A theroy by Georg Cantor might have ruined my life.

Hi Tailspin

To answer your question the theory is not really true. Without being needlessly complex, there is an infinite number of pages you can write in a book, to the point it only comes down to which age you can start writing a book, how fast you can write and how long you will live. You can also factor in how much time aside from eating and sleeping you will write. Factor in the possibility of technology being invented that would allow us to live forever (I assume you don't believe in God or this thread would not have been made.) and it truly is infinite.

It's not about the limited number of words and letters, because the combinations are infinite.

If this is causing you problems then you most likely have more pressing issues to discuss with your therapist.

Kind of feels like a trolling thread but good luck to you and your mental health mate. There are bigger fish to fry in the 70-80 (if lucky) years you have here.

Tailspin wrote:I appreciate you taking the time . . .

My pleasure. It was my first crack at writing a hypnotic talk, using flow and association, off the top of my head.

Tailspin wrote:Either creativity is infinite and boundless and I can get on with my life.
Or creativity is finite and limited and my life is ruined.

Be aware. That which you imagine fulfills itself in reality.

The reason I haven't posted in a while is because I've been on this website for discuss in scientific matters.
I thought that it would be a more appropriate place to ask these questions:

Is there a limit on the possible number of books that can be written?
Is there a finite limit to the combination is an arrangement of all matter?
It took a few days but I finally got one of them to give me this:

“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?”
But when I went on Yahoo Answers I got quite a few people who said the series were true. I want to know what you think about these answers.

The contributor is right with his very first observation: the issue you have is not a problem with reality. If being creative is such a joyful thing for you, why on earth do you allow yourself to be bothered with this 'problem'? You haven't even reach anywhere near your own limits, your highest potential, but instead of trying all sorts of ways to progress towards that direction, you'd rather waste your time away troubling yourself with what may not even be a problem at all.

I do wonder whether you really do enjoy writing itself? Why are you trying so hard to stop yourself from applying your creativity? What is your own creation will always be your own creation regardless of whether someone else has achieved a similar result with their own creativity. If someone else creates something similar to what you've created, it may really mean that you have a kindred spirit out there. Isn't this something to be happy about and intrigued by??

I hope you will try to understand my post since it is an attempt at a solution to your problem on philosophical grounds. I wonder whether anybody else has the same problem with my post.

Isn't it enough stimulation, excitement and joy for you to just try to understand the world, yourself and human existence?

Freudian wrote:The contributor is right with his very first observation: the issue you have is not a problem with reality. If being creative is such a joyful thing for you, why on earth do you allow yourself to be bothered with this 'problem'?

How could it not bother me? Have I not explained this enough for you?

You seem to think I shouldn't care about these theories either way. Well I do care, I care enormously, they affect me to the very core of my being and I am not going to change that. I simply want to know what you think of his scientific answers. I don't think there is anything wrong with my internal reaction to the situation at all. I am sick and tired of people telling me that my concerns are stupid and meaningless.
I had hoped that the people on this site would be more understanding.

Do you think his arguments against the theories are strong and valid? Yes or no.

I never said your concerns were 'stupid and meaningless.' If applying your creativity is the thing which most engages you, why should you let this prevent you from doing just that? I think it's quite valid for me to ask this question. It seems unreasonable to me that you should put your entire life on hold when you say it is the very application of creativity which brings satisfaction to you. Why should you care whether the results of your creativity are replicated independently or not? Why should it matter so much to you what becomes of the product of your creativity? Should you not be creative for yourself, and for the sake of being creative, and noone else?

Yes, they're quite strong and valid, but why should the judgement of others matter? I thought the arguments of my own and others were strong and valid too, but that didn't stop you from putting them all aside.

It matters to me because I always thought creativity was the world of infinite and boundless possibilities. Where creative types could forever continue to create things as unique as themselves. A world that is completely unbalanced by the constraints of reality. A world where anything was possible and the only limit was on your own imagination.
And my father introduced me to the theory, everything I ever believed and valued most about creativity came crashing down. As I've said before, I felt like anything I created would be part of a limited set of possibilities and anything I did create would push us a little further to the day when we could create no more. Another nail in the coffin of creativity. Creativity had become a gutted hollow shell to me.

