to be very anal and nit-picky with your joke (cuz i feel like it):

You're mixing equal volumes with inconsistent densities (and thus mass) and trying to compute a final volume. Either way you'd get more than 2 cups.

Back on topic:

i have a very simple definition of evidence.

Anything that modifies my mental probabilities about certain beliefs i hold to be true or false is considered evidence by me.

Whether or not the evidence is weak, strong, or even reliable in the first place is irrelevant if we're trying to define what evidence is.

I disagree with evidence being an event. It is rather an attribute. the event is the observation of evidence. The event (the observation -hearing, seeing, smelling, whatever) is only useful for determining if the evidence (attribute) is reliable (true).

The evidence itself does not change. It is a static thing. if you see different evidence next time, that's different evidence (a different static).

I DO agree with the entanglement though. evidence is entangled with both your map and (hopefully) the territory. after all, the whole point of evidence is to modify your map to better fit the territory. The nature of its entanglement is simple though. As stated above it simply shifts your probabilities (confidences in beliefs).

First time poster, noob in rationality so have some mercy folks ;)