• KnilAdlez [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    27 days ago

    You want to do this? You want to argue about made up words? Then I’ll need a full proof of how your definition disproves what I said. Thesis on my desk by morning.

    • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      27 days ago

      Let

      t_n = a_n * t
      

      be the objective thought content contained in event n;

      Then the total thought content T in N events is given by

      T = Σ a_n * t
      

      Suppose the following law is empirically observed: As N tends toward infinity, the sum T approaches proportionality to the number of events N; in other words,

      T = aN
      

      where a is a constant, an empirical average amount of thought content for a single event. (The larger the series of events, the more that larger and smaller events “cancel out”.)

      The total thought content T can rise for two reasons, since it is a product: either of its factors a or N could increase. The same is true for a decrease in the respective quantities.

      Suppose comrade Luisa applies 2T of thinking to a series of N events. How can one explain this?

      Possibility A: The proportionality law applies. The actual content of the events is T, but Luisa thought twice as hard as necessary per event.

      Possibility B: The proportionality law does not apply, because the number of events is not statistically large. Therefore she happened to observe an uncharacteristic set of events with large thought content

      T_observed = Σ a_n * t >> T_average
      

      Your post seems more like Possibility A because that is when the number of events is thought to be overestimated from the applied thought.