# The glass is..? The NT / Rationals answer is...



## Longdove (Jan 4, 2011)

sly said:


> Is the glass empty because:
> 
> Air is not a liquid?
> We cannot rehydrate from air?
> It is not the purpose of a glass?


Yes, air not being a liquid, is what would constitute whether or not the use for the initial purpose of the glass, would have been met. The glass is purposefully designed to hold water, not air, and it can be supposed that it could hold anything from gumballs, to marbles, to sand, but that would not be the initial purpose of the glass.

So of course, we cannot rehydrate from air, if air were perhaps the thing that were needed, then an air hose itself might be used for that specific purpose, or an oxygen tank. Definitely within an oxygen tank, the tank could be depleted of half of its contents, so it would be half-full by still containing another half-part of oxygen. This is also a necessary must for scuba diving, since the scuba tank being already half empty would pose a threat to the diver's life.

For glasses, the substance meant for it to be filled with is water/liquid.


----------



## Papa.tuti (Feb 17, 2012)

@sly ...haha...a lot of bytes, but is it therefore half-full or half-empty, or something else??


----------



## Longdove (Jan 4, 2011)

sly said:


> Is a thread seen just because there are replies?
> 
> What exactly is the definition of view? What if a blind person replies to a thread? Is a view really a view? Or is it the IP-count that visits a thread?
> 
> How can you believe that this logic is absolute, true?


A thread is not necessarily unseen because there are no replies, however, we can more properly lean towards forming the conclusion that the thread has not yet been read if it does lack replies.

I think a view refers to someone from without the forum menu clicking inside a specific thread within that forum, and it generates a view once the thread itself is opened, but this still does not mean that the person has read it, maybe they just clicked on it, and hit back on the browser, but if they reply specifically to the thread, it is reasonably concluded that it has already been read.

If a blind person were to reply to the thread, assuming it would have to be by text-to-speech, and not by the implementation of sight, then technically they would not have viewed the thread, since viewing is a result of the function particular to sight, which the blind person lacks, so the blind person would have the thread read-aloud to them, and so hearing it, but not viewing it. If the blind person accesses the thread via some other alternate methods, other than viewing via their own sight, then it could still be considered that the thread was opened, and if the IP is the gauge of that, then yes, the thread has been accessed under those terms.

We can know definitely that the thread has been viewed if there is at least one response addressing the particular subject-matter that the thread contains.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Half full.


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

Longdove said:


> Yes, air not being a liquid, is what would constitute whether or not the use for the initial purpose of the glass, would have been met. The glass is purposefully designed to hold water, not air, and it can be supposed that it could hold anything from gumballs, to marbles, to sand, but that would not be the initial purpose of the glass.
> 
> So of course, we cannot rehydrate from air, if air were perhaps the thing that were needed, then an air hose itself might be used for that specific purpose, or an oxygen tank. Definitely within an oxygen tank, the tank could be depleted of half of its contents, so it would be half-full by still containing another half-part of oxygen. This is also a necessary must for scuba diving, since the scuba tank being already half empty would pose a threat to the diver's life.
> 
> For glasses, the substance meant for it to be filled with is water/liquid.


The purpose of this particular glass is not determined by what the glass is generally meant for, but the specific case that determines the answer? 

Currently, we do not know the purpose of this specific glass. Therefore we cannot answer this question due to lack of information. However, by speculation we can tentatively assume that the glass is half-full, to fill in the gap of knowledge.


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

Longdove said:


> A thread is not necessarily unseen because there are no replies, however, we can more properly lean towards forming the conclusion that the thread has not yet been read if it does lack replies.
> 
> I think a view refers to someone from without the forum menu clicking inside a specific thread within that forum, and it generates a view once the thread itself is opened, but this still does not mean that the person has read it, maybe they just clicked on it, and hit back on the browser, but if they reply specifically to the thread, it is reasonably concluded that it has already been read.
> 
> ...


If there is a reply, the thread has definitely been viewed. 

However.

If there are no replies, we cannot properly lean towards forming the conclusion that the thread has not yet been read. Argument: Statistically speaking, the view/reply ratio is always higher than 1. There are plenty of threads that have plenty of views but zero replies.



Papa.tuti said:


> @sly ...haha...a lot of bytes, but is it therefore half-full or half-empty, or something else??


I don't know, I'm not brain enough to know the answer to this frighteningly complex question. Every answer my brain develops, is immediately destroyed by an 'exception' in such way that I cannot form a definitive truth, I'm not even sure whether the glass is a glass.


----------



## Longdove (Jan 4, 2011)

sly said:


> The purpose of this particular glass is not determined by what the glass is generally meant for, but the specific case that determines the answer?
> 
> Currently, we do not know the purpose of this specific glass. Therefore we cannot answer this question due to lack of information. However, by speculation we can tentatively assume that the glass is half-full, to fill in the gap of knowledge.


Let's say by any case, that the glass doesn't contain air, regardless of amounts, half-filled with air, or full of air - the following things can still fill that glass half way: water, sand, marbles, pins, dice, pennies, strings and threads, buttons, bottle caps, cereal, pasta, berries, and even insects, just to give a small particular list.

Ok, so let's look at all those, and keeping in mind the possibility that the glass is already deprived of air, or has half an amount, or is full of air: if we begin to pour water into it, the water will eventually run out, the same for sand, marbles, dice, pennies, and the rest of the listed things, so whether or not the glass contains air is not a direct factor on how much can still be thrown or otherwise put into that glass, since eventually all of those things that are filled with it will make the glass full, and if not full it will still make it half full.

Perhaps it can be argued that the glass is half empty, if initially the entire contents of the glass were already filled up, so from a fixed starting point if the glass is expected to have a full whole amount of something, it can be speculated that removing half of its contents would make it half empty. This might be the case in a grocery store while one is shopping and buys a bottle of soda, or even a can of spray paint, and it is missing half of its contents, since it is expected that the bottle has a set and determined amount such as 32oz, it might be justified under that scenario to say that it is half empty.

With the glass scenario, however, this is not what is being directly suggested, that being that the glass already had from the start an initial full amount, the amount of content is not determining the fullness or lack thereof of the glass, as in the grocery store scenario, rather the glass' volume by itself is determining whether contents put into it will make it half full or not.

The grocery store item requires 32oz in order for it to be full; but the glass being already present with any amount of substance, excluding air, will be half full, not half empty because it doesn't have an imposed-on-it amount such as 32oz. The purpose of the glass, if it were for drinking, would not be the same as the store item, that it would always have to be fully filled, in order for it to carry out its purpose, but rather some may pour a fifth into it to drink, or fill it a fifth of the way with pennies, or a third of the way with buttons, the glass is used for storing and containing, whether it be liquid, or otherwise. It does not have a restriction that it always must be used to the full.


----------



## Longdove (Jan 4, 2011)

sly said:


> If there is a reply, the thread has definitely been viewed.
> 
> However.
> 
> If there are no replies, we cannot properly lean towards forming the conclusion that the thread has not yet been read. Argument: Statistically speaking, the view/reply ratio is always higher than 1. There are plenty of threads that have plenty of views but zero replies.


A reply will give us an absolute affirmation that it has been read, but lacking a reply, and just going by the views, whether it is one view or a thousand, we cannot absolutely conclude that it has been read, just assumed. Yet, I would also say that the higher the number of views, the more certain it can be concluded that the thread has already been read, irregardless of replies. Two views would be enough to leave out the possibility that the thread has not been read at all, since adding to the factor of one, error is lost that might otherwise be attributed to say a false click. Nevertheless, whether a thread has views or replies, that still does not make it a sure thing that the thread's content has been read, since there are those who use the internet joke of tl; dr, and its variations, etc... but that is extreme nitpicking.


