What came first: the chicken or the egg?

[badhofer]

.
There is no point of reference for us to find the answer to this problem. Without any point of reference, everything is "so" and also "as well as". This means that the chicken and the egg must have been created at the same time (there is a chicken in the egg), because the missing point of reference demands duality.

The duality of the chicken and the egg:
inside - outside (the chicken is on the inside, the egg is on the outside)
visible - invisible (the egg is visible, the chicken is invisible)
hard - soft (the soft chicken is inside the hard eggshell)
large - small (inside a large egg is a small chicken)
life - death (the chicken will live when the egg dies)​

Who created these answers?
The missing point of reference (the Creator)

The pattern of infinity (The omnipresent structure)
.

 

[olde drunk]

who cares? we have chickens and eggs.

enjoy them!

peace,

 

[Imparcticle]

visible - invisible (the egg is visible, the chicken is invisible)

VISIBLE to the HUMAN eye. I'm sure its possible to detect the presence of a chicken inside the egg without physically going inside.

Rather, the egg should have come first for obvious reasons. For one thing, the egg existed before the chicken became alive (that is, conscious in some level). The egg is the first stage in the growth from a zygote to a chicken. So the egg came first, not the chicken. You may argue that the zygote had to result from another pair of chickens. True, but that over looks the scientific theory of how life began in the first place. Chemicals mixing -> DNA etc. Therefore, in the case of a chicken, the first chicken to come into existence would have had to come from an egg.

 

[Rader]

no chickens no eggs

Maybe there is no chicken or egg, it only appears that there is. When they are broken down to fundamental parts, there is no parts.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Every chicken has an egg in its background. But not every egg has a chicken in its background. Even dinosaurs laid eggs, long before chickens evolved!

 

[quartodeciman]

The first bonafide chicken came from an egg laid by some not-quite-chicken fowl.

 

[Glynos]

Yes, the key here is evolution. Something obviously laid an egg and out of it came a chicken ... or something which bridges the gap between a modern day chicken and whatever it was the chicken evolved from.

 

[Imparcticle]

This is the least I could find concerning what the chicken evolved from.

The different viewpoints make for a different answer to the chicken-or-egg question. However, in each of the viewpoints, it seems most probably that there were earlier fish eggs before there were chickens. Evolution theory assumes that some types of fish were on the earth, many years before there were any type of birds. The Bible also describes the creation of the sea animals one sentence before the creation of the birds, so following the Bible, we can assume that there were fish eggs before there were chickens. So, here we have our first answer: the egg was first, if we allow it to be a fish egg.

Oh, and by the way, can anyone do the honors of explaining this in ENGLISH??
good luck:

Gene organisation determines evolution of function in the chicken MHC.

Kaufman J, Jacob J, Shaw I, Walker B, Milne S, Beck S, Salomonsen J.

Institute for Animal Health, Compton, Berkshire, UK. jim.kaufman@bbsrc.ac.uk

Some years ago, we used our data for class I genes, proteins and peptide-binding specificities to develop the hypothesis that the chicken B-F/B-L region represents a "minimal essential MHC". In this view, the B locus contains the classical (highly expressed and polymorphic) class I alpha and class II beta multigene families, which are reduced to one or two members, with many other genes moved away or deleted from the chicken genome altogether. We found that a single dominantly expressed class I gene determines the immune response to certain infectious pathogens, due to peptide-binding specificity and cell-surface expression level. This stands in stark contrast to well-studied mammals like humans and mice, in which every haplotype is more-or-less responsive to every pathogen and vaccine, presumably due to the multigene family of MHC molecules present. In order to approach the basis for a single dominantly expressed class I molecule, we have sequenced a portion of the B complex and examined the location and polymorphism of the class I (B-F) alpha, TAP and class II (B-L) beta genes. The region is remarkably compact and simple, with many of the genes expected from the MHC of mammals absent, including LMP, class II alpha and DO genes as well as most class III region genes. However, unexpected genes were present, including tapasin and putative natural killer receptor genes. The region is also organised differently from mammals, with the TAPs in between the class I genes, the tapasin gene in between the class II (B-L) beta genes, and the C4 gene outside of the class I alpha and class II beta genes. The close proximity of TAP and class I alpha genes leads to the possibility of co-evolution, which can drive the use of a single dominantly expressed class I molecule with peptide-binding specificity like the TAP molecule. There is also a single dominantly expressed class II beta gene, but the reason for this is not yet clear. Finally, the presence of the C4 gene outside of the classical class I alpha and class II beta genes suggests the possibility that this organisation was ancestral, although a number of models of organisation and evolution are still possible, given the presence of the Rfp-Y region with non-classical class I alpha and class II beta genes as well as the presence of multigene families of B-G and rRNA genes.

