While I found this essay to be brilliant, there’s one flaw in the physics: namely, the essay never evinces an awareness that, as long as the current framework of quantum mechanics holds up, the particles currently thought to be identical in all respects, actually *have* to be identical in all respects. This is so because experiments have been done that depended on quantum interference between different paths that could lead to the same final state for these particles, and the (observed) interference could only have occurred if the final states really *were* identical in all respects, including as-yet unknown respects. Examples of such experiments include any that depend on the statistics of identical fermions or bosons. In the subatomic realm, in other words, lack of originality and variation between particles is an empirically verifiable fact.
Thanks for the correction and insightful comment, Scott! I'm honored to have you as a reader. I'm going to leave the essay as is but will include a note at the top directing people to your comment.
On the essay's main point, I always liked the advice that, rather than setting out to create something original, it's better to set out to create something *good* or *beautiful* or *correct*, and let the originality (if there is any) arise as a byproduct.
To be clear, this doesn't mean that you should set out to redo things that have already been done and have no need of being redone, unless you're a student who's trying to learn how. It just means that, among the things that *haven't* yet been done, your choice of which one to do should be guided by goodness, beauty, correctness, etc. rather than what will most wow everyone with its originality.
Hmm, your discussion of secret truths as the true nature of original thinking reminds me of the hill-climbing algorithm model of genius: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23879:
"Climbing—Expertise: Moving up the path of steepest ascent towards excellence for admission into a community that holds and defends a local maximum of fitness.
vs.
Crossing—Genius. Crossing the 'Adaptive Valley' to an unknown and unoccupied even higher maximum level of fitness."
From there, you can go into things like simulated annealing (https://mybrainsthoughts.com/?p=249: The Power of Annealing) to address when conventionality/expertise is better than original thinking/genius, a la what you discuss at the end of the essay. In short, original thinking is better at the start (jump large distances when you're far from the peak) and conventional thinking is better at the end (move small distances when you're near the peak). I've personally found it a useful explanation for why both types of thinking can be good in their own ways. But what do you think?
It's true both types of thinking are good in their own ways. If I have a sprained ankle, I don't want the bold, innovative truth seeker - I want someone who can properly my ankle and give me advice on how to make sure it heals quickly. If, on the other hand, I have a fatal wasting disease and there's one bold maverick (with some conventional success behind him - like, actually getting through medical school) with an idea about how to treat it, I'll go with the maverick.
One of the inspirations for this post was reading a book recommending creative thinking exercises. As a writer I found them valuable - I believe in trying to always have an at least 10:1 ratio of ideas to final content, and never like to follow the first, initial intuition - often the least original/impactful - I have about how to develop a thought, scene, or story. All the examples in the book of applying the ideas, however, were in a business context, specifically marketing. I have nothing against marketing or business, but it struck me as a depressing waste of tools.
I'll have more in an upcoming post about how I think conceive of creative thinking, using the metaphor of searching Borges' "Library of Babel."
While I found this essay to be brilliant, there’s one flaw in the physics: namely, the essay never evinces an awareness that, as long as the current framework of quantum mechanics holds up, the particles currently thought to be identical in all respects, actually *have* to be identical in all respects. This is so because experiments have been done that depended on quantum interference between different paths that could lead to the same final state for these particles, and the (observed) interference could only have occurred if the final states really *were* identical in all respects, including as-yet unknown respects. Examples of such experiments include any that depend on the statistics of identical fermions or bosons. In the subatomic realm, in other words, lack of originality and variation between particles is an empirically verifiable fact.
Thanks for the correction and insightful comment, Scott! I'm honored to have you as a reader. I'm going to leave the essay as is but will include a note at the top directing people to your comment.
I've added you to my blogroll!
On the essay's main point, I always liked the advice that, rather than setting out to create something original, it's better to set out to create something *good* or *beautiful* or *correct*, and let the originality (if there is any) arise as a byproduct.
To be clear, this doesn't mean that you should set out to redo things that have already been done and have no need of being redone, unless you're a student who's trying to learn how. It just means that, among the things that *haven't* yet been done, your choice of which one to do should be guided by goodness, beauty, correctness, etc. rather than what will most wow everyone with its originality.
Hmm, your discussion of secret truths as the true nature of original thinking reminds me of the hill-climbing algorithm model of genius: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23879:
"Climbing—Expertise: Moving up the path of steepest ascent towards excellence for admission into a community that holds and defends a local maximum of fitness.
vs.
Crossing—Genius. Crossing the 'Adaptive Valley' to an unknown and unoccupied even higher maximum level of fitness."
From there, you can go into things like simulated annealing (https://mybrainsthoughts.com/?p=249: The Power of Annealing) to address when conventionality/expertise is better than original thinking/genius, a la what you discuss at the end of the essay. In short, original thinking is better at the start (jump large distances when you're far from the peak) and conventional thinking is better at the end (move small distances when you're near the peak). I've personally found it a useful explanation for why both types of thinking can be good in their own ways. But what do you think?
It's true both types of thinking are good in their own ways. If I have a sprained ankle, I don't want the bold, innovative truth seeker - I want someone who can properly my ankle and give me advice on how to make sure it heals quickly. If, on the other hand, I have a fatal wasting disease and there's one bold maverick (with some conventional success behind him - like, actually getting through medical school) with an idea about how to treat it, I'll go with the maverick.
One of the inspirations for this post was reading a book recommending creative thinking exercises. As a writer I found them valuable - I believe in trying to always have an at least 10:1 ratio of ideas to final content, and never like to follow the first, initial intuition - often the least original/impactful - I have about how to develop a thought, scene, or story. All the examples in the book of applying the ideas, however, were in a business context, specifically marketing. I have nothing against marketing or business, but it struck me as a depressing waste of tools.
I'll have more in an upcoming post about how I think conceive of creative thinking, using the metaphor of searching Borges' "Library of Babel."