Theories on possibilities may have ruined my life

[Phi for All]

And to answer an erlyer question, the reson I took these theorys so seriously is becuase my father is very scientificly minded and he believes them with out a flicker of duobt.

 

Again, it seems like you're talking about math proofs, not science theories.

 

I'm thinking it was a mistake to post my question the way I did becuase I'm not feeling a lot of sympathy or respect.

 

What you're feeling is an emotional response to an unemotional one. Nobody here knows you well enough to really sympathize or respect you personally. All comments have been about your ideas, not about you.

 

We might be able to empathize with you, but what we're doing instead is showing you how some misconceptions and misunderstandings might have led you to make conclusions that aren't sound. Haven't you been asking this whole time if what your father told you is true? We've been trying to tell you it's not so black and white, and that while his take on probability might have a lot of relevance, it's not relevant to the creativity you're talking about.

 

Right now, it seems like you have some kind of answer to this problem in mind, and are simply rejecting anything else. It's been demonstrated that creativity can be an infinite source of uniqueness. Isn't this what you wanted?

[Tailspin]

I want to thank you all for putting up with me. I assumed this isn't what you usually talk about on this site and I should be grateful you're willing to accommodate me.

 

I'm sorry if I spoke harshly, I've been through a lot and it's been very frustrating trying to get anyone to understand what I'm feeling and why.

I have a very analytical mind and I've always thought of things in very black and white terms, everything is either true or false, right or wrong. I wanted a straight yes or no answer and I got frustrated when I didn't get one.

 

When I first spiralled into depression my father tried to bring me out by saying that creativity was practically infinite because, although all possibilities were certainly finite, the end of the universe would occur before we reached that limit. This only made me feel worse because if he was telling me how to live with it that had to mean it was true. To me at least, being practically infinite is not the same as actually being infinite.

Creativity has almost been the most wonderful, magical thing I've ever experienced, the most important thing in my life. My father's theory came as a huge shock and left me completely disillusioned.

The idea of it all coming to an end is something I find unbearably horrific.

 

I still can't say for certain that I truly believe that creative possibilities truly are infinite and I won't be able to get over this until I do. But thank you for not just discarded me as some crazy person.

[Delta1212]

Here is a question for you: Do you think that Animal Farm would have the same meaning, essentially be the same work of art, were it written without the context of the Russian Revolution? If someone were to read it two hundred years ago, would it carry the same message for them as it does for a modern audience, or the same message that was intended when it was written?

[Tailspin]

I get what you're saying but these theories I'm talking about aren't really affected by how someone interprets a piece of art.

incidentally I went on Yahoo Answers and ask them if there is a finite number of ways you could arrange matter in any given space and I think they all said yes.

[Delta1212]

I get what you're saying but these theories I'm talking about aren't really affected by how someone interprets a piece of art.

incidentally I went on Yahoo Answers and ask them if there is a finite number of ways you could arrange matter in any given space and I think they all said yes.

I'm not talking about the ways that something can be interpreted. I'm talking about the fact that a given arrangement of words or configuration of matter can actually represent an entirely different creative work at different times. Contrary to what you're saying, meaning is extremely important to creativity.

 

Words change meanings over time. Languages use the same sound as entirely different words. In German "Rock" means skirt, for instance. Context and meaning are extremely important.

 

With time, context changes and so, the same configuration of letters or atoms or what have you can represent vastly different creative works that mean entirely different things. Sometimes subtly (as with the historical context of Animal Farm) and sometimes completely (as with using the same "word" as a completely different word). Since time, as far as we know, is open ended, this gives you infinite potential for creativity in the sense that new meaning can be creatively applied to old configurations without limit.

 

And you're also leaving out the fact that even with a finite number of configurations being possible at any given moment, time dependent works (for instance, those animated shows you're taking about, open up the possibilities because there is nothing stopping them from running indefinitely, making them, in essence, have an infinite number of possible series runs.

 

Now, every possibility won't come to pass, but you have more or less open-ended potential in that respect.

[Phi for All]

Here is a question for you: Do you think that Animal Farm would have the same meaning, essentially be the same work of art, were it written without the context of the Russian Revolution? If someone were to read it two hundred years ago, would it carry the same message for them as it does for a modern audience, or the same message that was intended when it was written?

I get what you're saying but these theories I'm talking about aren't really affected by how someone interprets a piece of art.

 

You don't get what Delta1212 is saying. It's not about interpretation. This is the time variable I mentioned. You can take any any second out of any day and have an infinite amount of things poeple could possibly do with that second. Or you could take any creative thing people could think of, and have an infinite amount of variation on that thing depending on when you thought of it.

