CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
pic
pic
pic


RSS Rogerfederer

Reward Points:2
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
76%
Arguments:152
Debates:15
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

There are no laws that govern the peniton particle because there is no such thing as a peniton particle.

Let me try to illustrate why this analogy is false.

Imagine you lived 10,000 years ago.

Would it be true to say: there are no laws which govern the movement of the wheel because there is no such thing as a wheel?

1 point

Spacetime is physical

No, space-time is a mathematical construct used to explicate the standard model of the universe. To call perfect emptiness "physical" is a contradiction in terms (i.e. a paradox).

If material doesn't exist, then the laws that govern it does not exist.

Wrong. You are conflating causes with effects, which I have already tried to explain to you once. If there were no water anywhere in the universe, then that would not stop H2O being the chemical rule for creating water. If there were no cars anywhere in the universe, then that would not change the rules one has to follow in order to build a car.

There are no laws that govern the peniton particle because there is no such thing as a peniton particle.

This is a false analogy. There are laws which govern all particles, regardless of what you decide to name those particles. Were your premise correct that the laws governing them simply vanish when one removes them all, then it would be quite an astounding coincidence when one puts them all back and the exact same laws begin to take effect, would it not?

Obviously, if one returns all the particles to their original positions, and the initial effects are repeated, that proves the universe has retained information absent all physical matter.

2 points

Yes. No religious zealots and no political extremists.

Which would rule out 97 percent of this website.

rogerfederer(2) Clarified
1 point

I did and you removed it and pretended you couldn't see it.

I intend to file a formal complaint with your alien overlords.

1 point

Gravity, for example, does not exist in a universe devoid of mass.

I am afraid that you are confusing the law of gravity with the effects of gravity. The law of gravity would still exist if all the mass were removed from the universe, but it would not affect anything because its effects are dependent on mass.

Similarly, if you removed everything from the universe which has colour, it would not change the rule which governs colour.

1 point

There is no information without interpretation. That requires an interpreter.

Edit: I just saw and responded to your post in the other side. I’ve never thought about it in the way you described. It wouldn’t necessarily be accurate to say that matter is an interpreter, but the information still relies on the physical for existence.

I understand why you might think so, but as strange as it might sound to you, it is actually the other way around. A hundred years of quantum experiments have yielded the repeated observation that, without an interpreter, the physical itself ceases to exist, and becomes only information. Without an interpreter, reality itself deteriorates into a set of mathematical probabilities.

I can certainly agree with you that there is a symbiotic relationship between (certain types of) information and interpreters, but simply because they both exist simultaneously (and depend upon one another) doesn't necessarily mean they both have to be physical.

1 point

Those laws, which are information, are properties of the physical universe.

Well, your statement is sort of true, but firstly, let's discuss your loaded language. If you remove everything from the universe which defines it as physical, then how can the universe still be physical? That is a paradox. If information remains in a perfect vacuum then obviously that information is not physical and your claim that "all information is physical" is false.

Secondly, while I again acknowledge your statement to be partly true, what is not true is that this gives these laws any physical form. Whether they are properties of the universe or not, they still do not exist in the physical sense. You could not burn the law of gravity onto a hard drive and take it with you to another universe.

1 point

I mean no. Information and the experience thereof is strictly physical.

No. If you removed all the matter and energy from the universe you would still be left with a universe which has laws. Those fundamental laws represent an example of information which is not physical, yet nevertheless must exist in order for the universe to adhere to them.

1 point

The fact that information relies completely on matter does not make matter less real.

Matter is information. Everything in the universe is information. There is nothing except information.

0 points

I plan to be a robotics engineer so I think I can add insight.

I plan to be supreme ruler of the potato people so I think I can counter your insight.

A.I may never get advanced to the point of being destructive.

Then again it may. In fact, it probably will. This can be ascertained simply by observing the fact that it is becoming more advanced with time, and adding on ten thousand years.

Most is primitive and harmless

Yes, but time doesn't stand still. AIs are becoming more advanced every year. Plus -- and potentially most importantly -- developments in technology tend to be exponential rather than linear. We learn twice as fast when we know twice as much.

As long as we don't give it significant control, we should be fine.

I think that if we ever reach the level of AI where the decision has to be made whether or not to give it control, at that point it becomes inevitable that it will happen. Again, because of the passage of time, and the curiosity of human beings, eventually someone will try it just to see what happens.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here