CreateDebate


Debate Info

7
2
Yes No
Debate Score:9
Arguments:14
Total Votes:11
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (6)
 
 No (2)

Debate Creator

Noumenon(36) pic



Is String Theory wrong?

Yes

Side Score: 7
VS.

No

Side Score: 2
1 point

It's completely correct except it is missing the eleventh dimension.

M-theory explains much.

Side: Yes
Noumenon(36) Clarified
1 point

It's completely correct except it is missing the eleventh dimension.

It actually does have 11 dimensions. Ten spatial dimensions plus time.

M-theory explains much.

Yes, there is truth to it but I don't think it's entirely true.

Side: Yes
Mingiwuwu(1446) Disputed
1 point

String has 10, m-theory altered what the 10th dimension truly was and converted the rest into an eleventh one that operates randomly and without any logic to it at all.

I know the details, you are fucking with the wrong dude on this.

Side: No

I think conventional string theory might be wrong in that it assumes the basis of reality is matter. I lean more toward the simulation theories, so I think the basis of reality is information.

Side: Yes
Noumenon(36) Clarified
2 points

I lean more toward the simulation theories, so I think the basis of reality is information.

I am open minded to the simulation theories but I don't think the basis of "reality" per se is information. The basis of this "reality" would be information but underneath the simulations there should be a "real reality" that is based on fields/energy/matter etc. For me it is hard to say if this is a simulation or not because the standard model seems to indicate that it is but the standard model could very well be wrong in many ways.

Side: Yes
BurritoLunch(6566) Clarified
1 point

I am open minded to the simulation theories but I don't think the basis of "reality" per se is information. The basis of this "reality" would be information but underneath the simulations there should be a "real reality" that is based on fields/energy/matter etc.

I understand what you're saying and it's my fault for being inaccurate. What I should have said is that I think the basis of our reality is information.

If there is a super-reality then it won't necessarily have anything to do with fields, energy or matter however, because these things are all observations we have made only about our own universe. I think it is likely that such a place would be incomprehensible to us, since we can only ever interpret information from within the parameters of our own experience.

There are a few things that sway me toward simulation theory but one of the strongest is the fact that there is experimental evidence time moves in increments at the quantum level. There is also the duality of light to consider, quantum entanglement and, perhaps most importantly, the way that observation forces a particle to identify itself from a random set of possibilities.

Side: Yes
No arguments found. Add one!