Hope you understood that genetic specification, Glynos. (Makes me dizzy)

 

[Phi For All]

The first bonafide chicken came from an egg laid by some not-quite-chicken fowl.

I've always assumed the question was about chicken eggs, not any old egg. Thanks, quartodeciman, for the best answer I've ever heard!

 

[expscv]

we have chicken first, so then we could have chiken eggs

if we have chicken eggs first they must be a chicken laid it.

 

[photon]

This old drunk told me we shouldn't care about these things.

Anyway: Wouldn't it be impossible for there to be an egg first, because the shell comes from the chicken? I'll just say what I always say when I don't know: "It all started with a cell, then the whole spaghetti just sort of evolved from there."

 

[photon]

Or maybe God was tired when he made the chicken.

 

[jammieg]

I agree they evolved together, but in a way one could say that much much further back it started with a very simple chicken that came first or basically something like an amino acid chain spontaneously forming due to infinite time and motion, and by accident it learned how to replicate itself and become a virus and so started laying eggs, but then what came before that? God is a chicken!

 

[Stevo]

Sorites paradox.

 

[confutatis]

.

The duality of the chicken and the egg:
inside - outside (the chicken is on the inside, the egg is on the outside)
visible - invisible (the egg is visible, the chicken is invisible)
hard - soft (the soft chicken is inside the hard eggshell)
large - small (inside a large egg is a small chicken)
life - death (the chicken will live when the egg dies)​

Who created these answers?
The missing point of reference (the Creator)

The pattern of infinity (The omnipresent structure)
.

Hi,

I don't know if you are the author of the ideas on the website, or if you just borrowed the guy's name, but in any case it was one of the best things I ever read on the internet. Absolutely fantastic!

I liked this thing about the chicken and egg problem:

The hen and egg problem exhibits the same problem as the question: what came first, left or right? The answer: Both, as one brings about the other.

I had long suspected the answer was "both", but I couldn't understand why. It's become very clear now. Thanks a lot!

But I found this bit even more interesting, as it answered a question I thought I would never be able to answer, about the origin of time:

Infinity is dual and has a beginning and an end. There is no question regarding what was before the beginning and what comes after the end, because first comes the end and then the beginning.

The end of unconscious infinity (infinity has always existed, but it did not know about it, because there was no point of reference) is at the same time the beginning of conscious infinity.

Not only I understand it now, I can also see what was so difficult to understand before. I thought time had to begun at some point, which obviously doesn't make any sense, but I also couldn't make sense of the idea of time stretching forever into the past. It never occurred to me to apply the concept of duality to time itself, which is kind of a major oversight since everything real is dual. That particular comment was an eye-opener!

 

[expscv]

Or maybe God was tired when he made the chicken.

umm interesting Or maybe egg it is easier to made

so first to come?

 

[phoenixthoth]

the egg came first.

now let me hand-wave together an argument using some fuzzy logic and pseudo-evolutionary theory.

assumption 1: chickens evolved from some other creature.

let's call that other creature pre-chickens.

assumption 2: the evolution from pre-chickens to chickens was gradual to some degree.

here's where the fuzzy logic comes in though i don't really need to mention it explicitly. let x(n) be the n-th generation of pre-chickens. x(n) is a function from the natural numbers to the interval [0,1]. when x(n)=0 that is to be interpreted as the pre-chicken has no chicken traits and x(n)=1 means the "pre-chickens" are now all totally chicken. x(n) is the degree to which the pre-chicken population is chicken. assumption 2 translates into "x(n)=1 implies n>1."

assumption 3: for some c, if x(n) >= c, then a human would call a pre-chicken in question a chicken.

c may be 0.99999999999999999999999 or some such.

assumption 4: x(n) increases which in lay terms means that the pre-chickens are evolving but mathematically can translate into the following: for all n in N, x(n+1)>x(n).

assumption 5: [main assumption] pre-chickens lay eggs as well.

maybe someone more knowledgeable in biology can back this up or tell me I'm full of it.

conclusion: for some n, x(n)<c and x(n+1)>=c. the egg laid by the nth generation of pre-chickens gave birth to what would be considered a chicken. the egg came first.

 

[confutatis]

the egg came first.

now let me hand-wave together an argument using some fuzzy logic and pseudo-evolutionary theory...

I think your reasoning is correct from a biology perspective, but the chicken-and-egg question is not a problem of biology, it's a problem of philosophy. It's really not about chickens, but about things that seem to originate from themselves. It's a fact of biology that all known living organisms were created by other living organisms, but since life didn't always existed then we have the problem of explaining how the first living organism was created. That's the real chicken-and-egg problem, and biology does not yet have an answer to it.

