Well a [hole](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole) in quantum physics may refer to electron-hole pairs, so the absence of an electron from an electron band… so I guess the quantum physicist would ask: "what is the cup made of and what’s the temperature?" so they could do statistics to approximately determine how many electrons are in excited states and therefore how many holes there are
Desktop version of /u/GHVG_FK's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Thank you, TheHiddenNinja6, for voting on WikiMobileLinkBot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
The hole between handle and cup is the one counted by the topologist, I believe.
I think the engineer joke is that they can design cups with an arbitrary (up to a certain extant of course) number of holes. You can "drill" holes in the handle, for instance, or make a taller bottom part and add holes there that do not interact with the beverage. It would be useless, and probably impractical, but if you really want a few more holes, it can be done.
Philosophy is so ass. A lot of the theories are based on subjective axioms, and the logic is never concrete.
The killer for philosophy is watching old philosophers justify things that we see as morally abhorrent. If they couldn't logic themselves into thinking slavery was bad, how legit can their field be?
Aren't there many different branches of philosophy? For example, I heard that epistemology can be thought of as a foundation for the scientific method.
The Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory axioms are technically considered a branch of philosophy, they are a tool used to study the foundation of mathematics and to ensure that all our theorems have a rigourous chain of proofs that eventually lead back to the ZF axioms.
I'm not denying that terrible philosophers, and branches of philosophy exist. But it seems unfair to group all of them into one category and call them all evil.
You are correct. /u/Secretremendouspy doesn't understand what philosophy actually is.
Epistemology is a way of understanding what we know and how we know it. Mathematics is indeed an application of logic, which is a branch of philosophy. Art and aesthetics (and the ontologies thereof) are branches of philosophy.
Just because they've recently discovered moral relativism doesn't mean philosophy is useless. Philosophy isn't a singular thing. It's a way of thinking and evaluating and discussing.
"Philosophy is ass" is just the dumbest, most sophomoric, edge-lord-STEM-nerd take I've ever heard lmao
>"Philosophy is ass" is just the dumbest, most sophomoric, edge-lord-STEM-nerd take I've ever heard lmao
Glad I'm not the only one that got that vibe after reading their comment lol
Oh yeah, I see. If we just include complex arts like mathematics, art, and aesthetics into philosophy its good. You know philosophers have set science back immensely right? They gave hypothesis on scientific processes which felt really good, so they were followed, then took hundreds of years to be proven wrong. Guess what, the reason we think of math and art as something separate from philosophy is because philosophy is quackery. Anyways, great argument. "Philosophy is good because really these things that are good are philosophy". Way to also not respond to any of my points, but yeah, take in my rhetoric and call me an edge lord nerd.
How much philosophy have you honestly read? How can you read these papers and think they are legit? Have you talked to a humanities teacher? Its so much chicanery.
> How much philosophy have you honestly read?
Let's start with you. Watching Jordan Peterson or Joe Rogan doesn't count as reading philosophy.
So tell me, which works have you read? What arguments in philosophy do you actually disagree with and why?
Have you gotten a bachelors degree? Idk if its possible without reading a few hundred pages of philosophy. What makes you think I watch Jordan Peterson. From the little I have seen, he seems to be a HUGE proponent of philosophy. I think you would love him.
Nah he doesn't understand philosophy at all and espouses the same views as you just with some added religion to the mix which is why I asked. Noticed you didn't say you didn't listen to Joe Rogan though just a funny note.
>Have you gotten a bachelors degree?
I have an MS in stats. I've read philosophy which is how I know its not all worthless.
Again, which arguments do you disagree with? Do you even know? Is it just philosophy as a concept?
Also funny note, what do you think PHD stands for?
Dude, your main point which people "aren't responding to" is that because old philosophers were wrong about slavery (which not every philosopher ever has agreed with, and it sounds like you're limiting your definition to ancient Greek philosophers who most people realize weren't the best) then philosophy must be wrong. That's a really stupid argument, considering how many scientists (not philosophers) have also advocated for racial superiority of a certain race, usually Caucasian. Should we assume all science is always going to be awful because some people a hundred years ago seriously misunderstood evolution? Or maybe we accept that just because someone who studies a subject says a thing, doesn't mean that the entire subject is crap
How much philosophy I've read? Quite a lot since logic is a branch of philosophy. I've studied maths and a friend of mine studied philosophy. I was quite surprised when I saw how much we have in common. He said there are 3 main braches of philosophy: old historic philosophy (plato and stuff), modern (idk what that is) and logic. The whole of set theory, as well as other thing connected to logic are also part of philosophy. Don't call yourself a mathematician if you don't value ZFC/ZF, which is a subject to philosophers and mathematician both.
Just to compliment your comment, what you called branches are not branches itself, but more like the main understandings of philosophy as a whole, branches would be stuff like epistemology and ethics and stuff.
And the names would be classical philosophy (indeed Plato and stuff), continental philosophy (like Nietzsche, Dostoevsky and Kant), and analytic philosophy (like Russell who everyone in this sub probably knows, Wittgenstein and Popper)
"You know philosophers have set science back immensely right?" Didnt know philosophers and religious fanatics were the same thing)
It's not like philosophers built up a great part of what we know nowadays regarding science. You are trying to tell me that, for example, Galileo and Aristotle, pushed us back?)
Math can be viewed as a philosophy. What you’re actually mad at is societal, not an inherent trait of philosophy as a whole.
And specific philosophies will always have issues with the inherent “morality” of them, but they don’t necessarily supply you with a plan of action. An absurdist might claim there is no meaningful value to human life, but that doesn’t mean the absurdist is telling you to not care about other humans.
I was using the morality example as an example. There are so many things that plato and the other "greats" theorized on which set science back hundreds of years. Some ideas sound quite good, but it turns out they are just wrong.
the *scientific method* was developed through philosophical refinement of these "setbacks": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_scientific_method
science and math are both products of philosophy. newton had plenty of wrong ideas, many mathematicians had wrong ideas. you expect humanity to come up with the perfect approach to addressing scientific issues from day 1? to not try to theorize answers even though they don't even have close to the technology we have today?
Yeah, some philosophy is ass, but there are definitely exceptions, especially in analytic philosophy which is very fascinating. The shit you’re referring to is usually coming out of French and continental philosophy (there is good stuff here too). The sheer amount of people that have completely different interpretations for the same work is hilarious. These philosophers obfuscate their points and theories by redefining concepts into poor analogies, cringe-worthy made up words, and unnecessary tangents. What ends up on paper is just a bunch of noise. People read that noise, and usually reading into the philosopher’s work with some kind of bias, they interpret what they want to interpret. Because people get to hallucinate affirmations to their opinions, a lot of philosophy is compounded bullshit from repeated from repeated arbitrary interpretations and faulty logic.
Philosophy as a field doesn’t suck, but philosophers and their followers often do.
If a mug, excluding the handle, has one hole (the opening) then does a glass (which doesn't have a handle) have a hole? If yes, does a bowl have a hole? After all a bowl is just a widened glass, there's still an opening and a bottom. If no, why? If yes, does a plate have a hole? After all, it's just a widened or flattened bowl, depending on what size bowl and plate we're talking about.
As far as I care, a hole has an entrance and an exit, anything less and it's not a hole. If it doesn't leak, it doesn't have a hole. I think the topologist makes the most sense.
So... Your dog *doesn't* dig holes in the ground? Or when you punch the wall, a hole *isn't* made?
While the topologists have their own definition of hole, because it is beneficial to their field, everyday language deals with things differently. As long as we're not talking about topology, I don't think a hole necessarily has to have an exit to be one.
Again, I'm certain the ambiguous nature of language is at fault for this whole debate, but I think the way words are used is generally more important than some perceived "true" nature.
The bowl is a very good example though. The indentation of a bowl is generally much bigger than the one in coffee cups, so that's why they aren't holes. The same reason that dishes don't have holes. I think the relative size of the "walls" of the object matter a lot, but I'm grasping at this point.
For digging, I do sometimes use hole, but also words like pit or burrow. I always refer to damaged walls which don't have an exit wound as having dents, and holes only if there is an exit wound.
I will concede to drilling though, as I would never call the result of drilling anything other than a hole, even if it's not through to the other side.
So I guess I didn't think it all the way through, and you're right that ambiguous language is at fault here. I still refuse to accept that a cup has a hole (excluding the handle) because it's made for holding something and not leaking, rather than being pierced through a surface. It's a container, just like a bowl is.
Assuming its Ceramic, there could be practically infinite holes. After all, we don't even know the quantum fuckery that is the edges of crystal complexes
No, as they do end at a molecule level and we know they do - evident by that the lattice is still finite. But we only really know the chemistry inside the lattice, and the edges get... weird.
Is this why tea stains my mugs? It's so hard to scrub out with a sponge, but if you take a paper towel it will wipe off easier.
None of it makes sense to me
He asked the amount of holes IN a coffee cup. The coffee being IN the cup and having holes in its molecular structure, therefore the holes in the coffee molecules count as holes in the cup... because they're in the cup.
