NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think?

Half-full

You never get exactly half volume, its always an obscure fraction. Answer your question?

half empty, but you can always order a full one :p

Kabania: have you ever measured that?

That would depend on the current action taking place within the glass. If the glass were being filled, that it would definitely be half full. However if the glass were being emptied in one form or another, than the glass would be half empty. Or what I could say is that unless the glass was in a vacuum than it would definitely be all the way full, no matter what. Then again at the sub atomic level, most atoms are empty space, so technically the glass isn’t even half anything. It can either be more than half empty, or it can be less than half full.

The glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

The glass is empty!!!
I was thirsty ^_^

Kabania: have you ever measured that?

It would be impossible. Molecules are different sizes (eg. you have flourine in tap water as well...), so therefore you could never get exactly half volume...

who cares - if your glass is half empty or half full, it's time to get another beer. :)

It would be impossible. Molecules are different sizes (eg. you have flourine in tap water as well...), so therefore you could never get exactly half volume...
You could, but that would probably be by accident (half the water molecules and hals the flourine molecules).

If there's a mass (of fluid, for instance) there is half it's mass

Half full

You could, but that would probably be by accident (half the water molecules and hals the flourine molecules).

If there's a mass (of fluid, for instance) there is half it's mass

OK, i'll concede that...but what if you get even one atom of something else in there? Theres so many chemicals in tap water that the probability is probably something like one out of 1^7808 or something...

Couldn't we just change the poll options to "about half empty" and "about half full" :p

Couldn't we just change the poll options to "about half empty" and "about half full" :p

lol :D

you guys are really missing the highers purpose of this question, then again theres been so many questions like this posted in the forums, who cares?

It probably at this point just for the post count

Point? Is there a point?

you guys are really missing the highers purpose of this question, then again theres been so many questions like this posted in the forums, who cares?

It probably at this point just for the post count

Yep.

(+1)

Hey! You gonna finish that?

The glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

I agree, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be, at least that is the viewpoint of stereotypical engineers I believe.

WTF?!

That's not my glass.

My glass was bigger. And it was full.

WTF?!

That's not my glass.

My glass was bigger. And it was full.

Then your glass was never half full or half empty. Nor was it twice as big as it needed to be, if in fact it was big and full.

"Half Full" and "half empty" are the same thing.

"Half Full" and "half empty" are the same thing.

Half full and half empty are obviouslly different, erm... yeah.
Either way it is bigger than need be.

That would depend on the current action taking place within the glass. If the glass were being filled, that it would definitely be half full. However if the glass were being emptied in one form or another, than the glass would be half empty.
This I agree with.

Or what I could say is that unless the glass was in a vacuum than it would definitely be all the way full, no matter what.
This doesn't make sense. Please elaborate.

Then again at the sub atomic level, most atoms are empty space, so technically the glass isn’t even half anything. It can either be more than half empty, or it can be less than half full.
Let us define "full" as the state at which no additional fluid can be added to the glass without causing an overflow. Then, subatomic behavior will not be of concern to us.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

You could, but that would probably be by accident (half the water molecules and hals the flourine molecules).

If there's a mass (of fluid, for instance) there is half it's mass
First of all, they're Flourine atoms, not molecules. Secondly, if the contents of the glass were half Flourine, it'd be lethal to drink. Also, it can never truly be either half full or half empty, only somewhere in-between.

Its is simply not full enough

This I agree with.


This doesn't make sense. Please elaborate.


Let us define "full" as the state at which no additional fluid can be added to the glass without causing an overflow. Then, subatomic behavior will not be of concern to us.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
But because of the space in the atoms, you can compress the water. Thus you can add more water to it.

Then your glass was never half full or half empty. Nor was it twice as big as it needed to be, if in fact it was big and full.

Yeah, so whoever the Hell took my glass can give it back. And where's my fucking sandwich?!

Its is simply not full enough

I suppose this could also make sense, unless your arm trembles badly and you don't want to spill any, then it might be plenty full.

Yeah, so whoever the Hell took my glass can give it back. And where's my fucking sandwich?!

You mean this was your sandwich? I thought Kanabia made sandwiches for all of us. Sorry 'bout that. If it's any conciliation, it was a very tastey sandwich. But I did not take your glass.

Or...


Is the squirrel half dead, or half alive?

Eventually, the glass is empty. Evaporation sucks, don't it.

Or...


Is the squirrel half dead, or half alive?

I think it is dying...

Eventually, the glass is empty. Evaporation sucks, don't it.

What if I put plastic wrap on my glass?

You mean this was your sandwich? I thought Kanabia made sandwiches for all of us. Sorry 'bout that. If it's any conciliation, it was a very tastey sandwich. But I did not take your glass.

This is not good for my rage.

