Hobotronic2037 wrote
This definition is very imprecise.
Let's say a "person" is a creator. Was a painter like, say, Picasso a creator? Did he bring anything into existence? Well, it's probable that the same amount of matter exists in the universe before and after his death. He merely rearranged materials on a canvas, and sculpted some materials into different geometric forms and he transformed food he ate into feces, but did he bring anything into existence? On the other hand, his stupid paintings and poo wouldn't exist without him, right? So, yeah, I suppose he was a creator.
Now, let's say a "thing" is a creator. Can a thing create? Let's say it's an automatic bread machine. You dump in the ingredients, push a button, and bam, a couple of hours later, out pops a loaf of bread. Did the machine create it? By your definition, you could say it did. Would the bread exist without the machine? No. Therefore the bread machine is a creator, right? Or, you could say that you were the creator of the bread, because you combined the ingredients and pushed the button. Or, you could say the electricity was the creator, because without it powering the bread machine, no bread in existence.
Now, though, to my main point of this. All of those creators are observable. Picasso was observable (we have photographs as well as reliable eyewitness testimony and provenance). A bread machine is observable. Electricity is observable. You are observable.
Maybe here's a better working definition.
Creator: an observable person or thing that rearranges existing matter or language/ideas into new forms.
Probably still incomplete, but a lot more precise and reality based than yours.
So let's go with that definition, for now.
|