This framework models creativity dynamics, linking idea readiness with habitat alignment and observer influence.
Creativity research has produced influential local theories but still lacks a common formal language able to span ordinary reconfiguration, cross-domain novelty, observer disagreement, and delayed uptake. This paper proposes such a language by modeling creativity as an observer-mediated configurational transition in a structured space defined by domains, receiving habitats, and observer clusters. Five claims are advanced. First, general creativity must be defined before radical novelty is treated as a special regime. Second, intra-domain, multi-domain, and trans-domain creativity are better represented as regions in a continuous topological space than as categorical labels. Third, produced creativity, seen creativity, accepted creativity, and attributed paternity are analytically distinct states. Fourth, the lag between idea-readiness and habitat-readiness is a structural variable rather than a sociological residue. Fifth, a creativity theory becomes scientifically useful only when its variables are tied to measurement rules, explicit baselines, and falsifiers. To implement these claims, the paper combines a gap-to-idea sequence with a bounded scoring operator, a domain-topology module, a cluster-indexed observer block, a five-component chronodynamic alignment model, and a Maximum-Intensity Novelty Profile separated from release discipline. A coded comparative pilot on six historical cases and three negative controls demonstrates differential regime scores, bottleneck signatures, and lag structures. The result is a formal creativity framework that is theoretically integrative, mathematically specified, empirically joinable, and open to progressive calibration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andrea Viliotti (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: