cm0002@toast.ooo to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 23 hours agoJust so there's no confusionimagemessage-square79fedilinkarrow-up1664arrow-down118
arrow-up1646arrow-down1imageJust so there's no confusioncm0002@toast.ooo to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 23 hours agomessage-square79fedilink
minus-squarepinball_wizard@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down1·edit-29 hours agoIn that case the chicken came first, regardless of how we define “chicken”, we can reuse that definition for the first “chicken egg” it laid.
minus-squareGiveOver@feddit.uklinkfedilinkarrow-up3·3 hours agoBut how do we define a “chicken egg”? Is it an egg containing a chicken, or an egg that’s been laid by a chicken?
minus-squarepinball_wizard@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkarrow-up2·1 hour agoGood point. Now I’m less sure. I guess any “egg containing a chicken” came first, by definition. I don’t think I would accept anything that didn’t come from an egg as my canonical first chicken, anyway.
In that case the chicken came first, regardless of how we define “chicken”, we can reuse that definition for the first “chicken egg” it laid.
But how do we define a “chicken egg”? Is it an egg containing a chicken, or an egg that’s been laid by a chicken?
Good point. Now I’m less sure.
I guess any “egg containing a chicken” came first, by definition. I don’t think I would accept anything that didn’t come from an egg as my canonical first chicken, anyway.