Pro, because I was given no reason to doubt them in this debate.
I'll clarify if asked.
1.The universe was smaller then a proton p or p+. Protons can just pop into existance and then go away,
2.The total energy in the univers ads up to E=0
Is it just the fact that it's a singularity?