CreateDebate


Debate Info

2
12
FactMachine says no Prodigee says yes
Debate Score:14
Arguments:30
Total Votes:14
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 FactMachine says no (2)
 
 Prodigee says yes (12)

Debate Creator

The0bserver(141) pic



This is a private debate. See the FAQ for more info.

Challenge Debate: Is the universe a simulation?

The0bserver(141)

FactMachine says no

Side Score: 2
VS.
Mingiwuwu(1446)

Prodigee says yes

Side Score: 12
No arguments found. Add one!
1 point

The burden of proof isn't on the one saying it's a simulation but on the one saying this is real to begin with.

Explain how everything can come from nothing (it can't).

The entire laws of physics and concept of reality that we currently hold make no sense whatsoever at the quantum/origin level of reasoning.

Side: Prodigee says yes
The0bserver(141) Clarified
1 point

The burden of proof isn't on the one saying it's a simulation but on the one saying this is real to begin with.

I would say the burden of proof is equal in this instance as there is very little you can do to definitively prove it either way.

Explain how everything can come from nothing (it can't).

Explain how a simulation/intelligent design can remedy this paradox anymore than naturalistic explanations? Just by saying "it was created" or "it's not real" you cannot escape the paradox.

The entire laws of physics and concept of reality that we currently hold make no sense whatsoever at the quantum/origin level of reasoning.

That's true, because humans have no idea what this universe is or why it exists. Our notions of quantum physics could largely be contrived from mathematical fantasy. The human mind has clearly defined limits, we are capable of two types of thinking- Conceptual/subjective thinking and "physical" thinking so to speak. We are often aware that there is something "more" which we often associate with metaphysical or spiritual thinking (which is really just a form of conceptual thinking). What this means is that we are capable of understanding the properties of things, but not their existential essence. We are also full of subjective baggage that further muddies the waters when it comes to our understanding of the essence and the origin of reality. On top of that our ability to understand physical properties is limited by the very nature of our biology, we have a limited sensory range, only experience 3 spatial dimensions, we have "common sense" notions about reality like "up and down" which are entirely subjective. When you consider our inherent limitations along with the limitations of our ability to study the properties of things at a quantum level (we are restricted to mathematics, and can only 0bserve quantum mechanical "objects" by destroying them or disturbing them) It's no wonder that none of it makes sense to us. The universe being a simulation doesn't fix any of these problems about reality, what about the underlying reality that is actually real?

Side: FactMachine says no
1 point

Okay so to be clear you are not in any way arguing against it.

The only point of disagreement is where you say:

"Explain how a simulation/intelligent design can remedy this paradox anymore than naturalistic explanations? Just by saying "it was created" or "it's not real" you cannot escape the paradox."

- The0bserver

You saying that doesn't disprove anything and merely asks something that I say can't be answered from within. Let me make this more blatant; Super Mario is never ever going to come up with the name Nintendo or the coding that went into his games no matter how hard he, Luigi and Princess Peach think into it. The only deduction they can ever hope to realise is that it's simulated.

Side: Prodigee says yes