The link offered in the first post contains some very interesting ideas. For instance, at one point the guy says that every rule must have an exception. That sounds like a trivial fact, but I haven't seen anyone apply it to solve philosophical problems, yet it yields some quite interesting perspectives. For instance, death is the rule in the physical universe, life is the exception. Life appeared out of logical necessity - it's the exception that is required for the existence of the rule. Also, life must have appeared by chance, because there is no point of reference for us to explain why it appeared at a particular place at a particular time. But once it appears, life becomes the point of reference that was missing before.

 

[jammieg]

That is the most realistic and logically probable answer I've ever read Phoenixthoth, so much so it is irritating, on second thought it seems all I've done is reductionalized the definition of chicken and egg to the point it is the answer of which it can still be argued that reproduction came before existence since replication is an acceptable requirment for existence, or they came into being simultaneously but hardly anyone is going to agree that something under a microscope is a chicken or an egg. The one exception I can think of is if the last genetic flip of the switch had to do with a pre-chicken that births soft shelled pre-eggs which by chance external luck one one would grow up to be the chicken giving birth to the finishing touches on a hard shell, but the odds of the last mutation having to do with incubation or mother's genetic nurturing tendecies that might relate to producing just the right shell or round shell or unbroken shell are ridiculously slim. Basically I agree the most realistic and logical answer is almost always the right answer, the egg almost certainly came before the chicken.

 

[hypnagogue]

phoenixthoth, I think your argument relies on a further assumption that we can be very dubious of: that we can assign a number to 'degree of chickenhood.' The numbers we assign are meaningless if we don't define what it means to be a chicken, and even then we must come up with some system for mapping numbers to degrees of similarity to chickenhood.

A less serious objection is to your assumption #4. Assuming we have created our numerical system of chickenhood, it could easily be the case that x(n) > x(n+1). Perhaps in the actual evolutionary chain of chickenhood, some generation bore a greater resemblence to chickens than its offspring, even if the end result was a full-blown chicken.

The real question, I think, is what is meant by 'egg,' specifically chicken egg. If a chicken egg is an egg that gives birth to a chicken, then as people have been saying, obviously the egg must have come first via some creature that was not quite a chicken itself. However, if a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken, then obviously the chicken must have come first.

 

[Njorl]

First, assume a spherical chicken...

 

[hypnagogue]

The link offered in the first post contains some very interesting ideas. For instance, at one point the guy says that every rule must have an exception. That sounds like a trivial fact, but I haven't seen anyone apply it to solve philosophical problems, yet it yields some quite interesting perspectives. For instance, death is the rule in the physical universe, life is the exception. Life appeared out of logical necessity - it's the exception that is required for the existence of the rule.

For one who is wary of making assumptions, I'm surprised that you would be swayed by that argument. Every rule must have an exception-- why? And what is meant by 'rule'? Depending on the definition of 'rule,' one can come up with any number of rules that, at least trivially, have no exceptions. (Example: all colors that are crimson are colors that are red. It is impossible for a color to be crimson and not to be red. There is no exception to this rule.)

Death is the rule-- what does this mean? As you said in a previous post, there can be no left without a right; it is meaningless to refer to one if the other does not exist. Before life existed, there was no such thing as death, so it is meaningless to refer to death as a rule before life, let alone to derive a logical necessity from this on the basis of a dubious assumption.

 

[Rader]

First, assume a spherical chicken...

Is it possible for a wave to be spherical?

 

[Njorl]

Is it possible for a wave to be spherical?

Sure. The spherical bessel functions are.

Njorl

 

[rocket art]

Hi, am back. May I post my opinion:

It's the egg, by a chicken from another dimension. From whose farm, I wonder.

 

[confutatis]

For one who is wary of making assumptions, I'm surprised that you would be swayed by that argument.

I'm not wary of making assumptions; without assumptions there can be no knowledge of anything.

Every rule must have an exception-- why?

It's just an assumption.

And what is meant by 'rule'?

Any statement that may be true or false. Tautologies are excluded, because they cannot be false.

Notice that 'rule' is defined in a tautological way, which means 'every rule must have an exception' is not a rule, and therefore cannot have exceptions.

Depending on the definition of 'rule,' one can come up with any number of rules that, at least trivially, have no exceptions.

Not according to the definition above.

Example: all colors that are crimson are colors that are red. It is impossible for a color to be crimson and not to be red. There is no exception to this rule.

I don't call that a rule, I call it a tautology.

Death is the rule-- what does this mean?

Let me define 'death' first: a portion of matter is 'dead' when we can easily make accurate predictions about it.

"Death is the rule" means "we can make accurate predictions about most of our observations of the universe". And that statement, of course, has exceptions.

Before life existed, there was no such thing as death

That is correct, because there was no one around to make any kind of prediction.

so it is meaningless to refer to death as a rule before life...