 

Take something you wrote five years ago. Write it again today and it will be changed by the context of time. Much of Shakespeare would have changed if he'd written the Histories at any other time than he did. Would Impressionist paintings have had the same impact if the movement would have come 200 years earlier? Time can turn a practical lunchbox into a collector's item, or a tuxedo into a hobo suit.

 

Time is the variable you need that will make your calculations end in infinity.

 

Edit to add: cross-posted with Delta1212.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Phi for All
additional

[Roamer]

But lately I been feeling very depressed because of two scientific theories.

The first one was introduced to me years ago by my father who has always been very interested in science. He told me that there is a finite limit on the number of books is possible to write. Not because human imagination is limited but because a book is made up of words which are a combination of letters and as there are a finite number of letters in existence then there is a finite number of different possible books that can be written. At least not without making words progressively longer and longer until they ceased to be usable.

 

Let me tell you, this news absolutely devastated me. I gave up on my ambitions, on everything I'd ever believed about creativity and sank into a deep depression.

 

 

This theory is wrong, it falsely assumes there is some kind of maximum amount of words in a book.

 

What's more interesting though, you cared about creativity and you experienced this as a cage around your creativity, (or so i assume) so why didn't you start making up longer and longer words to push the cage back ?

[arc]

Hello everybody.

 

This is my very first post and I warn you now it's going to be unusual.

 

I have always been a very creative and imaginative person, I have ambitions of becoming an author someday maybe even producing my own animated TV shows. I have always regarded creativity as a realm of infinite possibilities, where anyone and everyone can bring something unique into this world.

 

But lately I been feeling very depressed because of two scientific theories.

The first one was introduced to me years ago by my father who has always been very interested in science. He told me that there is a finite limit on the number of books is possible to write. Not because human imagination is limited but because a book is made up of words which are a combination of letters and as there are a finite number of letters in existence then there is a finite number of different possible books that can be written. At least not without making words progressively longer and longer until they ceased to be usable.

 

Let me tell you, this news absolutely devastated me. I gave up on my ambitions, on everything I'd ever believed about creativity and sank into a deep depression.

Eventually I drifted out of it but recently I've had a relapse.

 

The second one is this theory I've heard about which says that there is a finite limitation on the different ways that all matter can be arranged and therefore a finite limitation on the possibilities of absolutely everything. On the events that can happen, lifeforms and people that can exist and anything that an artist can ever create.

Together these theories have left me broken and with a deep feeling of hopelessness.

What I want to know is our these theories true? Have they been proven all this proven? Is there any room for definite or at least reasonable doubt?

 

I know that there is nothing I can do about them, I know that if they are true they will never affect me in my lifetime, I know that if they are true it's still a vast number but those thoughts bring absolutely no comfort to me whatsoever.

I know this isn't this the sort of thing you usually talk about on this kind of website but I've tried talking about it on depression websites and to my therapist and haven't really gotten anywhere.

To me there are only two options, either they are untrue and I can finally put them behind me or they are true and my life is ruined.

Also, please don't tell me just live with it because I can't.

 

I honestly don't know if they are true or not, it is almost a philosophy question to me. You could make up "what-if" questions all night. I am quite alarmed by the reference frame this involves. Could you choose anything bigger? There are some people that feel as hopeless as you do because the Sun will eventually destroy the Earth. Taking every possibly surviving piece of evidence of their existence. Humans are strange that way, they are worried about being forgotten. They are going to be dead or will have been dead for billions of years and that is what is concerning them now!

 

To beat this, and you need to feel like you really want to beat this, you need to use your creativity. You need to understand that. You say you are creative, then show what you can do with this. This is a very unique opportunity, there is unlikely anyone else that feels your particular way about this very unusual predicament.

This is a huge opportunity for you alone. No one else see's it from your perspective.

 

You can be the next Tim Burton. Start writing that story now! Write! Write! Write!

[Tailspin]

I get what you're saying but I really don't want to write anything based on this experience. For one thing it's been incredibly painful for me and if I ever do get past this I want to put it behind me and never think of it again. Secondly I am afraid that what this theory has done to me will do the same thing to other creative types and I don't want to put them through that.

 

And again what I need is a straight, black and white answer, I want to see anything else on this thread except an answer to this question:

 

Are these two theories true? Yes or no?

[Deepak Kapur]

@ tailspin

 

These two theories are not correct.

