| This is a clear case of the difference between theoretical and experimental science. Experimental science demonstrates that nature does not "resolve" paradoxes, it simply prevents them from arising in the first place. In this case, that prevention was apparently caused by an old scientific axiom -- the act of performing an experiment may invalidate its outcome. The most well known example of this is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle from physics. Recognizing that something similar might be going on, the suggested experiment was performed 100 times using 100 volunteer experimenters, 100 slices of buttered bread, and 100 (uncooperative) cats. Results are summarized below:
- 51 cases reported that the cat escaped prior to being configured for the experiment.
- 24 cases reported that the cat delivered sufficient damage to the bread holding apparatus that the experiment could not be performed.
- 23 cases reported that the cat delivered sufficient damage to the experimenter that the experiment could not be performed.
- 1 case reported that the bread revolved around the cat until the butter side was face down on the cat's belly, at which point the cat landed on its feet and the bread landed butter side down.
- 2 cases failed to report their results, but the labs in which the experiments were planned to take place are now rubble. In both cases, bloody cat prints were seen leading away from the epicenter of the devastation.
- 0 cases reported any observable antigravity.
Although results are preliminary, we believe the cat-butter paradox is prevented from ever happening by what we have tentatively called "the certainty principle" -- that any cat facing this experiment is certain to be an unwilling participant.
Disclaimer: No actual cats were injured in the course of these experiments. Alas, the same cannot be said for bread (or experimenters).
__________________  |