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

PeteTheZombie said:


>


Oh, I see what the problem is.


----------



## EMoJination (Jan 24, 2012)

Glass is half empty because i always pour a glass up to the top. I drunk half of it with the intention of finishing it.


----------



## jeffbobs (Jan 27, 2012)

The glass is a glass, Used to hold liquids for drinking, the amount in it doesn't matter for it is a glass and can be refilled or drank and emptied


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

Assuming the glass is on earth, it is always full; part hydrogen and oxygen, and part oxygen and nitrogen. Other particles an assumed probability.

Edit: Oh well this argument has already been addressed.

So making the assumptions that the glass has a purpose, and that purpose is to hold liquid, and the picture is a symbolic example of a glass which contains exactly .5 its capacity of liquid, then I guess the glass is half full. And half empty.

2 + 2 = 4, just as 4 - 2 = 2.

2 is neither greater than 2 nor less than 2. 2 is both half of 4 (2 full) and a lacking component of 4 (2 empty).


----------



## Captain (Jan 25, 2012)

Is there vodka in the glass? What stage of drunkenness have I reached? If I am sober and the glass contains vodka, it is half full. I will drink it and be merry. If I am drunk, the glass is half empty. I will wonder if that is the last of the vodka. If I drink it will there be more? I do not need more, yet I am drunk and I would like to be an even better drunk. Drunk = unchained Ne. Unchained Ne = awesome until I sober up and remember what a jackass I was.


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

Longdove said:


> Let's say by any case, that the glass doesn't contain air, regardless of amounts, half-filled with air, or full of air - the following things can still fill that glass half way: water, sand, marbles, pins, dice, pennies, strings and threads, buttons, bottle caps, cereal, pasta, berries, and even insects, just to give a small particular list.
> 
> Ok, so let's look at all those, and keeping in mind the possibility that the glass is already deprived of air, or has half an amount, or is full of air: if we begin to pour water into it, the water will eventually run out, the same for sand, marbles, dice, pennies, and the rest of the listed things, so whether or not the glass contains air is not a direct factor on how much can still be thrown or otherwise put into that glass, since eventually all of those things that are filled with it will make the glass full, and if not full it will still make it half full.
> 
> ...


So you're saying, the glass/bottle is half empty or half full based on the standards of our expectation(32oz)? 


Is this glass of champaign half full or half empty?











Truth to be told, this topic introduces different forms of realism, you can say that the glass is indeed filled with molecules, or that the language used should be based on the maximum quantity a glass or bottle can hold, or that the quantity should be judged based on social norms and values.




Longdove said:


> A reply will give us an absolute affirmation that it has been read, but lacking a reply, and just going by the views, whether it is one view or a thousand, we cannot absolutely conclude that it has been read, just assumed. Yet, I would also say that the higher the number of views, the more certain it can be concluded that the thread has already been read, irregardless of replies. Two views would be enough to leave out the possibility that the thread has not been read at all, since adding to the factor of one, error is lost that might otherwise be attributed to say a false click. Nevertheless, whether a thread has views or replies, that still does not make it a sure thing that the thread's content has been read, since there are those who use the internet joke of tl; dr, and its variations, etc... but that is extreme nitpicking.


 Yes, that's all logical and common sense. But..
_
''Two views would be enough to leave out the possibility that the thread has not been read at all, since adding to the factor of one, error is lost that might otherwise be attributed to say a false click.''_

There is always a possibility, and you can't leave out possibilities just because they are not likely. 100 people can VIEW a thread, but if it is written in encrypted language, none of them reads it, they are just symbols beyond common comprehension. Some threads don't have any content. Having said that, views do not conclude anything, replies do, the conclusion of a reply is that the thread has been viewed. Whether the thread is 'read' is something we cannot measure on views or replies alone, even if the reply is relevant. But this is me, speaking theory. In reality, we can safely assume that the higher the amount of views, the more likely it is that there is a reply, and that the content of the thread has been read. 

