This conversation is closed.

If we accept that nature is the only fundamental regulation, is the process of creativity or originality a paradox?

If we accept that nature is the only fundamental regulation, is the process of creativity or originality a paradox?

Is there any such thing as an original thought or action? considering that everything we do operates within the confines of nature. Does this make anything that we do just a reaction? If you accept that the universe is infinite, then surely there was never a point of origin. If you believe that the universe has an origin or a set point in which it was created, then surely everything else is just a reaction. Either way, the term creativity as we use it today must be redundant?

Can anyone clarify this for me?


Craig Mallis

  • thumb
    Sep 27 2013: If we can accept that nature is a state of being that has emerged from no-thing by mere evolutionary process of elimination of the less probable, natural laws as descendants of that process and everything is a result of recombination of the elements of the initial configuration, there is neither creation nor originality and hence no paradox.

    Even at the abstract level, originality is a moot point.
  • thumb
    Sep 28 2013: we haven't proved yet the origine of the existence but the human creativity is beautiful and real ,we can't result the next if we haven't the first but the creativity give you the last without need to the logic of the first ,maybe from the last we can find the begining of all .... still our creativity depend the limits we have (space,time,body,mind,dreams and emotions).
  • thumb
    Sep 28 2013: @Da Way. All verbal communication depends on definition of words, we agree on that. If you define "creating" as the simple act of combining or utilizing that which already exists then anyone can be a creator. If, however, you define "creating" as bringing into existence something which does not use anything pre-existing, then no one can be a creator. A new song is not a new creation, it is simply a new arrangement of pre-existing notes. A new painting is not a new creation, it is merely a different way of arranging pre-existing colors. New is not the product of creation, it is the product of arranging or utilizing pre-existing materials or concepts.
    • Da Way

      • 0
      Sep 29 2013: I agree. Using your latter definition only the center of the universe or God can 'create' new stuff.

      I was using your first definition as that's what most people mean by 'creating something'. In that sense, yes, everyone's a creator because you are constantly forming new memories unique to yourself.
  • Sep 27 2013: Creativity or originality relative to what, nature? I think creativity and originality are human constructs. Assessment of these characteristics is similarly an opinion of one, or many, human(s).
  • Sep 25 2013: If you ask most physical scientists, they would say that they were discovering something that always existed but unknown by man. Believe this is not true for the social sciences or as some will call the soft sciences. Here we are creating or discovering things which may not be in nature. I would also include Theoretical Math which can prove a lot of paradoxes.
  • thumb
    Sep 25 2013: "Creativity' is so widely used in so many situations that it is hard to know what you mean by "as we use it today." To some people "to create" means the same as to make, even if what you make is redundant with what you have made often or what others make often in a way that is barely distinguishable from what you have done. Then snapping photos or making dinner from a recipe would count. To others creativity needs to involve making something, but it must also be novel and useful or adaptive. Novel is taken to mean something more than new but to suggest something that is not simply a new copy of something that has come before. A reproduction of a Gauguin would then not be creative. A remix could be creative. The result of associating observations/materials/techniques in an uncommon way can be considered creative.

    Here is one talk on the remix:

    I think the latter provides a meaningful use of the word, whereas using the word as a synonym for "make" doesn't add to the language.
  • thumb
    Sep 25 2013: Your understanding of creativity is a product of your understanding of Original Cause. Some say God is the cause of everything. Others say the Big Bang explains it all. Many other views exist. If you use the abilities you were born with to create a new thing do you get credit for it, or does the provider of your abilities get credit? If the latter then we must keep digging for the root (as Scott says below) until we can say for sure we have identified the source of your abilities and can rightly give all glory to that Original Cause.
    • Sep 25 2013: Hi Edward, I'm referring to giving credit to nature by discovering its capabilities rather than saying "I created this". I believe we discover by combining already existing parts of nature, I don't think we can literally create

      • thumb
        Sep 25 2013: Indeed, there is nothing new under the Sun. Penicillin wasn't created by Man, it was discovered. In that sense there is no such thing as creation, only discovery. Do you agree that creation must begin with Nothing?
        • Sep 25 2013: I really do! To me creation is a word invented to justify our own existence. I really "there's nothing new under the sun" too. Cheers mate
        • Da Way

          • 0
          Sep 28 2013: It all depends in the definition. You can say there are no new materials, and you can 'discover' more materials (e.g. Ben Franklin discovers lightening), but you can also play around with the existing material to establish a previously non-existing combination, e.g. inventing an MRI machine where that combination of chemicals/atoms did not previously exist. This playing around with combinations to bring about something new, to me, is how 'creation' is defined.

          I think music is the best analogy to think about this. No 'new' notes are out there. You can't even 'discover' new notes, but you can 'create' new music by trial of combinations to bring about patterns that will affect one's emotions.
  • thumb
    Sep 25 2013: Hi !Craig Mallis !
    In my opinion, creativity is not redundant. its true in our (human) concern. If u know the science, u must be aware that things are bound to perform actions and reactions by their nature. But, at the subtle level, the composition of same thing do not do that... at atoms level they do not behave as they do as whole. for example, Earth is made of Water and Soil but Earth do not behave neither like water nor like soil. Nature is nothing but a significant behavior of things (objects) in a specific situation. Take an another example, Bone Marrow of every human being are made of same things but behave (nature) differently. What Red Bone marrow produce, can't be produced by yellow Bone Marrow, although both are having same basic elements.

    Einstein's General Relativity has replaced the vast majority of Newton's work. But we all know Newton was right in terms of a gravity otherwise we humans were not be able to launch a rocket in space. Both Newton and Einstein are right in their domain. Newton has discovered the nature of objects in a small domain, in contrast Einstein domain was more wide.. Nature of things changes according to domain and specific. Action and Reaction are bound to occur naturally to accomplish a task in nature. Cause and effect theory is right for us, for other Species but may not be right for other Species having different sensors towards this universe and having different prospectus from us.

    Life knows about Action & Reaction and creativity ,,, so its true for you and me and us ! Hope its clear... :)
    • Sep 25 2013: Manish,

      This is off topic but I thought the yellow Bone Marrow were basically fat molecules and different from Red Bone Marrow which are made up of hematopoietic tissue. Am i missing something?

      • thumb
        Sep 26 2013: No! i dont think its a off topic Wayne. If u want me to choose the one option from Craig Mallis's given options ( universe is finite OR universe is infinite, Creativity is redundant OR Creativity is not redundant), then the conversation ends here. Because then i m given a frame, a boundaries to think within...

        To judge a football match you have to be outside of this match. Bone marrow is one domain consist of two other types of small domains (Red & yellow). One may look at small domain to find dissimilarities but i m looking at big domain to find similarities, to judge bone marrow i have to come out from 'types of bone marrows'. By other exaple H2O is small domain where Hydrogen and Oxygen acts differently but Water does not do that (bigger domain)....

        What i m trying to say is beyond duality, where no predefined option are given to choose. The origin of universe is surely there and Creativity is also there, both are true but in different prospectus. We cant judge other one without seeing other prospectus.
        • Sep 26 2013: thanks think i understand your point of view
  • Sep 25 2013: There's a thought and there's a thinker. Seek and know the thinker and its identity and all them there questions fall away. Play in the leaves or dig for the root.