The Energon Pub

In order for a glass to be half empty, it would have had to been filled entirely in the first place. The only possible way the glass could be half full is if it were only filled half way to begin with. I think I have it figured out but by all means, debate!

the glass is as it is. it does not care how you percieve it, nor does it need you to justify its place or usefulness. the glass is neither and both half full/empty.

An optimist sees half a pint of milk. He says 'It is half full'. A pessimist sees half a pint of milk. He says "It is half empty". I see half a pint of milk, I say 'It is sour'.

I think N_V pretty much got my view.

Either way, it's half full of emptiness.

Why dont we make up a new word to solve this. The glass is Empull! Problem solved.

Half empty = if you put something in a glass to make it half a circle, and filled up one part of the glass, it is realy half empty.
Because empty means there is nothing in it. (Science: it's a funny experiment)

Half full is what the word says for the half filled with liquid.

It depends what is empty? what is full?

Does the glass not contain air?
Is the air not a substance?
If the glass contains liquid to it's half way point does not the air fill the rest?

Thusly I propose that the glass, meerly holding a different medium is always full. Even when it is empty.

When I drive my car, I am not driving. I am participating in a conspiracy called 'traffic'.

I will walk.

Name_Violation wrote:the glass is as it is. it does not care how you percieve it, nor does it need you to justify its place or usefulness. the glass is neither and both half full/empty.

God I loved philosophy class in college..

Cyber Bishop wrote:God I loved philosophy class in college..

Good thing someone did, I'm doing now and I fecking hate it.

Maybe the glass is too big?

is the glass cylindrical? or does it taper?the shpe also determins alot. this topic needs more guidlines to achieve an accuarate decision. even if it were half empty per se it would be half full of air.

I think the topic has been lost, because it is a basic question that realys on the philisophical rules of duh! this is a glass with a liquid in it, a test to speculate towards one being a pesamist or omptimist.

I say I am a realist and will drink the liquid call the glass empty.

There is no correct answer.

It's a multistable perception object. Just like you might see the Necker cube one way while another sees it the other way, it's entirely down to perspective.

Cyber Bishop wrote:

Name_Violation wrote:the glass is as it is. it does not care how you percieve it, nor does it need you to justify its place or usefulness. the glass is neither and both half full/empty.

God I loved philosophy class in college..

I'm staying as far away from it as possible. It's like multiple universes and time travel - gives me a headache.

It depends on what I'm drinking.

Editor wrote:It depends what is empty? what is full?

Does the glass not contain air?
Is the air not a substance?
If the glass contains liquid to it's half way point does not the air fill the rest?

Thusly I propose that the glass, meerly holding a different medium is always full. Even when it is empty.

This, while wordy, is correct.

Blackwind wrote:

Editor wrote:It depends what is empty? what is full?

Does the glass not contain air?
Is the air not a substance?
If the glass contains liquid to it's half way point does not the air fill the rest?

Thusly I propose that the glass, meerly holding a different medium is always full. Even when it is empty.

This, while wordy, is correct.

Thank you for your positive approval of my thesis.

Blackwind wrote:

Editor wrote:It depends what is empty? what is full?

Does the glass not contain air?
Is the air not a substance?
If the glass contains liquid to it's half way point does not the air fill the rest?

Thusly I propose that the glass, meerly holding a different medium is always full. Even when it is empty.

This, while wordy, is correct.

Yes, corrct it is. However, if the air from an "empty" glass were to be sucked out in a vacuum, and the glass sealed...what then? Then it would be truly empty. Thus, it is not always full.

Hmm...now that we vacuum sealed the glass, which in the beginning was either half full or half empty,...but what did we prove???
Maybe it should just be..you know, exist for whatever reason.
I'm an optimist, thus I believe that the glass and it's content had a reason for existing in the first place...and I would call it half-full. Good thing is there is room for improvement.

The fact remains that even with the air vacuumed out that the glass does contain matter. For if nothing were to exist than the glass would fold into itself.

If the glass continues to exist than by definition of known science, then it has content.

and it's full of it.

Editor wrote:The fact remains that even with the air vacuumed out that the glass does contain matter. For if nothing were to exist than the glass would fold into itself.

If the glass continues to exist than by definition of known science, then it has content.

and it's full of it.

Of what? Until we determine what it is, after vacuuming, it is in fact empty.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Editor wrote:The fact remains that even with the air vacuumed out that the glass does contain matter. For if nothing were to exist than the glass would fold into itself.

If the glass continues to exist than by definition of known science, then it has content.

and it's full of it.

Of what? Until we determine what it is, after vacuuming, it is in fact empty.

Wouldn't it be "unknown"? Ignorance of the object's true state does not change its state, it just makes us unaware. Just ask Schrodinger's cat, of course.

Wingspan wrote:Wouldn't it be "unknown"? Ignorance of the object's true state does not change its state, it just makes us unaware. Just ask Schrodinger's cat, of course.

There's a theory that until it's observed, it *is* literally nothing. It's tied up in quantum mechanics. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it isn't determined until something acts upon it. So if it's compeltely sealed off, there's a possibility that it could be nothing.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:

Wingspan wrote:Wouldn't it be "unknown"? Ignorance of the object's true state does not change its state, it just makes us unaware. Just ask Schrodinger's cat, of course.

There's a theory that until it's observed, it *is* literally nothing. It's tied up in quantum mechanics. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it isn't determined until something acts upon it. So if it's compeltely sealed off, there's a possibility that it could be nothing.

Got a link to somewhat explain that and what defines observation? Isn't observation directly tied to consciousness? On the surface it seems off to say "if a person cannot observe it, it doesn't exist."

Educate me Grimlock. <== irony