« there's no week like finals week | Main | zen and the art of ellipticaling »
June 7, 2005
the existence of nothing and water's wetness
A great debate has resurfaced. Is water wet? I had this debate several times during college and a few times since. I'm not sure if there can be a short answer to such a question. The knee-jerk response is clearly "yes". I'm not so sure though.
For water to be wet, it would have to be wet regardless of whether it was touched. This aspect of the issue can't really be addressed, I don't think. Is there any way to tell if something is wet without touching it?
Having recently conducted a highly scientific experiment in the confines of my kitchen, I can say with some certainty that even if you touch water, it isn't wet. Water alone does not move -- it has to be moved. Therefore, to see if water is wet, I filled a glass, let it sit until it was still, then stuck my finger in it. I left my finger in without moving it, which is really key to the whole thing. Now, with my motionless finger in the motionless water, all the variables of motion have been removed. And the water isn't wet. It's just cold.
When I take my finger out of the glass, it definitely feels wet. But that didn't happen until I moved my finger. Therefore, I would have to say that water is not wet, but movement makes it feel that way. On another level, I'd have to say that the feeling of wetness is very much a value judgment that's placed on the water. It has properties that we call wet, but that's not really the water's fault. And everyone has a different tolerance for wetness. This, I think, is why some people love running around in the rain while others need an umbrella if it's foggy outside. So, my short answer would have to agree with Steve's. Water is not wet.
Now, this whole existence of nothing debate is extraordinarily interesting. I have to admit I haven't really given it enough thought to put forth an opinion on the issue. My instinctive reaction is to say that anything that can be defined is something, even if that something is nothing. Look at the whole debate over black holes. Everyone thought that those were big pits of nothingness, but it turns out they're just a whole bunch of gravity all around one little something. So nothing turned out to be something. Can nothing be holding a place for something? If so, wouldn't that make nothing something? Like I said, I'm not sure quite yet, but my gut says that nothing has to be something since it can be defined. But hey, my gut was wrong about water.
Posted by ben at June 7, 2005 1:12 PM