The picture shows A Graph Of the “Ultraviolet Catastrophe Of Creativity”. This graph with other designations can be seen in any textbook on physical optics.

Tv = Non sunt multiplcanda sciencia praeter necessitatem.

What is “Creativity” and in what units is it measured? I think it should be evaluated by two parameters: the “Quantity” of ideas and their “Quality”. Of course, the “quality” of an idea is clearly more important than quantity. Therefore, the index of “Creativity” can be expressed by the sum of new ideas “And” with the index-the number of the idea multiplied by a certain coefficient “K” – the quality of the idea. That is, the formula looks something like this: Tv = K 1 And 1 + K 2 And 2 … + KpIp. That is, each new idea “And” is multiplied by the corresponding coefficient of originality “K”. Question: What is the quality–originality ratio? This is a fraction where the numerator contains the degree of originality of a new idea, and the denominator contains the degree of originality of the information on the basis of which the new idea arose. The more ordinary the initial information (the less original it is, that is, well-known) and the more original the new idea, the higher this coefficient. As an example and, at the same time, a standard, I will give both Theories of Relativity. The special one was created based on the negative result of Michelson’s experience about the influence of the Earth’s motion on the speed of light. A fact that, although it has excited the entire physical community of the world, is also well-known.

The General Theory of Relativity arose on the basis of an even more ordinary and well-known fact about the equality of inert and heavy masses, confirmed by the subtle experience of Etwes. EVERYONE KNEW THIS, but no one except Einstein could create what he did!

The highest coefficient of originality!!!

And the units I have already proposed are lemas. (See About the units of measurement of something, 23 XII 2016. There I also suggested measuring the degree of mediocrity in MORONS, IMBECILES and IDIOTS, and an IDIOT is equal to ten IMBECILES, and one IMBECILE is equal to ten MORONS)

The English philosopher John Occam many centuries ago put forward a principle that became a methodological rule in science and was called “Occam’s Razor”.

Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

“Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”

I also wanted to create something similar, but not in science, but in morality. And I came up with my own razor, the “Razor of Esprim”, which sounds like:

“Deaths should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”

One should not kill living beings unnecessarily!

In the footsteps of Esprima’s First Razor (L’appetit vient en mangeant. Appetite comes during meals) the thought came into my head to proclaim another, Second Razor Esprim, which is placed above.

And it means:

“Knowledge should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”

The idea is strange to the point of idiocy! Shall we stop all research and blissfully stop at what has already been achieved? That’s it! Enough! We know enough!!!???

No!

The essence of this slogan is the Law of Optimal Knowledge.

(See the picture above, and the notes “The Curve that won’t take you anywhere”, “The Law of Universal Deviation”, “Flying Trapeze”, “Antagonist Thoughts”, “Alphabetical Thinking” and others)

Many, many decades ago, scientists (and not some scoundrels of the middle class from the Research Institute of “Zadomyslya”, but outstanding, world-renowned!) they began to cry, which continues to this day and which will intensify as science differentiates: Knowledge is growing at a catastrophic rate! The volume of scientific information is inflated into a mushroom of a hydrogen explosion and so on. Now, they say, a scientist should know everything in his little scientific hole, a well like that, in order to give out something new. And if you leave behind the continuously accelerating and ever-lengthening train of knowledge for even a short time, write it is gone!

So, I decided to wipe away these abundant tears and give a prescription for a medicine against the crying of scientific sorrow pouring onto the planet. like the rain of the Flood. (Esprit, in general, has global trends. Whatever the idea, it must be on a universal scale! Now he has undertaken to prevent a Worldwide Flood. Diagnosis: Megalomania?)

Yes, the amount of knowledge and information is constantly growing and will continue to increase. But a real scientist, and not just the owner of certain academic titles, namely, a SCIENTIST BY NATURE, is not at all obliged to know EVERYTHING in his or her field. The German physician Julius Robert Mayer discovered the fundamental law of physics – the Conservation of Energy!

The basis of the “universal lamentation – flood” is the implicit, generally accepted and equally INCORRECT idea that “the more a scientist or just a person knows, the more new things he can create on this basis!” This habitual a priori opinion has not the slightest scientific or practical grounds and confirmations!

The key is not in the amount of information, but in the ability to process it!

So it is necessary not to multiply your knowledge, so overflowing your head that it is about to burst, but to improve the method of its “digestion”.

This is what my notes above were dedicated to.

