Mathematicians (and by extension, physicists) are notorious for it.
The one school says the math exists and the mathematician comes along and discovers it. For instance, pi was discovered not invented. This school looks "beyond" - it wants to know why there is something instead of nothing at all.
The other school says the mathematician invents the math to describe what he perceives. It is concerned with the here and now and is content with the "anthropic principle" - origins, beginnings and endings are irrelevant.
In my view, the latter school is very egocentric.
The first, btw, is called the Platonist paradigm of math, the latter, the Aristotlean paradigm.
The two worldviews are irreconcilable - Plato and Aristotle couldn't settle it, Gödel and Einstein couldn't settle it, and today Penrose and Hawking can't settle it.
And by the numbers, there are more of the egocentric Aristotlean paradigm than of the Platonist paradigm.
I find this very odd indeed because every time a mathematician uses a variable in a formula, he testifies to its universality. The only rationale for the Aristotlean paradigm to a mathematician that I can see is pride. And I find that sad.
LOLOL, to put it mildly! I'm completely unaware of any process of invention that did not proceed from already existing materials. The only exception to this rule would be: God's "invention," that is the Creation, which furnished all the necessary "existing materials" for all time.
I find it fascinating that some folks nowadays evidently think it is absolutely necessary to "kill off God" in order to free up human creative potential. In a certain way, this line of thinking goes straight to the problem of gnosticism that spirited irish has raised.
Reduced to the bare bones, gnosticism is the belief that there is a form of knowledge superior to that which is given in ordinary human experience that only the "adepts" or "cognoscenti" know about. All other human mortals are simply deluded about the nature of the world and, thus, of their place in it.
It seems that early forms of gnosticism were recessive, "retreats" from the world, a withdrawal into the secret knowledge and away from the world of common human experience.
In contrast, modern forms of gnosticism tend to be aggressive — they are interested in proselytizing this "higher, truer" knowledge. They also do not care about the world of common human experience, which must be "overcome" in order for the gnostic vision to take hold. And because human beings universally and historically experience relations to gods or God, all such divine entities must be eradicated.
But whether ancient or modern in form, gnosticism boils down to a rationalization of the human usurpation of the role of mediator of Truth. It makes man the measure; it is relentlessly "anthropomorphic"; in the process, what begins as egocentrism results in the self-divinization of man.
Modern gnostic systems include: Marxism, materialism, naturalism, positivism, utilitarianism, etc., etc. Indeed, any word ending with the suffix "ism" may be a candidate for classification as a gnostic system of thought.
Eric Voegelin's general term for gnostic systems is "second realities," "alternative realities." The whole idea here is to make the second reality "mask," obscure, and then finally dispense with, the very real First Reality from which it was born. Which seems awfully strange to me. For the constructor of a second reality is very much a natural member of First Reality. Whether he likes First Reality or not, the practical question is: Why would a rational person want to destroy the very ground on which he himself stands?
Seems to me that a kind of "suicide" of the mind and spirit is going on here. But others can make their own judgments about that....
Anyhoot, just some stray thoughts, FWIW.
Thank you ever so much for your excellent essay/post, dearest sister in Christ!