/lit/ - Literature

the glass is transparent

Neither. It is in the process of filling. It is neither here nor there.

It's half full when i'm on stimulants or Abilify, otherwise it's half empty.

>>2769982
The atoms of both Hydrogen and Oxygen are comprised mostly of empty space. The water in that glass, from the perspective of physics occupies almost no area at all.

im supposed to give a short talk in class about this tomorrow, and yes, thats about exactly how shitty my school is.
so id be thankful for ideas.

>>2769982
It is in the progress of being filled, so I would call it half full. If it were full once but I had drank half of it, I would call it half empty.

>>2770002

>implying a full/empty dichotomy

You know what you must do anon, go full Derrida.
Words are your weapons you must use them to express his ideas.

the glass is nothing by itself

There is no glass.

>>2769993
This. Technically the majority of the glass is empty.

>>2770002
OP, use that fact as a shitty analogy for whatever you want; 'The shallowness of society and the appearance of having things in abundance is an empty façade,' or something equally nauseating.

It's half a glass of water.

>>2770025
>The shallowness of society and the appearance of having things in abundance is an empty façade

But that is true though.

This thread is making me super aggressive and I don't even know why.

>>2770031
Not always. I personally am having a wonderful time basking in my 'despicable opulence'.

u r da spoon i mean glass

That's not what I ordered. I throwed the glass to that bitche's face: the glass is gone

What is this bullshit thread?

>>2770052
This is not a thread

>>2770005
Oh wow, I always hoped someone else had the same perspective on it.

>>2769982
>implying an oak tree can be half anything

The glass is always full.

As there is no implication or definition of what the glass is full of, it is full of both the liquid (the implication being water) and gas (implied to be air)

>>2770082
>not tying a yellow ribbon around it anyway
>2012

Half full since it is in the process of being filled.

Technically it is both.

The glass is full of nothing.

>>2770090
But everything is quantum dots anyway, it's all mostly nothingness.
Therefore the glass is mostly empty.

>>2770082
my oak tree of a penis is the larger half of my burden and I

>implying the glass is a container

>>2770092
>mfw Americans clap when tying a yellow ribbon around a tree.

>>2770098
nothing is something.


the "glass" is full

>>2770044
What do you mean? what are you doing?

In all seriousness, some random schmuck with a ph.d in philshopy could destroy you.

>>2770123
Being despicably opulent.

>>2770128
>and in all seriousness, some random schmuck with a ph.d in physics could destroy the philosophy guy.

>>2770106
>>2770101
>>2770092

you morons

>>2770138
If by destroy you mean have a hissy fit at.

>>2770138
Physics is merely a branch of philosophy that has stated "yes I know we haven't really agreed on the reality of all this but if you'll just let of have these paradigms and leave us alone we can do fun tests and the like" and philosophy, being quite wise and seeing the merit of such an endeavour, said "well go play outside if you want to", which physics did, but it grew arrogant after a while and forgot to question it's own fundamentals being without the guidance of its father and turned to believe in itself as ruling supreme and unquestionable, like some child monarch grown up surrounded by servants.

>>2770158
Niiice! what's the name of that novel?

>>2770174
I've yet to write it. It shall be a fable illustrated in a modernised version of the medieval miniature style. I'll call it: Of Sense and Senses

It depends on whether you're pouring the water out of the glass or pouring some water into the class.

Could some armchair psychologist now assess my psyche for me?

It's based on your perspective, quite simply.

>>2770187
Daddy issues.

>>2770158
Physics grew tired of philosophy and realised empiricism was irrelevant. All observations had limits (Absolute zero, speed of light) and experiments were conformable between different persons. Physics create a spectacular mathematical model of the universe and sat back in awe at how much it had achieved, it was truly beautiful. With a nostalgic sigh it reminisced back to it's shared past with Philosophy and realized it hadn't been shared at all. Physics and Philosophy had been separate all along but regarded as one subject. Physics was able to separate various areas as being either science or philosophy.

