"That ‘we’ are, that ‘we’ exist, that ‘we’ are alone, that ‘we’ are either here or there, that the existence of the universe is by any means measurable by human tools, sensory experiences, opinion, or belief is neither fallacy nor truth—it’s neither and it’s both, simultaneously. 


We perceive a ‘we’, perceive an ‘I’, perceive that something is happening, that there is a linear tracetory between past, present, and future--a common thread of time and space to link together our individual and collective experiences despite the various angles of perspective. Who or what informs the mind that time is linear, that space and our experience with and within it is material? That the body is a body, that the brain and the mind are one and the same thing? That there is a division between self and others; limbs, perceived ‘reality’, and that which is beyond cognitive ‘reality’?


Who or what is it that asks and who or what began questioning and why, “what came first, the chicken or the egg?” The question implies that they are separate entities when we ‘know’ (whatever knowing means) that chickens are born (whatever born means) with procreative mechanisms and are products of procreative mechanisms. Both the question and the answer to said question are moot points, a metaphysical exercise in both futility and circularity; a trick question existing within a simulation that both questions and validates the existence of chickens and eggs. To that end, one could say that neither the chicken nor the egg came first: they cocreated each other simultaneously. Conversely, simultaneously, they cocreated nothing at all beyond a simulated experience of their existence and lineage.


Focusing the lens of perception to a macrocosmic view of the same metaphysical exercise in futility and circularity, who or what is to say that the Big Bang occurred out of nothing? That the Universe has a beginning, has an age, has an end or periphery? If we accept any of the astrophysical discoveries made in ‘past’ times to be true, then energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Particles can also be waves and can also only be particles, depending on who or what is looking. If this is true, there can be no beginning, no big bang, only a bang following a massive collapse. A beginning following an end. Perhaps it is our notion of beginning and end, of time and space as a vacuum that must be re-oriented (whatever ‘must’ and ‘re-oriented’ mean).  


Nietzsche claimed that God is dead. But who is God and what is death and who or what was driving Neitzsche? Is it not more accurate (whatever accurate means) to say (and who knows who or what is saying it), that the conceptof God is neither dead nor alive, but rather schizophrenic, split into a perceived Universe that contains within it limitless perspectives? "