Sunday, March 09, 2008

A Litmus Test of Having Lived a Satisfactory Life

I was wondering if I could, in as few words as possible, frame a test which would determine if I had done anything worthwhile in life (also referred to as having lived a 'non trivial' life) and I came up with a remarkably (in my opinion) clever way of framing such a test.

That some person(s), whom I do not know directly, writes(write) a (stable?) Wikipedia entry in my name

Not necessary, but a sufficient condition, in my opinion of a non trivial life, what say?


Kash said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nanga Fakir said...

Yes I got them. Thanks! You guys had a nice time I see...

satyavrat said...

Mathematical Misplacement-
Even if your proposed litmus test works, having a wikipedia entry does not guarantee a non-trivial life. On the other hand, though contestable, in the present cyber active world, a non trivial person can possibly hold a wikipedia entry. Hence the condition may be necessary but not sufficient.

-Thus Spake Logician

Nanga Fakir said...

@ the logician:

I never intended this to be a watertight test for having lived a non trivial life. Please pay attention to the tongue in cheek manner of referring to this definition.

Also, please also refer to the manner in which the definition is drafted:
"...whom I do not know directly..."
This has been inserted into the definition after a careful thought since this ensures a non partisan approach.

If someone whom you've never spoken to or known at all decides to write a (stable?) entry in your name then it implies that he has been 'influenced at a distance' which in my opinion, is a SUFFICIENT test for non trivialness.

Not every non trivial life will necessarily. Example: Kashi Nath Singh-the awesome write does not have a Wikipedia entry and yet I consider him to have lead a non trivial life.

Hence it is not a necessary condition

satyavrat said...

Lets put our arguments in a formal manner.
You claim-
Wikipedia entry(with the conditions stated) implies non-triviality

A counter example will ensure the falsifiability of your statement, only catch here is to ensure your stated conditions in the example. Also, the accountable non-triviality is that which is existing within the stated facts in the entry, otherwise it can't be subject to an unbiased analysis.

Lets check 'Tusshar Kapoor'. He has an entry, but for all we know, he has lived an entirely trivial life so far at least. His life (based on wikipedia details) is totally run of the mill considering his background.

I claim-
Non-triviality 'may' imply wikipedia entry.

If you give me an example where a non-trivial person does not have an entry, it can't be rendered a counter example due to the 'may' clause.


Nanga Fakir said...

The comment section is not an appropriate place for brawls of this kind. Let's take it over the phone or something like that.

Safari Al said...

Asshole logicians you both are!

Nanga Fakir said...

Fair point I must say Dear Watson.

Ankit said...

whatever satyavrat says to counter it , i still m lovin' it "nanga fakir's litmus test"... told some 10 people about this, they liked it too

sami in chains said...