Creation, knowledge, understanding

We all create things we know and understand. We don't create things we don't know and we don't understand.

(Source: The Tree of Life, Part One)

These are the first sentences in that entry that didn't go down smoothly. That second sentence caused a "No!" reaction immediately.

To explore why, it might be useful to define the terms:

create

to bring into existence

know

to perceive directly, to be acquainted with

understand

to grasp the meaning of

In other words, "We don't bring things into existence that we do not perceive directly/are not acquainted with and we don't grasp the meaning of."

What about software? Take, for example, a little Pythagorean numerology calculator that I claim to have brought into existence. Not the subject matter, or the explanations that ecosophia posted, just the HTML and JavaScript. As I wrote the software, I perceived it directly and was acquainted with it to the extent that it worked more or less as intended. So I knew it piecemeal, perceiving and being acquainted with small parts of it at a time.

Complete knowledge doesn't seem to be required, though. Piecemeal knowledge was enough to bring the software into existence.¹ It's fair to concede knowledge within limits.

What about understanding? What would it be like to grasp the meaning of software?² The word meaning doesn't seem to fit in this case. Maybe retreat to a more down-to-earth definition:

understand

to be capable of modelling with mental impressions

In that sense, yes, I did understand the software, though the models started out vague, broke time and again during the act of creation, and doubtless still harbor many bugs.³

One counterexample clarified. I hope.

Counterexamples I rejected included things we bring into existence but do not create, such as children or accidents. Not sure about stories, music, recipes, garments, furniture, and so forth. They seem similar to software, too complex to fully know or understand.

Other beings have different limits. Some no doubt have limits that are beyond my understanding. The infinite Creator God described in Greer's entry seems that way. I can sit with each sentence and try to make some sense of it temporarily. Maybe that's the best I can do.

---

¹ Did Bach, Beethoven, or even Mozart fully know the pieces they wrote? Or did they only know their parts, and heard that they fit in performance? Zappa explained at length that composers' works often don't make it as far as performance. So maybe they did hear everything together, as if they were listening to it. Wow.

² Or music?!

³ One known bug is in the calendar of day numbers. The day numbers are wrapped in HTML <abbr> tags with the explanations in title attributes. So if you mouseover the number, the definition should pop up. The <abbr> title attribute does not pop up on a phone or tablet browser, however, only on a laptop or desktop.