Everything is Interconnected

I sense a theme of running out of time."My opponent is saying that there are conventional "realities" that we operate by" Correction: there is A conventional realitY that we operate by, not conventional realitIES."but unfortunately, his point is not very meaningful, because everything is interconnected if and only if nothing is real in the absolute sense, so conventional realities are irrelevant to this debate." So I win this debate if there is in fact an absolute reality? Well that's great because I happen to believe that there is such a thing. While I agree that our perception of reality may not be absolute, there certainly must be an absolute reality out there for our perceptions to work on. Even if I grant that we may be in the matrix and that our senses are completely fooling us, there must still be an absolute reality OUTSIDE the matrix (someone had the program it). "I was just pointing out in my tautology that the way the universe plays out or develops is through many individual parts doing what they do at the same time." Yes, I already granted the truth of this tautology."There is an eternal NOW in which the entire universal process happens." An eternal NOW? How can now be eternal if it is simply a moment in time? If I look at a picture of someone, that picture will illustrate a previous now, but will it illustrate eternity? I don't think so."I'm not saying that I play a big part in the state of the universe, but the universe is indeed in ONE state." Once again, I agree with this tautology; the Universe is what it is.Regarding this quote: "99% of species that have ever existed are now extinct and still life exists"My opponent says this: "I'm not saying that everything is essential for the continuation of anything, I'm saying that it was the same process that created all things."While the first part contradicts what he said earlier: "The claim "Everything is Interconnected" simply means that you can't have anything without everything"The second part is both true (according to modern cosmology) and irrelevant; the fact that everything most likely came about through a single event does NOT mean that everything is interconnected, especially if the event in question is in the past."The Earth never could have come into being without there being a Universe (which, being a Universe, contains all accessible 3 dimensional space) for it to come into." I agree..."A human never could have come into being without apes evolving in a competitive environment requiring the prefrontal cortex." Although I am an atheist, I do not grant that it is impossible for humans to have been created by a god. The same goes for the Earth by the way."Interconnectedness means that everything is dependently arisen relative to everything else" I am still waiting for evidence to back up this claim."We can see this from the moment of the Big Bang, in which all mass-energy exploded outwards from a single point." Once again, interconnectedness DOES NOT FOLLOW from common origin. Are all toys that came from a single industry interconnected? I do not believe they are."Interconnectedness means that things happen or come into being spontaneously when conditions are ripe for it, and that when conditions are hostile for it, it changes into something else." So now interconnectedness is spontaneous generation? Moreover, if the conditions are hostile for something, how can it change if it never came into being in the first place? I understand that it is a bit unfair to ask questions to my opponent since he will not be able to answer them, but these questions are for the audience to ponder in their mind."The point is that there are no specific forms, there is one ever changing form. This is always true, though at extremely large scales it is harder and harder to see" This does not mean anything. What form is my opponent talking about? And how is that relevant to the debate?"Because the universe is in a transitional phase from a point of infinite density to a completely flat, infinite space, it is interconnected, because every event in this universe contributes to the same goal of infinite space by increasing entropy." Non-sequitur, pure and simple. That fact that the Universe itself is expanding has NOTHING to do with the individual parts within the Universe. "I wrote that matter is made of hadrons, which are configurations of possibility. Quarks and leptons configure themselves in such a way that the whole hadron can interact with other nucleons, making an atom. This shows that matter is conventional, and it arises out of a configuration of possibility. This simply means that they are interactions with no substance. My opponent has not addressed this point." And I do not intend to because this argument is above both me and my opponent's understanding and, more importantly, IRRELEVANT. Even if I were to grant that matter is a configuration of possibility (whatever that means), simply asserting that this is a proof of interconnectedness is not enough; the causal link MUST be demonstrated as well."The point is that it is not the object that exists, it is the environment that exists. The object is merely a seamless part of the environment; that it is recognized as an object is a human mistake." Once again, irrelevant and meaningless.In this debate, my opponent has tried to argue for the existence of interconnectedness by appealing to things which he probably knew most people would not understand (I include myself AND my opponent), such as quantum mechanics. Although he may claim otherwise, it seems clear that my opponent has used woo woo in order to present his case. I would ask the audience to carefully read what my opponent has said in this debate and ask yourself the following questions (in order) for each of his arguments:Is this intelligible?Is this relevant to this debate?Is this supported by evidence?And the most important question: If this is true, is it actually evidence for interconnectedness? This question is very important because, throughout this debate, my opponent has used many non-sequiturs to argue his case.Also, keep in mind that the topic was EVERYTHING is interconnected, not SOME THINGS are interconnected.For those interested in the subject, here are the definitions that my opponent gave:"Because all things are interconnected, any one thing depends on everything else""The claim "Everything is Interconnected" simply means that you can't have anything without everything.""Interconnectedness means that everything is dependently arisen relative to everything else.""Interconnectedness means that things happen or come into being spontaneously when conditions are ripe for it, and that when conditions are hostile for it, it changes into something else."