Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15

# "The more you know, the less you know" Equati

 Posts: 7,102 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/8/2012 5:30:50 AMPosted: 6 years agoSo, I was on this other forum I like to hang out at sometimes (INTP Central), and someone came up with an intriguing brain teaser that I wasted so much time on, I decided to capitalize on its (perceived) worth and share it here as well.The OP was like this:Hi,I saw this one forums member which I don't remember who had his signature as "The more you know, the less you know". And since then I kept pondering the implication of it.This is what I believe it means:The more (in term of amount) you know, the less (in term of proportion) you know.I had taken an introduction to logic class, I'd have it proved logically.This...is an incomplete Syllogism...an enthymeme.What lacks is that....um, insight.Premise 1: (If)The more knowledge, (then)the better insight.Premise 2: (If)The better insight, (then)the lesser proportion of the known.Conclusion: (If)The more knowledge, (then)the lesser proportion of the known.Implication: The more you know, the less you know.Proved.Perhaps this justifies, perhaps it does not.--------------------Now I am more interested whether we can make an equation out of it? From what I know, there might be these factors involved:A = All knowledgeK = The known (to self)U = The unknown (to self)P = The proportion of the knownT = TimeDerived:# A = K+U# A(T) //A is a function of T, I believe A increases as time increases# P = (constant)*1/KCould anyone help coming up with an equation to explain this? Is it possible?Feel free to discuss. Cheers.I had two separate responses, and he had one, so I'll post them below separately.The last one will be my final conclusion.Are there any math addicts out there? I know I confined myself to relatively simple mathematical concepts and such, so perhaps some critical analysis can help determine whether I even made sense.
 Posts: 7,102 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/8/2012 5:31:35 AMPosted: 6 years agoI replied:Okay, okay, let's give it a try.So, let's see.First, we have to assign variables.K will be your overall knowledge. k will be your previous knowledge. Therefore, your increase in knowledge would be [delta]K.[delta]K = k + -- alright, here, we clearly need something for new knowledge -- n.[delta]K = k + n.That will be our statement for learning something new.However, the more you learn, the less you know overall.Therefore, n must be negative, first and foremost.Then, it must increase by a given magnitude. That magnitude, as we agreed, is the amount of new knowledge necessary to fully understand the knowledge you just received. That can acceptably translate as other new "things" that are generally unknown in nature. Each new thing would also compound the amount of new things necessary, meaning that the increase would be exponential. The unknown things, we'll call u.So, what we have here is:[delta]K = k - n^(u)Which translates as, an increase in knowledge causes a negative increase in the amount of knowledge you have overall, due to the amount of unknown knowledge you must have in order to achieve full understanding.
 Posts: 7,102 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/8/2012 5:32:16 AMPosted: 6 years agoHe said:Looks really great, but I don't think this can be negative.I like the [Delta]K part. Also the n^(u) seems really convincing.However, I doubt that it's a minus sign in the middle there. Could it be a relationship in some other way that doesn't result [Delta]K in negative.I believe in this context, we need a change in the proportion of knowledge, not the rate of change([Delta]K). But still [Delta]K could be used as a part of the equation.