It isn't, because now we can make predictions about what we can observe about the past. Death was created together with life.

...let alone to derive a logical necessity from this on the basis of a dubious assumption.

All assumptions are dubious so your comment is beside the point. What matters is what you can deduce from an assumption, and how well that matches things you can deduct from other assumptions.

 

[hypnagogue]

Any statement that may be true or false. Tautologies are excluded, because they cannot be false.

So "all cats are brown" is a rule? That's an odd sort of rule. You seem to be completely deflating the notion of 'rule.' A statement that can be true or false is usually called a proposition. A rule is usually considered to be something that must be true. You seem to have it backwards.

 

[Vance]

I find that the subject title is really funnie, and I am also in a bad mood, so may i ask if there can be smoke without any fire or burn ?
I think all organisms were created from chemical elements...
The chiken is also an organism, his father also an organism, his father's ancestors-tha same ! But if there is no 'parents', there will be no 'children'.
If there is no 'children', there will be no 'grandchildren' and so on...

Just like, if the OP didnt start this thread, I mightnot post anything here, and if I didnt post anything here, you wouldn't understand what i really wanted to talk about...



I think so...

 

[Imparcticle]

That is correct, because there was no one around to make any kind of prediction.

So, in order for their to be death, someone must make the prediction?

or is your point that in order for there to be death, there must be life? I agree, they are simolatenoeous.

 

[Imparcticle]

The chiken is also an organism, his father also an organism, his father's ancestors-tha same ! But if there is no 'parents', there will be no 'children'.
If there is no 'children', there will be no 'grandchildren' and so on...

The ancestors don't neccesarily have to be chicken. They could be the evolutionary ancestors who aren't quite "chicken" as we define chicken to day.

If all organisms are products of chemical reactions, as you have said, then that there need not be chickens that started the race of chickens, rather the chemical reaction started it.

 

[confutatis]

So "all cats are brown" is a rule?

"All cats are brown" is a statement that may be true or false. It qualifies as a rule according to my definition. It even has exceptions!

You seem to have it backwards

You probably realize I'm just playing a game here, but I don't think you understand what kind of game it is. It's a secret one

is your point that in order for there to be death, there must be life?

Yes. And the opposite as well; you can't have life without death.

 

[Imparcticle]

A statement that can be true or false is usually called a proposition.

What's to stop it from having a synonym?

A rule is usually considered to be something that must be true. You seem to have it backwards.

Not neccesarily something that MUST be true. Take this into consideration:

A generalized statement that describes what is true in most or all cases

-Meriam Webster dictionary

As I have observed, many on this forum do not trust dictionary definitons.
If that is the case with you, take this other point into consideration:

As Stevo intelligently pointed out (in another discussion), science takes finite rules and uses them to describe an infinite set of phenomena. Therefore, because finite rules cannot be compatible with phenomena not within their premises, then there must be exceptions to the rule. Because once in a while, one of those phenomena not in the primises is going to eventually "collide" with the finite set of rules that do not describe it.
Therefore, there must be exceptions to rules.

 

[honestrosewater]

As Stevo intelligently pointed out (in another discussion), science takes finite rules and uses them to describe an infinite set of phenomena. Therefore, because finite rules cannot be compatible with phenomena not within their premises, then there must be exceptions to the rule. Because once in a while, one of those phenomena not in the primises is going to eventually "collide" with the finite set of rules that do not describe it.
Therefore, there must be exceptions to rules.

Do the premises/rules claim that they apply to anything and everything? Or do they specify to what they apply?
Does infinite imply anything and everything?
Can a rule be rewritten to specifically exclude any exceptions that may be discovered?
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[hypnagogue]

As Stevo intelligently pointed out (in another discussion), science takes finite rules and uses them to describe an infinite set of phenomena. Therefore, because finite rules cannot be compatible with phenomena not within their premises, then there must be exceptions to the rule. Because once in a while, one of those phenomena not in the primises is going to eventually "collide" with the finite set of rules that do not describe it.
Therefore, there must be exceptions to rules.

I don't think that every rule must necessarily have an exception. For instance, if we really wanted to, we could probably manipulate the genetic stock of cats such that the rule "All cats are brown" would be true without exception. It would be a massive and pointless undertaking, but it's possible in principle.

In any case, you are right that a proposition need not have the status of absolute truth in order to be considered a rule. But at the very least, a rule is taken to be a statement that is true in most cases. Simply stating that a rule is any statement that may be true or false deflates the meaning of the word-- we could have infinitely many rules that were not true in the majority of cases, so long as they were true in at least some cases. Even if the definition "true in most cases" is loosely defined, it should be respected or at least acknowledged if we are to use the corresponding word. It is pretty common in the parlance of science and philosophy to take colloquial words and assign to them new, more technical meanings, but usually at least some essence of the defining characteristics of the original word is incorporated into the new definition.