Nitpicking on extreme nitpicking.


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

No but seriously, the glass is always full, just not necessarily with water. It may only be half filled with water, but it's also got air in it, and therefore, is always full.

Unless of course we black a vacuum in the glass. That may change things a bit...


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

DeductiveReasoner said:


> No but seriously, the glass is always full, just not necessarily with water. It may only be half filled with water, but it's also got air in it, and therefore, is always full.
> 
> Unless of course we black a vacuum in the glass. That may change things a bit...



In that case, the glass is full with either:

1)light waves
2)radio waves
3)gamma rays
4)X-rays
5)IR
6)UV
7)Visible rays
8)Dark matter
9)Dark energy
10)Unknown


----------



## Longdove (Jan 4, 2011)

sly said:


> So you're saying, the glass/bottle is half empty or half full based on the standards of our expectation(32oz)?
> 
> There is always a possibility, and you can't leave out possibilities just because they are not likely. 100 people can VIEW a thread, but if it is written in encrypted language, none of them reads it, they are just symbols beyond common comprehension. Some threads don't have any content. Having said that, views do not conclude anything, replies do, the conclusion of a reply is that the thread has been viewed. Whether the thread is 'read' is something we cannot measure on views or replies alone, even if the reply is relevant. But this is me, speaking theory. In reality, we can safely assume that the higher the amount of views, the more likely it is that there is a reply, and that the content of the thread has been read.
> 
> Nitpicking on extreme nitpicking.


Yes, I think the very nature of the question itself already carries the suggestion that we already have a pre-determined expectation of what use the glass is meant for. If a glass were meant to hold air alone, why would the question be posed in relevance to a glass? Why not a balloon, or a tire, or a gas pipe? In those three, the question being linked with the amount of air in them might be relative, but not so with a glass which tends to be used rather universally for liquid, otherwise, again, it might as well be asked if a box is half empty or half full, or a baking sheet, or any sort of bag.

The glass of champaign is still half full, it still has substance in it, it lacks emptiness. Emptiness in terms of the glass would mean it has no substance, but it is still present (the champaign), in that example.

I hate to leave out possibilities, and I don't particularly like reducing them to being less likely, but only for the sake of argument is it within consideration that among the two extremes, one has a better guarantee than the other.

I adhere to the conclusions made in the red.

Don't mind the nitpicking, either, one of us has to do it.


----------



## cue5c (Oct 12, 2011)

I'm pretty sure the glass is plastic.


----------



## thunder999 (Oct 15, 2010)

It is full, 50% liquid, 50% air.


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

Longdove said:


> Yes, I think the very nature of the question itself already carries the suggestion that we already have a pre-determined expectation of what use the glass is meant for. If a glass were meant to hold air alone, why would the question be posed in relevance to a glass? Why not a balloon, or a tire, or a gas pipe? In those three, the question being linked with the amount of air in them might be relative, but not so with a glass which tends to be used rather universally for liquid, otherwise, again, it might as well be asked if a box is half empty or half full, or a baking sheet, or any sort of bag.
> 
> The glass of champaign is still half full, it still has substance in it, it lacks emptiness. Emptiness in terms of the glass would mean it has no substance, but it is still present (the champaign), in that example.
> 
> ...


 I adhere to the conclusion of the conclusion.


We should marry now. ''one of us has to do it'', two INTP parents discussing obligatory school-community meetings for their kids.


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

sly said:


> Is this glass of champaign half full or half empty?


I'd kindly like to point out, that isn't champagne. 'Tis wine, and a delicious looking glass at that.

Nitpicking on extreme nitpicking.

Other than that, I liked your post.


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

TheBoss said:


> Who said it was water?


I say we just ask a Se-dom to drink it.

Then order a -FULL- glass of -drinkable drink-.


