The Premise:
A rooster sits on a rooftop, facing due east.
Said rooftop is shaped like a pyramid, with four sides coming down from its peak.
The sun is rising slowly, with a south easterly wind of approximately 10 mph/km.
The rooster cries, laying an egg precisely at sunrise.
With the information provided to you, what direction does the egg end up rolling off the pyramid-shaped roof: north, south, east, or west?
The Problem with The Premise:
If you're smart, you should have stopped at the very idea of a rooster laying an egg.
Roosters don't lay eggs.
Hens lay eggs.
Roosters are male birds.
The entire premise of the "question" presented - even though a bunch of seemingly pertinent additional information is provided to help you calculate some scientific, deterministic/probabilistic way of predicting which direction the egg will roll - is at its root irrational.
The definitions contradict the reality of what is observed.
It's an ontological impossibility (a hen is a hen, a rooster is a rooster) before it even leaves the gate.
The entire point is this: if violating reason is a prerequisite for your theory or claim to make any sense, you have no "leg to stand on" regarding claims to the nature of "just what the hell is going on" regarding consciousness, humanity, and our place and function in the universe we observe.
Stick around as I explain in plain English just exactly why this is the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment