@Rickoshay75,
vikorr wrote:The definition of 'create' seems rather slippery here.
Rickoshay75 wrote:True, and with no way to demonstrate or prove it -- create, make something out of nothing, will always be a slippery.
I think it goes without saying that we can't phsyically make something out of nothing. So surely that is not what this topic is about? Because there is nothing left to say other than 'we can't physically create something out of nothing'
'Create' in the common use, is almost never used in that way (really - only theologist use it in this sense, for the creation of the world).
Personally I wonder if our imagination is
completely limited to things we have already experienced. The very vast plethora of Inventions would surely argue against this. So I would think that our imaginations certainly do contribute to 'creations'. Now it's possible to argue the vast majority of conceptualisation behind that any single creation has come from previous experience - but how does one possibly argue that previous experience is the
sole contributor to the complete 'invention'? - considering anything invented has never before been experienced by the inventor? Surely there was an imaginative jump beyond what has been previously experienced by the inventor - in order to reach the final concept?
...anything made my intuitive leaps of the imagination into realms not previously experienced, is creation.
That said - I much prefer even more mundane uses for 'create'. There is a beauty in simplicity, and primitive earthiness...just as there is a beauty in complexity and lofty heights. The greater beauty is when the two combine with harmony.