 

[honestrosewater]

As Stevo intelligently pointed out (in another discussion), science takes finite rules and uses them to describe an infinite set of phenomena. Therefore, because finite rules cannot be compatible with phenomena not within their premises, then there must be exceptions to the rule.

The point I was trying to make is that rules do not have to "be compatible with phenomena not within their premises". The rule "all cats are brown" doesn't have to apply to dogs. How would you even apply that rule to anything other than cats?
My second point is that a rule, such as "For all real numbers a, there exists a real number a^(-1), such that a*[a^(-1)] equals 1" can be rewritten to exclude the exception, in this case, 0.

For instance, if we really wanted to, we could probably manipulate the genetic stock of cats such that the rule "All cats are brown" would be true without exception. It would be a massive and pointless undertaking, but it's possible in principle

What about genetic mutation? The rule could be true for one generation, but what if there are cats somewhere else, unknown to us? We could kill all the non-brown cats and say "All known, living cats are brown". Then, I think the rule would be true without exception. Another example of rewriting a rule to exclude exceptions.
Now, if the rewriting process can be repeated an infinite number of times...

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Imparcticle]

Do the premises/rules claim that they apply to anything and everything? Or do they specify to what they apply?

They apply to all that has been tested.

Does infinite imply anything and everything?

By definition infnite is all that there is.

Can a rule be rewritten to specifically exclude any exceptions that may be discovered?
=

Is this what you refer to : "All cats are brown except those that are not brown"? I believe this statement is false, because it says "All cats are brown" and goes on to say this excludes those that are not brown. If all cats are brown, then some cannot be another color, correct?

 

[Imparcticle]

In any case, you are right that a proposition need not have the status of absolute truth in order to be considered a rule. But at the very least, a rule is taken to be a statement that is true in most cases.

Yes, in most cases; not all. Therefore there are exceptions.

I don't think that every rule must necessarily have an exception. For instance, if we really wanted to, we could probably manipulate the genetic stock of cats such that the rule "All cats are brown" would be true without exception. It would be a massive and pointless undertaking, but it's possible in principle.

Ah, then there would be an exception to the rule that there are exceptions.

Simply stating that a rule is any statement that may be true or false deflates the meaning of the word--

A rule can be true or false. A rule can be flawed. That is why there are constant revisions to laws (such as those in science).

Even if the definition "true in most cases" is loosely defined, it should be respected or at least acknowledged if we are to use the corresponding word. It is pretty common in the parlance of science and philosophy to take colloquial words and assign to them new, more technical meanings, but usually at least some essence of the defining characteristics of the original word is incorporated into the new definition.

Yes, a revised defintion of the original is incorporated into the new definition.

 

[honestrosewater]

They apply to all that has been tested.

All rules apply to all that has been tested? "All cats are brown" applies to cats. There are rules that apply only to rational numbers, right triangles, chess, nonrelativistic particles, American citizens, etc.

It seems like you think quite quickly, and sometimes too quickly for your own good :) There is something to be said for circumspection, besides that it's a funny word.

By definition infnite is all that there is.

Are you talking about the Universe or a rule that applies to an infinite number of cases?

Is this what you refer to : "All cats are brown except those that are not brown"? I believe this statement is false, because it says "All cats are brown" and goes on to say this excludes those that are not brown. If all cats are brown, then some cannot be another color, correct?

The first statement is redundant, not false. Read it carefully ;)
"All cats are brown" could be changed to "Some cats are brown.", and there are other equivalent ways of saying this same thing.

You could also say "All cats are brown or black or orange or..." and keep adding colors as you observe them. I'm sure you know that this is, more or less, how most physical sciences progress. I find this case interesting because if the list is never considered to be "finished", then it comes close to always having an exception. But some things would have to be clarified before you could say *how close* it comes.
Of course, if you instead throw out "Some cats are brown or black" and replace it with "Some cats are brown or black or red", that is, if you consider the "new and improved" rule as separate from the old rule, then the continuity is lost, and, though there is an exception to every old rule, there is no exception to the new rule.

(Should I have said "there is no *known* exception to the new rule"? This is one thing that needs to be clarified)

Yes, "All cats are brown" and "Some cats are not brown" cannot both be true.
However, "Some cats are brown" and "Some cats are not brown" can both be true.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[honestrosewater]

When you say, "A rule can be flawed.", you are not proving your point. You must prove "All rules are flawed." or "If C is a rule then C is flawed."

 

[Imparcticle]

All rules apply to all that has been tested? "All cats are brown" applies to cats. There are rules that apply only to rational numbers, right triangles, chess, nonrelativistic particles, American citizens, etc.

