Everything is Math

First we'll go over what debate is and is not, second, a brief overview of the arguments made for and against, and third, the implausibility of morality being modeled mathematically. Debate is argument and clash on the merits of either simply a proposition or idea, or a resolution as oft done in formal debates. The resolution is the statement of what is being debated, and sides must prove it's truth or falsity, whether it be the US ought to prove a universal basic income, NAFTA is beneficial, the capital gains tax should be abolished, etc. In our case it is the Resolved: Everything is Math. Debate is NOT insults of IQ, assertions that the opposition hasn't read nor understood their arguments, saying they should take a day or two to comprehend a relatively simple argument, saying their engaging in semantics and are close minded (without evidence as a matter of fact, Debate is NOT ignoring arguments and simply making assertions. When someone needs to resort to non sequiturs, red herrings, and fallacies galore in order to prove something, it's clear to any intellectually honest person that they likely don't have a ghost of a point. If my opponent did not wish to have a debate and rather simply a discussion, then he shouldn't have gone to a website with debate in the name. If only one thing is shown to not be mathematical, then everything is not. The burden of the proof on the affirmative is to show in the future, as he's conceded it's impossible in the here and now, that everything can be modeled mathematically. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed in the same fashion (this is based upon (1) the philosophical investigations into epistemology and what we can and cannot know by David Hume, (2) how we ignore extraordinary claims without evidence if they do not provide positive evidence for them (i.e. Russell's Teapot, FSM, Sagan's Dragon in his garage)). There are three reasons why my opponent has failed to meet said burden and prove the truth of the resolution. 1. Argument from Ignorance My opponent, myself, and any educated person will admit they can not predict far future developments to any real degree of accuracy. We don't know the future, and can not make real predictions of the material world based upon it 2. Argument from Assertion My opponent's opening statement, asserts that, and I quote, "I think (in due time) everything could be expressed using a mathematical formula or a mere number... everything." I'm sorry to say ladies and gentlemen, but this is a mere fallacious assertion if I've ever seen one. Simply because science has made discoveries doesn't mean that'd be able to do anything and everything. He hasn't yet proved that the everything can even be modeled mathematically. 3. Technological Cap My opponent does not prove that there won't be any sort of technological cap in the future, the point of whom science hits a break wall and ceases to make revolutionary discoveries. Yes, we've continued to make discoveries and developments over the past century, but this doesn't mean they will continue ad infinitum. As a matter of analogy, a hog could be fed slop everyday for years, yet at one point it will be butchered. The basis of what is right and wrong has been argued since the beginning of time, varying from utilitarianism to deontology to divine command theory. However, we all still have a sense of morality, what the great philosopher Socrates called a daemon. How are we supposed to, in any plausible sense, supposed to model morality if we ourselves do not even know what it is? Some have even argued that in order to make moral decisions, one must be conscious and have free will (a moral ought implies can, without free will they have no other choice in the matter), meaning that we'd need to make a conscious AI, with human like intelligence, who models morality.