There is no such thing as a creation without a destruction, and a destruction without a creation — leo

I disagree with the generality of this statement. As an example, I recently "created" a "form" in mathematics that simply extends a particular kind of function. Nothing is destroyed in this process. As to whether this creation is of any importance, I admit it is quite unimportant. :chin:

mathematics — jgill

Mathematics was the creation of the destruction of the earliest forms of "guestimated bargaining", which was made possible due to the destruction of a previously unstable, constantly-warring society by the creation of more permanent civilizations which some argue was only due to the destruction of supernatural folklore as laws that govern reality due to the creation of science resulting in the creation of powerful, history shaping innovation.

Which also led to the destruction of having to know how to do anything useful (including math) due to the creation of technology and smartphones, including to repair and maintain them. Circle of life I suppose.

Mathematics was the creation of the destruction of the earliest forms of "guestimated bargaining", which was made possible due to the destruction of a previously unstable, constantly-warring society by the creation of more permanent civilizations which some argue was only due to the destruction of supernatural folklore as laws that govern reality due to the creation of science resulting in the creation of powerful, history shaping innovation. — Outlander

Can you say all that without taking a breath? I maintain that at the present time my form is harmless and non-destructive. :razz:

I disagree with the generality of this statement. As an example, I recently "created" a "form" in mathematics that simply extends a particular kind of function. Nothing is destroyed in this process. As to whether this creation is of any importance, I admit it is quite unimportant. :chin: — jgill

Did you write it down on a blank sheet of paper? Then you destroyed the blankness of that sheet. Did you visualize it in your mind? Then you destroyed whatever it is you were visualizing before. And if you published that form, then you destroyed the state that mathematics was in before the introduction of that form.

You say you created something because you focus on what comes to be, the field of mathematics that includes this "form". If you focus on what ceased to be, the field of mathematics without that "form", you would say you destroyed something. But really you both created and destroyed something. Change is a simultaneous creation/destruction.

Simply stated, let's say you add something to a painting. You may say you created a new painting. But you also destroyed the former painting in the process.

Every creation is a destruction. And more is not always better.

*Something wise about omelettes and eggs.*

*Something wise about omelettes and eggs.* — unenlightened

Two eggs cooked can save a life, for a short while, while the same two eggs left intact can hatch enough to sustain a village 'til time's end.

Ironically, the point is the same.

You say you created something because you focus on what comes to be, the field of mathematics that includes this "form". If you focus on what ceased to be, the field of mathematics without that "form", you would say you destroyed something. But really you both created and destroyed something — leo

I see why I didn't pursue philosophy in school . . . :roll:

I see why I didn't pursue philosophy in school . . . :roll: — jgill

Because you don’t like to pursue truth?

The point is that destruction isn’t inherently bad, contrary to popular belief. Maybe you need to overcome that belief too.

*something even wiser about eggs falling on stones and vice versa.*


*Mumble, mumble, 'cosmic egg'.*

cosmic egg — unenlightened

All stars including our own are basically giant nuclear reactors that one day in the distant future will run out of fuel. One by one each will implode into themselves, collapsing under the weight of their own gravity and depending on it's individual size and class will leave behind and or create one or more of the following: a smaller version of itself, a nova, a supernova, a pulsar, a black hole, or even a quasar. A supernova is kind of like a galactic, exploding Santa Claus, delivering billions and billions of tonnes of precious metals, rare elements, and other building blocks for galaxies light years in all directions across the entire universe. Whereas black holes and quasars are something of galactic trash men, cleaning up the remains of dead and dying stars and galaxies to make room for the next generation. Perhaps even recycling them as opposed to sending them to oblivion if you subscribe to white hole theory. In fact, after a black hole has absorbed all the matter it can, it shoots out remaining (recycled, refined subatomic matter) from it's center sending the remains of dying stars and galaxies on "one last trip" around the universe, perhaps to become part of yet a new star or galaxy. Imagine. In one way or another, we're all stardust. Who knows from how far we truly came.

A fascinating universe indeed.

You can't make a universe without breaking symmetry.

eggs falling on stones and vice versa — unenlightened

Something about fragility and longevity I'm sure. Whatever it is it has to pretty wise.

The point is that destruction isn’t inherently bad, contrary to popular belief. Maybe you need to overcome that belief too — leo

The word "destruction" has a negative connotation. Try using the word "change" instead. Just a thought.