It seems like you think quite quickly, and sometimes too quickly for your own good :) There is something to be said for circumspection, besides that it's a funny word.

I admit that I do think too quickly.

Are you talking about the Universe or a rule that applies to an infinite number of cases?

I made a HUGE mistake! Infinity has no boandaries. But, couldn't infinite still refer to all that exists too?

The first statement is redundant, not false. Read it carefully ;)
"All cats are brown" could be changed to "Some cats are brown.", and there are other equivalent ways of saying this same thing.

I have a quick question about the word "are". In Spanish, you can say "are" two ways (when "are" is equal to "to be") "estar" and "ser". By definition, both mean "to be", but "estar" actually refers to a location or a temporary state. And "ser" refers to a permenant state. I was wondering if there was something like that in English?

 

[honestrosewater]

I made a HUGE mistake! Infinity has no boandaries. But, couldn't infinite still refer to all that exists too?

I think physical infinity is a difficult concept to pin down, but discussions are cooperative efforts :) You can use whatever word you want to, and let it refer to whatever idea you want to- but if you don't make your meaning clear to the others in the discussion, things can quickly turn awry ;)
What do you mean by infinite?

I have a quick question about the word "are". In Spanish, you can say "are" two ways (when "are" is equal to "to be") "estar" and "ser". By definition, both mean "to be", but "estar" actually refers to a location or a temporary state. And "ser" refers to a permenant state. I was wondering if there was something like that in English?

You can google linking verbs. Lots of words can be used as linking verbs. For instance, "feel", as in "I feel pretty."

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Imparcticle]

I think physical infinity is a difficult concept to pin down, but discussions are cooperative efforts

Yes, discussions are helpful. I have a conception of infinity, where infinity is defined as endless, unfathomless, no boundaries. My conception falters at the idea of something infinitely big. I understand infinitely small (simple concept), but not infinitely large. These characteristics are physical characteristics.
Physical infinity, you say? What sort of infinity is there that is not physical? Ah, an infinite supply of energy? Is that what you mean?

:) You can use whatever word you want to, and let it refer to whatever idea you want to- but if you don't make your meaning clear to the others in the discussion, things can quickly turn awry ;)
What do you mean by infinite?

Well, I realize I must define words, honestrosewater. You live up to being honest, you know. (That's good) I just assumed, when you said "Are you talking about the universe..." that you already had an idea of what infinity is?
I will post a definition from the dictionary until we come up without own (if that is your intention): "Having no boundaries or limits."

I believe the dictionary has served its purpose. Now, I presume we would like to critize the definition?
I would. The concept of inifinitely small resides on the basis that the dimensions of a, say sphere, equal zero. That is, they cancel. But, what about something infinitely big?

 

[honestrosewater]

Sorry, I was away for the weekend.
It seems the discussion has gotten off track. If "All rules have exceptions" is considered a rule, then you have a problem.

If it is false, then "Some rules have exceptions" is true. This is the same as saying that some rules are false. (I am considering "exception" to be synonymous with "counterexample", and "rule" synonymous with "proposition".)

If it is true, then *it* has exceptions- which normally would mean that it is false. But you seem to want to introduce this as a new, fundamental rule- an axiom, as opposed to a theorem- in other words, you want it to be true. Fine, then you need to start all over and define a system of rules that includes this rule. This changes the normal meaning and value of "true" and "false". If all rules have exceptions, what is the difference between a true rule and a false rule? Especially, what is the difference between the two rules:
1) All rules have exceptions and
2) All rules do not have exceptions?
That is the question you need to answer as you design your new system. One possible way to solve this may be to introduce quantitative comparisions, such as "If a rule has stricly less "exceptions" than "nonexceptions" then it is a true rule." Or put further restrictions on what can be a rule. I don't know what will work, just a first thought.

Actually, this thread started out with chickens and eggs, so you may want to start a new thread in which to continue this discussion.
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Rader]

It seems the discussion has gotten off track. If "All rules have exceptions" is considered a rule, then you have a problem.

Can it be any other way. "truth appears to be a function of time". This seems to be the reason why, to every rule there is an exception and that is the only rule, that does not change.

Actually, this thread started out with chickens and eggs, so you may want to start a new thread in which to continue this discussion.

Actually the chicken and egg, is just renovation of new truths.

 

[honestrosewater]

Can it be any other way. "truth appears to be a function of time". This seems to be the reason why, to every rule there is an exception and that is the only rule, that does not change.

I mentioned something like this 4 posts ago.

You could also say "All cats are brown or black or orange or..." and keep adding colors as you observe them. I'm sure you know that this is, more or less, how most physical sciences progress. I find this case interesting because if the list is never considered to be "finished", then it comes close to always having an exception. But some things would have to be clarified before you could say *how close* it comes.
Of course, if you instead throw out "Some cats are brown or black" and replace it with "Some cats are brown or black or red", that is, if you consider the "new and improved" rule as separate from the old rule, then the continuity is lost, and, though there is an exception to every old rule, there is no exception to the new rule.

