New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Well, one thing's for sure- the chicken's egg came before the chicken. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The chicken and the egg are one in the same thing, you can't have one without the other. How could one have come before the other if you only have one thing? Is it fair to simply say the chicken has always existed? I think not. One, the chicken or the egg, came "INTO" existence from something else, <u>FROM</u> something which already existed. Wouldn't Something "INTO" Something net a change of "nothing"? If I have 1 and convert it "INTO" (1/4)+(1/4)+(1/4)+(1/4) then what is the NET result?

......11111111111111111..... which came first, the (1) or the (one)?

It's not a word game, it's a logic game. You can't have existence unless you can have non-existence, you can't have (+1) unless you offset it with (-1).

Simple logic should answer the rediculous notion that the "universe" has "Always has existed" and I believe my paradox demonstrates that.

No way out of existence then there could be no way into existence.

<b>If existence or the "essence" of existence has always existed then "EXISTENCE" and "NOTHING" would have to be one-in-the-same thing.</b>

Sincerely,

George Moore

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Well, one thing's for sure- the chicken's egg came before the chicken. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The chicken and the egg are one in the same thing, you can't have one without the other. How could one have come before the other if you only have one thing? Is it fair to simply say the chicken has always existed? I think not. One, the chicken or the egg, came "INTO" existence from something else, <u>FROM</u> something which already existed. Wouldn't Something "INTO" Something net a change of "nothing"? If I have 1 and convert it "INTO" (1/4)+(1/4)+(1/4)+(1/4) then what is the NET result?

......11111111111111111..... which came first, the (1) or the (one)?

It's not a word game, it's a logic game. You can't have existence unless you can have non-existence, you can't have (+1) unless you offset it with (-1).

Simple logic should answer the rediculous notion that the "universe" has "Always has existed" and I believe my paradox demonstrates that.

No way out of existence then there could be no way into existence.

<b>If existence or the "essence" of existence has always existed then "EXISTENCE" and "NOTHING" would have to be one-in-the-same thing.</b>

Sincerely,

George Moore

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The fertilized egg came before the chicken. This point is made clear by Nature in the case of the mule. The mule is a product of an interbreeding between a donkey and a horse, but it is basically an infertile species.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(123...)Well, one thing's for sure- the egg came before the chicken. The egg can be laid by some hypothetical interbreeding or interspecies <b>but the first bonafide chicken was a result of that egg.</b> <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Okay, a horse breeds with a duck. The duck lays an egg. What hatches out of it? It's not a duck. It's not a horse. Perhaps it is <b>the first bonafide chicken?</b> Wouldn't bonafide mean it to be authentic? In order to be authentic wouldn't it have needed to have come from a chicken? If a chicken comes from a chicken(or it's egg) do you have anything new?

I think we are getting a little off the subject which is the paradox that I am looking for disproofs of.


Sincerely,

George Moore

No, the fertilized egg came from gametes from two different species than the chicken itself so the egg that grew into the very first chicken came before the existence of the chicken. I think this paradox originated as an analogy to the paradox of existence so it is quite relevant to the issue. In the chicken and the egg, a dilemma exists because a fully grown chicken is necessary to produce an egg and yet a chicken itself must be produced by an egg. A person who argues for a "First Cause" would propose that the chicken came first, that some God created the chicken, and with it the unbreakable cycle of the chicken and the egg. However, Nature seems to have proven that the egg came first in the example of the mule. Thus, within the context of this paradox, one is led to prefer from physical evidence, evolution over creation.

So, the riddle of "the chicken or the egg, which came first?" results in a debate over existence by a creator or existence that evolved from other forms. I suppose this paradox doesn't directly address the deeper issue of "something out of nothing" (unless we are to refer to God as nothing in this analogy) since even a First Cause, God, is presumed to be an essence that has always existed.

In my view though, something that has always existed is ultimately synonymous with something having been spontaneously generated (creation ex-nihilo) since both result in existence with absolutely no cause.

Existence ex-creation and no creation ex-nihilo:

If something always existed, then creation of that something never happened.

Then, there is a something that was never created.

If there is something that was never created, then a creation before existence is not nececessary.

Then, existence ex-creation is possible.

If existence ex-creation is possible, then no creation ex-nihilo of something that exists but was never created makes no sense.

Therefore, if something always existed, no creation ex-nihilo makes no sense.

If something that always existed is part of a world were no creation ex-nihilo is allowed, then

there is at least something for which no creation ex-nihilo makes no sense.

Therefore, no creation ex-nihilo cannot be a universal law if something always existed, since there is at least a something for which it does not make sense.

It seems to me that you are saying that a "Chicken" has been <u>created</u> from an egg but that the egg wasn’t a chicken egg, it was the contents of two other forms which now <u>created</u> a "Chicken".

Is the "Chicken" anything new? Let’s say "Everything in the Universe" is made up of (1’s and 0’s) and that (1’s) are the same as (0’s) but just in a different form. (0=1)
Now, let’s say that a Donkey is made up of all (1’s) and a Horse is made up of all (0’s).
We breed the two and come up with a Mule/(or we can call it a chicken if you like) and it is made up of alternating 1’s and 0’s.(1010101010)

Here is my point, 1’s and 0’s are the same thing. The Donkey is the same as the Horse and Both are the same as the Mule. You now have something you call a "Mule" but it is nothing new, just a new name for what already exists, a true name game.


<b>If nothing NEW can be created then "CREATION" is impossible. If nothing can be DESTROYED then "DEMISE" is impossible. If nothing can be created or destroyed then all you can have is "NOTHING".</b> If all you have is "NOTHING" then "EVERYTHING" would have to have came from it. If this "nothing" is actually "something" then the "nothing" can actually ONLY be "EVERYTHING" which is what we refer to as "The Universe".


The real name game here is the focus on creation and demise from and into <u>NOTHING</u>. There is no such thing as absolute nothingness/nonexistence and therefore is meaningless. I think this is what Tom is calling "The Essence of Existence". Am I right Tom, is this the Logic behind <u>"your"</u> claim to the "Essence of Existence?


Sincerely,

George Moore