• quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      10·
      10 days ago

      Overhappening doesn’t mean more things that happen. It means the same number, or perhaps fewer, things which happen, but with a greater magnitude and vitality.

      • KnilAdlez [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        10·
        10 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.netEnglish
          16·
          10 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.