Everything is Math

Pardon, as I'm new to Debate.org, "Everything is Math" is merely the topic/title of this debate, this would be the opening statement: "Imagine a world where people could express themselves solely using Mathematics; from dance, movement, ideas, thought processes, all the way to calligraphy. I think (in due time) everything could be expressed using a mathematical formula or a mere number... everything." I'm not sure what you meant by resolution. I'm afraid we are arguing about different things, because, you failed to read the first argument and ignored the first paragraph of my last argument? "by extension, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Through your won words, philosophically speaking, If you do not provide evidence, then I'll dismiss anything you throw my way, so, your last argument could be completely discarded. I think I provided more than enough proof of most things I said, it appears your way of dealing with convincing arguments is to bypass whatever the opposition has to say and tackle/ridicule instead. How's that working out for you? I think I'll get on the same boat for a bit :P One, this topic is more philosophical than strictly mathematical (and if you [my opponent] could not figure that out, I'm afraid you work on different, slightly lower levels of intelligence ;)) No one in their right mind would say that everything with our CURRENT technology could be expressed with a mathematical formula, which is why, that first argument was so important, but you did not read it carefully (every word matters in an argument, wouldn't you agree?) and failed to propose an opposing argument that made sense. "and (2) a fallacious argument from ignorance, stating that the plausibility of everything shown to be mathmatical in the future shows that everything is math." Please elaborate on how this is a fallacious argument from ignorance. I would very much like to read your response. It appears to me you're just trying to get a win, and not exploring the topic on a deep level which is what I'm trying to do. it is a fascinating topic. Your last argument did not back up your first argument. Your last argument had no information other than the references to my previous argument. Your last argument is flawed on multiple levels starting with a lack of complexity and poor usage of Extension. https://en.wikipedia.org...(semantics) Regarding your last paragraph, I never said I had ways to mathematically describe anything; that was your assumption (probably derived from the lack of reading or understanding I touched on earlier :P) If I was able to provide a mathematical formula for something like that, I wouldn't be having this debate, it would be a magical breakthrough in science. Now, I don't need to go into the workings of our brain (you can Google search too you know, I don't think you need Debate.org for that; maybe you do lol), again, I really think you should read my previous argument, take a day or two to think about it, because your response definitely felt rushed, did you read the links I provided? Did you contemplate on the fact that there might not be a technological cap? Maybe come up with a theory or two as long as they're back up logically? Your way of arguing and solving problems feels very close minded; I'm having fun though :D I had to type this on my phone, so pardon if there's any weird formatting or typos. I'll probably answer your response Saturday night, and Sunday is Father's Day, so Happy Fathers Day to all the dads out there. I'll probably be back on Monday. P.S.: I did submit an application to the CIA... they said no :(