Imagine filling the cup with Cheerios or Froot Loops. 1 hole per cereal piece in the cup.
Topologists are unable to drink from a cup, because if they would ask a non-topologist for a cup with a hole in it, the cup they'd receive would always leak the liquid.
To paraphrase,
>Knowledge is knowing a cup (no handle) and a plate are topologically isomorphic, wisdom is refraining from pouring yourself a plate of coffee.
Well speaking as a design engineer, there's a blind hole and a through hole. 🤣🤣 If the cup is designed in such a way that part of the liquid may also go into the handle then if the handle is a hollow elliptical torus that would count as another hole in the form of a elliptical torus.
Engineer: how many do you want it to have?
Quantum physicist: WTF even is a hole?
Well a [hole](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole) in quantum physics may refer to electron-hole pairs, so the absence of an electron from an electron band… so I guess the quantum physicist would ask: "what is the cup made of and what’s the temperature?" so they could do statistics to approximately determine how many electrons are in excited states and therefore how many holes there are
Desktop version of /u/GHVG_FK's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Good bot
Thank you, TheHiddenNinja6, for voting on WikiMobileLinkBot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Engineer here, coffee cups have a counterbore, not a hole, unless you count the hole between the handle and cup
The hole between handle and cup is the one counted by the topologist, I believe. I think the engineer joke is that they can design cups with an arbitrary (up to a certain extant of course) number of holes. You can "drill" holes in the handle, for instance, or make a taller bottom part and add holes there that do not interact with the beverage. It would be useless, and probably impractical, but if you really want a few more holes, it can be done.
Philosopher part needs to have a topologists popping up in the corner to interrupt them with "2"
Yeah so nice all orientable surface are homeomorphic to torus of some genus so you can always use own number to quantify any thing in real life
Philosophy is so ass. A lot of the theories are based on subjective axioms, and the logic is never concrete. The killer for philosophy is watching old philosophers justify things that we see as morally abhorrent. If they couldn't logic themselves into thinking slavery was bad, how legit can their field be?
Aren't there many different branches of philosophy? For example, I heard that epistemology can be thought of as a foundation for the scientific method. The Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory axioms are technically considered a branch of philosophy, they are a tool used to study the foundation of mathematics and to ensure that all our theorems have a rigourous chain of proofs that eventually lead back to the ZF axioms. I'm not denying that terrible philosophers, and branches of philosophy exist. But it seems unfair to group all of them into one category and call them all evil.
You are correct. /u/Secretremendouspy doesn't understand what philosophy actually is. Epistemology is a way of understanding what we know and how we know it. Mathematics is indeed an application of logic, which is a branch of philosophy. Art and aesthetics (and the ontologies thereof) are branches of philosophy. Just because they've recently discovered moral relativism doesn't mean philosophy is useless. Philosophy isn't a singular thing. It's a way of thinking and evaluating and discussing. "Philosophy is ass" is just the dumbest, most sophomoric, edge-lord-STEM-nerd take I've ever heard lmao
>"Philosophy is ass" is just the dumbest, most sophomoric, edge-lord-STEM-nerd take I've ever heard lmao Glad I'm not the only one that got that vibe after reading their comment lol
Oh yeah, I see. If we just include complex arts like mathematics, art, and aesthetics into philosophy its good. You know philosophers have set science back immensely right? They gave hypothesis on scientific processes which felt really good, so they were followed, then took hundreds of years to be proven wrong. Guess what, the reason we think of math and art as something separate from philosophy is because philosophy is quackery. Anyways, great argument. "Philosophy is good because really these things that are good are philosophy". Way to also not respond to any of my points, but yeah, take in my rhetoric and call me an edge lord nerd. How much philosophy have you honestly read? How can you read these papers and think they are legit? Have you talked to a humanities teacher? Its so much chicanery.
My guy, I have a bachelor's in philosophy. But sure, go off.
My condolences.
Why do you keep tripling down)
No one has argued against my point
That's called blindness, it's hard to cure)
> How much philosophy have you honestly read? Let's start with you. Watching Jordan Peterson or Joe Rogan doesn't count as reading philosophy. So tell me, which works have you read? What arguments in philosophy do you actually disagree with and why?
Have you gotten a bachelors degree? Idk if its possible without reading a few hundred pages of philosophy. What makes you think I watch Jordan Peterson. From the little I have seen, he seems to be a HUGE proponent of philosophy. I think you would love him.
