A theroy by Georg Cantor might have ruined my life.

Tailspin --

Perhaps you may want to study how imagination is a source of reality.

(The essence of) whatever you consistently and believingly imagine eventually comes about in reality.

Emotional force can be taken hold of and used toward your desired purpose.

Reading at a MOOC forum just now triggered this idea:

All writing (creativity) is more or less a self-exploration.

Is adhering to the importance of the correct answer to your question blocking you from doing some self-exploration through writing?

I don't get what you are saying.
If you want to help me... Give me hard evidence that this theory is false or point me to someone who can.

Do you have any idea what I'm up against. I posted this same problem on a science website and a huge majority said it was certainly true, as certain as 2+2=4. I posed it on yahoo answers, 10/10 people said it was true. My father, who introduced it to me in the first place, said that it was our basic understanding of the universe. All these people have been 100% sure and none can see why it bothers me.
I don't want to belive it but it's incredibly difficult for me.

You said people have given me good evidence to think it's not true. Can you show me exactly what? Can you highlight what exactly they are because I don't recall them.

I feeling like I'll never move past this.

Tailspin wrote: You said people have given me good evidence to think it's not true. Can you show me exactly what?

Easy, you

-1- consistently ignore the impact time has on the theory and;

-2- you ignore discussions of origin, i.e. the origin of matter.

To be clear, are you saying I need to ignore time and the origin of matter or I am ignoring them and I need to stop?
And how do they factor in?

Tailspin wrote:To be clear, are you saying I need to ignore time and the origin of matter or I am ignoring them and I need to stop?
And how do they factor in?

No.

I am saying time and the origin of matter are but two examples of factors that you refuse to consider. I'm saying it doesn't matter what people offer as evidence. I'm not here to go down the same path of dictating to you why these factors disprove the theory just for you to summarily dismiss them.

Once again, you are using the theory as an excuse to avoid life. The theory provides you an excuse for a host of behaviors. The same as anyone that is heavily invested in a belief, whether a particular religion, moral, ethical or political position, for the belief to be proven wrong can never happen.

Are you saying I'm a lazy writer who is subconsciously holding onto this just to get out of writing?
Don't you believe me when I say this is bothering me for the reasons I've stated?

Tailspin wrote:Are you saying I'm a lazy writer who is subconsciously holding onto this just to get out of writing?
Don't you believe me when I say this is bothering me for the reasons I've stated?

I don't know for what all reasons you are holding onto this theory. I don't think it is only about writing. I think it is not that simple. Instead of thinking about the fears if the theory is true (fear you can't be infinitely creative), what are your fears if the theory is not true?

No, I don't believe it is for the reasons you have stated, because if it were for the reasons stated you would not so easily dismiss the numerous counter arguments people have provided. If something were to be having such a major impact on a persons life, they would thoroughly want to discuss and learn about the ins and outs of each counter argument, the same as a person diagnosed with cancer would want to explore thoroughly different treatments.

I have wanted to lean about it. After my father told me about it I started pounding him with questions about it until he said he was never going to discuss it again. I spend days scouring the internet trying to find some trace of this theory but I had no idea what it was called or who came up with it so I couldn't find anything and my father flatly refused to tell me. I gave up all hope and became emotionally dead. I spent hours at a time playing endless games of solitaire on my computer, avoiding anything creative.

This depression got so bad I've even contemplated suicide. does that sound like someone who just want's to avoid something?

One of the most frustrating things about this is that no-one seems to take me seriously, people just don't seem to believe that this theory can bother me. you seem to be saying that i'm just a lazy, procrastinating slug who is willing to hold on to anything that will get him out of writing even if it makes him suicidal. Is that what I am?

You say that people on this thread have given me good reasons to doubt the theory. Name them.

If i would write a book now; i would not focus on writing something that was never written before, i would focus on the feelings;

Feeling good never gets boring: I always enjoy watching the same picture of a happy dog, is not about taking a picture that was never taken before: a dog on the moon or whatever, is that feeling I can pickup from that I like...

Here I am writing this comment to you, I did not read what others have said before me, maybe i am only repeating what someone said, but this time is my energy, my feelings, my way of speaking,

Instead of focusing on this theory, why dont you focus on writing books that can make others feel good?

Tailspin wrote:Are you saying I'm a lazy writer who is subconsciously holding onto this just to get out of writing?

Tailspin wrote: . . . you seem to be saying that i'm just a lazy, procrastinating slug

I didn't read that anyone, including me, is saying you're being lazy.
I'm saying that you're using this exercise as a psychological block. (This is assuming you're for real, and not a troll.)

quietvoice wrote:Is adhering to the importance of the correct answer to your question blocking you from doing some self-exploration through writing?

I notice you had no comment about this. I think you're avoiding looking at something about yourself. It's not right or wrong, it's the way we humans operate, the way our unconscious operates. Your unconscious is protecting you. There's something that's there, that you aren't ready to see. And so you attach yourself to this exercise to keep yourself from seeing.

I don't do self exploration in writing for 2 reasons.

1, I don't like it. I don't like writing about musings on the human condition or whatever. To me, when a book says it's about exploring the nature of humanity it just means it's going to go on and on about how horrible humans are.

2, I don't know how to do it anyway.

Now would you please answer my question and tell me who in this thread said that this theory is false because I don't recall anyone giving a good argument against it.

Tailspin wrote:Now would you please answer my question and tell me who in this thread said that this theory is false because I don't recall anyone giving a good argument against it.

Just a few posts ago.

-1- the theory does not account for time.

-2- the theory does not explain the origin of matter.

BOTH are good arguments. Explain to me from where matter originated?

Tailspin wrote:I don't do self exploration in writing for 2 reasons. . . .

quietvoice wrote:All writing (creativity) is more or less a self-exploration.

I didn't say to specifically or pusposefully make your writing self-exploratory, but that the nature of being creative is a self-exploration.

If the nature of creativity is self-exploration,
and you don't like self-exploration, . . .

Tailspin wrote:I don't do self exploration in writing for 2 reasons.

1, I don't like it. I don't like writing about musings on the human condition or whatever. To me, when a book says it's about exploring the nature of humanity it just means it's going to go on and on about how horrible humans are.

Notice here, you avoided SELF, and instead referred to OTHERS.