Carl-Richard

Let me just tease you a little bit first. You need to think very big. Go big or go home

I think the amount of rules and caveats I've had to make will just make the answer I thought about seem rather silly ?

The force from the gravitional field Sure, if the glass wasn't stationary (held in the same place to stop it from falling), the glass would fall together with the water. Two different sized objects can have the same shape. But ok, let's break the law of conservation of mass. You can magically make an object more massive. Maybe that's a solution, but I was thinking something a bit more radical

Ok here is a hint: just because we start with a normal size cup doesn't mean we can't change the size after turning it upside down. However, the volume of the liquid still remains constant. In other words, you can change the size of the cup after it's been turned upside down.

I was sort of imagining the experiment happening on earth and a human turning it upside down (or similar conditions). Besides, the glass is stationary (rule 5), which means it won't move in the direction of the gravitational field (if you're a physicist, sue me), but the liquid is not stationary, which means the liquid will leave the cup.

5 mins

??? I don't regret making this thread.

LOL you don't decide that part

I should clarify that the force of gravity always points "down" as to make the liquid experience free fall.

Omg ?. Nope, travelling means moving the cup.

The cup looks like the schematic version. We start with an ordinary, life-sized cup.

Oof I just added another caveat about that ?: I forgot to add that we start with a normal size cup. I'll keep the rules constant now dw.

Lol the rules only apply after it has been turned upside down ?

Bubbles have always existed and will always exist.

I remember being offended once when some Christian fundamentalist on TV told a bunch of children that "the scientists don't know what truth is". I was 16 ?

As a matter of fact, I did leave a comment the first time I watched it: "You say QM is shrouded in confusion because you need some experience in the field in order to understand it. What if the same applies to mysticism? How can I know you're not misunderstanding mysticism? Where is your "PhD" in mysticism?" Let's just say he didn't take it seriously at all ("mysticism is garbage" "mystics are hacks"). In fact, I have used it before I even read about it specifically, because Ken Wilber incorporates it into the cognitive line of his AQAL framework (which is what makes SDi (Spiral Dynamics Integral) an elaboration of SD). I intuited some of the concepts from there, but it made the relationship much more clear when I read about it directly. It's very useful for understanding exactly how the mind operates at different stages of SD development. To put it in the language of MHC, Dave refuses to see the potential cross-paradigmatic operations that exist between the paradigms of QM and mysticism. It's mainly because he has no incentive to investigate the mystical paradigm or the mechanics of how the two paradigms relate. It's not even certain that he is aware that paradigms are constructs and that QM is only one system/paradigm out of many (which places him at sub-metasystematic cognition; low construct&context awareness). Greasy foods, fried foods, processed foods, red meat, sugary drinks (diabetes). Let's not forget heart disease as well. Alcohol is metabolized to acetaldehyde in the body. Whatever you've read about the supposed health benefits of alcoholic drinks, it's never the alcohol. It's going around that some chemicals in red wine are good for the heart, and somehow that is interpreted as it's the alcohol that is good for you. Not at all. Then the article would be about vodka and not wine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3959903/ Seeing the relationship between QM and mysticism is a matter of comparing frameworks, not a matter of verifying hypotheses. Again, MHC is useful for understanding the difference: The hypothetico-deductive method (the scientific method) happens at the formal operational level (level 10). It deals with simple one-dimensional, monofactorial logical propositions. Comparing mysticism and QM happens at the level of cross-paradigmatic complexity (level 15-16). It deals with large, multivariate collections of systems and how they interrelate. Trying to validate the relationship between QM and mysticism using scientific verification is like trying to do science by grammar correction.

High-level bodybuilding is super unhealthy on so many levels.

You're talking about good art

There is already an ongoing thread about this. You may post there.

I'm not awake because I turn it down every second of my existence.

I'm still writing it, but I'm almost done and it's going great. My supervisor was really intrigued by it

One way to define art is that it sticks out from the mundane. So what about postmodern art? Well, postmodern art isn't just about the object of attention. It plays with context and self-reference in such a way that for example a mundane thing being displayed in an art museum suddenly becomes not mundane and thus art. It's a higher dimensionality of art that is self-aware and context-aware. It comments, reacts, contradicts and deconstructs the classical conceptions of art. There is a lot of meaning there, but not as explicit or even implicit (it's meta-implicit). I'm not saying nikocado avocado is a postmodern artist, but his expression and his way of being still strikes me as artistic, intentional or not. The state of being that creates art (the "non-mundane") is about emotionality, flow, authenticity, creativity, and that is what I'm picking up on.

Art is fundamentally about expression. It's a way of being. It doesn't need a well-thought-out message, not in our postmodern world

Artists are weird people. I come from a family of artists