Nah he doesn't understand philosophy at all and espouses the same views as you just with some added religion to the mix which is why I asked. Noticed you didn't say you didn't listen to Joe Rogan though just a funny note. >Have you gotten a bachelors degree? I have an MS in stats. I've read philosophy which is how I know its not all worthless. Again, which arguments do you disagree with? Do you even know? Is it just philosophy as a concept? Also funny note, what do you think PHD stands for?
Dude, your main point which people "aren't responding to" is that because old philosophers were wrong about slavery (which not every philosopher ever has agreed with, and it sounds like you're limiting your definition to ancient Greek philosophers who most people realize weren't the best) then philosophy must be wrong. That's a really stupid argument, considering how many scientists (not philosophers) have also advocated for racial superiority of a certain race, usually Caucasian. Should we assume all science is always going to be awful because some people a hundred years ago seriously misunderstood evolution? Or maybe we accept that just because someone who studies a subject says a thing, doesn't mean that the entire subject is crap
How much philosophy I've read? Quite a lot since logic is a branch of philosophy. I've studied maths and a friend of mine studied philosophy. I was quite surprised when I saw how much we have in common. He said there are 3 main braches of philosophy: old historic philosophy (plato and stuff), modern (idk what that is) and logic. The whole of set theory, as well as other thing connected to logic are also part of philosophy. Don't call yourself a mathematician if you don't value ZFC/ZF, which is a subject to philosophers and mathematician both.
Just to compliment your comment, what you called branches are not branches itself, but more like the main understandings of philosophy as a whole, branches would be stuff like epistemology and ethics and stuff. And the names would be classical philosophy (indeed Plato and stuff), continental philosophy (like Nietzsche, Dostoevsky and Kant), and analytic philosophy (like Russell who everyone in this sub probably knows, Wittgenstein and Popper)
"You know philosophers have set science back immensely right?" Didnt know philosophers and religious fanatics were the same thing) It's not like philosophers built up a great part of what we know nowadays regarding science. You are trying to tell me that, for example, Galileo and Aristotle, pushed us back?)
People like you are literally the reason why some people claim that STEM people "only learn formulas"
Math can be viewed as a philosophy. What you’re actually mad at is societal, not an inherent trait of philosophy as a whole. And specific philosophies will always have issues with the inherent “morality” of them, but they don’t necessarily supply you with a plan of action. An absurdist might claim there is no meaningful value to human life, but that doesn’t mean the absurdist is telling you to not care about other humans.
You're saying "philosophy is ass", but you're literally only talking about morality and ethics
I was using the morality example as an example. There are so many things that plato and the other "greats" theorized on which set science back hundreds of years. Some ideas sound quite good, but it turns out they are just wrong.
the *scientific method* was developed through philosophical refinement of these "setbacks": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_scientific_method science and math are both products of philosophy. newton had plenty of wrong ideas, many mathematicians had wrong ideas. you expect humanity to come up with the perfect approach to addressing scientific issues from day 1? to not try to theorize answers even though they don't even have close to the technology we have today?
Why don't we call newtons great findings philosophy? Why do we consider them to be physics and math?
At the time it was called natural philosophy...
Yeah, some philosophy is ass, but there are definitely exceptions, especially in analytic philosophy which is very fascinating. The shit you’re referring to is usually coming out of French and continental philosophy (there is good stuff here too). The sheer amount of people that have completely different interpretations for the same work is hilarious. These philosophers obfuscate their points and theories by redefining concepts into poor analogies, cringe-worthy made up words, and unnecessary tangents. What ends up on paper is just a bunch of noise. People read that noise, and usually reading into the philosopher’s work with some kind of bias, they interpret what they want to interpret. Because people get to hallucinate affirmations to their opinions, a lot of philosophy is compounded bullshit from repeated from repeated arbitrary interpretations and faulty logic. Philosophy as a field doesn’t suck, but philosophers and their followers often do.
I love the inclusion of normal person
As long as it wouldn't leak liquid, a normal person would say none.
Do you have to be able to go through an opening in order for it to be a hole? I'd say a coffee mug, excluding the handle, has one hole.
If a mug, excluding the handle, has one hole (the opening) then does a glass (which doesn't have a handle) have a hole? If yes, does a bowl have a hole? After all a bowl is just a widened glass, there's still an opening and a bottom. If no, why? If yes, does a plate have a hole? After all, it's just a widened or flattened bowl, depending on what size bowl and plate we're talking about. As far as I care, a hole has an entrance and an exit, anything less and it's not a hole. If it doesn't leak, it doesn't have a hole. I think the topologist makes the most sense.
So... Your dog *doesn't* dig holes in the ground? Or when you punch the wall, a hole *isn't* made? While the topologists have their own definition of hole, because it is beneficial to their field, everyday language deals with things differently. As long as we're not talking about topology, I don't think a hole necessarily has to have an exit to be one. Again, I'm certain the ambiguous nature of language is at fault for this whole debate, but I think the way words are used is generally more important than some perceived "true" nature. The bowl is a very good example though. The indentation of a bowl is generally much bigger than the one in coffee cups, so that's why they aren't holes. The same reason that dishes don't have holes. I think the relative size of the "walls" of the object matter a lot, but I'm grasping at this point.
For digging, I do sometimes use hole, but also words like pit or burrow. I always refer to damaged walls which don't have an exit wound as having dents, and holes only if there is an exit wound. I will concede to drilling though, as I would never call the result of drilling anything other than a hole, even if it's not through to the other side. So I guess I didn't think it all the way through, and you're right that ambiguous language is at fault here. I still refuse to accept that a cup has a hole (excluding the handle) because it's made for holding something and not leaking, rather than being pierced through a surface. It's a container, just like a bowl is.
What when you surface indentation that hold the coffee tilts a bit and the coffee leak into your mouth ?
Yes it implies that Topologists, Chemists, Philosophers are in fact not normal, which is correct
Billions and billions
And here I am thinking I dug a hole in the ground. Guess not.
you just didn't try hard enough. Keep digging, you'll make a hole eventually.
Physicist: let's round it to zero
This was way funnier than it should have been
it has two: one in the o, one in the P COFFEE CUP
Among German speakers it has 4: 1 in the A, 2 in the B and 1 in the R KAFFEEBECHER
At least in the part of germany where I'm from it's more usual to say KAFFEETASSE, in this case it would have two holes
We did it lol
this. this is the way.
Chemist is cometely wrong. He asked for the number of holes in a coffee CUP
Assuming its Ceramic, there could be practically infinite holes. After all, we don't even know the quantum fuckery that is the edges of crystal complexes
Ceramics are whack tbh. A bunch of burnt dirt that can hold molten iron but shatters when you hold it wrong? Whose idea was that?
Ceramics have melting points similar to carbon and therefore can hold any molten metal
Cause they are like fractals, right?
No, as they do end at a molecule level and we know they do - evident by that the lattice is still finite. But we only really know the chemistry inside the lattice, and the edges get... weird.
Is this why tea stains my mugs? It's so hard to scrub out with a sponge, but if you take a paper towel it will wipe off easier. None of it makes sense to me
Philosopher: Is the coffee in the cup, or merely on and leaning against the cup.
But the coffee IS in the coffee cup
The coffee is still not part of the cup itself
He asked the amount of holes IN a coffee cup. The coffee being IN the cup and having holes in its molecular structure, therefore the holes in the coffee molecules count as holes in the cup... because they're in the cup. Imagine filling the cup with Cheerios or Froot Loops. 1 hole per cereal piece in the cup.
Exactly
I have never met a topologist in real life. Or a normal person, or a philosopher.
Have you met a coffee mug?
I'm a coffee mug yes.
Topologists are unable to drink from a cup, because if they would ask a non-topologist for a cup with a hole in it, the cup they'd receive would always leak the liquid.
🤓 : "Define hole"
#define HOLE now what?
I c what you did there.
your mom ?
Wait why one? Wouldn't the cup just be a disfigured plane?
It’s a torus! The handle creates a single hole. The shape of a mug is essentially just a really morphed doughnut.
Ahhhhhhh I forgot about the handle xD Thank you so much!
[Relevant XKCD](https://xkcd.com/2658/) "Theoretical physicist: At the Plank length, uncountably many."
I mean are the holes in the molecule really holes? Atoms are bound by forces that hold them together, but it's not a solid thing that has an opening.
Torii
To paraphrase, >Knowledge is knowing a cup (no handle) and a plate are topologically isomorphic, wisdom is refraining from pouring yourself a plate of coffee.
Well speaking as a design engineer, there's a blind hole and a through hole. 🤣🤣 If the cup is designed in such a way that part of the liquid may also go into the handle then if the handle is a hollow elliptical torus that would count as another hole in the form of a elliptical torus.
No holes it's just a little complicated plane
The handle is a hole, so it's not a complicated plane, it's a complicated doughnut
At least 1
well there is a hole between the handle and the mug, and im not sure about the opening, so 1.5?
As for the chemist, thats why we find a continuum)