Monday, May 31, 2004
1 oo 2 is not 1 oo 10
I've been reading Dostoyevsky's "Notes From Underground" lately. It has caused me to look at social systems as mathematical or logical systems.
In mathematical terms, the number of values between one and two is infinite. Then again, so are the number of values between one and ten. In reality, by that assumption, infinity only adds infinite granularity to numbered systems. There is more granularity between one and ten, as a range, than between one and two. Furthermore, it really implies that inifinty, when applied to the beginning and terminal values of a range, implies size. It is almost as if I put a hyphen between the values, rather than the infinity symbol.
Okay, to the point. Let's apply this theory to human feelings or emotions. The number of given flavors of feeling between love and infatuation is infinite, but it is also the same between love and hate. Love and hate has a much more pronounced and vaied set of feelings, but the same number, all the same.
Let's take it a step further. If a person could be added up mathematically, all of their fears, talents, inconsistencies, faults, etc, you would get a value. We will start this person at age 20. The reason I do this, is because they will have had optimal time tod somewhat develop. Is the way they end up at 70 the full potential of their "range"? Most likely not. Most likely, they have ended up somewhere in the range depending upon the number of random events and opportunities that "went in their favor". Hard work, introspection, and drive can also increase their "value" but only to a point. At some point it is left up to chance, fate, karma and dharma, whatever you want to call it. It really makes me feel a bit out of control of all of this.
I've been reading Dostoyevsky's "Notes From Underground" lately. It has caused me to look at social systems as mathematical or logical systems.
In mathematical terms, the number of values between one and two is infinite. Then again, so are the number of values between one and ten. In reality, by that assumption, infinity only adds infinite granularity to numbered systems. There is more granularity between one and ten, as a range, than between one and two. Furthermore, it really implies that inifinty, when applied to the beginning and terminal values of a range, implies size. It is almost as if I put a hyphen between the values, rather than the infinity symbol.
Okay, to the point. Let's apply this theory to human feelings or emotions. The number of given flavors of feeling between love and infatuation is infinite, but it is also the same between love and hate. Love and hate has a much more pronounced and vaied set of feelings, but the same number, all the same.
Let's take it a step further. If a person could be added up mathematically, all of their fears, talents, inconsistencies, faults, etc, you would get a value. We will start this person at age 20. The reason I do this, is because they will have had optimal time tod somewhat develop. Is the way they end up at 70 the full potential of their "range"? Most likely not. Most likely, they have ended up somewhere in the range depending upon the number of random events and opportunities that "went in their favor". Hard work, introspection, and drive can also increase their "value" but only to a point. At some point it is left up to chance, fate, karma and dharma, whatever you want to call it. It really makes me feel a bit out of control of all of this.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.