The judgement of others matters in this case because I am not a scientist, physicist or mathematician. The reason I believed my father when he first told to me was because he knows a lot more about science than I do. He has a doctorate, he consults on various scientific projects, subscribes to science magazines and is an amateur astronomer. Part of the reason I believed him was because I was in no position to challenge him.

If there is a chance these theories are false I would only believe it coming from another scientist because frankly, I feel no one else has any authority to challenge a scientific argument.

For me, writing meant a world of infinite possibilities, freedom from all constraints of reality and creating something that only you could create.

Why should the fact that people run into ideas already thought of in the past mean that there is not an infinite number of possibilities? I'd think the more basic an idea or creation, the easier it is to replicate.
There has been philosophers, scientists, economists and mathematicians in history who independently discovered similar ideas but that never put an end to their infatuation for their fields. Why should it affect your writing if it's your writing which captivates your passion?
And I think considering only the individual things you create in isolation is taking a narrow view of the issue. I think it matters more the nature of the whole body of your creations. The full list of things you've created in your lifetime is a better indication of a creator's uniqueness. It isn't merely the fact that Thomas Edison created the light bulb which makes him one of the greatest inventors in history - others are said to have created the light bulb independently; it is the fact that he has about a thousand other inventions to his name and the fact that he was self-made man - having only received several months of schooling in his early life. But do you think Joseph Swan (another inventor of the light bulb) would have given up inventing things had he discovered earlier that Thomas Edison would be better known for his own independent invention of the same item? Not if he dearly loved and enjoyed inventing things.

Assuming there is such a thing as 'limits to our imagination,' what does it mean to step outside of these limits? Can we comprehend the outside of these limits, and the very limits itself, at all? Can we know what these limits are? If human imagination cannot grasp these limits or the things beyond these limits, can we come to understand them? Are they within the capacity of human understanding? If not, then isn't it redundant to worry about the content of what is beyond these limits?

And would you agree that there exist no other Tailspin in the world, that your personality and character is unique and there is noone like you? If so, then surely you can agree that there exists something which only you can create - that there is something you can express that is unique to you. And if there indeed does exists someone who can only create the very same things you create, then ought that not draw fascination and awe of human nature, rather than this intense worry and turmoil you're currently experiencing?

My father's theory took all that away from me and such sucked all the happiness out of my life.

I wonder whether you've allowed it to take it all away from you.

To me, the theory says that everything I could ever come up with is simply part of a pre-existing set of possibilities and eventually no one will be able to write anything without it being an exact copy of something else and everything I do write will bring into little closer to that time.

I don't believe you've provided a full proof of your theory, or even a convincing argument to support its truth and validity. Even you have doubts in your mind, which is why you're going around the internet posing questions about its validity. Your love and enjoyment for unleashing your creativity is threaten by the mere thought of the theory being possibly true. Why?
If humanity runs out of new ideas, what will it mean for human civilisation? Will we then, at which point, have no more problems to solve about the world and human existence?
I think when you speak of 'pre-existing set of possibilities,' you mean almost the same thing as scientists when they speak of scientific knowledge as being 'discovered.' This seems to me as bordering on a discussion about free will and determinism.

If there is a chance these theories are false I would only believe it coming from another scientist because frankly, I feel no one else has any authority to challenge a scientific argument.

It doesn't seem to me to be a 'scientific argument' at all. Where is the scientific evidence? A theory by Georg Cantor would suggest that it belongs to the field of mathematics, but i see no mathematical proof or argument to suggest the truth behind the theory. In fact, the nature of the applications of the theory (I don't see any specific 'theory by Georg Cantor') and the argument which arise out of the application of the theory seem to me to be of a philosophical nature.

Where are your scientific evidence and theories related to your ideas negative impressions of creativity? It doesn't seem to me at all to be backed by evidence. Your fears seems like the result of only a possibility of the truth of the theory when applied to creativity.

It matters to me because I always thought creativity was the world of infinite and boundless possibilities. Where creative types could forever continue to create things as unique as themselves. A world that is completely unbalanced by the constraints of reality. A world where anything was possible and the only limit was on your own imagination.

Why should the nature of creativity matter when you say it's the very act of being creative which brings you satisfaction? If you believe you are unique, then what more is there to worry about? Can't you express the nature of your own uniqueness? The fact that you're allowing the possibility of the application of your theory being true to stop you from being creative is what i find difficult to understand. Maybe what really satisfies you is understanding more about human nature. Many writers would find it quite lovely and fascinating to find another person who is capable of creating similar things to themselves.