(Should I have said "there is no *known* exception to the new rule"? This is one thing that needs to be clarified)

The point is that this is a phiolosophy forum, and a rule that may be useful in a physical science may have to be reformulated to become meaningful in a philosophical system. We were discussing whether or not a rule was true, and I chose to deal with this in a logical system. Of course truth is also a question for metaphysics and epistemology, but we seemed to agree on the relevant metaphysical and epistemological points.

I wonder if you read my entire lasy post. I explained what I thought the problem was.

If it is true, then *it* has exceptions- which normally would mean that it is false. But you seem to want to introduce this as a new, fundamental rule- an axiom, as opposed to a theorem- in other words, you want it to be true. Fine, then you need to start all over and define a system of rules that includes this rule. This changes the normal meaning and value of "true" and "false". If all rules have exceptions, what is the difference between a true rule and a false rule?

Do you see the problem when you say, "to every rule there is an exception and that is the only rule, that does not change."? You said: To every rule, there is an exception. This rule is the only rule. And this rule does not change. I assume by "does not change", you mean does not have an exception (time-independent). So what exactly did you mean? Because what you have just created is a system with only one self-contradicting rule.

I agree that there is inherent uncertainty in physical sciences. I disagree that there is inherent uncertainty in ALL sciences. This is why the distinction is made between physical sciences (like physics) and [can't think of the term] sciences (like math).

Actually the chicken and egg, is just renovation of new truths.

Actually, I think the chicken and egg question is a philosophical question, as confutatis said.

Please don't take my comments as mean-spirited.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Rader]

I mentioned something like this 4 posts ago.
The point is that this is a phiolosophy forum, and a rule that may be useful in a physical science may have to be reformulated to become meaningful in a philosophical system. We were discussing whether or not a rule was true, and I chose to deal with this in a logical system. Of course truth is also a question for metaphysics and epistemology, but we seemed to agree on the relevant metaphysical and epistemological points. I wonder if you read my entire lasy post. I explained what I thought the problem was.

I did read what you wrote several times.

I believe I would refrase this: "truth appears to be a function of time". This seems to be the reason why, to every rule there is an exception and that is the only rule, that does not change to this.

"truth appears to be a function of time". This seems to be the reason why, to every rule, when there is new knowledge, there is an exception and that is the only rule, that does not change.

Do you see the problem when you say, "to every rule there is an exception and that is the only rule, that does not change."? You said: To every rule, there is an exception. This rule is the only rule. And this rule does not change. I assume by "does not change", you mean does not have an exception (time-independent). So what exactly did you mean? Because what you have just created is a system with only one self-contradicting rule.

I think you touched on it, there is no *known* exception to the new rule, until it is known.

I agree that there is inherent uncertainty in physical sciences. I disagree that there is inherent uncertainty in ALL sciences. This is why the distinction is made between physical sciences (like physics) and [can't think of the term] sciences (like math).

Which sciences?, there seems to be uncertainty in all sciences. There is no proof of anything, just close approximations. Math proofs, to my understanding are proofs of present knowlege. Present knowledge will change and so will the math that goes with it. I tried to get some answers on this on the other thread I started. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=207021#post207021

Actually, I think the chicken and egg question is a philosophical question, as confutatis said. Please don't take my comments as mean-spirited.

By no means your entitled to your opinion.

 

[honestrosewater]

I believe I would refrase this: "truth appears to be a function of time". This seems to be the reason why, to every rule there is an exception and that is the only rule, that does not change to this.

"truth appears to be a function of time". This seems to be the reason why, to every rule, when there is new knowledge, there is an exception and that is the only rule, that does not change.

Eureka- I have found it :) I misundersood "that". I see now what you mean, "and that is the only rule which doesn't change." In other words, that rule applies to every rule, except itself. ;)

Which sciences?, there seems to be uncertainty in all sciences. There is no proof of anything, just close approximations. Math proofs, to my understanding are proofs of present knowlege. Present knowledge will change and so will the math that goes with it.

"0*a=0" is *not* an approximation.[period]
It follows *validly* from the axioms, from the construction of the mathematical system. The *validity* of "0*a=0" does not depend on the *truth* of the axioms. The definition you quote is misleading- it is not how mathematics defines "axiom". A mathematical axiom does not have to be self-evident nor universally accepted. The distinction to make here is between "validity" and "truth", as logic defines them (you can google a definition; http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm sounds good from what I've read- sorry I'm in a hurry). I like Grimey's answers (in your other thread). He comes off brusk sometimes- because he chooses to be honest and straightforward. Politeness can be costly to understanding. Anyway...
I'm not sure if my comments will be helpful. Could you explain why you do not find the other's answers acceptable?
I have to run, but I will answer your question "Which sciences?" when I get back.
Happy thoughts
Rachel
P.S. There is a question of how we determine if how we determine if a logical argument is valid is valid, but that is another discussion ;) The point to understand now is that math and physics are fundamentally different.

