Anybody ever think about how humans are just very oddly shaped donuts?
post
It’s asking about the coffee not the coffee cup.
If your coffee has a hole in it that’s weird.
I take my coffee black-hole seriously.
A black hole isn’t a hole.
Ah but you see, coffee in this mug would have a hole in it:

I could fuck that coffee cup.
I had a very cool class in research epistemology and the exercise was basically to answer the question, do liquids have a shape and if yes, which is it? How would you prove it?
It was the source of the most deranged but valuable discussion I've ever had.
Isn’t part of the definition of liquid that it takes the form of its container?
I need another epistemological argument like I need another hole in my head.
One of them arguments was that in a vacuum, absent of any container or gravity, a liquid's shape is that of a sphere.
Another one was that depending on the definition of liquid, liquids might or might not have a shape. This ranged from definitions of liquid based on atomic structure of molecules up to phenomenological definitions (asphalt and glass are liquids, according to some definitions e.g.). It also varies depending on the definition of the attribute shape itself.
The point of the exercise was to challenge the notion of objective truth in science.
Without gravity it’s a sphere, or in free fall without air drag it’s a sphere (if it has sufficient surface tension anyway, which is what makes lava or molasses flow that way, in combination with its viscosity).
But in a vacuum it will boil off until the vapor pressure is high enough to eliminate the vacuum. But then it’s not in a vacuum anymore.
Really a fluid or liquid will always try to minimize its surface area while fighting gravity.
It’s a definitions problem that a lot of people who think there aren’t “objective truths” in science.
Exactly, remember the point was not to be right. But to have the discussions. It wasn't the physics we were interested in, but in the ways to construct knowledge. Definitions and models are human constructs. The universe doesn't care that we do or do not have neat words and models of its workings. However, language and knowledge, as human endeavors, require human interaction.
An interesting one way to illustrate this point was: An hermit, all alone in the wilderness, by sole virtue of reasoning acquires absolute objective truth of the fundamental laws of the universe. Way beyond any current scientific knowledge. However, he doesn't tell anyone. Has any knowledge been gained? If he dies, not telling anyone what he discovered, has any knowledge been lost?
It's important to make sure our basic definitiins and assumptions are well defined... That being said I've always been pissed at epistomogists that opened the door to crackpots and manipulators to "define their own truth" and invite fascism.
I'm not saying epistomology is bad, but creating a debate about a well established fact is exactly what right-wing people will do when trying to impose their anti-scientific ideas.
Oh, please. Let's not go there. Epistemologists have never suggested or promoted any such thing, your wariness is misplaced, it seems. If anything, fascism will use any and all rhetorical resource to promote their rise and stay in power. Remember, before post-modernism—which is the source of the "every person has their own truth" thing you dislike, not epistemology which predates post-modernism by a couple of centuries—fascism used objective truth as justification for the superiority of the in-group in power. Eugenics was touted by fascists in the 1800s as the epitome of scientific enlightenment. It was obvious and proven scientific knowledge that black people were an inferior race, etc. All the classical Nazi pseudo-arguments. A harsh and closed view of objective truth is precisely the kind of mindset where fascism thrive. Fascists like absolute truths quite a lot, even when they contradict each other.
The point of epistemology is to analyze the ways in which humans come up with and use knowledge. It has absolutely no prescriptive tenets at all. It is entirely descriptive.
Like, you can't look at me in the eye and seriously suggest that Bertrand Russel, Jean-Paul Sartre, Locke, Hume or Immanuel Kant were fascists.
Definitely not! It just so happened that in my life experience, I was introduced to socio-constructivism just at the same time that alt-right was beginning to be a thing...
When professors were telling us "Einstein proved that Newton was wrong" without understanding that relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics at low speed... It really failed to get me on board.
You had shitty teachers. That doesn't mean social-constructivism is wrong. Quite the contrary, it kind of bizarrely proves how social relations alter your perception of reality.
Haha that's exactly it: perception of reality. It doesn't change the underlying real world, and so it only affects "truth" if we are forced to redefine it based on what socio-constructivism wants it to be.
It's just like alt-right debates: just by accepting to play the game, you already lost. It's a logical paradox, and therefore it can't be a valid theory.
You'll be surprise how often paradox is just a proxy term for we don't fully understand it yet. The point remains, scientists, as subjective human beings we all are, can only approximate natural truth through our own perspectives. Socially constructing knowledge that we deem our truth. Is it a game? Yes. Can it be politized by bad faith actors? Absolutely. Best we understand it to fight it than try to pledge absolutism as a banner, because that will pe politized too. And there we will lose. Absolutism feeds fascism, nuance and empathy are the enemies of fascists.
Yeah especially about things that are considered fundamental like the physics of fluids.
Unless they’re arguing about some quantum effect that hasn’t been proven maybe, but then they’re either a physicist or a Feynman bro who thinks they figured it out after “thinking hard about at and watching 7 hours of YouTube videos”.
Just enjoy the meme you fuckin nerd.
If the "thread" width is around the size of an electron, then the coffee (liquid) has basically infinite hole.
The same applies to the cup, our hands and so on
Who the hell is asking coffee or a donut?
Silly topologist.
Coffee is a liquid, it can adjust to any shape.
You must be shapeless, formless, like coffee. When you pour coffee in a cup, it becomes the cup. When you pour coffee in a bottle, it becomes the bottle. When you pour coffee in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Coffee can flow and it can crash. Become like coffee my friend.
- Bruce Lee (the hipster barista down the block)
Well, for one, that's a coffee mug, not coffee. But I suppose coffee can also be in all of these shapes.
They better all weigh the same.
The Animorphs book covers are getting weird…
I’d eat a coffee mug shaped donut, but a waffle would hold up better. An elephant ear is fine as well, but a crepe is right out.
What about a beavers tail?
If the answer is yes, please come visit Canada and enjoy one with cinnamon and lemon (the best flavour) in Ottawa while skating on our gorgeous canal!
Who’s out here deep frying crepes? American county/state fair vendors?
The Everything Everywhere All at Once sequel got weird.
This is exactly why my local Dunkin Donuts stopped serving topologists.
What the hell is that handle on the mug. You can maybe fit one finger in that thing!
Okay, so eat the fucking coffee cup. I'll wait.
Okay, so eat the fucking coffee cup. I'll wait.
Bortus enters the chat.
Meanwhile, physicists: "Matter is basically just empty space and tiny particles moving very fast, a hole is just even emptier space"
Is "topologist" a job? Like someone who specializes in telling you how many holes and knots exist in a given object, How to "untie" seemingly knotted things that actually topographically have no knots? Do you clock in for that, or is it a 1099 freelancer thing?
you can be a mathematics professor who specializes in topology, but that's probably about as close as it gets from what i know
3D artists can specialize in topology where they make sure to clean up the models that other artists sculpt to optimize them for animation and performance. Depending on the use case you need different approaches to a models topology and it can get very complex actually. So yeah, it is people's entire jobs to do this and they probably get paid more than us.
Let me know so I can hand them my Blender models I'm too lazy to RE-topologize. Ugh! Lol
Topology is one of those sciences that is hyper-niche to the point that it seems like it would have very limited scope, but when you take a closer look it's actually studying something fundamental.
Are there any recent breakthroughs in topology I should be aware of?
I'm just gonna give the dude a lump of clay and he can do whatever he wants with it.
It's like watching an embryo develop into a child.
A topologist does not smile. A topologist wonders why the basic example from his introduction is shoveled into his face for no reason
Put water in the cup it becomes the cup, put water in a pot it becomes the pot. Be like the water.


top 100 comments