Freudian wrote:Why should the nature of creativity matter when you say it's the very act of being creative which brings you satisfaction?.

Because it doesn't bring me satisfaction if the theory is true. It means that creativity is anything but what I thought it was, it was all just a hollow illusion. And I can't enjoy it if I've got that hanging over me.

Freudian, I'm really tired of explaining over and over why this bothers me so much. I have already called you why it bothers me and still you keep asking. This is why I don't like to talk to about it to many people. Because as soon as I explained to them and they either don't get it so I have to explain it again or they ask me why that bothers me. So I tell them why it balls me but then they just ask me again and again and again. And no matter how many times I explained to them they just don't get it.
I have explained it as clearly and eloquently as I possibly can. If you still don't get it by now then there is no way I could make it clear to you.

I have Asperger's syndrome, and part of that means I am inflexible and see everything in very black and white terms. Reading your posts I get the feeling that you're simply telling me to live with the consequences of the theory. And the only reason anyone would do that is because the theory is true and there is no hope of it not being true.

If the nature of creativity was really the thing which brought you satisfaction and contentment, then did it really matter whether you enjoyed the act of being creative? If being creative meant so much to you and brought you so much fulfilment, then, surely, you'd still be doing it. I'm making a distinction between 'being creative' and 'the nature of creativity,' where it seems to be the latter which is bothering you the most.

Because it doesn't bring me satisfaction if the theory is true. It means that creativity is anything but what I thought it was, it was all just a hollow illusion. And I can't enjoy it if I've got that hanging over me.

This does not explain why your act of being creative depends so much on the nature of creativity. You are here describing the feelings you have when the connection isn't what you thought it was. This does not answer my question.

I have Asperger's syndrome, and part of that means I am inflexible and see everything in very black and white terms. Reading your posts I get the feeling that you're simply telling me to live with the consequences of the theory. And the only reason anyone would do that is because the theory is true and there is no hope of it not being true.

I have provided a fair few reasons why i feel your theory is false and inconsistent with reality. It seems you might have ignored them. I have never suggested to you to 'live with the consequences of the theory' (which you seem to be uncertain about anyway). I have strived to understand the connection in your mind between being creative and your impression of the nature of creativity. I can still enjoy economics, apply economic theory when fiddling around with economic problems, even though the applications might have been repeated several times previously. Similarly, i can still find enjoyment in applying my own creativity when considering philosophical issues that may have already been solved several times in the past.

Many writers enjoy writing for the sake of writing and expressing their thoughts and emotions, without thinking or feeling the need to consider the possibility that it might be replicated exactly. Luckily for them, writers are constantly striving to write something different to everybody else.

If my posts are getting you nowhere, feel free to ignore them.

*
It's just a thought. And a thought can be changed.

You are asking everybody outside of you to verify a thought as true, or untrue.

And then not just anybody's verification will work for you, it must be a somebody with authority to make that verification.

And the whole of your life hinges on an authoritative someone other than you to verify a thought.

What would happen if you decide for yourself if that thought is true or not true?

I suppose that would mean then that you'd have to take responsibility for your own life.

And you just can't have that now, can you?

*
It's just a thought. And a thought can be changed.

i think all theories are false. approximations of reality which we gradually refine over time as we throw away old theories & adopt new slightly less false theories. even that theory just there that i just wrote. that's false too. lol.

err but i agree with the guy on the other forum who said that it was infinite due to the reasons he said & then said that you wouldn't accept it. oh look, you're not accepting it.

i think the problem is that for you creating felt open, endless & free but now accepting this theory it feels closed in constrained & suffocating. even if it were true that the amount of different possible books was finite, the number of different combinations would be so, so large that to you, it would appear infinite. so actually the problem is not whether the theory is true or false, infinite or finite. but that you can't let go of the idea that it might be finite. you can't let go of that feeling of suffocation. assume that if it is finite, it is to you indistinguishable from infinite. so then given that it is indistinguishable from infinite, assume it is infinite, make peace with that, and get on with your life.

I appreciate the first part of your post but I have already stated how I feel.

appearing to be infinite is not the same as being infinite and creativity being infinite is what is so important to me.