Is the Glass Half Full or Half Empty? It's both.

Consider these two sentences:

HE: The glass is half empty.

HF: The glass is half full.

Let us imagine that both of the above sentences are seriously and sincerely uttered in a context in which it's clear that the words "the glass" refer to an 8-ounce glass containing exactly 4 ounces of lemonade. Let's even say that (HE) and (HF) are each uttered by a different person.

You should quickly be able to see a clear answer to the age-old question, "Is the glass half full or half empty?" To answer the question, we need not even consider the perspectives, perceptions, beliefs, or feelings of the persons who uttered (HE) and (HF) in this case. Without knowing their perspectives, perceptions, belief, or feelings, we know that what is said about the glass in this case is simply true. It's clear that (HE) and (HF) both express a true statement in the case I described. In fact, it's not too hard to see that both (HE) and (HF) express the exact same statement about the glass. They are just two different ways of making the same (true) point. And, furthermore, it's facts about the glass and the lemonade that determine the truth of this statement, not facts about the speakers of these two sentences.

I realize that (usually) the purpose of the question is to make some point about the difference between an optimistic point of view and a pessimistic point of view, and it may be that a lot of people realize that, in such cases, the glass is in fact both half full and half empty. But, in my experience, people frequently state the question as a (strange) way of asserting some form of subjectivism or relativism - as though the fact that some are inclined to use (HE) to describe the same glass that others are inclined to use (HF) to describe somehow gives us good reason to accept subjectivism or relativism. It clearly doesn't. Right?

Quantum Reality and Identity

So earlier today I was perusing some of the magazines we have here at the Greenwood Library, and I came across a few sort of interesting topics that reminded me of some of our club discussions. I probably won't remember most of them, but the one that I definitely do remember had to do with quantum reality and identity.

The article I was reading was actually about trying to create "quantum internet" (which to me sounds like a pretty dumb idea), but the part that interested me was a paragraph in which examples of unexplainable and unpredictable quantum behavior were described. Taken from Science News Magazine: "Quantum information is notoriously wobbly. An object tends to live in a superposition of states — for example, an electron can spin in two directions at once, or an atom can be simultaneously in two different places — until interaction with the rest of the world forces the object to pick one state. Quantum reality is a limbo of coexisting possibilities."

One good way of establishing a given physical object's identity, as we discussed on occasion, is to observe its spatial relationship to other physical objects. We can say that two physical objects, even nearly identical ones, are distinct from each other because they do not (and cannot) occupy the same space at the same time. Even two or more objects identical in every other way are distinguished simply by their spatial separation from each other. Similarly, two objects that do not occupy the same space are not the same object. In other words, I guess, if there are two spaces occupied by the same object, what you've actually got is two separate objects, not one.

What's interesting is that the quote above seems to directly claim that one single atom can simultaneously occupy more than one distinct space, and somehow not be two. I don't really understand the whole "interaction with the rest of the world" bit, but I don't even think that's all that relevant. The claim still stands that one single object can...well it can be two and one at the same time. This does seem to be qualified by the last sentence, which states that quantum reality is a realm of possibilities, but then in what sense can it be true that a single atom is actually occupying more than one distinct space at the same time?

I have similar problems with the idea of an electron spinning in two directions at once, especially since it's unclear whether there are smaller particles of which electrons are made, some of which could be spinning one way and some of which could be spinning opposite. Even if that were the case, though, the electron as a whole wouldn't really be spinning both directions at once.

In some of our talks on identity, the physical origins and locations of objects were fairly important factors in determining individuality. It looks to me like this idea of a "superposition of states" is sort of a blending of "A and not-A," or something like that. Do you guys see a way to reconcile this problem? How do we identify objects that transcend normal physical laws?

Wondering about the Philosophy Club

I wonder if any of the Philosophy Club survived Richard I's departure and the summer as well. If it did, I wonder if there will be another meeting. If there will, I wonder when and where it will be and what will be discussed. But philosophers are known to wonder about trivial matters too. I wonder if the matters about which I've here expressed wonder are trivial or not. I suppose only time will tell... Or maybe our next Philosophy Club President will tell. That mantle awaits.

Gripping Brainteaser to Kick Start 2008-9

The rule that no statement can be both true and false is sometimes called the Law of Noncontradiction. The separate, but related, rule that every statement is either true or false – one or else the other - is sometimes called the Law of the Excluded Middle.

These two Laws are thought by many people not only to be true, but to be the most fundamental principles of rational thought. But consider whether you think the following tirade from my old roommate Charlie Schmidlapp calls any of this into question.

Charlie says:

Consider the following statement:

H: It's hot outside now in Farmville.

This seems directly to contradict this statement:

C: It's not hot outside now in Farmville.

But can either (H) or (C) be said to be true? According to the above "Laws", at most one of them can be true, and exactly one of them is true. But isn't that nuts? Allow me to fill in some details if you don't see what I mean.

Imagine that two people are at the same location in Farmville, and one of them (call him "Harry") sincerely utters sentence (H) and the other (call him "Keanu") sincerely utters sentence (C). This isn't hard to imagine. In this case, Harry and Keanu seem to be disagreeing about the weather in Farmville; sentence (H) certainly appears to contradict sentence (C); if one of them is true, then the other is false. But some of us may perhaps be convinced that they both may be true. Others of us may perhaps want to say that sentence (H) is in some way true but also in some way false, and that the same goes for sentence (C).

Shouldn't these considerations make us reject any "Law" which says that every statement is either true or false but not both?

How shall we respond to Charlie?