There is a certain optimum of necessary knowledge, which is SUFFICIENT to discover something NEW! No less and no more.

Different people, of course, have different tastes. Some have more, others have less.

And WHAT is the correct criterion for this OPTIMUM? What should tell us: That’s it! So far, there is enough knowledge!

A NEW thing has arisen in thinking based on this knowledge! The criterion is accurate. So practice has confirmed that knowledge is enough for a specific new one. And then? Then you can accept a certain amount of knowledge again and again: Stop and look back. Is it possible to create something new again?

This optimum is due to a completely different quality, which has nothing to do with the accumulated amount of knowledge and is in no way related to it at all – INTUITION! And you can develop it too! Yes, there are talents that are endowed with it by nature. It makes no sense to list them, the names that are the most famous in the world.

But, again, it can be developed through childish imitation.

Anyone with the most average abilities can “genius” themselves, if not to the level of Einstein or Bohr, Ilf and Petrov, Nabokov, Solovyov, Evelyn Waugh, Mozart, Bach and others, then to a very high quality level.

The method is simple and relatively long (life-long): Every acquaintance with the thought of talent, extraordinary in its quality, opens up some “strange” chains of neurons in our brain that had previously been tightly closed and would have remained closed. But, lo and behold, some bright thought flashed and connected the sleeping chains into something STRANGE and UNEXPECTED. At the same time, it is quite adequate and under the control of critical thinking. One, two, a hundred, a thousand such original ideas – and now OUR extraordinary chains began to arise in OUR brain “by themselves”, We become more gifted, more talented, even if not more brilliant, but INCOMPARABLY higher than the mediocrity that was given to us by nature.

When there is INTUITION, that is, a manifestation of the activity of Superconsciousness, we suddenly notice that relatively little knowledge is ENOUGH to say something of our own, quite original and adequate! This applies to any kind of activity, not only in science, technology, invention, art, military, law, EVERYWHERE! Any kind of mental activity requires Intuition to create a NEW ONE!

That’s why I think it’s not worth crying, but it’s worth calmly and purposefully improving YOUR ability to filter out and process information. And this is within the power of everyone who has or has developed their INTUITION.

I repeat Einstein’s famous phrase, which he said in a conversation with Tamm.

“It would seem that the very fact of the existence of an electron should be SUFFICIENT to build a general theory of elementary particles.” Tamm calls this “hyperbole.” Although I think Einstein was being quite serious. (He proved this at least THREE TIMES: the theory of photons and two Theories of Relativity)

Hundreds of elementary particles are known today, but THERE is NO Single General Theory!

Why?

“The way of the ant” is how the English philosopher Francis Bacon defined it. Let’s look at the creative curve again and ask a child’s question: WHY is it like this?

The answer is in the previous sentence. “The way of the ant”! If along the Y axis we postpone not the degree of creativity, the creation of a new one, but another parameter: the ABILITY TO EXPLAIN the knowledge gained, then such a graph, for all its pessimism, will explain the previous one – the loss of creativity. The amount of knowledge is growing, but our brain’s ability to analyze and explain it does not even remain the same, but decreases! For it is MUCH easier for the stupid brains of the descendants of cannibals to collect some knowledge from crumbs than to evaluate them clearly and soberly!

Don’t just increase the amount of information, there is plenty of it anyway. And to improve our ability to correctly evaluate the knowledge we have received and to be able, renouncing dogmas, to overestimate the old knowledge we already know!

The dogmatism of herd thinking is usually tied to a certain conservatism of views and principles. This is true, but not complete! The dogmatism of the herd is also manifested in a directly opposite trend – the wholesale rejection of old knowledge (and not only dogmas) and a hysterical obsession with replacing old knowledge with new (old, camouflaged under the new!) DOGMAS!

As in all revolutions: Aristocrats (no matter “bad” or “good”) are under the knife of the guillotine. “Bourgeois” (it doesn’t matter if they are bourgeois or not! Who needs to be written down in them and “spent”) – to the wall! A feverish, unquenchable thirst for blood–SOMEONE ELSE’s, of course!!! It is always the same dogmatic pseudo-thinking of the maddened “new masters of life”!

It is necessary to move along the “path of the bee”. Bees that have existed on Earth for probably a hundred or two million years have been able to do THIS, but man has not learned in two million years of cannibalism.

After all, a bee needs wings to fly!

And not a lot of “nimble little legs, very convenient for profitable and quite safe snooping on the ground!”

Wings of INTUITION!

18 VIII 2017