Suicidal Information or Knowledge
I was thinking while I was driving. This happens quite a lot. Its surprising that I get to work without scathing myself or some other helpless sole. But this blog is not about my driving, but rather it is about a special kind of information that may exist, but of which I have not heard of.
This kind of information is suicidal. No, it is not new ways on how to kill yourself. Its about information, which when released destroys itself. The best way to explain as usual is through an example. Consider a research conducted to find the quickest route to the centre of town during peak traffic. Once you release this information, everyone would be using this route and it would no longer be the quickest route. The information would have killed itself. Some of you may think that this is common with all kinds of information. Its dynamic. It changes. But my point is that this kind of information actually triggers its own demise. I cant think of any other examples to promote help my argument further.
posted by Reacher at 2:54 AM
12 Comments:
isn't all knowledge suicidal information? i mean, the more people grow aware of it, the less useful or special it becomes. and once it reaches that peak, it gets demoted to the status of common sense. however, the longer it's classified as common sense, the less common it becomes, and gets promoted back to the status of knowledge. i think your route example would demonstrate this beautifully.
and this would make a very nice looking graph. < drool >
so, it's just a pretense of suicide, since it eventually comes back to life.
apologies for rambling.
4:42 AM
Hmmm... no not all information/knowledge. But the speciality of this kind of knowledge is that the moment it is "let out" it no longer becomes useful. Most information dont die that way. It changes naturally, as everything does. But this causes immediate decay. The release "causes" its demise. Theres something special about this kind of knowledge, dont you think?
11:03 AM
And I had to ask wise gamindu to shed a light on who s-"four"-g-e was. He kindly informed me that it was "sage". When did you take up this alphanumeric pseudonym? And... ahemm.. <stern and serious face> there is something serious I want to talk to you about.
11:05 AM
< gulp >
it's not new, it's more or less the same pseudonym just represented differently. s4ge, is part of being l33t, you see.
2:14 AM
yeah, i see what you mean. not all information dies immediately, unlike this particular kind.
2:18 AM
We can draw a distinction between Generalized Solutions and Specialized Solutions. One Generalized Solution can spawn many specialized solutions. Generalized Solution - General Relativity; corresponding specialized solution - The orbit of mercury. Genaralized solution - Bubble Sort; corrosponding specialized solution - sorting a 'given' set of data. We can even fit your example into this mould; Generalized Solution - Shortest Path subjected to constraints; specialized solution - shortest path subjected to specific consraints.
Genaralized solutions are more universal and are a bit more long lived(until they are superceded by a better solution - Newtons laws being superceded by Relativity) than the specialized ones, which tend to solve an immediete problem, and hence have a higher utility value.
See, I tend to miss the point completely.
On Suicidal Knowledge, or let me call it a suicidal solution - the solution kills itself. That's simply a bad, very bad solution. That's why it dies. The solution is faulty. No marks. Kapich. Why does the solution fail? because you have not taken into account the constraint of 'people percieving one path to be the shortest'. If taken into account, you will probably get a dynamic solution to the SP problem.
The non-suicidal solution to your problem, will take certain input parameters and predict the most probable SP for a given individual - Sloution 'A'. Solution 'A' will be taken into account when the solution is applied to a subsequent individual. Possibly for different individuals and different input conditions you will get a different path, i.e there is no fixed path.
rediscovery of 'the bad answer'?
See, I miss it again, don't I.
On the subject of doing applied research in the form of analysing the numbers(traffic stats of a particular city): You operate under the assumption that no one knows of 'a' quickest route.So the purpose of that research is to find the quickest path in the as-is situation. you should not excpect it to work as a general solution should you. Your problem was, in the first place, not "what will the quickest path be"; rather it was "What is the quickest path now?" So you get a solution. but the solution is applicable only to the as-is situ where no one knows a quickest path. your model becomes invalid with the introduction of new initial conditions - knowledge of the quickest route. your objective should not have been to find a 'quickest-path-for-all-time'!
wrong application of solution, wot?
<sigh> it does require a great deal of patience to keep me as a friend, I know <sigh>
6:53 AM
The questions that'll really tax ur noodle is, and i think this was what i wanted to get to in the first place...
Is there a general solution to the universe? or is a general solution possible for all situations. Godel, i belive will shed some light(or confuse matters hopelesely)
6:57 AM
Jaysus!!! is it 7 already?????? err will you let the powers that be know I'm getting late.
7:01 AM
I hear you loud and clear. But then if we account for all the people "knowing" about the quickest path, what would happen is an equilibrium and there wont be a quickest path. Hmmm.... interesting. Somehow this reminds me of economics. You know, the demand and supply curve. Where it meets you achieve equilibrium and then that is the market price.
So if you account for open knowledge you will end up with a situation where all paths will be equally quick. This would be the optimized solution wouldnt it? So then this IS the optimal solution, theoretically. We dont need to research about it. But can we just sit down and forget about it? No. This optimization model REQUIRES the constant updated knowledge of a quicker (if it exists) path. So this sort of knowledge, suicidal is essential for the survival of the optimization model. Do you get my drift?
3:11 PM
Yes, it will reach equilibrium (stable) or a series of metastable states. Equilibrium might not mean all paths being equally quick. Note that it is the model that needs to reach stability. e.g: It might be that certain paths(A1, A2,....An)will become quick in progression.
Remember for the model to work what is needed is the 'perception of quickness'. So you might not need research to find an accurate 'actual quickest path'. Take diffraction patterns: If you take care to aim a light beam at a double slit you get a diffraction pattern. you get the same diffraction pattern even if you aren't particularly careful with your aim. The only diffrence being the intensity of the pattern.
however, such knowledge(suicidal) will definitely affect the model, whether it is essential for the stable config is an open question.
4:16 PM
Hmmm... Dont all the paths have to be equally quick for equilibrium to occur? I mean if there were a quicker path among the many, people would find it out and then they would go there until it gets clogged up. The only reason for there to be an imbalance would be the introduction of a new path, car or some other parameter. (is parameter the right word?)
Ok, there may be very slight deviations from the resultant time, but give or take a few metrics it should be approximately equal.
Why does it have to be 'perceptual quickness'. Because (in this example) you could always measure the performance of the route, could you not? So absolute measurements would still work. I think!?
Is this sort of information is essential, for the equilibrium to exist? Again it depends on how volatile the parameters are. I mean, if there are a different flow of cars into the centre of town, then your model will breakdown. Practically it would be impossible for this utopian equilibrium state, if such inputs vary at a dynamic rate.
6:07 PM
oho - so you are an absolutist! i.e 'absolute measurements'. 'perception' could be equated to relativism.
equilibrium does not necceserilly involve uniformity(equal quickness). I mean take the atom(appologies); an atom in a stable state has electrons at very definite(well somewhat) energy levels. the electron does not have an equal probablity of being anywhere around the atom.
10:46 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home