Aspies For Freedom

I'm walking on ice as thin as an egg shell now. I guess it could apply to all creatures that lay eggs...

Is this question that I'm about to post here really realistic? Does time/space have an end?

Here's another one sort of related to that: Would the Universe exist if nothing was alive to observe it?

The chicken came before it made the egg.


(catch the double meaning, win a prize.)

Not even the spanish inquisition?

Chickens don't lay eggs. Hen do!

I agree with Fredwye. Its possible that the chicken was a hybrid between two different creatures that didn't really resemble a chicken, and that it was born because of it and then started laying eggs.

Ah, but if I were making a stuffed chicken, either could come first, as I could get it ready for stuffing before preparing the stuffing or prepare the stuffing and then get the chicken out.

  This question shows our false perception of reality, the illusion we live in. There are no chickens and eggs as separate objects. Chickens and eggs are inseparatable. Chickens cannot exist without eggs. Eggs not without chickens. Chickens and eggs are stages in a process. Off course the chicken herself will see this completely differently. Only the process of "chickening" is real. An egg is not a stable, unchanging object. An egg changes, it is transforming into a chicken, which is transforming into eggs which are.... It's a process, a whole.

The whole universe is alive but I've elaborated that in the thread "origin of life" so I suggest not try to agree or disagree on that in this thread now.
On Natalie's question no "yes/no" answer can be given. If you want an answer, no is closer to truth than yes. Reality (the whole) is one. If we describe it in 3 elements: the observer (Simen), the observed (the Universe) and the observing (the process). Taking 1 of these 3 elements away (for example: no observer) is not possible, because reality is 1 whole. So the question, Would the Universe exist if nothing was alive to observe it, is absurd. I call a question absurd if no answer is possible.
Of course this thread is meant as a joke, and the objective of this communication is to have fun, to keep boredom away, but I am really convinced of what I write in this post.

You are right, I should have replaced the word universe with a better word.

About the rest of your post: our world views are completely different. My guess is your view is if you cannot observe something or cannot logically understand it, you deny it's existence. Correct? And people like me who say something is there may seem talking nonsense to you. In my view there is something eternal, beginningless, endless. It's not possible to prove. It is possible to be aware of it.
Do you agree every human being is connected with the rest of the world? That existence is a whole?

That implies that we and the whole are made of the same stuff. Our nature and the nature of the whole is the same. Can you imagine someone saying this in the form "I am God"? (by the way, I don't believe there is a God, it's just a word).
Basically, looking deep inside us, there is no difference between ourselves and the whole. Someone said: "When a person dies, one eye of the universe closes".
If we are conscious and alive, the whole must be conscious and alive. How far do you agree with this?

Secondly, you agree that the boundary between us and the universe is artificial. Do you agree that the word line would be better? Lines everywhere but no boundaries? If there is no spacial boundary between us (there is a line) then can you imagine deep inside you (I'm not talking about your body or your personality) you also don't have a boundary in time? You are eternal? (here is my "deathless" again ).

Thirdly, if you would insist on logic and observable phenomena only: would you deny the existence of beauty?

Totally. The whole is alive, and under the specific circumstances here on planet earth it took shape as we know it (and sometimes find it hard to imagine other shapes). Maybe, those circumstances are unique.

A 'line' as a concept implies that it itself has no material counterpart (inifinitly thin), whereas a 'boundary' has a (material) characteristic on its own. In this way, 'line' fits. Purely mental.

About eternity... Yes, but this goes with some question before, whether time was eternal. Since all other processes in the whole are of periodic nature, there is no reason to believe that the transition of the inner self should be a linear, finite exception.

No, absolutely not. On the contrary: if one insists on logic and materialistic reasoning only, one must come to the conclusion that the reception of beauty invokes certain feelings that have a substantiation in form of hormon molecules, for example.

The question if 'beauty' itself exists is often turned down by argumenting that this is a very subjective and individual field. Often, mankind strived to define beauty and nail it down (no pun intended).

By intuition and without being able to provide some proof I'd say that beauty exists in itself as a concept. Something like an energy minimizing function. Note that it is a big question for biologist / behaviorists / evolutionists why birds sing the way they do (yay, a link to the original topic). Some of them think that it surely serves as an instrument of communication, but mostly it is meant to express beauty.
Same goes with flowers, their smell and looks.

I've got a solution but it only works for spherical chickens in a vacuum.

Makes sense.