Meanwhile philosophy had fallen over and injured itself on existential and nihilism. The medication wasn't working, so one cold wet night the heavily depressed Philosophy came to pay Physics a visit. Physics opened the door to a gaunt husk of a subject, rambling incoherently about 'lack of objectivity', 'false axioms' and 'absolute truths'. There was only one thing for Physics to do and he did it... He picked up the phone and had Philosophy sectioned.

>>2770192
>scientism

>>2770192
Thereby proving scientist still need plenty of help with ethics.

It's neither. Once you're done pouring, the glass is too tall if its not overflowing.

... Also, the glass is always full. It's just full of liquid AND air.

It is twice as big as it needs to be.

>>2770196
God has spoken.

It is completely full.

>>2770192
>Speed of light. Limit.

Nope.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html

The contents within the glass
do not reflect upon the glass itself.

The glass is a glass.

>>2770434
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html
0/10

>>2770434
Nope. 0/10

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/30/opera_spokesperson_resigns/

>>2770439
And what would you consider a reputable source for this information.

I'm not trolling that's ligit.
E=MC2 is dead my friend. Cern confirmed it. 15,000 times they tested.

The speed of light can be broken.

>>2770440
We'll see about that.

>>2770443
Look at the guys link above your post. Why did the head of that experiment resign when it was revealed that that the speed of light wasn't broken?

I hate giving negatives, but... -3/10

You are behind in your news.

A result of faulty wiring it was.

>>2770443
Would you consider a newer article by the Telegraph to be more or less reputable than an older one?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9100273/Breaking-the-speed-of-light-CERNs-neutrino-e
xperiment.html

>>2770447
This.

"Neutrinos are most definitely not faster than light after all, says CERN.

The laws of physics got the good news last Friday at the 25th International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics in Kyoto, in a talk titled 'The neutrino velocity measurement by OPERA experiment'.

The faster-than-light results generated in 2011 were likely the result of “Faulty connection of the optical fibre to the Master Clock artificially increasing the neutrino anticipation by ~74 ns.” OPERA also had another problem, namely “Internal Master Clock frequency off by Δf/f = 1.24x10-7 (124 ns/s) artificially decreasing the neutrino anticipation by ~15 ns.”

>>2769982
Being filled up.

It is half a glass of water. People always gotta put a spin on things.

The question is a paradox. Neither the glass nor the water have dichotomy on one another. I can say that the glass attributed the notion of fullness or emptiness in the temporality of time or i could say the water implicates this notion. None have ulterior motives. Only i can make the claims during the time my being wants to attribute whatever it is i want to attribute.

It is half full when you are filling it and half empty when you are drinking it.

I really hope this thread isn't proper philosophy.

>>2769982
The answer can only be attained through scientific testing. The total number of atoms in the water needs to be established. If we ignore the fact that atoms are mainly empty space, and instead treat the water as if it is taking up nearly half the glass, then we will still reach an answer. The water cannot occupy exactly 'half' of the glass, it will always be slightly over(half full), or slightly under (half empty) because we can delve further into decimals until we reach an answer.

I think OP, if you invest in lab grade digital scales and a thermometer you will always be able to determine if your glass is 'half full or half empty' in the future.

>If we ignore the fact that atoms are mainly empty space
>thinking in terms of atoms, not in the way those atoms are organized to create matter.
>2012

>>2770481
What are you talking about? There are only 3 atoms in a molecule of water, its one of the simplest structures. Atoms ARE mainly empty space.

>>2770468
>The water cannot occupy exactly 'half' of the glass
Says who? Why can't it be 0.50000000000000...?

>>2770489

It wont ever be '0.50∞' You will always hit an number.

>>2770498
he asked why

>>2770506

Because infinity is a hypothetical invariable that doesn't actually apply to anything outside of mathematical constructs. If it did you could say that we will never reach 0.5 because 0.49 can be pushed back infinitely (0.000000049∞), but when the glass is overflowing we know we must have crossed halfway.


We have a glass with a fixed volume and a fluid with a set number of atoms that is constantly subjected to change; the slightest fluctuation in atmospheric humidity, temperature, evaporation, light, sound and even background radiation will alter the volume of the liquid.

