Which one is false among the following?

[abirami]

Which one is false among the following?

1. Nothing remains the same.

2. Everything except the order remains the same.

3. Everything except the order can never be disordered.

[Gareth Southwell]

Hi,

What do you mean by "the order"?

[Skeletondanse]

I''ve had a browse around the Interet and the best website I could find that discusses this is website

http://jyte.com/cl/you-can-never-identify-that-which-you-search-for-if-nothing-remains-the-same

This, in my opinion iw oneof the most profound and bizarre findings Ive come across and question Ive been asked.

If I''m right I understading it, it would seem that the first sentence is the false one. The argument appears to be suggesting that no matter what route you take, the same conclusion may still be reached. For instance, travelling to London. It does not matter if I travel by train, car or even by walking! I still arrive at London. However, it is still the same London even if I travelled there by train or car or by foot. In this instance, it''s still the same London.

Another answer could relate to science. as someone said on Yahoo Answers, ''obviously the false statement is b.becaause actually a is the right statement.every micro second the nano particles that make up the universe are vibrating continuously and changing their position.so everythging is continuously changing and nothing is the same even inside your body.'' This can b  supported by considering the ageing process. Cells are dying and new ones are created constantly. If nothing remains the same, then in a sense the statement is correctas you consist of new matter.

The fault I have with Sivashanmugam''s paper is that he asks seemingly impossible questions to answer,one question the author being '' What happens if you sleep with a woman''? This can be intepreted in a plethora of different ways. One example such can regard what happens physically and biologically or what happens to you mentally. How do you reposnd aftwerwards, when awake etc.

You could even go as far to say that al the possibilities in the orginal question are false as it all depends on how you interpret it

I believe I''ve written far to much so I''ll leave my answer there. If you have any further questions then don''t hesitate in getting in touch with me!

[Gareth Southwell]

This is an old philosophical chestnut. It is basically the same point as was raised by Heraclitus: "You cannot step in the same river twice".

However, I think there is a trick here, and it is easier to see it if we take a simple example.

Imagine that someone says, "I am not the same person as I was yesterday". Setting aside the question of whether this means physically, mentally, emotionally, etc., and just treating change in the abstract, we can see that there needs to be something in common between me today and me yesterday in order to establish change. For instance, if I changed completely (so that there was nothing in common between me today and me yesterday), then how can I still refer to myself as me? If "I" am completely differnt in every way (physically, mentally, emotionally), then what is there to link the two "I"s, and thus point to them and say "That one is a different version of that one".

Perhaps this is clearer if we look at a slightly different example. Tim is a person with certain physical, mental, emotional, etc., characteristics. However, one day he completely changes in every respect. So, now we are face with someone who has completely different physical, mental, and emotional characteristics. So, how can we say that Tim has changed if nothing is left of what made up "Tim"? It would seem more logical to say that "Tim has been replaced". The new person might be similar in some sense, but he cannot be Tim (because there is nothing that joins the two). For instance, even if we say, "Well, he is made up of the same (or most of the same) physical atoms", then THAT is what is the same.

So, in summary (and sorry for the long post, too), change would seem to be something which relies upon something staying the same. In this sense, it is what we might call a "relational concept" - its meaning is relative to something else (we change in relation to something that stays the same). Therefore, if 1 is true (nothing remains the same), then we cannot have change in any meaningful sense (though, I suppose we could have MEANINGLESS chaos).

However, I still don''t understand the phrasing of points 2 and 3.