TRIZ and Darwinism: similarities and differencies.

Y. B. Karasik
Thought Guiding Systems Corp.,
Ottawa, Canada
e-mail:karasik@sympatico.ca

Two conceptions of creativity.

TRIZ claims that any invention can be created by random trials and errors. Simple inventions can be created after a few trials (and errors), whereas "strong" inventions can be only created after millions trials.

Darwinism claims a similar thing: any living creature is a result of random mutations. Diversification and natural selection in Darwinism play the same role as trials and errors respectively play in TRIZ. But there are also differences between TRIZ and Darwinism.

TRIZ denounces the trials and errors method of creativity as inefficient. It aims at providing an alternative means of creativity. Whereas Darwinism claims that evolution through diversification and natural selection (i.e. through trials and errors) is the only way to new creatures.

Moreover, TRIZ and Darwinism have the opposite views on evolution. For Darwinism evolution is the result of the aforementioned trials and errors in the form of diversification and selection. It does not seek any laws of evolution different from the laws of random combinations. Whereas TRIZ seeks such laws of evolution which would eliminate the need in trials and errors. In other words, TRIZ does not believe that evolution through diversification and natural selection is the true mechanism of evolution.

Not that it is explicitly said in any TRIZ book. But it follows from its spirit, as soon as the TRIZ thinking is applied to bio-systems.

IFR: the matter itself possesses creativity.

Many people refuse to believe that randomness is omnipotent and accountable for origin of all (or even any) species. I myself do not believe in it. Probably, it can even be proven mathematically. Unfortunately nobody still has found a proof. However the alternative championed by others that species were created either by God or by "The Intelligent Design" is equally unacceptable.

Resolution of this contradiction (inefficiency of random combinations on the one hand and unacceptability of an external creator on the other) can be, as usually, achieved through the formulation of IFR: the matter (any matter) is not completely dumb and itself possesses creativity !

(By the way, it seems to me that this idea of a thinking matter is not new and was already spelled out in various philosophical schools. If memory does not fail me they claim that any kind of matter (even stones) think or has a potential of thinking at least. It is like kinetic and potential energy. In living creatures this potential is materialized into actual thinking. But in stones it still remains in a latent form.)

But TRIZ allows us to go further than this primitive theory of the thinking stones. Due to TRIZ the true creativity consists in following the laws of evolution. The laws of evolution are themselves the laws of creativity ! There are no laws of creativity distinct from the laws of evolution of the systems to perfection of which this creativity is applied. Hence the view that stones are dumb and are only subject to the laws of dynamics is a gross simplification. They are also subject to the laws of evolution. Moreover the laws of dynamics are not the true laws of the matter but rather a degenerate case of the laws of evolution.

Dynamical changes take place in the space-time only. Whereas evolution chiefly changes other parameters (i.e. coordinates) of systems. Dymanics is thereby just a projection of evolution onto space-time. It does not represent the complete or true picture of changes in the matter. As shadow does not represent the complete or true picture of the real spatial object. Dynamics is merely a degenerate evolution when all changes boiled down to changes in the location of the object. And the laws of dynamics/physics are just the laws of shadows and not of the real things.

What are these laws of evolution which generalize the laws of dynamics ? - one may ask. Let us consider them on the example of the dynamics of opposites.

Evolutionary attraction of opposite systems as a generalization of mechanical attraction of opposite charges.

The world consists of opposites. Opposites attract. If it is physical opposites (such as opposite charges) then there is a mechanical attraction between them. But generally there is no mechanical attraction between opposites (such as men and women, for example). Nevertheless, there is an evolutionary attraction: opposites tend to combine themselves into pairs and then gradually merge completely. If evolutionary coordinates are added to the space-time coordinates, then some kind of evolutionary forces can be envisioned to explain such attraction. The mechanical force then becomes a degenerate case of evolutionary force when projection of the evolutionary space onto the spatial coordinates is taken.

What are these opposites in the case of technical systems ? They are, for example, the systems that play the opposite role or have the opposite functions. Such systems do really have a tendency of mating and then complete merging. If it is not an evolutionary attraction, then what is it ?

This attraction does not, however, guarantee that the opposite systems will really merge. Contradictions are in the way of merging. They play the role of the repulsion forces in evolution. The whole evolutionary "dynamics" is thereby governed by the "aspiration" of opposite systems to merge and by contradictions which resolution pushes opposite systems away from each other. (Contradictions resolution may even result in creation of new opposites between which the old one gets separated.)

Unfortunately this qualitative picture is still far from being converted into a quantitative theory. Nevertheless, even in its qualitative form this theory does not need to resort to the random combinations in order to explain the origin of the "biological machines" from the chaos of simple "stones". (By "stones" I mean not literally stones but any not living matter.) The laws of evolution (especially the law of attraction of the opposites) drive the conversion of the unstructured purposeless "stones" into the structured purposeful "machines".

It appears that the theory represents a promising alternative to both Creationism and Darwinism which already set everybody's teeth on edge. Is not it ? (I mean both "promising" and "on edge".)