I would say creativity is the reordering of things that exist into a concept that you have not encountered before. — Philosophim

Creativity must be more than just a simple reordering of parts because it produces a unity out of things (parts) which were previously not unified. This is why a whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Prior to the creation, the things which will become the parts cannot be said to be "parts" because their existence is completely separate from each other, and independent. The creative acts makes them into "parts" by unifying them.

So the creative act, by being an intentional act, gives something to the creation (the whole) which cannot be attributed to any of the parts, nor to the sum of the parts. Often this is called "meaning", or it's sometimes called "beauty", sometimes "function", and there are various other terms which are used to describe what the creative act gives to the created thing which cannot be attributed to the parts themselves, and therefore must be the product of the act itself, or the intention of the act.

In any attempt to understand the nature of creativity it is very important to recognize the reality of what intention gives to the creation, as a separate aspect, independent from what the material parts give to it. This importance manifests in the choice of medium, as each possible medium (material aspect) presents the artist with different restrictions (impossibilities), along with different freedoms (possibilities).

There is an artistic exercise which can be carried out to help one understand the important role of intention. We can attempt to completely remove the role of intention from the creative act, proceeding without any prior images or ideas of what will be created. Then we work completely "in the moment", creating in a random way, doing whatever comes to mind as time passes. Through this exercise the disunity of bits and pieces caused by lack of intention becomes very evident.

The problem is that you refer to a number of very different acts "sensations, thoughts, and so on", and conclude that they comprise a single act called "consciousness". Don't you think that the unification of these vastly varying acts requires something like a "homunculus"? Or do you appeal to magic as the source of such a unification?

I'd call consciousness the act (activity) of having sensations, thoughts, and so on; a more active notion than taking it as a thing that does the experiencing. A step further form the homunculus. — Banno

How does this step us away from the homunculus? If consciousness is an activity then there must be something which is doing that activity. It cannot be the human body which is performing this activity because there is no observable act of the body which could be called the act of being conscious. So the thing which is performing this act of consciousness must be something other than the body, but it sure appears to be within the body. Therefore we are lead from consciousness is an act, to the homunculus as the actor.

Quote when I did this. — khaled

OK

Considering I defined them to be the same I would say my intent is pretty clear: — khaled

Just when I thought we were starting to make some progress, you take us right back.

On the other hand we have accounts of how numbers are used in our everyday practices, which can include, for the mathematicians amongst us, quite complicated and sophisticated machinations. Numbers are to be understood not by setting up definitions from first principles, but by learning to make use of them. — Banno

This is really not the case, as the process of learning mathematics is more complex than what you represent it as. At the most basic, fundamental level, we simply learn usage, as you say. But then as we progress in our education, we must enter into a learning of abstract concepts. At this point there is a change, so that the student's mind evolves from learning simple operations of using numbers, to learning specific rules for use. That is actually a big difference, and you might see that it aligns roughly with the difference between arithmetic and mathematics.

The point here is that we cannot accurately make blanket statements like yours, " Numbers are to be understood not by...but by...", because "numbers" in the sense of arithmetic, and "numbers" in the sense of mathematics, is two different uses of the word.

We would verify his definition by comparing it to our use of the number two, checking that what Russell defines is indeed adequate for the everyday tasks we set for that number. We would verify or falsify his definition by comparing it to our use of "two". after all, any stipulated definition is evaluated by comparison with the empirical facts of language use.

That is, the use of the number two has priority over any contrived stipulation. — Banno

In light of the difference described above, this statement is very problematic. In the higher levels of mathematics we are definitely taught to follow stipulations, axioms, while in the lower levels of arithmetic we are taught to follow demonstrated usage. The difference marks the development of the student's mind from practical application, to the understanding of theory. The understanding of theory is based in the learning of rules, rather than a simple learning of use.

The result is that within mathematics we have a sort of struggle, or disequilibrium between theory and practise. You say that practise has priority over theory (your statement "the use of the number two has priority over any contrived stipulation"), but this is not really the case. Mathematics, being a high level abstract form of logic, proceeds in the opposite way, theory is prior to practise. This is obvious in the history of modern math, theory precedes the application, and therefore shapes practise.

The difficult issue is that the theory must be derived from somewhere, and it is common practise in the development of mathematical axioms, to produce axioms which are derived as a description of common usage. This creates the appearance that usage has priority over theory.

That presents a problem which I've pointed to numerous times on this forum, of which many members are ignorant, and even actively deny. If the proposed axioms are meant to be a description, or representation of usage, and they are not an accurate representation, then falsity is allowed to enter into mathematics. Mathematics is such that the rules must be followed, and the rules are given priority over usage, so rules which are supposed to be representations of usage, which are faulty representations, must be followed, thereby allowing self-deception within mathematics. Usage appears to have priority over theoretical rules, because the theory appears to be a description of usage. But in reality, the theoretical rules are what shape usage, and that this is true is evident from the fact that faulty descriptions may be used as rules.

Do you think math is discovered or created? — khaled

I think it's very obvious that mathematics is created by human beings. But I also think it's pointless to discuss such an issue with you, because I've come to see that when there is an obvious difference between two things, (like the value and the thing valued), you just define one so that it is the same as the other, deny the difference, and argue your point from a position of denial.

So I'm quite sure that if we proceed in a discussion as to whether mathematical axioms are created or are discovered, you'll end up defining "discovered" in such a way that it has the same meaning as "created", just like you defined the "value" given to the point at which something boils, to be the same thing as "the point at which something boils".

So for example, when human beings 'discovered' consistency in the way that water boiled, and that there was a point which boiling came from not boiling, and we 'created' a value for this point, you will simply define this creation of the value to be the very same thing as the discovery of the thing which is valued, and deny the separation between the discovery and the creation.

Here's an example to elucidate the difference. say you are walking in the wilderness, and you discover something new, never before seen by a human being. You go back to your fellow human beings and describe and discuss that thing. A name is created, and given to the thing. Do you apprehend, and accept the difference between discovering the thing, and creating the name for it?

No it isn't. Let's first assume that all the items are boxes without a doubt, for simplificiation. Regardless of what system we make up, there will be a correct answer within it, not so for pure fiction. — khaled

This is just begging the question. If you assume a realist premise, you will get a realist conclusion. If we want a correct answer to how many boxes there are, the first thing we need to do is stipulate what qualifies as "a box", otherwise there can be no correct answer.

You assume that the choice has already been made, as to what does and does not qualify as "a box", and therefore someone has already gone through and sorted the items, effectively counting the objects already. That's how you conclude that there will be a correct answer. Who do you think, makes this decision as to what qualifies as a box and what does not, God? Do you think that God has already counted the boxes?

What problems arise if we consider values to be real in the same way that boiling point is real? — khaled

I think the principal issue is that there are different ways to derive "the value", as I described. Each formulation of "the value" is correct in accordance with its formula, though they are different. This is fundamentally a relativistic perspective. The value assigned is relative to the formula employed, and is correct, but different from the value assigned relative to another formula.

Now, when we point at something "real" in the world, like a pot of water which starts to boil, we want to know the cause of that activity, and this is where the problem of thinking that the value is real arises. If we think that the formula produces a value which is real, we might tend to believe that any specific formula provides a true representation of the cause. So for example, if we think that 100 degrees Celsius is a "real" value for the boiling point of water, then we would tend to believe that the real cause of the water boiling is that it reached that temperature.

However, as I explained already, this is not a true representation, air pressure is just as important, but not expressed in that formula. Therefore thinking that the value is real, misleads us into thinking that the faulty representation which the formula is derived from, is a true representation. But we know that the representation from which the value is derived, is not necessarily true, because we know that there are different values for the very same thing, produced from different representations, all of which are considered to be correct.

Now the problem is that we have no way to determine the true representation, the true cause, if each is equally correct ('model-dependent realism'). Each is itself a real representation, therefore a true representation, and if they are incompatible, that's just the way reality is, it has incompatible parts. So the assumption leads to the conclusion that reality is impossible to understand because it has incompatible parts. That reality is impossible to understand is not necessarily the truth though, it is just a conclusion produced from the assumption that the incompatible values are equally real.

I think there is a problem with saying values are fictitious, being that if they are fictitious, then changing them should not mean we are wrong.

Take the Santa Clause story. That's fictitious because even if you change the story so that Santa uses flying horses, you're not "wrong". It's a work of fiction after all you can do whatever you want. Santa could be a vampire.

However if you have 5 boxes lined up in front of you and you say there are 4 boxes, you are wrong. That tells me that values aren't works of fiction. They refer to something we commonly understand. — khaled

This is not true, because even in a work of fiction there are conventions which must be adhered to otherwise you step out of that specific fictional story. So if you say that Santa uses horses instead of reindeer, you are wrong, because you've removed yourself from the acceptable convention, and you ought not call your fictitious character by the name Santa. Notice I use "ought" because you still can if you want, but you would be out of line with the convention.

Your "boxes" analogy needs to be revised to be applicable. You premise "5 boxes", so by that premise "4 boxes" is wrong. You need to start with a premise like "a multitude of items", or "a line of boxes" then we have to assign values and there is a judgement to be made. The premise "5 boxes" already makes that judgement. and so by that premise anything else would be wrong, even though someone might argue that one item is not correctly a "box" or something like that. So your analogy needs to premise that the evaluation has not yet been made, then you can see that evaluation is similar to a work of fiction..

Sure, I believe they still exist. And to be clear we are discussing values correct? Like "100 degrees Celsius". I must say that seeing a realist that believes that "boiling point" exists but that its value doesn't exist is a first time for me.

I'll start with asking you, if you think these values don't exist, then what are we referring to when we use them? — khaled

OK, so we're talking about values. That's right then, we have understanding, I do not think that values exist. I believe they are mental constructs, products of the imagination, which like any other objects of fiction, do not exist. So when we "use them", they are used just like a creative work of fiction, from which there is an intent to achieve some sort of goal, or end. So by the same principle that a lie (which intentionally refers to something non-existent) is useful, so also are values (which intentionally refer to something non-existent), are useful.

As an analogy, consider a parent who tells a child a fictitious story about Santa Clause, for the purpose of some goal of culturing love and good will within the child. Be aware though, that fictitious stories can be used for all sorts of ends from evils like deception, cheating, fraud, stealing, to good things like the love and good will mentioned above, along with social institutions, and products created through the fictitious stories of mathematics and engineering.

The value of the gravitational force depends on gravitational constant, the masses of the object, and the distance between them. Which for some reason makes it so that the value of the gravitational force doesn't exist

And yet the gravitational force exists.

The value of the boiling point depends on pressure, the type of liquid, and a bunch of other things. Which for somea reason makes it so that the value of the boiling point doesn't exist.

And yet the boiling point exists.

It's the exact same situation with the exact same logic. I don't know where you got this distinction: — khaled

As I said, the issue is with your statement that "there exists a temperature at which something boils". This is completely different from the statement "the boiling point exists". The former, "a temperature" is a value assigned to the latter, the named thing, "boiling point".

Do you apprehend the difference? Suppose there is a pile of money on the table, a bunch of paper notes. Do you see the difference between the pile of paper, and the value assigned to it? If you do, then let's stick to the value, and inquire whether the value exists. Please do not keep saying that you only want to talk about the pile of paper, implying that you think that if the pile of paper is determined to be existing, we can somehow infer from this, that the value is also existing. That's a pointless exercise in the context of this thread.

So if you just want to discuss whether "the boiling point" exists, instead of your original claim that "the temperature at which something boils exists", this is not even relevant to the thread, and rather pointless to discuss. But if you honestly want to discuss whether the value which we assign to that thing named "the boiling point" exists, the thing which you call "the temperature at which something boils", then I'm ready to proceed.

So the value of gravitational force does not exist since it varies based on what units/formulas we use? Is that what you're saying? — khaled

Yes

But the "boiling point" is on exactly the same level as "gravitational force". We use both in formulas abstractly. And neither are talking about a specific value. — khaled

"The boiling point" when represented as a specific temperature value, (which is what you were saying, the temperature at which something boils) is a specific value. "Gravitational force" is something general and does not represent any specific value. So, the value which is assigned to the "gravitational force" depends on the circumstances and the formula used to figure that value. But the specific value, 100 degrees, which we call the boiling point, is derived from the application of a formula. So the former, the general description of "gravitational force" is a descriptive statement prior to the application of formula, while the latter, 100 degrees, posterior to the application of a formula, as a value produced from that application.

Yes, but in all of these cases, the boiling point exists yes? There exists a temperature at which something boils, although we can use arbitrary units to represent it leading to different values. — khaled

No, there is not a temperature at which something boils. That is the point. There is no such thing as the temperature at which something boils. That's what I've been telling you. The temperature at which a liquid will boil depends on the air pressure. Try taking some water to the moon and see what happens to it. Maybe someone has already done this experiment, google it.

you seem to be working with a homunculus-like view of the self, as if you were sitting inside your head looking out, receiving raw inputs of information that you interpret using a priori scripts. That is a view often attributed to Kant, although there are Kantians who deny it. The homunculus is, for several reasons, to be rejected. — Banno

What's wrong with the homunculus? That seems to almost exactly describe my conscious experience. It seems like I'm inside my head looking out, only not sitting, and I don't know if any of the "scripts" (they seem more like memories to me) are apriori or not.

In this case, I think, there would be no equivocation, as you say, neither any kind of interaction of two types of objects. — Alkis Piskas

Why assume no interaction? I see no need for this assumption, and the human use of mathematics and engineering in creating things in the physical world demonstrates that there definitely is interaction.

Based on my own experiences of not just dreams but also on borderline sleep experiences and lucid dreaming, I would say that they come from some kind of objective source. At times, I have visionary experiences which are like intricate art work and they seem as if they are far beyond my own rational creative power. I would like to do art based on these but it is difficult because I can't recall the exact details when my eyes are open. — Jack Cummins

If I were you, I would not assign the creative power to the rational element. The rational element, by what it means to be "rational" is quite simply conformed through training and societal forces. Training and habituation robs the rational element of the capacity for creativity.

I discussed this briefly recently in the thread called "The Will". the need to separate the will as the initiator of action, from the rational mind, as the judge of which course of action to take.

In this case, where you are looking to promote creativity, originality, it is imperative to separate the will as the creator, from the control of the habituated rational mind which stifles creativity, in order to let the creative juices flow. Meditation might be a good practise, but your description of borderline sleep, and lucid dreaming provides another approach. In sleep, the creative mind is freed from rational influence, so to harness the creative power you would need to have the rational mind play the role of a passive observer, without influencing the direction of the creative power. What I do sometimes is when I wake up after a dream I memorize key ingredients of the dream which appear to possess creative potential.

However, if one does believe in the existence of the collective unconscious as objective, the realm between the personal and collective sphere may be complicated. That is because characters in novels may be sub personalities of the authors. — Jack Cummins

I look at the unconscious as the instinctual, the intuitive, what is given or inherited through genetics. In this sense it is "collective" as what has been collected over millions of years of being, but this might not be "collective" in the way you are using it. Each person's collection of past experiences (prior to one's birth) is unique to the person, and so it is not "collective" in the sense of a person being a part of a united whole, rather "collective" in the sense of being a united whole composed of a collection of parts. It is interesting though, how different people share many identical parts (indicated by genetics), having common ancestors. And then there are mutated parts, which are the source of creativity within the being, and the essential aspect of evolution.

But I didn't say the existence of gravity. I said "gravitational force". Specifically because it is also a value that varies with a lot of factors. But it exists. — khaled

"Gravitational force" is just another way of saying "gravity", it is not an expression of a gravitational value. That gravitational force is just a general reference, rather than a specific value is evident from the fact that the gravitational constant expressed by "g" in the formula "mgh" is applicable in approximation on the earth only. If we want to produce a gravitational value for other places we must employ a different formula. This might be a formula such as you proposed, a relation between two masses and distance, or it might be something more vague like what is expressed in general relativity.

But by your logic, since the gravitational force depends on distance, and the mass of the two objects, it doesn't exist. — khaled

No, by my logic, the value assigned to any specific instance of gravitational force does not exist, because it is somewhat arbitrary depending on the formula chosen to figure the value. Likewise, the value assigned to the boiling point of water at average seal level air pressure might be 100 degrees, or 212 degrees, or even 373 degrees, depending on the formula employed. And this does not even account for the formula required to determine average sea level air pressure.

I am making no claims about whether gravitational force exists, or whether boiling water exists, I am making claims about the measured value of such things.

So "tree" here is a reference to an individual. Is 'two" an individual in this way? — Banno

In set theory, I think we can say that the number two is an individual in this way.

Numbers are abstract objects. They do not actually exist. — Alkis Piskas

It might appear like a very acceptable approach, to say that abstract objects are objects, only a different kind of object from physical objects, but then we need acceptable principles to set the two apart, or else we'll have equivocation between two types of "objects" in logical proceedings. As Banno indicated, this is problematic, because it presents the issue of interaction between the two types.

What Plato showed, is that if there is a distinct class of objects which are abstract (intelligible objects), then we must place all the ideas, including moral ideas such as "just" and "virtue", and aesthetic ideas like "beauty" into this class of abstract objects. Then the subjectivity of the supposed 'abstract objects' becomes apparent.

What Plato described is that the objectivity of abstract objects is provided for by "the good", because the good is the "object", or "objective", in the sense of the goal. Abstract objects are "objective" in the sense that they are useful toward goals.

This sets up the solution to Banno's problem of interaction, the good is the means by which the two types of objects interact. Furthermore, we have the principles here to properly distinguish the two types of objects in an effort to avoid the logical fallacy of equivocation. The abstract, or intelligible objects are associated with intention, (goals), as "the good" which is desired, and the other type of objects, sensible objects, are associated with the material world as particular things, which Aristotle assigned the law of identity to. By the principles demonstrated in Plato's cave allegory, the intelligible objects are more 'real' to us because we understand them directly with the mind, rather than through the unreliable medium of sensation. That this is truly the case is supported by the fact that there is a separation between the identity which we assign to a particular sensible object, and the identity which the object has in itself.

And yet taxes exist.... — khaled

So what? Boiling water exists too. But that wasn't your claim

My point is simple. The amount you have to pay in tax varies a lot. And yet taxes exist. Hence just because the value of it varies does not mean the thing does not exist.

Same with gravitational force. Gravitational force exists even though the gravitional force changes based on distance. — khaled

You've changed the subject with your analogies. You were not talking about whether boiling water exists, you were talking about the existence of the temperature at which water boils. So the existence of gravity, and the existence of taxes is irrelevant. What you were talking about is the specific quantity which is assigned to a thing, a measured value, and whether that measured value exists or not.

The word "two" refers to the objectively real number 2, just as "tree" refers to an objectively real tree. — Art48

That would only be the case if a Platonist ontology is true, that there is such a thing as the number 2. Since "2" is used in numerous different ways, it's very doubtful that there actually is an object referred to by "2".

Definitely a feeling for me. I feel happy. I would also say that there is a deeper state, a disposition, or something like that, which often allows me to overcome the inclination toward negative feelings and maintain, or restore happiness, like tuning in to TPF for example as a diversion. Diversions are very useful.

P.S. there's a math prof on YouTube who questions if real number "really" exist. — Art48

There is no need to assume any such thing as a number. We have numerals which are symbols, and the symbols having meaning which is dependent on the context of usage, like all symbols. The assumption of numbers is just a useful fiction employed by mathemagicians, which allows the ontology of Platonism to overrun the sciences.

Fill your cup and join the brigade of happiness. Its a joyful time of year.

Maths and formal logic are exemplars of disciplines that don't afford much importance to creativity. — Benj96

This is exactly wrong. Pure mathematics is nothing but creativity. That's why math is usually classified as an art rather than a science.

'Creativity is fundamentally the ability to come up with new ideas. An alternative term for it might be free imagination.' — Jack Cummins

Platonists would account for creativity by saying that new ideas are "discovered" rather than created. Ironically, Plato himself demonstrated this description to be inaccurate, turning instead to "the good" as the source of creativity. Appeal to "discovery" is like a cheat, avoid the difficult question of how a new form comes into existence, by saying that it already existed eternally, and was merely discovered. Determinism and "eternalism" use the same cheat, anything which appears to be new is said to have been predetermined for all time.

Happy! When I'm reading The Philosophy Forums I'm happy. Enough said!