Inefficient use of glass in equally inefficient water storage ;) :rolleyes:

I'm negative.
Half-empty. As half as it can be. :rolleyes:

We only imbibe from a shot glass - it's either empty or full. :sniper:

This is not good for my rage.

I can make you a new sandwich, if you'd like, however I've only got this Italian hard bread, bologna, and ketchup.

Your death will be sufficient.

You mean this was your sandwich? I thought Kanabia made sandwiches for all of us. Sorry 'bout that. If it's any conciliation, it was a very tastey sandwich. But I did not take your glass.

They werent for you, I had the munchies.

After you bringing this up, I have realized that I have stated both at times, half empty, half full. It may depend on if I am feeling optimistic or cynical I think.

Your death will be sufficient.

I can get you a replacement beef-rib, chocolate and mustard sandwich. It is my friend's specialty.

It is all at the same time. With 11 dimensions the glass can be half full half empty and a preception all at the same time. However, the glass should always be half empty. Full is an abstract point. Is it full, if the water is to the brim? a cm below? a halfway down because that was all you intended to pour? However, it is only empty if it has no liquid or lacks the sentimental value it once had when you got your P.H.D. in philosaphy.

This doesn't make sense. Please elaborate.
Gasses are considered to be fluids, and unless in a vacuum, there will definitely be gasses in the glass. So it can be argued that regardless of how much liquid is in the glass it will still be filled up with a fluid of some sort. That is unless it is in a vacuum.

It is all at the same time. With 11 dimensions the glass can be half full half empty and a preception all at the same time. However, the glass should always be half empty. Full is an abstract point. Is it full, if the water is to the brim? a cm below? a halfway down because that was all you intended to pour? However, it is only empty if it has no liquid or lacks the sentimental value it once had when you got your P.H.D. in philosaphy.

Don't forget water can bead slightly above the brim and not spill over. I think it is just an estimate saying it is 1/2 full/empty and/or just too big.

And even in the air there is water vapor so it is generally allways full of water.

Gasses are considered to be fluids, and unless in a vacuum, there will definitely be gasses in the glass. So it can be argued that regardless of how much liquid is in the glass it will still be filled up with a fluid of some sort. That is unless it is in a vacuum.

Unless of corse it is specified that the fluid in question is a liquid and more specifically water. Then it would not matter whether it is in a vacuum or not, or what other gasses might be in it, but your point is well taken.

Don't forget water can bead slightly above the brim and not spill over. I think it is just an estimate saying it is 1/2 full/empty and/or just too big.

To the desert dweller it is never to big and water is the gift of life. The symbolic value of water means the glass is always full.

or a preception in the distance.

To the desert dweller it is never to big and water is the gift of life. The symbolic value of water means the glass is always full.

Unless it is empty.

If given a glass, we can not tell if the glass is half full. In order to know that we have to know when it was full. Whether it was over or under full. By who it was full by, and their conception of full. Since that was not specified, it can either be half empty, a preception, or the glass was to big.

Unless it is empty.
then it is also half empty.

Obviously, the fact there is a glass of water means that there is someone to drink it, so the glass isnt really there because you cannot drink it.

Considering also that you cant point to a glass that is half empty or half full, it is an ideal so any glass is mearly a preception and aproximation of the one true half empty glass.

Unless of corse it is specified that the fluid in question is a liquid and more specifically water.
Which in this case it wasn’t.

If given a glass, we can not tell if the glass is half full. In order to know that we have to know when it was full. Whether it was over or under full. By who it was full by, and their conception of full. Since that was not specified, it can either be half empty, a preception, or the glass was to big.

Mathematically, "full" would probably to the brim, but not beading over the top. To someone's perception, 1/2 full/empty would usually be somewhere near the middle, but not necessarily exactly at the middle of the glass. If you would like to figure out when a glass is exactly 1/2 full/empty, you must first figure out the volume of the glass. Then you must fill the glass with half of that amount of water. Or if you prefer, empty that amount out of the glass.

Simply measuring the height and taking half of that would be not good, seeing that most glasses and not exactly cylinders, but rather they may become wider at the top.

either way you state it the glass requires more liquid

depneds on wether I'm drinking it or I see it.

Aren't "full" and "empty" terms which are absolute, and therefor can't be modified by terms like "half", "almost", "about"?
Or maybe just "empty" is the absolute.

I read the third choice to be "The volume of the glass has no definitive amount or description, solely ones perception." and/or "The glass doesn't really exist, because in the end, it's basically the same particles as the water and the [assumed] people observing it, slowing into nothingness, and that our point in observation is solely that, a perception."
That, and it has the whole Matrix crap appeal.

Aren't "full" and "empty" terms which are absolute, and therefor can't be modified by terms like "half", "almost", "about"?
Or maybe just "empty" is the absolute.
That, and it has the whole Matrix crap appeal.

