Final Response to controinfo

Well...ignoring the last akward and very creepy girlfriend comment, I thank you for some of the kind words. I will surely read more as time goes on no doubt, as I hope we will both do. In the meantime I will briefly respond to your last statements because I found some errors I just have to point out and then hopefully I'll be able to just leave it at that. I'll repeat one final time: It is not a "theory" of the world the child is constructing. It is a separation of "aspects" based on his senses. It's not logical reasoning of any kind it's instinctive and it doesn't evolve meaning of even separation of aspects as entities. Again you fail to understand the point. I also just have to point out that even if it WAS a theory which it obviously is not it DOESNT work "just as well" (it doesn't explain all the same phenomenons infact it explains nothing) as every day "folk"theory of the world which in turn DOESNT work just as well as relativity and quantum mechanics. (See what a scientific theory is) But it's not a theory to begin with I don't know where you are getting that from. Now on muons. The muon was found experimentally in the 1930's and there is, therefore, no debate about its existence. There is no current debate about "symmetry" in particle physics and cosmology. The consistency of the standard model of particle physics involves a unification of all forces of nature into a framework that is the most experimentally tested branch of physics to this day. As energy is lowered, there is a symmetry breaking that separates the unified force into its components, and in fact we today have week nuclear force, strong nuclear force and electromagnetic forces, independent of each other. There is no debate about this process. The fact that the mathematics of quantum mechanics predicts certain particles is, in fact, everything! The history of particle physics in the last century is one in which theory tells experimentalists what they will find and experimentalists indeed do. The fact that the particles are found is the reason why the theory is valid and why it involves no religious faith (i.e. see Science). Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions seems to me to have been shown to be nonsense as it has been refuted by the scientific community. Regardless, what you are saying about the theory in specific is simply factually incorrect. In regards to the notion of creativity, intuition, fantasy, inspiration, and speculation I'm not sure why you have so much trouble understanding my positions. Same thing with my notion of truth. All you have to do is take the basic defintion of the words creativity and intuition to see why they are not synonimous. Creativity is a mental and social process involving the generation of new ideas or concepts, or new associations of the creative mind between existing ideas or concepts. Intuition has a vast number of different definitions. You could call it a sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression. Either way it seems obvious to me they are not synonymous. You forget again that I answered your points anyway as if they were. Or if they were at least related. I've already showed how even if all of those factors were common initial drives to any form of self expression or paths to knowledge, the frame works which you have in mind are completely different by their approach and sometimes even their purpose. That is true even when they share the same philosophical questions of intrest. I look foward to returning the discussion to religion and society in the following blogs.