Okay, I have a question for you.
Why are creative people rebellious?
First off, let's define creative people. From dictionary.com - one who displays productive creativity. Hmm. Remarkably unhelpful. Let's wing it, shall we?
A creative person is one who brings out an original idea - whether it be a concept, a product, a thought, or simply a random comment. Something previously unseen, or a different perspective on the whole deal. Or, if we decided to get excited and start rambling, an amalgamation of a number of previous ideas, fused into an original overview.
From the last one, a creative person sounds suspiciously like an intelligent scientist - perhaps a contradiction in terms, at least when it comes to IIT-ians (I just KNOW I'm going to pay for that one, but I'm weak, I couldn't resist). Okay, so where are we so far?
Why are scientists rebellious?
For the past few centuries, science has consisted of shoving a crowbar into what seems like a weak point in reality, and heaving back, in the hope that something interesting decides to pop through. Take that chappie with the first telescope, for instance, the one who the Church did nasty things to using a red hot poker, for insisting that the world wasn't a plate, it was an orange. Daft bugger, of course, everyone knows that the Earth is an Oblate Spheroid. Nonetheless, when Galileo came out with that thought, the whole civilized world (consisting of one city, and a small sausage factory on the east coast of Tanganyika) thought he was mad, and therefore, no one was really upset when the aforementioned nasty things happened with the poker. Except, that is, Galileo himself.
So here we are. Scientists, and therefore, by extension, creative people, are rebellious because they challenge the store of knowledge that presently exists. Perhaps it’s the rebellious nature that causes them to find out things that challenge the store, but nonetheless, it seems to be a one to one relationship. The interesting thing is this – they only get vindicated if they manage to prove that what they found out is actually true. In other words, what the chap says might be completely true, but nonetheless, it might get sidelined in favour of an opinion that’s complete bollocks, if they can’t prove it. Seems shady, doesn’t it?
There’s a book by Isaac Asimov, the New Guide to Science. If you haven’t read it yet, Madhav (a tall bespectacled twerp of my acquaintance) insists that you get your paws on it as soon as possible. I haven’t read it myself yet, but this chap is usually sound when it comes to things of a literary nature. Just don’t pay him any attention if he starts talking about things to eat. Anyhow, the New Guide to Science. Apparently, this book takes you through the last few hundred years of scientific thought, in an interestingly concise manner. Boys and Girls studying for the bored (sic) exams, take note. This chap managed a 90 something (with science, at that), so it might be worth a shot.
Back to the point, though.
The vindication of these scientists, as we were talking about, arrived only after the final proof of their theorems was analysed, and found to be true. At present, the race (flagged off by Newton, and more recently, Einstein), is to create a grand theory of everything, a set of mathematical equations that explain every phenomenon in the known universe – although perhaps explaining women’s foibles might be a bit more daunting. Nevertheless, here’s the bugger.
A recent theorem, has this to say on the topic – If ever a theory of anything is created, it will explain every single phenomenon, except one. In other words, there will always be one unexplained event for every complete theory, regardless of the completeness of this theory.
Bugger.
It’s a bit like this short science fiction story by Isaac Asimov, Alexander the Great.
It’s about this boy, Alexander, who creates this supercomputer which he uses to dominate the world. Basically, this computer is linked to every bit of data that the world can generate, and analyses this data to locate patterns of stability out of the seeming chaos of the world’s events. This lets this Napoleonic twerp to corner the world stock markets, making him the most powerful man in the world. He fails in his final task, however, to control the world, when the computer (Bucephalous) notices one completely random, inexplicable event in the world – its own existence. I’ve completely ruined the story in trying to compress it, but I hope you see what I mean. In any case, I strongly recommend reading it, Asimov usually has something interesting to say.
Let’s review, shall we?
Creative people, a subset of who are scientists, are rebellious because they challenge the store of accepted knowledge. They are only vindicated when their statements are proved to be fact, using mathematical proofs (I say mathematical, because everything, at the end of the day, comes down to math). Their theories, at the end of the day, come to naught, because of a new theory that states that no theory of everything can exist; rather, that one contradiction to every theory of everything always exists. Either that, or the theory simply can’t be tested. For example, there’s no way to test a theory on the big bang without being there, which isn’t possible, given what we know. It’s like water at the end of a river creating theories about the glacier that gave birth to it. Interesting speculation, but at the end of the day, impossible to test.
Where do we go
Where do we go now
Where do we go
Sweet child o' mine?
We’ll be back after these few messages.
Why are creative people rebellious?
First off, let's define creative people. From dictionary.com - one who displays productive creativity. Hmm. Remarkably unhelpful. Let's wing it, shall we?
A creative person is one who brings out an original idea - whether it be a concept, a product, a thought, or simply a random comment. Something previously unseen, or a different perspective on the whole deal. Or, if we decided to get excited and start rambling, an amalgamation of a number of previous ideas, fused into an original overview.
From the last one, a creative person sounds suspiciously like an intelligent scientist - perhaps a contradiction in terms, at least when it comes to IIT-ians (I just KNOW I'm going to pay for that one, but I'm weak, I couldn't resist). Okay, so where are we so far?
Why are scientists rebellious?