If we manage to get the water as close to 0.5 as we can get, it will still be flicking back and forth between 0.51 and 0.49. We can push the decimals further ie 0.000000000051 and 0.000000000049 but they wont reach infinity because it doesn't exist in this model.

>>2770531
>>2770531
Can someone tell me is this guy is serious?

>>2769982

Both.

>>2770468

Your argument is invalid because Wittgenstein.

Shall I explain? Language games...I'm too lazy to write the rest.

>>2770566

Also....if I may provide an answer.

The glass is neither half full or half empty. Fullness and Emptiness are merely sliding scales we use to describe a state of being to another individual using estimations of the actual state of being. They are not the state of being itself.

>>2770566
0/10

>>2770572

Same person adding on to that. The dichotomy of half full half empty is not to discover weather or not it is half full or half empty, but to make a commentary of the subjectivity of the experience of reality, and to make the observer question how his or her view of reality can be analyzed. "Is the glass half full or half empty?" Well, it depends on how I see the glass.

>>2770572

a) Full [fool]
-completely filled; containing all that can be held; filled to utmost capacity: a full cup.

b) Empty [emp-tee]
-containing nothing; having none of the usual or appropriate contents: an empty bottle.

Regardless of what whimsical metaphors you want to draw from the glass, the fact is it will always be closer to one of the two states.

>>2770582

Well, doesn't that all depend on what you consider full or empty? Does a couple drops on the bottom constitute empty? How about fullness? Is it when the glass has just a little bit of lip left, or is it when the water is bulging out the top, only held in by it's hydrogen bonds?

>>2770573
But... he's right. A half empty glass is also half full, in fact, this is necessary. The phrase "glass half empty" and "glass half full" describe the exact same physical state, just as "Completely full" and "Not at all empty" do. The Wittgenstein argument is applied rather topically, asserting only that thinking
"two phrases with 'opposite' words must have different meanings" is logically ridiculous and resultant from false understanding of language.

>>2770582
Only if it's a real glass. It's not. It's a hypothetical. You only know it's closer to one or the other when you measure it, and you cannot. Because it's not real.

>>2770586
We already established that anything over 50% is being regarded as half full, while anything under is half empty.

>>2770590
No its not right because a dichotomy is impossible. the glass is never half, it always tilted one way or the other.

>>2770590

Thank you for making the argument...I just sorta wanted to answer the question, but when I saw someone trying to scientifically justify a turn of phrase meant to invoke introspection, I just had to say something.

>>2770596

Why does it half to be that way? Who established that?

>>2770595
Why do you guys hate science so much? OP asked if the glass is half full or half empty. The actual answer is it is either one or the other not some bullshit analogy.

>>2770599
Who established what, the dichotomy paradox?

>>2770596

Also, even if we did say that, my question posed a question of what is considered 100%, what is considered 0% and what is considered 50%. You just brushed it off....

>>2770596
I seriously think this guy is either trolling or is utterly incapable of thought experiments and doesn't know how math works.

>>2770603
Consider this ideal situation: There is a cylinder which has a capacity for 2 liters of water. There is 1 liter inside of it.

For any constant volume, there exists a number which is exactly double that number. If the container of the first volume is theoretically this second value, then there will be exactly 0.5 of the potential volume occupied by water.

You seem to be an obscurantist running amok with numbers and a vague notion of how they're supposed to work.

>>2770621
First let me ask you this, how much fluoride in this water?

>>2770621

Oh, let's not bring ideals into this. >>2770603 can be dis-proven in his own language.

No matter what >>2770603 says, >>2770604 has got him beat...I can see where his argument is going

He's gonna force him to define 100%, and then claim something else that can also be considered 100%

>>2770621
>obscurantist
That's a that hypocritical after the example you just gave. Again I am arguing from a point of physics. It is physically impossible for the water to have a volume exactly half the volume of the glass, with the decimals stretching back infinitely. You may be able to word it like it would seem that way in a thought experiment, but in reality It cannot occur.

>>2770623
>You seem to be an obscurantist running amok with numbers and a vague notion of how they're supposed to work.
Confirmed.

That is very, incredibly irrelevant. I was right when I said you couldn't into thought experiments. There is no fluoride. This is perfectly distilled water.

