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.
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?
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.
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?