The word "destruction" has a negative connotation. Try using the word "change" instead. Just a thought. — jgill

Yes it has a negative connotation, but it shouldn’t. It is not destruction itself that is negative, it is the destruction of something which may or may not be negative. If you have a parasite eating your flesh from the inside, I don’t think you would view the destruction of that parasite as negative.

Change is both a creation and a destruction, creation of what comes to be and destruction of what ceases to be. So it would be misguided to use change as a synonym for destruction.

What about so-called conservation laws in science. You know, those that say "matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed". Perhaps you need to look at the world from the perspective of transformation which doesn't contradict the conservation laws scientists have discovered after, I'm guessing, painstaking research. In short, what you've been looking at as creation-destruction is actually, at its heart, just transformation.

Change is both a creation and a destruction — leo

Change is change, nothing else. Creation and destruction are forms given to change by human perception, as you said here:

We talk of creation when we focus on what comes to be, and we talk of destruction when we focus on what ceases to be. — leo

In the same way, good is a term given by human perception to agreeable things.

There would not be a creation or a destruction, or good and evil, if there were no human perception. However, there would be change in the absence of human perception.

What about so-called conservation laws in science. You know, those that say "matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed". Perhaps you need to look at the world from the perspective of transformation which doesn't contradict the conservation laws scientists have discovered after, I'm guessing, painstaking research. In short, what you've been looking at as creation-destruction is actually, at its heart, just transformation. — TheMadFool

Conservation laws follow from the assumption that the laws of physics do not change, which isn’t a discovery but an assumption. Also you’re implicitly making the assumption that the laws of physics describe everything and account for everything, which isn’t the case.

Regardless, there is change, which you call transformation. When a house collapses and leaves rubble in its place, you can say the house has changed into rubble, was transformed into rubble. It is also customary to say that the house was destroyed.

Saying that the house was destroyed doesn’t mean that the materials that composed the house have suddenly vanished. It means what it means, what we call the house is no more, there is something else in its place, rubble. At the same time, there is now rubble where previously there used to be none, so in that sense rubble has been created. This doesn’t imply that rubble popped into existence ex nihilo, but there used to be no rubble and now there is.

As long as there is change, or transformation, there is something new that wasn’t there before and there is something that was there but that is no more. That is, there is something created and something destroyed.

When people talk of destruction they usually don’t mean that matter/energy has vanished. They simply mean that something was there and now it isn’t there anymore. However there is a negative connotation associated with the word destruction, and the point of this thread is to show that it is unwarranted. Destruction isn’t inherently negative, but it can be. Just like creation.

Change is change, nothing else. Creation and destruction are forms given to change by human perception.

In the same way, good is a term given by human perception to agreeable things.

There would not be a creation or a destruction, or good and evil, if there were no human perception. However, there would be change in the absence of human perception. — Daniel

I would say change, creation, destruction, good and evil are all dependent on consciousness. Why would it mean for there to be change without the experience of change?

Why would it mean for there to be change without the experience of change? — leo

Why not?

Edit: by that I am asking you what's a reason change could not exist independently of consciousness?

To answer your question, if I understand it correctly, it would mean nothing. Change in itself means nothing in the absence or presence of experience; it is just change (the meaning that it is given by human perception only affects human experience - relative to planet Earth, a hurricane is not a bad or a good thing). Change is just a thing that happens. That something exists does not mean which it has a purpose (other than the purpose of existing - so that what co-exists with it can keep on existing); and that something that exists is given the quality of existent by human perception certainly does not mean that it has a purpose.

Why not?

Edit: by that I am asking you what's a reason change could not exist independently of consciousness? — Daniel

In my view consciousness is fundamental to the universe for many reasons, so I don't believe there is change without consciousness.

But if you assume there is such a thing as change in the absence of consciousness, then why not assume there is also creation and destruction? Why single out change? You say creation and destruction are forms given to change by perception, and thus depend on perception, but it can be argued that change also depends on perception. For instance if we had no memory of the past and no anticipation of the future, every moment would be disconnected from all the others, we couldn't compare any moment to any other, we wouldn't detect change. So change itself is linked to perception.

