Beginning or the end...

If we just go straight from the very beginning all the way to the end, we’ll wind up right back where we started.

But if we try to head straight from the end back to the start—well, we just end up at the end.

So, what actually came first: the chicken or the egg? Or more accurately—the Beginning or the End?

crimsonjackal63 said:If we just go straight from the very beginning all the way to the end, we’ll wind up right back where we started.

But if we try to head straight from the end back to the start—well, we just end up at the end.

So, what actually came first: the chicken or the egg? Or more accurately—the Beginning or the End?

There is neither an origin nor a conclusion; the very fabric of existence is far too dense and multilayered to be so easily categorized. It seems quite futile to view "beginning" and "end" as two opposing poles. Everything is essentially one continuous state, though I suppose it is simply more practical for the human mind to track time through a linear lens.

I find myself wondering if anyone else here remains preoccupied by that age-old, circular debate regarding whether the chicken or the egg holds primacy in our existence.

hiddenhound3 said:There is neither an origin nor a conclusion; the very fabric of existence is far too dense and multilayered to be so easily categorized. It seems quite futile to view "beginning" and "end" as two opposing poles. Everything is essentially one continuous state, though I suppose it is simply more practical for the human mind to track time through a linear lens.

I find myself wondering if anyone else here remains preoccupied by that age-old, circular debate regarding whether the chicken or the egg holds primacy in our existence.

Fine. Let’s drop the chicken and egg nonsense.😁

I’d argue that the START and the END are actually one and the same—if it weren't for the fact that there's a JOURNEY you have to take to get from point A to point B. As long as that journey is happening, they aren't one single thing, regardless of whether you view time as linear or some non-linear mess.

I suppose I should probably start by saying that I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately... maybe a little too much, actually. It’s funny how certain things just stick in your mind, isn't it? Anyway, regarding what crimsonjackal63 was mentioning earlier—which was a pretty interesting point, if I do say so myself—I feel like we might be overlooking the broader context here. I mean, I don't want to sound like I'm overcomplicating things, but there seems to be a nuance there that's easy to miss if you're moving too fast. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that when you look at how these systems operate in America, things aren't always as straightforward as they appear on the surface. It's a bit like trying to navigate the subway system in New York City during rush hour; you think you have a plan, then suddenly everything shifts. Maybe I'm being a bit dramatic, though. Perhaps it's just my way of looking at things. It reminds me of a conversation I had once, years ago, about something entirely different, but the core principle felt similar. Or maybe it didn't. It's hard to say for sure. But I really do believe that if we take a moment to step back, we might see a clearer picture. Just a thought, really. Nothing definitive.

crimsonjackal63 said:If we just go straight from the very beginning all the way to the end, we’ll wind up right back where we started.

But if we try to head straight from the end back to the start—well, we just end up at the end.

So, what actually came first: the chicken or the egg? Or more accurately—the Beginning or the End?

I guess... if you really think about it, nothing in this world is actually straight. It’s all just curves and jagged edges. I mean, "straightness" feels like one of those abstract concepts we just made up to make sense of things—it isn't anything concrete at all. Everything is inherently crooked.

In a broader sense... well, looking beyond just the math or geometry of things... I suppose there's this idea that a beginning inherently carries its own conclusion within it. It’s almost like the end isn't really an ending at all, but just some kind of new starting point. Everything that ever comes into existence eventually has to fade away. I guess you could say that if something has a beginning, it's bound to have an end too. It seems inevitable, really.

The whole chicken and egg debate is really just pure sophistry, I suppose. There isn't some definitive, final answer to those kinds of logical loops. It’s like... if I were to say, "I am lying," am I actually telling the truth or am I lying? If I'm lying, then I'm actually being truthful; but if I'm telling the truth, then I'm lying. It's all very circular. You probably would have covered something like that back in a high school logic textbook, maybe.

I feel like you’re being a little inconsistent here. You started out talking about geometry—you know, perpendicular lines and all that—and then moved into physics regarding motion, but somehow we ended up drifting into biology with the whole chicken and egg thing, and then logic with sophistry. It was all a bit scattered, I suppose. And since we’re already on the subject of poultry, maybe you could have just asked something about avian flu or veterinary science instead? I guess you really need to decide what you actually want to discuss.

crimsonjackal63 said:Fine. Let’s drop the chicken and egg nonsense.😁

I’d argue that the START and the END are actually one and the same—if it weren't for the fact that there's a JOURNEY you have to take to get from point A to point B. As long as that journey is happening, they aren't one single thing, regardless of whether you view time as linear or some non-linear mess.

The problem is, there isn't really a distinct path between a beginning and an end (or back again). The journey itself exists independently of wherever you decide to mark the start or finish lines. It’s much more like a river, where you can't truly pinpoint a single source because it's formed by the convergence of countless tiny trickles of energy acting as "sources." And you can't define an endpoint either, because it eventually disappears or flows into somewhere beyond your field of vision. Part of its trajectory is always a hidden component, shaped by currents we can't even begin to map.

bluebison70 said:I suppose I should probably start by saying that I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately... maybe a little too much, actually. It’s funny how certain things just stick in your mind, isn't it? Anyway, regarding what crimsonjackal63 was mentioning earlier—which was a pretty interesting point, if I do say so myself—I feel like we might be overlooking the broader context here. I mean, I don't want to sound like I'm overcomplicating things, but there seems to be a nuance there that's easy to miss if you're moving too fast. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that when you look at how these systems operate in America, things aren't always as straightforward as they appear on the surface. It's a bit like trying to navigate the subway system in New York City during rush hour; you think you have a plan, then suddenly everything shifts. Maybe I'm being a bit dramatic, though. Perhaps it's just my way of looking at things. It reminds me of a conversation I had once, years ago, about something entirely different, but the core principle felt similar. Or maybe it didn't. It's hard to say for sure. But I really do believe that if we take a moment to step back, we might see a clearer picture. Just a thought, really. Nothing definitive.

I guess... if you really think about it, nothing in this world is actually straight. It’s all just curves and jagged edges. I mean, "straightness" feels like one of those abstract concepts we just made up to make sense of things—it isn't anything concrete at all. Everything is inherently crooked.

In a broader sense... well, looking beyond just the math or geometry of things... I suppose there's this idea that a beginning inherently carries its own conclusion within it. It’s almost like the end isn't really an ending at all, but just some kind of new starting point. Everything that ever comes into existence eventually has to fade away. I guess you could say that if something has a beginning, it's bound to have an end too. It seems inevitable, really.

The whole chicken and egg debate is really just pure sophistry, I suppose. There isn't some definitive, final answer to those kinds of logical loops. It’s like... if I were to say, "I am lying," am I actually telling the truth or am I lying? If I'm lying, then I'm actually being truthful; but if I'm telling the truth, then I'm lying. It's all very circular. You probably would have covered something like that back in a high school logic textbook, maybe.

I feel like you’re being a little inconsistent here. You started out talking about geometry—you know, perpendicular lines and all that—and then moved into physics regarding motion, but somehow we ended up drifting into biology with the whole chicken and egg thing, and then logic with sophistry. It was all a bit scattered, I suppose. And since we’re already on the subject of poultry, maybe you could have just asked something about avian flu or veterinary science instead? I guess you really need to decide what you actually want to discuss.

Well then, crookedness is an abstraction too. What does a "crooked line" even mean? A line itself can't be crooked—(and I'm not talking about legal culpability here, let's not wander into multi-subject territory)😁

Quincy:

Generally speaking, outside of geometry: the beginning inherently contains the end, and the end is nothing more than a new beginning. Everything that comes into existence must fade away. Anything with a start also has a finish.