For the past few centuries, science has consisted of shoving a crowbar into what seems like a weak point in reality, and heaving back, in the hope that something interesting decides to pop through. Take that chappie with the first telescope, for instance, the one who the Church did nasty things to using a red hot poker, for insisting that the world wasn't a plate, it was an orange. Daft bugger, of course, everyone knows that the Earth is an Oblate Spheroid. Nonetheless, when Galileo came out with that thought, the whole civilized world (consisting of one city, and a small sausage factory on the east coast of Tanganyika) thought he was mad, and therefore, no one was really upset when the aforementioned nasty things happened with the poker. Except, that is, Galileo himself.
So here we are. Scientists, and therefore, by extension, creative people, are rebellious because they challenge the store of knowledge that presently exists. Perhaps it’s the rebellious nature that causes them to find out things that challenge the store, but nonetheless, it seems to be a one to one relationship. The interesting thing is this – they only get vindicated if they manage to prove that what they found out is actually true. In other words, what the chap says might be completely true, but nonetheless, it might get sidelined in favour of an opinion that’s complete bollocks, if they can’t prove it. Seems shady, doesn’t it?
There’s a book by Isaac Asimov, the New Guide to Science. If you haven’t read it yet, Madhav (a tall bespectacled twerp of my acquaintance) insists that you get your paws on it as soon as possible. I haven’t read it myself yet, but this chap is usually sound when it comes to things of a literary nature. Just don’t pay him any attention if he starts talking about things to eat. Anyhow, the New Guide to Science. Apparently, this book takes you through the last few hundred years of scientific thought, in an interestingly concise manner. Boys and Girls studying for the bored (sic) exams, take note. This chap managed a 90 something (with science, at that), so it might be worth a shot.
Back to the point, though.
The vindication of these scientists, as we were talking about, arrived only after the final proof of their theorems was analysed, and found to be true. At present, the race (flagged off by Newton, and more recently, Einstein), is to create a grand theory of everything, a set of mathematical equations that explain every phenomenon in the known universe – although perhaps explaining women’s foibles might be a bit more daunting. Nevertheless, here’s the bugger.
A recent theorem, has this to say on the topic – If ever a theory of anything is created, it will explain every single phenomenon, except one. In other words, there will always be one unexplained event for every complete theory, regardless of the completeness of this theory.
Bugger.
It’s a bit like this short science fiction story by Isaac Asimov, Alexander the Great.
It’s about this boy, Alexander, who creates this supercomputer which he uses to dominate the world. Basically, this computer is linked to every bit of data that the world can generate, and analyses this data to locate patterns of stability out of the seeming chaos of the world’s events. This lets this Napoleonic twerp to corner the world stock markets, making him the most powerful man in the world. He fails in his final task, however, to control the world, when the computer (Bucephalous) notices one completely random, inexplicable event in the world – its own existence. I’ve completely ruined the story in trying to compress it, but I hope you see what I mean. In any case, I strongly recommend reading it, Asimov usually has something interesting to say.
Let’s review, shall we?
Creative people, a subset of who are scientists, are rebellious because they challenge the store of accepted knowledge. They are only vindicated when their statements are proved to be fact, using mathematical proofs (I say mathematical, because everything, at the end of the day, comes down to math). Their theories, at the end of the day, come to naught, because of a new theory that states that no theory of everything can exist; rather, that one contradiction to every theory of everything always exists. Either that, or the theory simply can’t be tested. For example, there’s no way to test a theory on the big bang without being there, which isn’t possible, given what we know. It’s like water at the end of a river creating theories about the glacier that gave birth to it. Interesting speculation, but at the end of the day, impossible to test.
Where do we go
Where do we go now
Where do we go
Sweet child o' mine?
We’ll be back after these few messages.
3 comments:
im on my lunch break in the middle of evening training shift, needless to say im bored. thankfully, there is plenty to chew on here. but first i'll quibble with the site's new design. its alarming. i think ive actually developed a fever . i may have to break to fetch a paper sac.
well, im generally skeptical of all supposed creativity, generally believing that life is a creative process, each person, by merely living fulfilling a space and time never before realized. this is the essence of creativity and the best part is that it is involuntary. the church's methods used to suppress heresy are a supreme example of creativity. as all actions and nonactions are destined to be.
im generally impressed by the intelligence and creativity of everything around me, and of everyone. maybe that is only an expression of my own limitations. im willing to accept that, but i suspect it is not true. in any case, i disagree only because it's more fun to be contrary. besides if i cant have fun on my lunch break (actually dinner break i suppose) i might not make it through the rest of this training shift. anyhow, i disagree with the fundamental premise, so that prevents me from commenting on the rest. besides, my time is running short...enjoying the sudden burst of activity though. by the way,you should comment on my site. ive had to resort to hawking my wares as only the most solitary and off-topic comments are presently featured.
i guess the design isn't as bad as i originally thought. my criticism was a bit hasty, though the template still seems a bit optimistic. anyhow, i'll keep my grubby paws off your blog template. forgive me my hyperbole. im at home now, and in a much more positive frame of mind, which means that i must repent of all foul deeds large and small.
write the rest man.
Post a Comment