desire

The point of this excursion is to have some fun quantifying exactly what we mean when we say we want something to happen. To tip my hand, it is my opinion that, if one really wants something to occur in the future, one would act in a manner that would increase the chance that that something would indeed occur. This may be a bit of a simplistic premise, but it's a place to start--now let's tighten things up:

Suppose that a person P professes to 'desire' the fulfillment of an event E. Let T be the set of all actions that will increase the probability of E's occurrence; then, the degree to which P chooses to act (or, perhaps, is willing to act) in order to increase the probability of E's occurrence should be directly proportional to the degree to which P truly 'desires' the fulfillment of E.

Now, the number of actions a one is willing to take to secure the occurrence of a particular event divided by the total number of actions t that will help actualize that event is equaivalent to the degree to which one truly desires the realization of the event; that is:

        a / t = degree of true desire     (note that t must equal the number of elements in T)

I imagine that we could arbitrarily set a limit (say, at 50%) below which one could properly be considered as not truly desiring the occurrence of a given event. In a few cases, we would probably have no other choice but to approach the issue thusly; however, in most cases, we can turn to a more exact method of finding the limit of 'true' desire:

It is usually the case that, while some actions are helpful in causing a particular event, others are not just helpful but necessary. Call the set of necessary actions N and let them number n; notice that N must be a subset of T and, hence, that n must be less than or equal to t. While each of these necessary actions may or may not also be sufficient in and of itself, it is clear that at least the effect of the totality of such would be sufficient. Further, we could say that the completion of all those necessary actions such that their combined effect sufficiently yields the event in question is logically equivalent to the minimum effort one could exert to secure the actualization of the event in question; accordingly, we could say that this quantity delineates the de facto "lower bound of realization" for a given event. Let the quantity of such necessary action be m; then, in most cases we can say that:

    m / t = lower bound of realization       (note that m must be less than or equal to n)

Conclusions: If one is not willing to complete the set of all such actions necessary and sufficient in securing the realization of an event, then one doesn't truly desire the fulfillment of that event; contrapositively, one truly desires the fulfillment of a given event when one is willing to complete the set of all actions necessary and sufficient in securing the realization of that event. Algebraically, all of this implies that a must meet or exceed m in order for one to truly desire an event in question; since t is constant, this means that, one's degree of true desire must match or exceed the lower bound of realization for an event in order for one to properly be considered as truly desiring that event.

Corollary: It is possible to consider the gravity of a particular decision with regard to a professed event desired by observing the lower bound of realization corresponding to that event. If this quantity is slight, then those m actions falling into the necessary and sufficient subset are also slight when compared to T as a whole; these actions would thus assume greater import in such a case than that for which the lower bound of realization is broader.

Problems With Analysis:
    1. Possibility of mutually exclusive actions
    2. Possible theoretical neglect concerning the influence of inclinations combative to a
        professed or 'true' desire, e.g. self preservation, etc.