(life can be subdivided into career , relationships, Social causes, hobbies etc.)
In X axis is Space-Time Continuum (∂)
In Y axis is Satisfaction / Happiness
Let say life Life is F(∂)
AXIOM:
There are only three possibilities of F(∂)
a) Pessimist View (Nothing matters happiness in life finite and constant )
b) Optimist View (There is perfection when F(∂)= ∞)
c) Popular View ( Life has ups and downs but there is nothing called perfection)
Corollary 1)
Anyone who tells u not to be choosy, and make compromises believe in the popular view and most probably in Local Maxima
Given: The world we know.
To Find: How to live?
Solution:
There are two possibilities of living life
1) Be not too choosy (Content and settle at non-perfect situation)
If F(∂) is in reality a pessimist view. Happiness is a finite constant. Thus you will be settle and happy finitely.
If F(∂) is in reality a popular view.
Settlement happens at functional maxima or local maxima both a finite happiness.
One will not know the difference between local and functional maxima.
If F(∂) is in reality a optimist view.
Settlement happens only in local maxima a finite happiness.
Because,
If settlement happens in functional maxima, the concern experiences perfection becomes choosy which is against the primary assumption.
Basically If you are not too choosy u will certainly settle at finite happiness.
................................................................................................(m)
2) Be choosy ( Content only with perfect situations)
If F(∂) is in reality a pessimist view. Happiness is a finite constant. Thus you will be not settled and equally happy.
If F(∂) is in reality a popular view.
Settlement never happens as functional maxima are not infinity.
If F(∂) is in reality a optimist view.
Settlement happens only at perfection.
Basically if you are choosy u will be finitely happy and unsettled or infinitely happy
.................................................................................................…(n)
From (m) & (n) it is evident that one should be choosy
-QED
15 comments:
Atta boy, Rohini
wtf ro ?
Ohmigosh Lolu!!!! now tht was one solid piece of math tht went flyin over my head...
Like they say.. if u can't convince them, confuse them:-)
So i shall follow ur advice and be choosy by choosing not b choosy..hehe...
It hurts when u r not understood... but then again i guess there is always a perfect audience all u need is to keep looking ;)
ok..
i scanned it once, successfully comprehending nothin..
then, i studied it, n voila, life made sense again!!
sexy proof, how'd u ever come up with it??? (p.s. u really should have majored in math n lived upto the nick u had in school!!)
Rohaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannn..
idhi enna da?? kya likha hai rey? it was like the Matrix to me :).. loved the special effects but understood nothing in the first attempt.. read again.. adored the special effects but understood nothing.. read it again and this time too the special effects were awesome and I knew exactly what to talk about it without really understanding it :D
happiness ( imho ) is derived from random number generator function - like a ( theoretical ) device which would track the thermal noise ( -174 + 10log(∂f) jhonson-nyquist noise ) in the ambient air right in front of the painted tin board at tirupati ice cream parlour, temple road, karkala village, karkala taluka, udupi district, karnataka, india.
or it is a function of whether it is mango season and the above said ice cream parlour is making fresh mango ice-cream. if you go there to measure happiness, take my word, you will find perfect happiness ( @ about 15 bucks for two scoops ).
Please note i get 80% cut on everyones'solution to happiness ... just wrap it dry ice and thermacol and courier it over :) and ofcorse the yell will take 80% of the 15 bucks just send him the bill
Hey Rohini... couldnt read the full thing as net is slow...but can give you the benefit of doubt that it must be some high fundoo stuff... :-)
drop in to bangalore whenever you get time!
-Kalpana
Hi Rohini,
In the axiom, I feel that the first possibility isn't a pessimist view. I will call it as the Idealist view.
Try to wear the same smile from your heart at different times (both during ecstasy and during distress).
OR
Try to be composed with the same feel of satisfaction at all times.
It made up a great reading, nevertheless. Your talk on the philosophy with a mathematical blanket is a good attempt. Keep writing. :)
Gops.