And so if you assume change in the absence of perception, it seems to me that to be consistent you should also assume that in the absence of perception some things are created and some other things are destroyed. Or if you realize that creation and destruction depend on perception, then you should also realize that change depends on perception as well.

we wouldn't detect change. — leo

That we could not detect change does not mean it would not exist. Electrons existed before being detected. The Earth existed before human perception existed.

Well, the notions creation/destruction are intimately tied to existence/nonexistence. The received opinion is that when something is created, it's brought into existence and when something is destroyed, it's removed from existence. On the other hand, transformation is when one thing becomes something else. The label destruction doesn't apply to a house collapsing into rubble because simple geometric transformations can be applied to the house to yield the rubble - a combination of reflection, translation, and rotation is what describes the house becoming rubble. You might also want to take a look at topology.

Change is both a creation and a destruction, creation of what comes to be and destruction of what ceases to be. So it would be misguided to use change as a synonym for destruction. — leo

I mentioned earlier that having an idea and writing it down can be an act of creation without destruction, and you replied that I destroyed a piece of paper in the process or destroyed a world in which the idea had not existed. All of which seems pedantic and is more than a little absurd. Perhaps you can demonstrate how your creation/destruction interplay applied uniformly to everything is of any value whatsoever.

You might also want to take a look at topology — TheMadFool

You mean a coffee cup being "destroyed" to become a doughnut? :chin:

I don’t see it this way, we build upon what is already there. An improvement - creativity is design and design can be viewed as destruction but we build upon what is already there and if we think about is something destroyed the creation of new? the basis of creation (design) stems not from originality but from the past of which we build upon.

That we could not detect change does not mean it would not exist. — Daniel

Why do you assume change would exist but not creation or destruction? Why do you give a special status to change?

The label destruction doesn't apply to a house collapsing into rubble because simple geometric transformations can be applied to the house to yield the rubble - a combination of reflection, translation, and rotation is what describes the house becoming rubble. — TheMadFool

Oh, so when a species goes extinct it isn't really destroyed, because if we track all the matter that composed the beings of that species it is all still there somewhere, the species is still here guys we just have to apply a combination of reflection translation and rotation to see it.

When we destroy an ecosystem we don't really destroy it it's OK guys, we just apply a combination of reflection, translation, and rotation to it.

Seriously ...

All of which seems pedantic and is more than a little absurd. Perhaps you can demonstrate how your creation/destruction interplay applied uniformly to everything is of any value whatsoever. — jgill

As I stated repeatedly, the point was to show that creation isn't inherently positive and destruction isn't inherently negative, contrary to popular belief. If you can't point a flaw in my logical argument, then maybe you can ponder why a sound logical argument gives rise to a sense of absurdity in you.

I don’t see it this way, we build upon what is already there. An improvement - creativity is design and design can be viewed as destruction but we build upon what is already there and if we think about is something destroyed the creation of new? the basis of creation (design) stems not from originality but from the past of which we build upon. — SwamOfInTheHorizon

We build from what was already there and in the process destroy some of what was there. What we create isn't always positive, and what we destroy isn't always negative.

Why do you assume change would exist but not creation or destruction? Why do you give a special status to change? — leo

Because creation and destruction are terms relative to human perception. That is, we say something is created when its parts, previously separated, gather into something we recognize as being a composite; similarly, we say something is destroyed when its parts become separate, and the shape we recognized as a unity is no more. Creation and destruction are thus human terms given to what we perceive as two different phenomena; but as you said, these phenomena (creation and destruction) are just continuous change. Creation and destruction are dependent on perception; change is not.

What we create isn't always positive, and what we destroy isn't always negative. — leo

And this is your original thesis? I'm amazed someone hasn't thought of it before. :roll:

Because creation and destruction are terms relative to human perception. That is, we say something is created when its parts, previously separated, gather into something we recognize as being a composite; similarly, we say something is destroyed when its parts become separate, and the shape we recognized as a unity is no more. Creation and destruction are thus human terms given to what we perceive as two different phenomena; but as you said, these phenomena (creation and destruction) are just continuous change. Creation and destruction are dependent on perception; change is not. — Daniel

You say creation and destruction are human terms given to what we perceive as two different phenomena. But change is also a human term given to what we perceive as different phenomena, we have somehow the ability to compare different phenomena and we label it change.

Let's say you look at an object, then you close your eyes, while your eyes are closed the object is destroyed, then you open your eyes again and you see the destroyed object. Why would you say that change occurred beyond your perception, but not that the object was destroyed beyond your perception? The object was destroyed before you opened your eyes right? You became aware that it was destroyed when you opened your eyes, but it was destroyed beforehand, beyond your perception.