So what about infinity?
Is infinity actually just a NEW BEGINNING?
Or is infinity just the constant movement of the PATH from START to FINISH?
Quincy:

The chicken and the egg thing is pure sophistry—there’s no definitive answer to those kinds of logical traps. If I say, "I am lying," am I lying or telling the truth? If I'm lying, I'm telling the truth; if I'm telling the truth, I'm lying. You should have picked that up from a high school logic textbook.

Regardless of the sophistry, basic logic tells us the egg came first.
You don't need a textbook for that—just common sense.

Quincy:

You're being a bit inconsistent. You started with geometry (straight lines) and physics (motion), and somehow drifted into biology (chickens and eggs) and logic (sophistry). Since we're on the topic of chickens, you might as well ask about avian flu (veterinary science).

Fine, if you insist, let's try some philosophical veterinary science: What came first, Birds or Avian Flu?😁

Quincy:

You need to pick a lane and decide what we're actually debating.

What came before the BEGINNING: the START or the END?😁

Starting point

Unknown User wrote:

A line can't be curved.

Just look at any letter, I guess... like an 's', or a 'c', or maybe a 'b', or an 'e', or an 'o', or a 'p', or even a 'q'... Is a sine wave just a straight line? Is a Circle just a straight line?

But then what do we do about infinity?
Is infinity actually a NEW BEGINNING?
So, is infinity really just the constant transition of the PATH from START to FINISH?

.

In your intro, you didn't really bring up infinity. Now, I suppose, you've made this sudden leap into the infinite. Well, okay. I guess infinity should technically be something without an end—like, truly endless. But if infinity actually exists, how could it possibly be a "NEW BEGINNING"? If there's no end to it, then there isn't really a beginning either. There wouldn't be any kind of path, or even the concept of a "path," really.

Regardless of any sophistry, logic dictates the egg came first.
You don't need a textbook for that, just logic.

Logic says the egg came first? I wonder... what kind of logic is that, exactly? This whole thing about the egg and the chicken feels more like a side comment on philosophy. I think some clever people probably cooked up that little joke just to belittle philosophy, while quietly claiming their own way of thinking was the absolute truth. And using that sort of "mockery" against philosophy is... well, it's just a way of philosophizing, I suppose. You can't have humanity without philosophy; it's just a matter of deciding what kind of philosophy we're talking about.

Since you're being so insistent, we might as well try some philosophical veterinary medicine: What came before the Bird or the Avian Flu...😁

First off, I'm not really insisting on anything. And second, I guess "philosophical veterinary medicine" doesn't make much sense, does it?

What came before the BEGINNING or the END?😁

This is just a sophism, and I don't think there are real answers to sophisms, as I tried to show with that other example in my first post. What kind of beginning or end are you even talking about here? Are we discussing the origin of existence? Or is this just a rephrased version of that old egg-and-chicken question?

crimsonjackal63 said:If we just go straight from the very beginning all the way to the end, we’ll wind up right back where we started.

But if we try to head straight from the end back to the start—well, we just end up at the end.

So, what actually came first: the chicken or the egg? Or more accurately—the Beginning or the End?

First off, you have to establish some baseline points. For instance, is "the start" just any random starting point, or are we talking about a specific new beginning?

If you move from the start toward the end, there is zero way you're getting back to the start unless you go in circles or backtrack.

I thought I was making progress
but the road just kept stretching on forever
eventually it hit me
that the whole thing was just one big loop

crimsonjackal63 said:If we just go straight from the very beginning all the way to the end, we’ll wind up right back where we started.

But if we try to head straight from the end back to the start—well, we just end up at the end.

So, what actually came first: the chicken or the egg? Or more accurately—the Beginning or the End?

They are joined by 😍 the same adhesive; every single point on a line is identical... the start and the finish are merely words 😍
used to create a distinction

At both the beginning and the end, there is unity... but how can a line exist if there is no foundation for that line to rest upon?
A foundation, in any sense of the word.
A point cannot be its own beginning or its own end, can it?

Beginning or end.

For whom or what?
Compared to whom or what?

end of question😁

coastalskipper92 said:end of question😁

= start of response