Empty and Full are absolute. But by saying the glass is half full, you mean that the bottom half of the glass is completely full, or if you say that the glass is half empty, the top half of the galss is completely empty.

With most questions like this, we do not arrive at the answer, but sit around for hours argueing over what the question (and some possible answers) actually mean. This is because langauge, our primitive form of thought/data transfer between people is insufficient to communicate the complex ideas and perceptions involved in answering the question in the thread's title.

It's like we're trying to communicate in TCP/IP using smoke signals.

Who gives a fuck anyway?

+1 :D

The glass is entirely full, half water and half air.

its in need of filling

The glass is twice as large as it should be.

Engineer speaking...

Isn't Glass a Supercooled liquid? So there is no such thing as half full, as the glass is constantly changing shape...

it could be either, depending on how you look at it, scientifically, philosophically (in which case its a cliche anyway), metaphysically, literaly - whatever.

but in any case - i follow the old adage...

"youll never find the answers in the bottom of an empty glass"

and i add...

"so fill it up" :D

WHO DRANK HALF MY DRINK!?

You forgot the other 2 choices: Who drank half my drink? and What was the question?

Edit: Wow, there's another good one: The glass is twice as big as it should be!

The glass is entirely full, half water and half air.

...unless otherwise specified....
There is only one way to properly answer these questions, or just about any question:

We must first decide with what matter the glass is or is not filled with, partially or completely. For the sake of argument, lets assume the only fluid in question is water. Any other fluid or matter, other than the water and the glass itself must be ignored, this included air or other gasses. Thus if there is no water in the glass, it will be considered empty.

As far as glass being a liquid, which is in fact true to some extent (you notice it in the windows of really old houses), for our purposes we will assume it is a solid that will not change its shape.

We will also assume that the glass is standing upright and the center of its gravity points dirrectly down, and that the glass cannot tip. The water in the glass will never exceed the brim. (just because I say so)

We will ignore all forms of weather, including rain or extreme dry weather that might otherwise lead to evaporation.

And finally, if you have a problem with sending smoke signals over TCP/IP, then you may use sign language over TCP/IP instead.

Did I leave anything out?

What do you think?
http://img49.exs.cx/img49/723/Fullness.jpg

http://img49.exs.cx/img49/723/Fullness.jpg

The glass on the left is shown to be half full (or half empty, or twice as big as it needs to be), while all we know for sure about the glass on the right is that the red stuff fills the entire circumference of the glass.

The glass on the left is shown to be half full (or half empty, or twice as big as it needs to be), while all we know for sure about the glass on the right is that the red stuff fills the entire circumference of the glass.
This is actually a philosophical argument I'm working on for writing out for the website my sig links to, but you're exactly right. All that we know for absolute certain is that the kool-aid (or whatever) on the right covers the entired area (not circumference, that's perimeter) of the bottom of the cup. However, the view that political extremists (err, all extremists) take is the assumption that the glass on the right is all the way full.

Oooooooooooooohhhh, how about this one? The usefulness of a glass is in its emptiness.

If we take that approach that would mean that saying that the glass is half empty would actually seem more like the optimistic POV.

The glass doesn't exist. It is merely an electrical signal interpreted by your brain.

The glass doesn't exist. It is merely an electrical signal interpreted by your brain.

We will assume it does exsist, even if you are living in some pod of goo with machines hooked up to you as though you were a power source of some kind. We will assume that the glass you see, eventhough your eyes are closed have never been opened before, that the glass is real, regardless of the fact that there is no glass in your pod of goo, but just in your mind within your virtual world of the Matrix.

Speaking of matrices, a matrix is simply a way of grouping an array of numbers.

Speaking of matrices, a matrix is simply a way of grouping an array of numbers.
(Psst....it doesn't have to be simple)

It merely depends on what the glass is to be half-full or half-empty of...

It merely depends on what the glass is to be half-full or half-empty of...

Read one of my previous posts. It might be easier if you go by those assumtions to answer the question better.

Read one of my previous posts. It might be easier if you go by those assumtions to answer the question better.
By this logic, the third poll option isn't really an option...but you want us to assume that everything we see is real, even though that means the third poll option isn't a real option...quite paradoxial.

What's it full, or not full, of?

By this logic, the third poll option isn't really an option...but you want us to assume that everything we see is real, even though that means the third poll option isn't a real option...quite paradoxial.

Techinally this is not my thread at all. Nor was it my idea. I just felt like continuing the conversation and figure the best way to answer the question was to assume those assumtions of mine, such as the matter in the glass in question is water only. My assumtions may have nullified the third option of the poll created by Praetonia, but it was only for the sake of argument, as the glass may very well not exist but in the minds of others. It just might make answering this rather silly question easier, or far more complex and contradictory. Oh well... What can you expect from these threads anyway?

What do you think?

Either of them work. :)

half full half empty who cares?

the only question is

is there enough?

What do you think?
I need a picture!