Resolved: Reality is a differential of potentials.

I'll begin by thanking my opponent for his response. I know he had a plane to catch, but he still managed to post at least 3/4's of his argument. Opening RemarksLet me begin by referring to an old adage regarding knowledge: "If you can't explain it to a five-year old, you don't know it well enough." To be fair, with a topic as complex as this, so heavily rested in mathematics and physics, one might not expect to get a 5-year-old on board. However, it's not an unreasonable expectation that the average adult should be able to understand your argument, however difficult and complex the subject.In this, the opponent has failed. The resolution itself was not explained in any terms that are understandable to someone not themselves deeply studying the field. The opponent is arguing that "the physical universe itself is derived from differing potential probabilities trapped along a single vector of observed time know as the universe." What this means, however, is unclear. While it is easy to assume that someone knows what they're talking about whenever they use large, unfamiliar terms, such an assumption is dangerous and counter-productive to debate. If a debate is not understandable to both participants and the audience, no one learns anything and everyone is left frustrated in the end. I agreed to a shared BoP in the comments, but it is important to understand that a valid, sensical, understandable argument is made before the responding side can be expected to present a counter-argument. The opponent has failed to present a case that meets these three criteria, and thus has failed in presenting a topic which has debateability in the first place. In my opening statement I expressly mentioned that the opponent's argument should be clear and understandable, and still he did not deliver. I fully expect the opponent to "translate" his argument into one that is understandable in the next round. There should be premises, logical arguments and a clear conclusion that directly ties into the resolution. What's more, the resolution itself should be clarified. Interpretting The ArgumentBut I am not one to complain with at least attempting to bring about understanding. In this following section, I will attempt to "convert" the opponent's obfuscated argument into one that we can all Paragraphs 1-4: This is largely just rhetoric regarding the nature of debate, a history lesson regarding its origins and the contributions debate has made to the world. While this type of rhetoric is useful in a formal essay, it is not particularly useful to a debate, as it provides unnecessary information and wastes the readers' time.P. 5: Here the opponent admits that cosmology is a somewhat philosophical area of study, but that scientists still attempt to provide some sort of testable framework in which to study it. This framework is grounded in mathematical prediction models.P. 6: The Big Bang theory was recently re-examined through the lens of quantum physics. P. 7: This paragraph is a quote from a paper by Ali and Das which is largely incomprehensible to any non-theoretical physicist. What can be gleaned is that the researchers found that quantum physics is somewhat compatible with cosmelogical observations, in that it correctly predicts the cosmological constant, but that it also implies there was no singularity "Big Bang" and that the universe is infinite. P. 8: Opponent admits this science is largely incomprehensible to non-theoretical physicists.P. 9: Here it is restated that this research allows for the creation of a model that denies a "beggining" or "end" to the universe, in favor of an infinite universe.P. 10-12: Here the opponent attempts to describe the difference between the definition of "energy" in classical physics vs. the "modern description". Newtonian physics holds that energy is the potential to do work. The "modern" definition is not so easily understood, though it has been around since the late 1700's. In a sense, the Langrangian understanding of mechanics simplifies many problems that Newtonian mechanics might have difficulty doing. It is important to note, however, that Langrangian mechanics does not actually introduce any new physics. It is a reformulation of the existing Newtonian physics, in such a way that it makes many problems easier to solve. Lately, it has been used considerably in quantum mechanics. This means that the "modern defininition" well describes energy in terms of Lagrangian mechanics, but that the Newtonian mechanics definition of energy is still a valid definition. P. 13-15: Here the opponent's reference talks about Noether's theorem as it relates to the Lagrangian. This implicatons of this statement are not made clear by the opponent, nor does it seem to, in any way, relate to the resolution.Closing StatementsYou'll notice that I do not have a counter-argument. This is because, in most every way, the opponent himself has failed to present an original argument. An ill-formed resolution was presented, but not explained. Some facts regarding Newtonian and Lagrangian mechanics were mentioned, but not placed in any context, nor were they used to argue any particular point. Simply put, the opponent hasn't presented an argument, so I am unable to argue against it. Perhaps the opponent meant to explain himself in the part of the argument he did not have time to write, but seeing as he set the time limit for responses, there isn't much excuse for this omition. I am hopeful that the opponent will clearly define his resolution and make an argument in the next round. At this point, I have no doubt that the readers have learned nothing of import from reading this debate -- meaning that the debate is not functioning in the way it was meant to. I look forward to your response.