----------



## Tengu (Feb 25, 2012)

Hahaha rasta Papa.tuti almost fooled me. That ain't no glass with something in it. It's a picture!


----------



## Splodge (Jan 2, 2012)

Pfeh.

Assuming the purpose of the glass is "to hold liquid", then at present it is neither half full nor half empty. It's just extremely inefficient - may I suggest you use one 50% smaller?


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

DeductiveReasoner said:


> I'd kindly like to point out, that isn't champagne. 'Tis wine, and a delicious looking glass at that.
> 
> Nitpicking on extreme nitpicking.
> 
> Other than that, I liked your post.


This piece of info could save me a stupid mistake in meat world, thanks for pointing that out. I'm not much of a drinker, so I don't know the difference >.<.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

cue5c said:


> I'm pretty sure the glass is plastic.


That was my original thought.

Otherwise, the glass is... 
... full of whiskey, but not for long.
... improperly labeled and not clearly comprehended.
... made of breakable rock candy, to smash over someone's head for dramatic effect.
... of an undetermined state until it is observed.
... covered with cool decals of robots and ancient philosophers.
... still dirty from when I used it two months ago and then left it upstairs at my computer desk, forgetting to wash it.


----------



## TheBoss (Oct 27, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> Either the cup is reality, and the water is you; the cup is you, and the water is reality; or, the relationship between the water and the cup - the analogy itself - is you, or reality - and you, or reality, is perceiving itself.


Or simply, neither is you. Just sayin' while rolling eyes. In the words of Sherlock Holmes, _the simplest, obvious answer, is too often the correct one_...



DeductiveReasoner said:


> I'd kindly like to point out, that isn't champagne. 'Tis wine, and a delicious looking glass at that.
> 
> Nitpicking on extreme nitpicking.


*in a serious, echo voice*: One sees, what one wants to see. This is blood and not wine.


----------



## Belrose (Dec 23, 2011)

For some it can be vodka or H202 but I wouldn't recommend drinking the latter.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

TheBoss said:


> Or simply, neither is you. Just sayin' while rolling eyes. In the words of Sherlock Holmes, _the simplest, obvious answer, is too often the correct one_...


Or I just don't give a fuck.


----------



## Siggy (May 25, 2009)

Papa.tuti said:


> The glass is half full or half empty, but what's your response?
> 
> Or even better, what's the answer or response from NT / Rational people?



Why do you want to know?


----------



## TheBoss (Oct 27, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> Or I just don't give a fuck.












Seriously


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

TheBoss said:


> Seriously


Wrap yourself up in that warm blanket of ad hominem.

What I _said_ doesn't make sense, _to you and anyone else who also *didn't get it*_*.*

_I_ am just a fucking person. Just like you, posting their damn opinion on a forum.

Get over yourself.


----------



## Papa.tuti (Feb 17, 2012)

@Tengu ...you got me;-) haha


----------



## Papa.tuti (Feb 17, 2012)

@Dear Sigmund ...Why? Normally this "glass" dilemma is used to test whether your more a pessimist or optimist, or maybe something else...that's all, just a simple and "funny" way of addressing type/temperament specific responses (or am I stereotyping here;-)


----------



## Siggy (May 25, 2009)

I was being sarcastic. Giving a "typical?" ENTJ answer, which is answering a question with a question.


----------



## Papa.tuti (Feb 17, 2012)

@Abraxas and @TheBoss ...no sweat guys, everybody is entitled to his/her opinion!! please keep it "fun" otherwise may I suggest to send each other private messages! No offense....I'd be happy to give more explanation on this simple question if that's what you need. If I have offended you in any way, unknowingly, my apologies...peace!


----------



## TheBoss (Oct 27, 2011)

Papa.tuti said:


> [MENTION=22763] please keep it "fun"


I protest. My pic was funny.
Let alone it was subtly on topic: he is multitasking, besides passing a legit message he is also holding the imaginary glass trying to determine it's fullness or emptiness! 

