"Maþ is _invented_ alright, but it isn't _created_ . To invent _X_ is to independently will oneself to þiŋk of _X_ . By doiŋ so, I don't create _X_ , but raðer make hold ðe state-of-affairs ðat I þiŋk of _X_ . And makiŋ a st.o.a. hold is noþiŋ oðer ðan makiŋ a piece of Information. Ðe German equivalent of "invent" is "erfinden", which corresponds to Eŋglish "afind", "a-find". Ðe prefix "er-" ("a-") hints at ðe fact ðat Inventiŋ involves Makiŋ, but ðe main part "finden" ("find") hints at ðe fact ðat it's also a kind of Findiŋ. Inventiŋ is a type of Makiŋ alright, but ðat which gets made (ðe info) is distiŋct from ðat which gets found (ðe entity _X_ ). Ðis gets even more obvious when we realize ðat two people can independently invent ðe same entity _X_ , but it's obviously logically impossible for ðe same creature to have two independent creators. Here's an example: Ðe Belt Generator got invented by R. J. Van de Graaff. However, ðere may be spacefariŋ aliens out ðere, and if so, ðey almost certainly also invented ðe Belt Generator, and loŋ b4 V.d.G. at ðat. But if V.d.G. had _made_ ðe B.G., it could not have already existed. Moreover, ðe B.G. is described by a finite Eŋglish text, and ðere is a fixed 1-to-1 correspondence between ðe finite Eŋglish texts and ðe naturals. Ðerefore, makiŋ ðe B.G. would amount to makiŋ a natural number, which is absurd. _Inventiŋ_ a natural # is not absurd, ðough, as inventiŋ _n_ is not ðe same as creatiŋ _n_ . IMHO, ðe whole "Is Maþ invented, or discovered?" debate results from a misunderstandiŋ of ðe nature of Inventiŋ."17Please respect copyright.ＰＥＮＡＮＡ5NkHKL3UUf