CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Alternate Realties, do they exist?
The Theory of Alternate Realties is this;
That we are not the only path that time can take. Each choice that can happen will happen in a alternate world, each one different from the other in some way.
You put a cat in a cage and set two plates of food, one is good the other is poisioned. Your cat dies but in another reality the cat lives.
Your all wrong about no evidence. Sometimes Types of subatomic particles do impossible things like RANDOMLY POP IN AND OUT OF EXISTENCE! This is proven. A theory on how this works is they go through different realities and pass through the different "worlds". Thats how the theory was made. These particles have to go somewhere and they have to go somewhere that our particles also exist and therefore it would make sense that they go into a world almost exactly the same as ours.
You gave no reason to why they don't exist. Why is it most probable that we will never have evidence? If we do have no evidence and if probability is against us of finding evidence, that doesn't mean alternate realities don't exist. For example, i have no evidence that you exist. You could be a fictional character created by the real author. However, you know you exist (im assuming you exist to move forward with this argument). Thusly, this is my reason why im downvoting you.
Because there is no evidence whether they exist or not. But it is more reasonable to presume they do not. Every different turn of the smallest amount of energy would cause a different universe. You do know how many versions of our universes that would mean? Far too many to be real if you ask me.
Why is it most probable that we will never have evidence?
And how would you go about finding the evidence? For that you should, literally, be able to break through our universe, one way or another. Sounds like science fiction, as at this point it is. Something that might be possible but there is no evidence, no proof.
We are capable of coming up with scenarios that do not have any evidence and, again, most probably never will. In this case it would be wise and smart to recognize the false ones and and claim them unreal, until further notice... still.
If we do have no evidence and if probability is against us of finding evidence, that doesn't mean alternate realities don't exist.
Assuming that all of existence, not just our universe, is infinite. There is a possibility that somewhere out there could be every "alternate" version of everything that is over here. But that just sounds not true.
The universe began with a "bang". All the energies and particles and whatnot that came from there, their course could be tracked and projected, theoretically, till the "end". If there is no external influence to their path they will always go the same way. It could, theoretically, be possible to look into the future and change the course of events, but then that is still the path of particles, energies, etc. and would be part of the projection from the beginning. Only an influence that came from outside our universe could actually "change" the course. But that would not create another universe. The current one would be changed and that change would be permanent.
For example, i have no evidence that you exist. You could be a fictional character created by the real author.
Because there is no evidence whether they exist or not.
I think that is a poor reason because i proved to you that existence exists without the proof of evidence.
You talking to me is evidence of my existence.
That is a very strong delusion. I don't know if i am responding to you, your sibling, or a bot. Therefore, that is not evidence. You don't know if you are talking to me, my sibling, or a bot.
For the record, i didn't downvote you maliciously. I downvoted you for an intellectual reason. And i don't mean to be impolite or rude. Please don't forget that. :) Anyway, i seem to realize why you say no for two main reasons:
1. It seems and (2) sounds difficult to prove alternate realities.
So far you haven't proved to me why alternate realities do not exist. Yes, i read your arguements:
1. sounds not true.
2. seems difficult to prove alternate realities.
3. Influence of outside of our universe will only affect ours and will not create another universe.
But those are not evidence to proves that alternate realities exist.
I think that is a poor reason because i proved to you that existence exists without the proof of evidence.
We are talking about something that has NO real evidence. Not about something that does have, like us.
That is a very strong delusion.
It is not a delusion, I assure you. If you think it is then you are the delusional one.
I don't know if i am responding to you, your sibling, or a bot.
You think you know who I am? You don't, and I'm fairly certain you never will.
Therefore, that is not evidence. You don't know if you are talking to me, my sibling, or a bot.
Even if I had made up a personality, or put someone else to my place, it makes no difference. It doesn't matter who you are talking to. You are talking to someone, which means whoever you are talking to exists.
But those are not evidence to proves that alternate realities exist.
As I have said already, there is no evidence whether they exist or not.
Why did you downvote me?
Because you did too.
God bless.
If you're trying to annoy me then you are doing a good job.
We are talking about something that has NO real evidence.
I will repeat, existences can exist without evidence. In order to disprove an existence, you need evidence to disprove it. A lack or no evidence doesn't disprove the existence of an existence.
Contradiction:
It is not a delusion, I assure you. If you think it is then you are the delusional one.
You think you know who I am? You don't, and I'm fairly certain you never will.
These two statements are contradictions. In the first statement of bolded words, you imply that this converstation proves your existence.