Interesting analysis.
Of course, some simplifying assumptions have been made.
Without sounding at all patronizing (after all it was your original idea), here are some thoughts.
1. The processes are not i.i.d, that is, they are not independent and identically distributed. In other words, the "structure" of each view changes with time except the one for the pessimist.
2. This can be accomplished by a simple weighting function. What I essentially mean is that, there should be a dependency on the "the effect of unsettlement" and this effect should be more pronounced as time goes by.
3. In other words IF a choosy optimist does not settle early on, then the person becomes less optimistic. In time, the person becomes less choosy. The settlement will occur once again at a local maxima.
4. In order to get to a solution (and by solution I assume you mean derive an optimal approach at each x, given all the parameters) you'd have to compute the expectation of happiness given that settlement will occur and given that one is choosy.
5. Do the same expectation for the "not choosy" case and the approach at any given point of time would be to just select choosy or not choosy depending on which expected value is higher.
6. By this analysis, you'd even be able to wiggle out of local maxima's
7. Of course in reality is a causal process. If you're at a particular point in the x axis, you never know what's ahead so the the curves cannot be defined apriori. The future is quite random. Much the pity huh?
8. Of course one can extrapolate based on the past like some sort of markov chain. This is infact what most people do.
9. Only the truly insane would ascribe the same probabilities to the future as in the past. Your analysis holds good then.
10. What you've essentially hypothesized is that, If a truly insane person is choosy, then he/she would eventually attain infinite happiness. Now, if there were only a way to test this hypothesis.....
cheers,
Arjun.
Thanks Arujun 4 the detailed analysis. But i stand by my theory! It is that simple!!!
1) the Views are not of a particular person life . It is in fact is what one in an Optimistic popularistic or pessimistic mood would see the world as. And hence they are independent views. One can't I presume see the world in both an optimistic and a pessimistic view in one time space instant. Well in the off chance my imagination is stunted enough not to see this possibility we can say there is a fourth view Confoundum
If you notice in the views the x axis is space time continuum . Come on in one axis I ask you to map it. That must be your first clue for well it is that global a perspective.
2) Settlement in non perfection or unsettlement does not make a difference as I state that a finite happiness is same whether or not it is very very very high or very very very low. This is infact because of the very dynamic nature of our life. That unless you are at perfection nothing else matters. If you feel you missed one go for the next but do go for it. ( well it is Preachy!! But what the hell it is the internet after all)
1. I didn’t mean that one would have two views at one time instant. However, I do see what you mean by pointing out that the optimistic, pessimistic and popularistic views are independent. I’d initially misunderstood your premise. I thought you had made a much more controversial assumption; that life in itself changes because of one’s attitude it. Bold indeed, but with some scientific support like the Rosenthal & Jacobson study. My mis-interpretation stems from you defining the y-axis as Life.
2. Now, I think you mean the view towards similar situations assuming that life is a constant and perhaps shaped by choices. Each view is only different in the attitude but each would have had similar opportunities. Under this premise, the viewpoints are indeed independent both amongst themselves. I may have some questions about the practicality of it, but since it is your premise I have to essentially concede the point.
3. Even so, as time passes the frequency of such peaks must change. This because as time passes there’s higher opportunity cost. But, you never claimed that the peaks were equidistant. So, the claim that one would get to a high peak eventually is still true. However, the amount of time spent being unhappy in the process leads to the questions regarding picking your strategy. This is why I still advocate the taking the expected value of happiness at any single point.
4. You say that settlement in non-perfection and unsettlement are the same. I could not possibly disagree more. For an optimist, settling for non-perfection is far worse then not settling at all.
Cheers,
Arjun.
P.S: I’m not saying that I disagree with your conclusion. I just think it’s a bit more nuanced. Tis rare that I get into subjective arguments like this topic. But you presented an objective analysis and I happen to like objective reasoning.
Hey,
How about replying to my mail?
Post a Comment