Daichi Erdos Paradox of a new idea and the atomic equivalent of an idea
Can a new idea be taught to anyone? No, no, it’s not a silly question. If you don’t understand the point in my question, try explaining a new idea, let’s say the concept of multiplication to a 4-year-old. Explain why 4 times 3 is 12.
Don’t laugh. I know it is an easy one. So how did you explain it? let me guess, you said 4 times 3 means adding 4 to a 4 and again adding the result to a 4, which gives us 12. So basically what you did was to explain multiplication in terms of addition which is an already known idea.
The point I am trying to make is that whenever we try to explain some new idea, we do it in terms and ideas they already know. Which brings me to an important observation: ‘A new idea is something which is understood as a combination or to say permutation of already known ideas’.
Mathematically putting it…
If you try some more examples, some more trials of explaining stuff to others, you will realise that it is always the same case.
But from the inference of the meaning of the word ‘new’, we know that a new idea is something which is not dependent on old, it’s new.
Since the observed nature of new idea and the inference from the meaning contradict with each other, I say its a paradox and I name it ‘Daichi Erdos Paradox’. (Daichi Erdos will be my pen name from now on).
From this paradox, we infer that a new idea is a varied combination of a number of already known ideas. If we continue our analysis in this path, we come to a temporary point of realisation that any new idea is a combination of known ideas, which itself is a combination of previously known ideas and so on so forth we reach to the point where the ideas are written in terms of few ideas which cannot be further broken down into more fundamental ones. Which means those few ideas are the fundamental building blocks of all the ideas. I call these fundamental ideas Daichi ideas, the atomic equivalents of Ideas.
If you are lost somewhere, let me give an example. Take a natural number, lets say 13. now 13 can be written as 13 = 5 + 8. here 13 is a new idea and 5,8 are like previously known ideas. So any natural number (new idea) can be written in terms of smaller numbers (previous ideas). Again 5 can be written as 5=3+2, 8 as 8=3+5. And so on if we continue we reach an end point. Where 5=1+1+1+1+1 and similarly for 8 and 13. We reached the fundamental number 1, And this is like Daichi idea for natural numbers.
So Daichi ideas are what make up all the ideas we know. Some of you might argue that in the case of multiplication, which is a new idea, we don’t always think in terms of addition. For example when we multiply 357 with 149, we don’t do 357 +357 +357+…so on 149 times, we just multiply. And you can argue that This is an idea which is independent of previously known idea of addition. But i beg to differ.
You see, when you multiply 357 with 149 you don’t come with the result directly as in the case of 3 times 4, where you directly answer it as 12. Instead what you do is, you multiply 357 with 9 and that you you do it in steps of first 7 times, then borrowing the 6 from 63 and then 5 times 9 and so on so forth you do it in terms of lesser numbers. You are following the same pattern as above. A big new idea which is to multiply 357 with 149 is done in terms of simple ideas such as 7 times 9.
Then you might argue, you are not doing 7+7+7+…9 times, when multiplying 7 with 9, I mean you say it is 63 directly, and you are doing multiplication at the base level and not addition and thus multiplication is a new idea independent of older ones such as addition.
And I beg to differ again. Definitely you are not adding when asked for multiplication. But you are doing multiplication in terms of irreducible thing called informational idea. or I call them Abstractions. Abstraction is a Daichi Idea (fundamental idea).
Before explaining Abstractions, let me introduce to you another set of Daichi ideas which are called abstract ideas which I name as Aidea. (pronounced same as Idea) An abstract idea is something which cannot be explained in any other terms, or simply unexplainable but we can use them to explain new ideas. For example time is an Aidea(abstract idea). but we use it to explain what part of day it is and how long will it take to do something and so.
These are the two types of Daichi Ideas, Abstractions and Aideas. Aideas can’t be understood, whereas Abstractions can be understood. Abstractions can be taught but Aideas can’t be taught. But we can use both of them to explain new ideas.
For example, We explain multiplication in terms of Addition. And Addition is explained in terms of counting, which is a fundamental idea and a perfect example for an Abstraction. We can teach an Abstraction to others. We can teach counting and we can understand what counting mean.
And now consider Love. Love is an Aidea (abstract idea). It can’t be explained to others, nor can be be understood. Like in the case of example time, we can use this to explain many other new ideas.
And an entirely new idea is something which cannot be understood in terms of Daichi Ideas. Which makes the new Idea a fundamental idea and thus it must be either an Abstraction or an Aidea which are both simply Daichi Ideas. So an Entirely new idea is simply the Daichi Idea.
This is the Atomic analysis of Idea, I name this set of Propositions as Daichi Erdo’s Theory of Idea. By this analysis I have reduced the nature of Ideas to irreducible forms called Daichi Ideas. And basically all your ideas are combinations of Daichi Ideas.
In all the above analysis I never question what an Idea is, and what it means to understand an idea and to conjure up an idea, which I will do in my further articles.
- Daichi Erdos
