Ten years ago today my father passed away from complications with lung cancer after a 3 month battle. I remember the feeling, not only of the events, but of the kind of person that I was then. I feel so much older now. Really really old. And I miss my father. Every year I get
Is some information always better than no information? What if the information is 100% noise, or even 50% (enough to make it impossible to distinguish the signal from the noise)? For example, I tell you that there is an oxygen molecule exactly 4 feet in front of you and 2 feet to the right and 1 foot up. I tell you how fast it's moving, what color it is, which plant made it, and the current stock prize of Amazon. And you're trying to find out whether or not there's enough oxygen in the sealed container to live for another hour. Are you better off?
I think that some information isn't always better than none. Information is useless until it fits a pattern of some sort... until it crosses the threshold into potential generalization. The generalization-level of information is the first point at which information is useful, and then it's only marginally useful and requires that you be highly skeptical of the patterns you're seeing. But anytime before that, it's noise. Until you have some certainty that there's a fairly good chance that what information you haven't isn't completely irrelevant to the situation as a whole--until it fits a possible pattern of larger behavior--it's not good at all, in fact, by even looking at it you could slightly bias your ability to make further decisions, swayed by its information-ness.
What is the difference between randomness and noise? When things happen randomly they often still adhere to some predictability. Like, I'm slowly coming around to believe, the balance of heads and tails while flipping coins repeatedly will slowly become normalized the more you flip. What you're wading through, in order to get towards normalization, statistical significance, is noise. And you'll have to wade to infinity to get rid of all noise. Noise is more insidious than pure randomness because it is completely unpredictable. It is that which makes randomness unpredictable while it is... you can't tame it, all you can do is reduce it. If the flipping of a coin was completely random, with no noise, it might go: heads, tails, heads, tails, heads, tails, heads, tails, etc, forever. Noise makes it do otherwise. A single flip of a coin is always 50% noise, because it should land half-heads half-tails, and it can only do one or the other.
Or maybe not. Math friends, please correct me if I'm wrong. I have the feeling that a single statistics class would've rendered unnecessary all this talk of randomness. Sorry for the redundancy. I need to keep thinking about it because it still doesn't make sense.
If you know you're guilty of something, is it worst to deny the guilt or to not care about the guilt or to admit to the guilt? Of those three, which is the worst? I think I'm guilty of the worst.
I realized today that my recent actions (of which I have not mentioned) make complete sense if I think about them in the context of a clunky machine that is trying to solve a certain problem that it can smell but not yet formulate. First, it has to move to the location of the problem (have it typed in by events, coincidences, and conscious moves), and then it has to solve the problem. Right now, I'm moving closer to the location of the problem.
Nanowrimo starts in a little over one day. Okay. Okay.