"Close enough"?


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

Papa.tuti said:


> The glass is half full or half empty, but what's your response?
> 
> Or even better, what's the answer or response from NT / Rational people?


Half full of emptiness and half full of Vodka.


----------



## Mr. Limpopo (Oct 7, 2011)

Half full. When we refer to things like this, we always say how much is full/completed/done/taken up, etc.

You don't hear anyone saying "I'm halfway not done with my homework".


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

Mr. Limpopo said:


> Half full. When we refer to things like this, we always say how much is full/completed/done/taken up, etc.
> 
> You don't hear anyone saying "I'm halfway not done with my homework".


You must be surrounded by boring people.


----------



## affezwilling (Feb 1, 2011)

It depends on which direction the liquid has been flowing. If you just finished filling it half way up it's half full, if you just drank or poured out half a glass it's half empty.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Either term is correct, and has the same meaning. 

We could also say, 'there's water in half of the glass' and it would mean the same thing.


----------



## Delicti (Feb 25, 2012)

The glass is proportional.


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

Twice as big as it needs to be.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Somewhat quoting myself



IDontThinkSo said:


> The glass is full of glass. The liquid is actually contained around the glass by the said glass + some forces (centrifugal, gravity, etc)


/laziness


----------



## TaylorP (Mar 22, 2011)

If the glass was upside down, is the surface tension taken into consideration?
Assuming that non of the fluid leaves the glass.


----------



## saltare (Jun 17, 2011)




----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

TaylorP said:


> If the glass was upside down, is the surface tension taken into consideration?
> Assuming that non of the fluid leaves the glass.


Yup, moreover the size is not specified :crazy:


----------



## bubbamamma (Feb 21, 2012)

The question isn't whether it's half empty, or half full, or full of purple slime, but rather _why _it is the way it is.


----------



## Phoenix0 (Mar 16, 2012)

The glass is both half empty and half full. Both terms are correct.


----------



## ImbecilicSage (Apr 29, 2009)

While reading this post I'm pretty confident that I'm not any form of NT type, as I definitely don't root my opinions within the extremity of logic that most of you do (Other than defining myself as IN my type's been left generally ambiguous to me as of the past year or so, though INFJ seems the most likely to me).

Acknowledging that latter statement, I hope my opinion here is welcome, though generally my means of defining the state of a partially filled glass is dependent on the directly preceding action; if it was filled only halfway, it's half filled, if it was originally filled to the top but half of it had been drank or lost by whatever other means, it's half empty... If I have none of that information, I suppose I usually default to "half empty", as of the two possible preceding events the latter seems most likely most often to me...


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

There are several ways to answer this:

1. The glass is full, because it contains both water and air.

2. The glass can be either, depending on whether water has been flowing into the glass, or out of it.

3. The glass is half empty, because I want more water, or, the glass is half full, because there is too much water.

4. Conversely, the glass may only be HALFWAY filled with poison, or the poison spilled and now it's half empty. Both conclusions mean I will live. HOORAY!

5. Someone failed to finish the drink inside. Therefore, we can conclude that the previous drinker was a pussy.

6. While everyone argues over the semantics of the glass's status, I think I shall take a drink. Carpe Diem!


----------



## kepler (Apr 9, 2012)

In the context of this common question, the glass is always to large for its designed purpose.


----------



## L'Empereur (Jun 7, 2010)

Papa.tuti said:


> The glass is half full or half empty, but what's your response?
> 
> Or even better, what's the answer or response from NT / Rational people?


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


----------



## NullPointerException (Apr 5, 2012)

One can define it more and more accurately, depending on the level of abstraction. For example, one can define it atom by atom. The level of abstraction that's reasonably defines the picture in the context of an Internet forum is probably something like "the glass contains liquid where the height of the liquid relative to the base of the glass is b, and everything else within the glass is a."


----------



## Solrac026 (Mar 6, 2012)




----------

