Wisdom is important and there is definitely computational complexity, but I am not sure if how you construct wisdom asymmetry could not just be collapsed into a subtype of information asymmetry concerned with analysis and decision making?
"John has a greater level of genetic literacy so John can read his genetic code well enough to find out that he has the gene for alcoholism"
Hope youre doing well!! Chess.com is cool has some free games if you ever want to play a few.
The ability to process information is limited by your computation resources (which are finite). So because you have this finite ability to process then it follows that giving you even more information doesn't mean you'll be able to process more information. It also means just because you can process it, as in turn the data signals into something coherent and measurable, it doesn't mean you can then use that information to produce knowledge (some scientific facts). In order to achieve wisdom you have to actually compound your knowledge and to produce knowledge requires doing things in a scientific manner.
So a data scientist isn't just analyzing information the way you or I might do it. The data scientist at a minimum must know statistics and algebra. More importantly the wisdom component is based on the model of the world that the data scientist is relying on. If that model of the world is accurate then as new knowledge is produced and added then the model becomes even more accurate. This accurate model of the world allows for the wisdom, the accuracy of deep insights based on this accurate mathematical model of the world. Data science allows for predictive analytics which is wisdom applied.
The problem most individuals have is they do not apply the methods of science to new knowledge generation (they generate beliefs rather than facts), they adopt bias such as confirmation biases which pollutes the process of knowledge generation, they have a faulty model of the world (and of the universe) which prevents wisdom building.
What could happen if you give more information to an individual with an inaccurate model of the world? Let's assume the individual doesn't really believe in science, doesn't believe in the standard model, doesn't share your values, but this individual has access to your information, to as much information as possible, which they then use to judge everyone based on their beliefs.
How is this good?
Good and bad for the most part if not entirely are context dependent as Quentin Skinner might assert. It matters what ends of a continuum these polar opposites are in reference to.
Here is an example of what I mean by generating wisdom from knowledge. If we think of mathematical models, these represent reality. Each of us has a different reference model in our own mind. This model of reality is critical because it determines whether we can ever turn our knowledge into wisdom.
The Standard Model is the reference model used in physics. It is known as the most accurate model. It is so accurate that we have measured the preciseness of this model as 1 in 10 billion.
The Standard Model allows us to create simulations like the one below:
To produce wisdom first requires we start with an accurate model. We cannot make any predictions if we rely on a faulty model. By agreeing on what is real, and by following the process of science, anyone can add new knowledge or make predictions based on the standard model.
References
Cogito ergo sum. Big bang theory like gravity and evolution are subject to confirmation and falsification analysis. For all we know the Devil planted dinosaur bones to lead us away from God. Though this may be unlikely, we must deal with probabilities. Finite computational power is also a dogma, it may be possible to come up with sufficient computation power for any task which even if not infinite may lead to functionally the same result. Hope the weekend goes well for you!!
That is why I specifically referred to the standard model rather than those other examples. Finite computational power is firmly established by Einstein's theory of special relativity. Of course my model of the universe could be wrong which is why we must continue to gain knowledge both individually and as a species. So my response is based on my current mental model and understanding of the universe as being finite (it will likely end in heat death), with energy conservation existing. Some have models of the universe where the universe is infinite but even in this case, in my opinion based on the universe we can observe it is showing itself to be finite.
This means a Turing machine is not physically possible and exists only as a mathematical abstraction due to the fact that there is no infinite memory.
References
References
so what you think of technological singularity?
It is a hypothesis put forward by Kurzweil and some others. It is interesting but there are some major safety concerns. If AGI is developed in the wrong way then the benefits might not be shared. Also it might not be possible to develop AGI in a way which can be contained.
Personally I think a good use case for AGI is a von Neumann Probe.
Do you think technology may asymptote and we will someday know all that can be known?
I don't have enough knowledge to answer that so I can only respond with I do not know. But I do know humans are very limited.
It is just a horizon.
Knowledge is about to solve problems, to use a model. Wisdom is about choice between models and action - whether to use it or not, whether resolving or ignoring a problem is a 'juice to worth the sqweeze'.