CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:5
Arguments:5
Total Votes:5
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (5)

Debate Creator

Oliver(42) pic



Does the universe owe us understanding?

Many debates revolve around religion, an afterlife and science. In most ways, religion and science falls short of explaining the universe. Religion gives dogmatic answers and science shrugs saying it does not know (yet). While I applaud scientific discovery and appreciate the trust in faith, I cannot help but to wonder why we think we can know? The singularity is an interesting theoretical concept and if it ever occured, we would live with a civilation (or something like that) that we cannot grasp or understand. Why then do we assume we can understand the universe in which such a singularoty will occur?

Add New Argument

Not at all. What have we done for the universe so that "it" would owe us anything? We've had a fraction of a fraction of an impact on the universe outside our solar system, and the impact we've had there, particularly on Earth has, in all honesty, been a negative one.

The universe is a mystery, and the fact that we're in darkness about what the fuck is going on most of the time is nobody's fault but our own, if that. The universe doesn't "owe" anybody anything. This is also assuming that the universe is some kind of entity, when, in reality, it's nothing but a big fucking expanse of nature, save whatever extraterrestrial beings may be out there.

If anything, we owe the universe big time for fucking up their Earth so bad. Maybe we should focus on having a little less impact on a place that was already working pretty well before demanding anything of the universe, God, or any other supreme force.

Side: Not at all
1 point

How would an inanimate thing owe an explanation of itself?

And what about the singularity would lead one to believe the beginnings of the Universe are forever beyond understanding? Historically it seems the vast majority of questions which were said to have no answers have been eventually answered.

I just think it's funny that this assumption sounds like what people said about crossing the ocean, or figuring out what stars were, or figuring out the earth was flat, or flight, or electricity, or space flight, etc, etc, etc.

Always people in the time "oh no, this one is really impossible." In a few decades the singularity will likely be part of a High School physics class and we'll look like asses for ever doubting it could be answered.

Side: No
Oliver(42) Disputed
1 point

As I understand, the singularity is by definition something that can't fit into our understanding. It's a relative position. The invention that would set it off would be our last invention. I just mentioned it because it opens the idea of something that we can no longer understand. The singularity itself is therefore not like the stars and the ocean as those stood apart from us.

If such a super intelligent race were to kick off, we'd be to them what cats and dogs are to us. Cats and dogs cannot understand what we understand. So, we might not be able to understand what a 'post-singularity' world would be.

If dogs don't fully grasp 1 dimensional time, why do we assume we can grasp time in it's entirety. Dogs might not be on an evolutionary path that will grant them the faculties to and so we might not be building the neural capacity to do that either. In order to grasp the universe we might (for argument's sake) have to grasp 5 dimensional space, 2 dimensional time and two other things that we don't even know of.

I know it sounds like we'll end up in an 'I think therefore I am' position, but it there anything that indicates that we can know?

Side: Maybe
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

Is there some way you could quote what you are replying to? I don't think I ever referred to super intelligent beings nor human's relative intelligence compared to these beings.

I simply don't think inanimate objects owe anything.

And I don't presume that pressing questions of right now are somehow more mysterious than questions which have been answered in the past--each at the time seemingly equally pressing and impossible to answer.

Side: No