 

1. The first theory is not correct because in order to answer infinite new questions that arise from infinite regress of ideas/concepts, you will have to coin infinite new words to explain these ever popping up new questions/ideas. This means, you can write infinite new books for ever that will always contain new words.

 

2. The second theory is also wrong because when you will answer the ever increasing number of new questions, the atoms in your brain will always be arranged in ever increasing newer ways than before.

[StringJunky]

If a book had to be a pre-defined length then the creative possibilities are finite but they are not so the permutations are endless. The number of words may be finite on any given day but new words or meanings to existing ones are being added thereafter ....language - especially English - is not in stasis.

[Ophiolite]

Are these two theories true? Yes or no?

No.

 

Do you feel any better?

[Enthalpy]

The novel that describes a librabry containing all possible books has already been written...

 

The novel's title is "La biblioteca de Babel", in the section "El jardín de senderos que se bifurcan" of the book "Ficciones", by Jorge Luís Borges. Very nice literature. The English translation may have kept "Garden of Forking Paths" separate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Luis_Borges_bibliography

it's anterior (1941) to Shannon's theory of information (1948).

 

Though, one should understand that making an art work among infinite possibilities or among a number so huge that it's not exploreable nor even conceiveable is just equally good. It makes no difference for every purpose. It's creation.

[Tailspin]

No.

 

Do you feel any better?

 

i might if you could back up this statement with facts.

Also I asked this question on Yahoo answers and they all said the theory was true:

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140620112321AAVWHPR

[Bignose]

i might if you could back up this statement with facts.

Also I asked this question on Yahoo answers and they all said the theory was true:

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140620112321AAVWHPR

This might be a new one. If you liked their answer so darn much, why did you bother to ask this forum? Or, put another way, you must not have liked their answer at one time because you still came here to ask us. So, what changed (and maybe changed again)?

[arc]

I get what you're saying but I really don't want to write anything based on this experience. For one thing it's been incredibly painful for me and if I ever do get past this I want to put it behind me and never think of it again. Secondly I am afraid that what this theory has done to me will do the same thing to other creative types and I don't want to put them through that.

 

And again what I need is a straight, black and white answer, I want to see anything else on this thread except an answer to this question:

 

Are these two theories true? Yes or no?

 

I'm guessing you are simply afraid of failure and needed to create in your mind a reason to lock in a bulletproof excuse to yourself, one that can convince you to not even try. Good luck with that, it seems to be working. Strange use for ones creativity don't you think.

[Ophiolite]

 

i might if you could back up this statement with facts.

You seem to be immune to facts. I repeat, your problem is internal, not external. It is not a consequence of reality, but your reaction to reality. The answer I give here will be rejected by you, even although it is valid.

 

1. There is no limit on the number books that can be written. The number of integer numbers i infinite. Therefore any book that contains an integer number can be unique and there can be an infinite number of them.

 

2. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ensures that the total number of ways of rearranging material cannot be defined and is therefore not finite.

 

 

Do you feel any better?

[Tailspin]

This might be a new one. If you liked their answer so darn much, why did you bother to ask this forum? Or, put another way, you must not have liked their answer at one time because you still came here to ask us. So, what changed (and maybe changed again)?

 

I never liked their answers. I just wanted you to see what these people were saying so maybe you could challenge them.

 

 

I'm guessing you are simply afraid of failure and needed to create in your mind a reason to lock in a bulletproof excuse to yourself, one that can convince you to not even try. Good luck with that, it seems to be working. Strange use for ones creativity don't you think.

 

Beleive me I don't want to feel this way and I'm not looking for an excuse. Even if I were I would not pick somthing that made me feel as bad as this did.

 

You seem to be immune to facts. I repeat, your problem is internal, not external. It is not a consequence of reality, but your reaction to reality. The answer I give here will be rejected by you, even although it is valid.

 

1. There is no limit on the number books that can be written. The number of integer numbers i infinite. Therefore any book that contains an integer number can be unique and there can be an infinite number of them.

 

2. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ensures that the total number of ways of rearranging material cannot be defined and is therefore not finite.

 

 

Do you feel any better?

 

I'm stating to, yes. This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you.

[Tailspin]

Ophiolite, thank you for taking the time and effort to share you're knowlege with me. I know I've been difficult and this situation is very unsusal.

You may hav just restored somthing that is part of my reason to live.

[Ophiolite]

I am pleased that what I have said has been of some help to you. I wish you well as you move forward.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

This was never maths really and the OP's question has been answered. to avoid endless rehashing of the same points I think I will lock this thread. If you wish to discuss the constraints on reality and the effects of a finite existence on the creative process then please open a thread in philosophy.