I take it you are looking in a mirror when you manifest such words. — universeness

No, see the difference between your attitude and mine? I don't profess to know the right way, I only criticize what is obviously the wrong way, thereby keeping my mind open toward alternatives to the conventional, when the conventional has proven itself to be deficient. You seem to think that since it's the conventional way it's the right way. Then you try to argue that the obvious deficiency is acceptable, and that the ideal can still be held to be ideal despite the obvious deficiency.

Banno is correct, you are wrong! — universeness

The fact that this formulation would require an infinite amount of time, ought to indicate to you that it is actually the "wrong-headed" approach.

Have a look at the response by William Beaty and his use of 'electricity cannot be created or destroyed' and 'electricity generators don't generate electricity,' and also have a look at the 42 comments.
'Electricity is not energy it is a flow of electrons.'
Its the movement of air that causes wind. The 'energy' is the movement. Energy is transferred, due to movement of individual components. Like humans doing a Mexican wave. Each human does not move laterally they only undulate up and down but there up and down undulations cause a cumulative lateral energy waveform. The up and down undulations are conserved/transformed into a cumulative lateral, observable waveform. — universeness

I've seen it explained by Dr. Feynman (a good explainer). We ought not think of the energy as electrons moving through the copper wire, but think of the energy as moving through the field around the wire.

Banno is correct, you are wrong! — universeness

This is the mistake you incessantly demonstrate. You simply assert completely unjustified statements, then go into complete denial when evidence against your assertions is presented. You'd be much better off to keep an open mind toward things which you do not understand, rather than adhere to a prejudice which is derived from who knows where, and prevents you from furthering your understanding.

You can go with the millionaire who refuses the label due to the $100 he/she/hesh can't (in your opinion,) satisfactorily account for, if you prefer. — universeness

If it's a temporal issue, like energy is, that missing $100 becomes a huge problem when we extrapolate. If, the rate of loss is that in every second of passing time there is a 100 missing, then the entire million is gone after 10,000 seconds of time. Banno would say, just figure the loss as a fixed, invariable percentage of the total sum, then the amount missing per second becomes less as the total sum becomes less, and we have an infinite amount of time before its all gone. But there is no justification for the application of Banno's principle. It might well be that the overall quantity per time stays relatively fixed, therefore percentage increases as time passes. The cause of loss is unknown therefore how the rate of loss is fixed or unfixed in relation to the passing of time, is also unknown.

This is what you and the other two in the peanut gallery are not getting. The missing quantity occurs as time passes, all the time, therefore the loss is cumulative over time. If, in extrapolation over very large or very tiny time frames, and large or tiny space frames (according to the relationship between these two established by applicable theories), the cumulated missing or gained amount is not accounted for, these long range and short range projections become useless. And, it is impossible to account for the missing amount because it is necessarily an unknown, due to the nature of "energy" being the product of theory laden calculation.

"Sir, there is a sum of money you must pay to the government called taxes"

"Aha! But this sum of money changes for different people at different times in their life! Therefore there is no sum of money I must pay to the government called taxes! Taxes aren't real!"
. — khaled

That's right, because it's arbitrary. There is no such thing s the sum of money you have to pay, claim some expenses and other deductions, and lower the amount if you do not like it. And so tax issues can either be settled arbitrarily out of court, or become long drawn out court cases.

If only it was that easy. — khaled

You're wrong here though, it's not easy, but more difficult. The easy way is to just give in to what they say, give them what they ask for. The more difficult way is to find all the deductions you are eligible for, and reduce that amount of taxation.

That's the way reality is, the simple representation ('water boils at 100 degrees') is not the truth. The truth is complex and difficult. 'There is a temperature at which water boils' is the simple representation, but it\s not the truth, as the truth is much more complex and difficult.. We simply chop off the complex and difficult aspects, ignoring them, for the sake of making life simple. But that puts us in Plato's cave.

Here's why your wall analogy fails badly. A wall is a physical object, while the law of conservation is an abstract principle, a concept. Various physical objects will be called by the same name, ("wall" in this case), despite all sorts of deprivations. A concept must be exactly as defined, or else it's something other.

:up:
By the way, the wall analogy is not accurate because a "wall" missing a few bricks is still a "wall", but missing a few from "conservation" is not "conservation". And since there is not conservation, the law is false. And it's not a matter of seeking the missing energy, the ideal is not reality. So the thing which appears to you like it is a wall, is actually not a wall at all, because we can walk right through it. You can't stop thinking that it's a wall, and you don't believe in ghosts, so your recourse is to deny the obvious. Keep calling it a "wall", or "conservation", when it is not.

That is a non-sequitor. Just because it varies with another value doesn't mean it doesn't exist. — khaled

As I said, it means that there is no such thing as "the temperature at which something boils", which is what your claim was. The same thing will boil at many different temperatures. Spin it however you want, but your claim was false.

I really don't know, and I'm not inclined to make any judgement on that. Why don't you ask him?

I've tried that route, but maybe we could have greater success in combination.

Lee Smolin is a great contributer to the physics and the human community. I will leave it to him to dispute your sophisticated, skewed interpretations of his work. — universeness

Good, summon him up, I would appreciate that greatly.

The temperature at which something boils exists, therefore the boiling point exists. — khaled

The boiling temperature varies with pressure, so it is relative. Therefore it is not true that there is a temperature at which something boils. And accordingly it is not true to say that such a thing exists.

That is the issue with Platonic realism, it only gets validated through absolutes. However, principles of physics such as "the boiling temperature" are always relative, and therefore cannot validate such realism. So the Platonic realist turns to principles which are more "pure", free from the influence of the physical world, mathematical axioms, and attempts to demonstrate that these are absolute.

Science via scientists will always strive to improve any shortfalls or imperfections apparent in the very dependable current laws of physics which continue to demonstrate robust predictive power.
I predict your viewpoints on the conservation laws will remain mostly ignored and ridiculed.
Meantime, I will continue to listen to the real physicists regarding the laws of physics and continue to read posts from sensationalists like yourself, as a form of curio and entertainment. — universeness

Actually, contrary to your personal prediction, there is a growing movement in this direction already. It's sometimes referred to as the quest for a "Theory of Everything", and it is required because of the inconsistency between the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws of general relativity. So your prediction has actually been proven wrong already.

That's why I gave the reference to physicist Lee Smolin, and further information on quantum gravity. But even with "real" physicists disputing your views, all you can say is that quantum gravity is "hotly debated", and "we are just too far apart to be able to establish effective communications". Yes, we are far apart, because you would not even consider the enormous problem of modeling a conglomeration of massive objects like a galaxy, as having a centre of gravity. You will never move on toward discussing possible solutions when you deny the problem. And it is your insistent denial of the problem which leaves us "too far apart" for effective discourse.

Of course, the reasons for these new theories, which I've pointed you toward, are the shortfalls of the current laws, which lead to occult concepts like dark energy and dark matter. These are the shortfalls in the predictive power, due to the falsity which you deny and refuse to acknowledge. Your claim of "robust predictive power" is what is ridiculous. As reflected by your personal prediction made above, which has already been proven wrong, your idea of successful prediction is sorely deficient. Ignore and deny any evidence which is inconsistent with the prediction, and deem the predictive power as robust.

If this is where you are in your musings then we are just too far apart to be able to establish effective communications. — universeness

I knew this way back when we first engaged. You simply refused to accept and discuss the reality of the situation, opting instead to insist on the truth of some ideal.

We need to address the issue of how the ideals which are employed diverge from the reality which they are supposed to be modeling, if we want to progress in any true understanding of reality. Simply insisting that the model is a true representation, when the observations clearly demonstrate otherwise, is a pointless venture.

You totally ignore the issue of the arbitrariness of "mass" which I already explained to you. The value for mass is assigned to objects in a way to maintain consistency with theories of energy, just like the value for height was assigned in the glider experiment, in a way to maintain consistency with the conservation law, therefore it was a matter of begging the question. The idea that galaxies are "gravitationally bound", and expansion only occurs in intergalactic space, is just a convention meant to facilitate calculation. A massive object is assigned a centre of gravity, and the space within an object is not understood to be expanding, because that would make traditional concepts for representing the interactions of objects (like Newton's first law, inertial mass, etc.) inapplicable, wrong.

But the problems which arise from this conventional way of figuring mass and gravitation, demonstrated by the need for things like dark energy and dark matter, indicate that this conventional way of determining mass and gravitation is fundamentally incorrect. The incorrectness is very intuitive, because we know that objects consist of parts which are separated by space, so it would be very inaccurate to assign a centre of gravity to a large object, simply ignoring all the distinct parts, and therefore not assigning a separate centre of gravity to each part. This is why your statement, and reference to things which are "gravitationally bound", demonstrates you have little understanding of the issue. Take a look at quantum gravity:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-gravitys-quantum-origins-explain-dark-energy/
https://www.space.com/loop-quantum-gravity-space-time-quantized.

So, are you suggesting that the expansion of space over time, directly affects the local measurement of 22 cm of paper? — universeness

No, it doesn't affect the measurement, that's done here and now. I am saying that the feature of reality which we know as expansion, will affect the paper if it exists for a long period of time.

A 22cm measurement would have been the same 10 billion years ago and it will be the same 10 billion years from now. The measurement is invariant and is not affected by the expansion of the universe. — universeness

This is what I am saying is false, this sort of invariance. Banno says:

This is just wrong-headed. — Banno

But if you knew a little more about these concepts, like spatial expansion, and dark energy, you'd see that this type of thinking is not wrong headed at all, it is well justified. Take a look at the article I linked to above, concerning dark energy. Though it is stated that the proposed solution is most likely incorrect, the stated problem, that expansion is accelerating, is very real. Issues such as this demonstrate that invariance is what is really "wrong-headed".

I think your attitude toward the anti-schizo establishment can be categorized as a paranoia. This puts you in the schizo category. It's a no-win situation for you, because you only encourage the divide which sets you apart and gives them power over you.

This is the common problem with any sort of anti-establishment movement. Characterizing yourself as anti-establishment (even if establishment is characterized as anti-...) puts yourself into a me against them situation which is guaranteed to render you as an oppressed individual, not having the power of the group.

I believe that the only true way to get what you want is to actually break down the divide which you seem to be intent on emphasizing. This allows you to disguise your anti-establishment passion, giving you entry into the establishment. Then you might be allowed to work from within to bring about the changes you desire. Positioning yourself as an individual who has willfully distanced oneself from the group, and is picked on because of this difference, will not get you much sympathy.

Is it the philosopher's task or aspiration? It isn't like the relevant information hasn't been presented. The public at large is responsible for what it consumes. Perhaps philosophy should try to sensationalize itself? — Pantagruel

In Plato's cave allegory it is the task of the philosopher. After escaping the cave, and getting a glimpse of the true reality, it is the responsibility of the philosopher to go back, and educate the others. The task is very difficult because the public, as you imply, is already happy in its current consumption. So I don't think it's a matter of simply presenting the reality to the public, it's more like a matter of forcing them to face reality.

That's just wrong. Quantum Electrodynamics is not about everyday stuff, but measures the fine-structure constant to ten decimal places. — Banno

This only demonstrates that you misunderstand Quantum Electrodynamics. The principles are established through observation, and the measurements you refer to, are simply an act of applying the principles. I went through this already, a number of times in this thread, because it seems really difficult for some people here to understand.

Energy is not ever directly measured. Measurements are made, and then the quantity of energy is calculated through the application of formulae to the measurements. So any supposed measurement, which is made in terms of energy (like what you suggest), is a theory laden calculation, and not a direct measurement at all. The amount of energy is calculated through application of the formulae, and the supposed measurement is a conclusion from the calculation.

As if accuracy were cumulative; as if, when I measure a piece of paper as being 22±0.1cm, somehow the error will grow such that after a week it's 22±0.7cm This is just wrong-headed. — Banno

You still don't understand. The error is in the formula through which the extrapolation is made, not in the initial measurement. That extrapolation is based in the assumption of invariance. And the assumption of invariance is the error. So for example, if your paper is measured at 22 cm, the error is in the assumption that it will continue to be 22 cm through an indefinite period of time, if it is not acted upon by a force which would change it. That's basically Newton's first law, the law of inertia, and that law is an expression of this error, the error of assuming that invariance is the natural condition of passing time.

The reality is that the simple passing of time will cause change, as if the passing of time were itself a force. And this we know from the concepts of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics, as well as spatial expansion. Invariance is a myth, a falsity. Though it is a useful principle, it is a falsity if presented as a representation of reality.