From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Creativity in science, Was: hidden variables
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:51:18 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <25405@galaxy.ucr.edu>, baez@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez) writes:
> In article <510@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>[...] 
> You certainly have a valid point here: that the bureaucracy of science
> forces scientists towards projects that get done (or fail) in a several-year
> time frame.  But I think it is an exaggeration to say that without this
> effect "people would be willing to take on... problems even realizing that they 
> might spend a lifetime on them and fail in their quest."  Some people would,
> but most, I think, still would not.

I agree. I think must people *should* work on problems
that are likely to be solvable in a reasonable period of time both because
of their innate desires and the need to achieve practical results.

> Most people get depressed working on
> something that might take a lifetime and still amount to nothing.  Most
> people prefer the sense of accomplishment that results from finishing a
> finite and doable task.  Even you might find pondering the interpretations
> of QM frustrating if you didn't also have a job that gave you that kind of sense
> of accomplishment.  (This could, of course, point to the good old model of
> the "amateur scientist" (as opposed to "professional") as the best way to
> keep science from getting hidebound.)  

The problem is that science is becoming too complex for this to be practical.
I am in the rather unique position of having made a serious attempt to get
support for my ideas as a graduate student and failed because they were
considered too far out and unlikely to produce results in a reasonable time.
I have been able to earn enough money by consulting to still spend a large
amount time on these ideas but it has been a struggle. The only reason I have
done it is because not doing it was so much more difficult. The creative
force of an idea that will not die can be a powerful motivator.  One of my
main goals, if am in successful, is to change the system so that a 
few people like me are supported by the bureaucracy. Bureaucracies are
necessary evils that require periodic or perhaps continual revolution to
keep them from strangling us.

> Of course, many people who work on possibly hopeless tasks like theology,
> philosophy, foundations of math and foundations of physics seem able to
> *fool* themselves into a sense of accomplishment by convincing themselves
> they have achieved something solid when they haven't.  (I will not name
> names.)  The next generation may declare their work a bunch of rubbish, but
> they will die "knowing" they have solved their problem.   

The great difficulty with creativity is that it cannot be controlled or
predicted. Even when someone spends much time on an idea that ultimately
seems to lead no where I think it is a mistake to conclude that they should
have done something else.

We all fool ourselves in many ways. It is a necessary coping mechanism.
I think there is much self delusion within physics about current
interpretations and the abandonment of fundamental philosophical
principles of science. I see little difference between this and how
other's fool themselves about the ideas they pursue.

Of course some people pursue ideas that they do not have the
intellectual equipment to cope with or that are completely
beyond any reasonable progress for other reasons. But the creative
instinct that leads them on is probably not that different from the
creative instinct that motivates an Einstein. Thus one should not be
too quick to criticize nature for allowing people to delude themselves.
It may not be possible to have real creativity without considerable
`wasted' effort.

Paul Budnik