I think it is misguided to give a special status to change in that way. Whatever we say occurs beyond our perception, we're describing it in our own human terms anyway, including change.

And this is your original thesis? I'm amazed someone hasn't thought of it before. :roll: — jgill

I don't claim to be the first one to realize that destruction isn't inherently negative, and thus that its widespread negative connotation is unwarranted, but I had never found a logical argument showing it.

One of the points of philosophy is to think more clearly, see more clearly, to identify and overcome the misconceptions that cloud our judgment. I lived with this misconception for many years, and I was glad to overcome it. I see many people who have this misconception, here and elsewhere. I made this thread to help others who have this misconception overcome it too. Because I also see philosophy as teamwork, where we all help one another to see more clearly. At the end of my OP I even mentioned how this is a step towards answering a greater question of philoosphy.

You seemed to have this misconception too. Probably you still do, considering your repeated snarky remarks, instead of actually putting forward arguments. But as you said and showed earlier, philosophy is not your thing. It requires humility. You not seeing the point or its importance, doesn't mean there is no point nor that it isn't important.

You seemed to have this misconception too. Probably you still do, considering your repeated snarky remarks, instead of actually putting forward arguments — leo

Sorry if I offended you, but all such arguments seem trivial, so why present them? Of course creativity is not always a good thing, nor destruction inherently bad. Was the creation of nerve gas or ISIS a good thing or a bad thing? Was the destruction of concentration camps or the Nazi Regime or a dangerous bridge good or bad? Notions of good or bad depend upon context and perspective.

Destruction being inseparable from creation is a more debatable issue IMO.

You mean a coffee cup being "destroyed" to become a doughnut? — jgill

Oh, so when a species goes extinct it isn't really destroyed, because if we track all the matter that composed the beings of that species it is all still there somewhere, the species is still here guys we just have to apply a combination of reflection translation and rotation to see it.

When we destroy an ecosystem we don't really destroy it it's OK guys, we just apply a combination of reflection, translation, and rotation to it.

Seriously ... — leo

To both of you

Here's the deal as far as I can tell.

What is transformation?

Transformation describes one thing becoming something else with the proviso that there be a continuity, in some sense, at some level, between the thing and what it changes into. For example, ice transforms into liquid water and liquid water into water vapor - there's a change in state (solid/liquid/gas) but the substance (H2O) remains the same. This is the essence of what transformations are.

What is creation/destruction?

Creation is, as I mentioned earlier, the bringing into existence of something and destruction is, again as I mentioned before, the removing from existence. All in all, creation/destruction can be represented by the simple formula, existence <--> nonexistence where "<-->" means "to" in both directions. As you might've already noticed, there can be no such thing by way of a continuity between nonexistence and existence and ergo, creation/destruction can't be transformations.

That out of the way, let's look at your examples:

1. A house becoming rubble is as much an instance of destruction as building it is an act of creation and we know a house isn't created for the simple reason that both 1) the raw materials that went into constructing the house changed in form only but 2) the raw materials remained the same at the level of substance which is basically what transformation is and transformation isn't/can't be creation/destruction.

2. A species going out of existence satisfies the criteria for transformation because there's been change - no sane person could deny that - but there's also a continuity in substance between the extinct species and the environment. It's not the case that the extinct species is now nothing or that the extinct species, during its heydays, came from nothing, these being necessary for speciation and extinction to qualify as creation/destruction.

3. The coffee cup and the doughnut is what I was alluding to when I recommended studying it to make sense of the difference between transformation and creation/destruction but the coffee cup is an odd creature because the coffee cup and the doughnut are topologically identical and it just doesn't make sense to point at the same identical object and claiming a transformation has taken place.

I've had this general thought as well.

Parallel to it: preservation and suppression are the same thing, stasis, non-change.

To preserve is to prevent destruction. To suppress is to prevent creation.

To mix all of these with good and bad again:

- To preserve something good is to suppress something bad.

- To suppress something good is to preserve something bad.

- To create something good is to destroy something bad.

- To destroy something good is to create something bad.

In general, to change some situation from good to bad or vice versa is to destroy one while creating the other, while to maintain a status quo of good or bad is to preserve one while suppressing the other.