 

[Rader]

Eureka- I have found it :) I misundersood "that". I see now what you mean, "and that is the only rule which doesn't change." In other words, that rule applies to every rule, except itself. ;)

Correct, I believe you understand my meaning. Even if you apply it to the truth, we now have in common about this statemnent, it still applies. This truth held in common, will change over time.

The *validity* of "0*a=0" does not depend on the *truth* of the axioms. The definition you quote is misleading- it is not how mathematics defines "axiom". A mathematical axiom does not have to be self-evident nor universally accepted.

I always use this meaning: A mathematical axiom means "A proposition that commends itself to general acceptance; a well established or universally-conceded principle..." If we did not use this meaning, it seems we would be farther from the truth, that's not saying, that we are not farther from the truth anyway. At anyrate whatever definition you use for axiom, does not change, that truth is a funtion of time.

The distinction to make here is between "validity" and "truth", as logic defines them

I have read the link. This seems to sum it up.
Some logicians designate the combination of true premises and a valid inference as a sound argument; it is a piece of reasoning whose conclusion must be true. The trouble with every other case is that it gets us nowhere, since either at least one of the premises is false, or the inference is invalid, or both. The conclusions of such arguments may be either true or false, so they are entirely useless in any effort to gain new information.

The point to understand now is that math and physics are fundamentally different.

In what ways do you mean physics and math are different? Physics makes an attempt to explain certain aspects of nature, where math models what physics finds in nature.

 

[honestrosewater]

I always use this meaning: A mathematical axiom means "A proposition that commends itself to general acceptance; a well established or universally-conceded principle..."

Have you considered this may be the reason for your not understanding why math and physics are different? Your definition is not mathematical. Math is concerned with validity. Math is not concerned with truth or reality or physics.

If we did not use this meaning, it seems we would be farther from the truth, that's not saying, that we are not farther from the truth anyway. At anyrate whatever definition you use for axiom, does not change, that truth is a funtion of time.

And math is not concerned with truth.

I have read the link. This seems to sum it up.
Some logicians designate the combination of true premises and a valid inference as a sound argument; it is a piece of reasoning whose conclusion must be true. The trouble with every other case is that it gets us nowhere, since either at least one of the premises is false, or the inference is invalid, or both. The conclusions of such arguments may be either true or false, so they are entirely useless in any effort to gain new information.

I'm sorry, why are you confused? *IF* the premises of a valid deductive argument are true, THEN the conclusion must be true.

"Are the premises true?" is not a question for logic. It is a question for metaphysics, epistemology, and the physical sciences.

Physics makes an attempt to explain certain aspects of nature, where math models what physics finds in nature.

This is only one thing that math *can* do. Math is more than what physicists do with it. My mom is an accountant and might argue that transcendental numbers do not exist because she never uses them in her work. And I would tell her the same thing. Math is fundamentally different. Math does not use the scientific method. Math is not a physical science. Math deals with validity, not truth. Math uses axioms, arguments, theorems. Math does not use observations, experiments, laws. How else can I say it?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Rader]

Have you considered this may be the reason for your not understanding why math and physics are different? Your definition is not mathematical. Math is concerned with validity. Math is not concerned with truth or reality or physics.

No, up until now I have not. I think I understand what you mean. You see I am not a mathematician and can not possible think like one. Although I wish to understand how one might think.

And math is not concerned with truth.

Then only the validity of the mathematics, containes premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived.

I'm sorry, why are you confused? *IF* the premises of a valid deductive argument are true, THEN the conclusion must be true.
"Are the premises true?" is not a question for logic. It is a question for metaphysics, epistemology, and the physical sciences.

Then it would be correct to say that math can validify, an aspect of nature, but can not provide a proof of its truth? aspect meaning: designating primarily the relation of the action to the passage of time, especially in reference to completion, duration, or repetition.

This is only one thing that math *can* do. Math is more than what physicists do with it. My mom is an accountant and might argue that transcendental numbers do not exist because she never uses them in her work. And I would tell her the same thing. Math is fundamentally different. Math does not use the scientific method. Math is not a physical science. Math deals with validity, not truth. Math uses axioms, arguments, theorems. Math does not use observations, experiments, laws. How else can I say it?

Thanks for the insight, your expanation has repercussions on what I considered mathematics was usefull for.