501
But the question is, is a chicken egg an egg containing a chicken or an egg which was laid by a chicken? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 7 months ago by [M] to c/AntiMeme@sopuli.xyz
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

But the answer is trivially obvious either way.

  1. "Chicken egg" meaning "egg laid by a chicken": laid by a chicken that came directly from a previous, ancestral species' egg...
  2. "Chicken egg" meaning "an egg containing a chicken": laid by that previous, ancestral species' egg. So one generation before the interpretation in 1).

Trivial. The only issue is your definition of "chicken egg", and the answer flips depending on that. Otherwise perfectly clear to me at least.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Tbh I'd answer the interpretation question with "both" anyway. If a chicken laid it, it's a chicken egg, and if a chicken crawls out it's also a chicken egg.

    Like, if a chicken lays an egg it's a chicken egg, but then if a turtle crawls out of that egg it ceases being a chicken egg and becomes an abomination and an affront against god a turtle egg that happened to have been laid by a chicken in some odd turn of events.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    but then if a turtle crawls out of that egg it ceases being a chicken egg and becomes

    I don't think I support this definition. It's too loose. You can't have it both ways. It is what it is when it is formed. It doesn't change after it has been laid. It's genetically primed from the DNA of its parents. Not from what's going on inside the egg.

    Either way, I personally don't subscribe to the whole "chicken egg" definition issue at all. An egg is just the shell. The important part is what's inside it. And either way, both definitions can be easily answered by evolution, so it's never a difficult question.

    If the definition is of importance, just ask for that info, then answer accordingly. No big deal. 👍

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    If it's only defined by what is inside, then all eggs are schrodinger's eggs. They're both simultaneously a chicken and not a chicken until we observe the contents. You can't know what it is when it's formed if, as is postulated above, "at some point the chicken's predecessor laid an egg that became the chicken" is the truth, as at some point what laid the egg and the contents of the egg must differentiate even if slightly. Therefore all we can do is assume it is "what laid the egg" until "what comes out," comes out, and proves us either correct or incorrect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    I disagree with your premise one hundred percent.

    The contents of the egg will be what it will be regardless of whether or not we observe it. If it will be another chicken, it will be another chicken. If it will be the next species by some definition, that's what it'll be. But this is not determined when it hatches. That's not how it works. It's determined when the embryo is formed, way before hatching.

    So this premise of observing and so on is not something I can keep discussing, I feel. It's not relevant to the matter, because whatever comes out comes out regardless of our presence.

    Feel me?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Sure, the contents "will be" what they "will be," but we technically can't know what they "will be" until they "are."

    Until it hatches and "is" the best we can do is assume it "will be" what its parents "are," or our other option is to simply refer to it as "egg, species unknown" regardless of the egg's progenitors, which probably looks less appealing on the carton.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Would you please able to, with less than paragraph-long sentences, explain how this type of thinking helps us or creates a problem for us when answering the question? I'm really struggling to see the relevance of this (what feels like a) philosophical derailment. 🙏

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I thought you were done with this conversation.

    In any case, the answer to your question would appear to be "because that's the thread we've commented on. We chose this life." Sorry to interrupt your prayer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •