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.
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.
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”.
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.
That's not entirely true. We don't have just one hole going through us. Our holes branch. We have 3 intakes (2 nostrils, 1 mouth) and 2 outputs (1 anus, 1 urethra). If you simplified us down topographically, it'd be like you formed a donut around a starfish with the arms sticking out and then you just deleted the starfish.
Considérons that our lungs and intestines are porous on a molecular scale... And also our sweat pores... Plus are blood vessels (connected to previously mentioned holes)…
Humans have a changing topology depending on the size scale at which you're working.
I mean that is true of basically all structures and materials. It's just the coastline problem. How long is the coastline? Depends on the level of precision you apply and the exact time you measure. Theoretically it is infinite if you keep getting more and more granular with it. That's not helpful or meaningful for general purposes though.
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.
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.
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?
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.
105 Comments
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 81 pts · 309d
It’s asking about the coffee not the coffee cup.
If your coffee has a hole in it that’s weird.
xthexder@l.sw0.com · 28 pts · 309d
I take my coffee black-hole seriously.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 5 pts · 309d
A black hole isn’t a hole.
MeatPilot@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 309d
If it's in space sure, but what if it's on a person.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 4 pts · 309d
You could say the same thing about a bullet but a bullet isn't a hole either.
kuberoot@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 308d
Or is it? We don't know what's going on inside the singularity, it might as well actually be a hole in spacetime.
kurwa@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 309d
Ah but you see, coffee in this mug would have a hole in it:
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 8 pts · 309d
I could fuck that coffee cup.
kurwa@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 309d
I believe you
Honytawk@feddit.nl · 2 pts · 307d
Hmm, nice and warm
KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 308d
This looks like hell to clean
tempest@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 307d
That's one of those fun things until you have to clean it.
athatet@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 309d
Just enjoy the meme you fuckin nerd.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 8 pts · 309d
I can't enjoy it if it's obviously based on lies.
Plus look at that fucking coffee cup handle and tell me you like it, I dare you.
dustyData@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 309d
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.
anomnom@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 308d
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.
dustyData@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 308d
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.
anomnom@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 307d
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.
dustyData@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 307d
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?
i_love_FFT@jlai.lu · 1 pts · 307d
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.
anomnom@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 307d
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”.
dustyData@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 307d
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.
nekbardrun@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 309d
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
joenforcer@midwest.social · 51 pts · 309d
Anybody ever think about how humans are just very oddly shaped donuts?
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 309d
That's not entirely true. We don't have just one hole going through us. Our holes branch. We have 3 intakes (2 nostrils, 1 mouth) and 2 outputs (1 anus, 1 urethra). If you simplified us down topographically, it'd be like you formed a donut around a starfish with the arms sticking out and then you just deleted the starfish.
village604@adultswim.fan · 9 pts · 309d
We also have a bunch of doors on the holes.
Crackhappy@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 309d
So... you're saying we're houses.
Hadriscus@jlai.lu · 5 pts · 309d
...topologically. Geometrically, I'm more of a saggy tent myself
PrimeMinisterKeyes@leminal.space · 1 pts · 308d
That's Dr. House to you, dear fellow lemming.
i_love_FFT@jlai.lu · 1 pts · 307d
Considérons that our lungs and intestines are porous on a molecular scale... And also our sweat pores... Plus are blood vessels (connected to previously mentioned holes)…
Humans have a changing topology depending on the size scale at which you're working.
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 307d
I mean that is true of basically all structures and materials. It's just the coastline problem. How long is the coastline? Depends on the level of precision you apply and the exact time you measure. Theoretically it is infinite if you keep getting more and more granular with it. That's not helpful or meaningful for general purposes though.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 308d
Starfish are not a good example. They have no holes. Their mouth is their anus.
Bluewing@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 308d
So starfish are closer to a doughnut than humans.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 308d
Yes, they are one hole away from a donut. If you include things like nostrils, ears and tear ducts then the internet says we have 7 holes.
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 308d
You misread what I was describing.
MonkeMischief@lemmy.today · 22 pts · 309d
"BEHOLD. A MAN!"
tetris11@feddit.uk · 7 pts · 309d
Go home, Diogenes!
Sidhean@piefed.social · 4 pts · 308d
drags a barrel in
BEHOLD, my HOME!
Anafabula@discuss.tchncs.de · 7 pts · 309d
Good old Vsauce
JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 309d
Ugh such a good video. Cya in 20 minutes
toynbee@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 309d
Anybody ever think about how donuts are just very oddly shaped humans?
SnowmenMelt@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 309d
There's a vsauce video about this
MarriedCavelady50@lemmy.ml · 26 pts · 309d
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz · 15 pts · 308d
Silly topologist.
Coffee is a liquid, it can adjust to any shape.
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 308d
sqgl@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 308d
The ocean is the same as the Hadron Super-Collider, just reshaped.
Magnus@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 15 pts · 308d
Who the hell is asking coffee or a donut?
voytrekk@sopuli.xyz · 9 pts · 308d
Ya, give me both please.
JandroDelSol@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 307d
when someone at work is making a coffee run and can only afford one thing per person
mech@feddit.org · 15 pts · 308d
genius!
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 14 pts · 308d
Well, for one, that's a coffee mug, not coffee. But I suppose coffee can also be in all of these shapes.
reddifuge@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 308d
They better all weigh the same.
Bluewing@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 308d
Shape has little to do with mass. Unless you want it to be so.
billygoat@catata.fish · 12 pts · 309d
The Animorphs book covers are getting weird…
MonkeMischief@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 309d
Stay too long as a coffee cup and you'll remain a donut forever!
tetris11@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 309d
nooo!
Gullible@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 309d
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.
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 309d
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!
Gullible@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 309d
I always wondered what it would look like if you took Eastern European savory donuts and made them bigger and flatter. They look delicious!
jqubed@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 309d
Who’s out here deep frying crepes? American county/state fair vendors?
grue@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 309d
Well, they are now.
TheMinions@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 309d
The Everything Everywhere All at Once sequel got weird.
Kraiden@piefed.social · 5 pts · 309d
because the original was a parade of normality?
NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 309d
I see no coffee here.
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 309d
This is exactly why my local Dunkin Donuts stopped serving topologists.
Phlimy@jlai.lu · 14 pts · 309d
Same! Now they serve coffee and donuts instead.
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 309d
Ha, if you can even call them that!
psud@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 306d
When did they start serving topologists? It seems an odd menu item
MattW03@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 308d
the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 309d
Okay, so eat the fucking coffee cup. I'll wait.
MonkeMischief@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 309d
Bortus enters the chat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URE8aPM6JFA
the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 309d
Moclans are Topologists!
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 308d
The Orville is underrated. I think the episode order should be different. The first few are too comedy focused.
Schmoo@slrpnk.net · 7 pts · 309d
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.
PrimeMinisterKeyes@leminal.space · 2 pts · 308d
Are there any recent breakthroughs in topology I should be aware of?
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 308d
I heard they found a new type of hole.
Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 308d
Other than black or ass?
KeenFlame@feddit.nu · 1 pts · 308d
No you mean not niche
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 309d
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?
affiliate@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 309d
you can be a mathematics professor who specializes in topology, but that's probably about as close as it gets from what i know
schnokobaer@feddit.org · 9 pts · 309d
Only if you are a very good ologist
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 308d
Career progression is from midologist.
Xenny@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 309d
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.
MonkeMischief@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 309d
Let me know so I can hand them my Blender models I'm too lazy to RE-topologize. Ugh! Lol
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 309d
Hmmmm, 7 donuts
yyprum@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 308d
Meanwhile, physicists: "Matter is basically just empty space and tiny particles moving very fast, a hole is just even emptier space"
Jessica@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 309d
What the hell is that handle on the mug. You can maybe fit one finger in that thing!
RedSnt@feddit.dk · 6 pts · 308d
::: spoiler Reminds me a bit of the evolution of the eye
:::
krooklochurm@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 309d
HEY EVERYONE! This guys a nerd! Throw rocks at his face!
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 3 pts · 309d
I'm just gonna give the dude a lump of clay and he can do whatever he wants with it.
IAmJacksRage@beehaw.org · 2 pts · 308d
Q:
Bagel or Donut?
Topologist:
<doesn’t understand the question>
narwhal@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 309d
It's like watching an embryo develop into a child.
humorlessrepost@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 309d
Except those go from one hole to over a dozen.
betanumerus@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 309d
Honytawk@feddit.nl · 2 pts · 307d
Try holding an entire mug of coffee with a donut
JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 309d
I like my coffee black, like a hole.
KeenFlame@feddit.nu · 1 pts · 308d
A topologist does not smile. A topologist wonders why the basic example from his introduction is shoveled into his face for no reason
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev · 1 pts · 308d
To a topologist, a smile and a frown are the same thing.
KeenFlame@feddit.nu · 3 pts · 308d
A topologist does not concern themselves with the shape of the holes, only if they can be filled
D_C@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 309d
Doughnut. Why? Because I can't easily fuck a coffee!!
peteypete420@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 306d
Put water in the cup it becomes the cup, put water in a pot it becomes the pot. Be like the water.
CaptainBlagbird@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 305d
My friend.
bubblybubbles@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 309d
indeed