We will ignore the fact that in anything but technical language, "water" includes any solvents in the water which don't significantly alter its chemical properties.

I didn't know they made obscurantists in a scientism flavor.

>>2770641
I am this guy >>2770638 not the guy asking about fluoride.

>>2770638

Answer my question, since

>>2770635

Already gave up the ghost. What is 100% of a full glass? And since you're obviously talking about "reality" and not thought experiments or ideals, don't try to evade this one by acting like physics exempts you from these ideas.

>>2770638

Do you people realize that 0 is as much of a number as the rest? If the digits go back indefinitely in measurement, it can be any variety, but there is nothing physically precluding it from being an endless procession of 0s.

0.4959437549348394839374...
is exactly as possible as
0.5000000000000000000000...

>>2770655
This is smart.

>>2770655
>What is 100% of a full glass?

100% can be variable, you can pick whatever you want; say 10 litres?

OK, If we start with 10 litres for being full, and have 0 litres as empty, naturally we will 5 litres for half, agreed? Now if you measure the liquid you will still find 5 fluctuating between being slightly above and below.

I'm trying to work out what you want. Do you want to pretend 10 litres (100%) will stretch back to an infinite amount of decimal places

>>2770677
>but there is nothing physically precluding it from being an endless procession of 0s.
Except reality. I fully accept that It can in a thought experiment, but it can't occur in a real glass of water with real hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

>>2770679

No, not what I'm asking for. I'm asking you to define when a glass becomes full of something. Is your assertion that a glass is full when it's interior cylindrical volume is completely water?

>>2770679

wow, what a fucking tool. he's not asking for a number. he's asking for you to describe a state.

>>2770683
>Except reality. I fully accept that It can in a thought experiment, but it can't occur in a real glass of water with real hydrogen and oxygen atoms.
That is the fault of human control over variables and not an inherent property of the universe. I realize that 0.5000000000... is incredibly unlikely (to the point of absurdity) but it is not impossible. If you have one mole of water molecules contained in a vessel with the capacity for two moles under identical conditions, and this is perfectly controlled for all variables, then the volume will be exactly half of the capacity-volume.

You're confusing physical impossibility with experimental impracticality. If you keep measuring back more decimals for something, you will keep getting numbers. It's very unlikely that all of those would be 0s, but improbability is not impossibility.

>>2770684
>Is your assertion that a glass is full when it's interior cylindrical volume is completely water?

When whatever the volume of the glass is contains the same volume of water.

>>2770697

well then, what about this? Is this a full glass? The volume of the water inside is greater than the interior volume of the glass.

>>2770697
At what temperature? How dense is the water?

>>2770697

Or what about this? The beer is less than the full volume of the glass, but the glass is full, especially if you're looking for a glass of beer with some head.

By your assertion the halfway point of the glass of being half full or half empty fluctuates with the contents of the glass.

What about when you want a warm beer or a cold beer? The glass flexes and changes size due to heat and cold. That means there less and more volume depending on temperature as well.

>>2770703
I was waiting for that, but I think >>2770694 has already got me and without going into quarks and baryons.... :(

Either way is 4:30 here in the UK and I desperately need some sleep. Thanks for the discourse gentleman.

>>2770714
Good night. Sleep tight.

>>2770694
>>2770716
Fuck, I had to turn the laptop back on.

You tricked me, you bastard... Atomic weights aren't constant, and molecules share no symmetry: In your mole example, If hypothetically you had two that were identical, they are still subject to time and therefore fluctuation. Throughout the process of removing the molecule it is undergoing detectable changes. There is no way for a perfect dichotomy to occur.

I'll return to this thread tomorrow night if it's still here.

>>2770738
The is very unlikely that you could collect/generate identical isotopes for all hydrogens and oxygens, and that none would degrade during the length of the experiment, but it is -- again -- not impossible. I'm trying to keep this above the fundamental particle level. Don't forget that we're talking volume. Don't forget that the lack of perfect and constant conditions is a human failing. By accepting that there is a possible 100% value, you should be just as willing to accept a 50%. This is what the others were driving at.