However, in the second statement of bolded words, you stated that i really do not know who you are: your hobbies, your life, your EXISTENCE.
Even if I had made up a personality, or put someone else to my place, it makes no difference. It doesn't matter who you are talking to. You are talking to someone, which means whoever you are talking to exists.
You are right. No matter what, i am talking to somebody or something. However, this doesn't prove that i am talking to you. And this doesn't prove that you exist.
Because you did too.
You shouldn't downvote people based on an intellectual reason. You shouldn't downvote a person if that person downvoted you in the first place. I find it childish.
And no, I don't mean to annoy you. And to be honest, i am done with argument because, one, i feel like we are spamming his debate. And two, so far you haven't prove why alternate realities do not exist. In order to disprove their existence, you need evidence. The lack of evidence or no evidence doesn't mean that you had disproved the existence of alternate realities. For example, in 9th grade, i didn't know that the acceleration of gravity was 9.8 meters per second. However, today, i do know that the acceleration of gravity was 9.8 meters per second. And the evidence that i do have for it, is all the physics problems that do show the existence of that value. But lets back track. Because i didn't have evidence for it in 9th grade, does that mean the value didn't exist? This is the logic that im getting from you. And the answer is "no."
I will repeat, existences can exist without evidence. In order to disprove an existence, you need evidence to disprove it. A lack or no evidence doesn't disprove the existence of an existence.
I said, "We are talking about something that has NO real evidence." Isn't that exactly what you are explaining up there?
These two statements are contradictions. In the first statement of bolded words, you imply that this converstation proves your existence.
However, in the second statement of bolded words, you stated that i really do not know who you are: your hobbies, your life, your EXISTENCE.
It does prove my existence. The only thing it does not prove is who I am (my hobbies, what I like, what my life is like). It proves that I exist, not who I am.
However, this doesn't prove that i am talking to you.
First you need to know who I am, which you do not.
And this doesn't prove that you exist.
If you are talking to someone it proves that that someone exists. And you do not know who I am, never have known. Meaning who I am is irrelevant.
You shouldn't downvote people based on an intellectual reason. You shouldn't downvote a person if that person downvoted you in the first place. I find it childish.
I downvote whoever I like. But that doesn't change the fact that I do not really care about the downvote system anyway.
The reason I downvoted was because your comment was kinda stupid. Meaning the downvote was not childish. So, that good enough for you?
so far you haven't prove why alternate realities do not exist
As I have said many times already. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHETHER THEY EXIST OR NOT. THIS MEANS IT CANNOT BE PROVED NOR DISPROVED. That big and bold enough for you?
in 9th grade, i didn't know that the acceleration of gravity was 9.8 meters per second
9th grade? That is 6th or 7th grade material... at least here where I live.
Acceleration is not meters per second, it is meters per second squared. And if our measuring systems were different that number could be different.
Because i didn't have evidence for it in 9th grade, does that mean the value didn't exist? This is the logic that im getting from you. And the answer is "no."
Then you're getting it wrong.
We are not talking about things that you can perceive from our universe with our current tools. We are talking about things that currently can not be perceived from where we are. Therefore there is no evidence whether they exist or not.
i am done with argument because...
The only reason you are not continuing this is because you are losing this argument. And lying about the reason is childish.
I said, "We are talking about something that has NO real evidence." Isn't that exactly what you are explaining up there?
Having no real evidence doesn't guareentee that alternate realities do not exists <---- That is what im explaining to you.
It does prove my existence. The only thing it does not prove is who I am (my hobbies, what I like, what my life is like). It proves that I exist, not who I am.
Again, no it doesn't. If your mother, father, or guardian used this account, instead of you, does it still prove your existence? No, because you are not typing on the account. I do have to correct myself. When you stated that i don't know who you are, i used the word "existence." Knowing that you exist or not, doesn't mean that i do not know who you are. That is my error. I apologize but i doubt i won't stop making mistakes. Still, our converstation doesn't prove your existence.
As I have said many times already. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHETHER THEY EXIST OR NOT. THIS MEANS IT CANNOT BE PROVED NOR DISPROVED. That big and bold enough for you?
If alternate realities cannot be proved or disproved, then why are you are saying that alternate realities do not exist? You contradicted yourself.
Then you're getting it wrong.
No, i am getting it right. No matter what we are percieving with our tools, you are still stating the same thing: No evidence of existence of an object or idea equates to no existence of that object or idea. Basically you are saying that because we have no evidence of alternate realities, alternate realities do not existence. You stated or implied that in your other arguements. However, now you have changed your arguement from "we have no evidence so alternate realities don't exist" to "we have no evidence if alternate realities exist or not so its existence cannot be proven or disproven."
You stated THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHETHER THEY EXIST OR NOT. THIS MEANS IT CANNOT BE PROVED NOR DISPROVED. So why do you say that alternate realities do not exist? You said that it cannot be disproven but yet at the same time you said that alternate realities do not exist? Like i said before, this is a huge contradiction/blow to your previous changed arguement.
Having no real evidence doesn't guareentee that alternate realities do not exists <---- That is what im explaining to you.
That's exactly what I am saying...
Again, no it doesn't. If your mother, father, or guardian used this account, instead of you, does it still prove your existence? No, because you are not typing on the account. I do have to correct myself. When you stated that i don't know who you are, i used the word "existence." Knowing that you exist or not, doesn't mean that i do not know who you are. That is my error. I apologize but i doubt i won't stop making mistakes. Still, our converstation doesn't prove your existence.
It proves that you are talking to someone you know nothing about. Therefore, the person you are talking to exists, but you do not know who it is.
A person can make up any personality he/she wants and pretend to be that, but you are still talking to a person and that person does exists. You just don't know if that pretended personality does belong to the person you are talking to or not, or if you are talking to the person you think you are. In my case you do not know who I am, to you I could be anyone. While talking with me proves the existence of a person you are talking to, you just don't know who it is. Going in circles...
Why did you bring this in anyway? This debate should be about alternate realities. Which are not part of our universe. Can you talk with an alternate reality? No. Can that talk to you? No.
If alternate realities cannot be proved or disproved, then why are you are saying that alternate realities do not exist? You contradicted yourself.
I explained that in the beginning... And there I also said there is no evidence to prove them existing or not.
you are still stating the same thing: No evidence of existence of an object or idea equates to no existence of that object or idea.
Apparently you are incapable of understanding what I am saying.
I'll just copy-paste this. "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHETHER THEY EXIST OR NOT. THIS MEANS IT CANNOT BE PROVED NOR DISPROVED." Is it really that difficult to understand? No evidence means it cannot be proved nor disproved.
However, now you have changed your arguement from "we have no evidence so alternate realities don't exist" to "we have no evidence if alternate realities exist or not so its existence cannot be proven or disproven."
I haven't changed my mind not once. Read my second comment all the way up there. In fact its my first sentence there.
You stated THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHETHER THEY EXIST OR NOT. THIS MEANS IT CANNOT BE PROVED NOR DISPROVED. So why do you say that alternate realities do not exist? You said that it cannot be disproven but yet at the same time you said that alternate realities do not exist? Like i said before, this is a huge contradiction/blow to your previous changed arguement.
And again, I explained that with my second post. As long as there is no evidence I will regard them as not existing, because that is the most reasonable thing to do.
You stated in your first argument: Even though there is no evidence and most probably never will be, they do not exist.
What i stated and what you stated are totally different in the beginning. If you meant what i stated, i believe you but you have to be specific in which you clearly wasn't with the bolded statement.
It proves that you are talking to someone you know nothing about. Therefore, the person you are talking to exists, but you do not know who it is.
I feel like there is a difference between "an existence" and "your existence." When i am talking about "your existence" i am soley talking about you and no one else. When i talk about "an existence" i refer to existences other than you. You had stated that you do in fact exist because this converstation proves some form of an existence. That is wrong. I my mother exist, but does that prove that you exist? No. It is not even logical for me to say "yes."
I have to make a change to my argument and this change do support your side partially. I now say that in your perception alone, this conversation IS evidence of your existence. I assume that no one is around watching you type this conversation, then this is truly your perception only. This is evidence in your mind because you know that you are talking to me. However, i do not know who is responding to me. The fact that i can't distinguish who you are tells me that this evidence do not prove "your" existence. This conversation, to me, proves "an existence" but it doesn't prove "your" existence.
And again, I explained that with my second post. As long as there is no evidence I will regard them as not existing, because that is the most reasonable thing to do.
Ahhhhhh, "because that is the most reasonable thing to do." I do have to say that i now realized you put that same argument in your first post. This reason is a very poor reason and i don't mean to insult you. To me, that is like jumping to the conclusion after giving up on research. You must think this is also silly. I do not find it reasonable at all. This logic is the same if i stated to my teachers in 9th grade that the acceleration of gravity do not exist because i had no evidence for it. (By the way, thank you on correct my unit mistake).
