Theory Of Interaction

The Book


Paradigms you must break to understand new sciences...

A lot of people tells me that theories about systems are just silly. Most of them can change their point of view after a long talk. But in fact they don't get to understand or change opinion. What they do is just break some paradigms that were blocking their reason. A very common problem. After breaking this paradigms, people start to get amazed with the theories.

So, if you want to learn the new ideas of the present, you need to crack some old paradigms. Here they the new paradigms and the ideas each one breaks:

  1. Bad paradigm: Nature should be described with math. Fact: Math is useless to describe reality. Not even real free fall can be described with math. Math is just a way of expressing rules. But in order to formulate equations for any real phenomena, like expressing the exact and real speed of a ball after three seconds rolling down an inclined street, we would need mathematical formulas that may long kilometers and depend heavily on chaotic elements, including the interactions with the measuring subject. Nature is essentially chaos in action; when a ball rolls over some a real surface (therefore an irregular surface), not only gravity and friction affect the displacement. Its movement is subject to chaotic behavior. Probably you know that you can't feel the breeze generated by the wings of a butterfly. But scientists agree that a distant storm can be influenced at certain level by the flight of a butterfly. That's an example of the chaotic behavior of most natural phenomena. Formulas are good, like beer, but that doesn't mean that they are the solution for real problems. Math works fine when referring objectively to a whole formed of a very small number of simple systems. But on a real rolling ball set, there are a lot more than millions of systems involved only on the rolling event. Different approaches, as the Theory of Interaction (TOI) can support a lot the description of the real nature. Moreover, reality cannot be described observing a whole -that is precisely what math does-. Reality can be observed only by focusing isolated couples of systems interacting (there is where math can help partially). There is where relevant exchanges can be studied.
  2. Bad paradigm: Objectivity is always good. Fact: Objectivity can be very bad. We live thinking that objectivity is good, subjectivity is bad. But that does not mean that acting subjectively is bad. Scientists can write a very objective book about plants, but birds give a damn about books and scientists, they can't share humans' objectivity, they just act subjectively. If plants provide seed and oxygen to birds, then plants represent just air filters and food sources for birds. Being objective is approaching the whole. But natural entities are busy enough trying to exist so they just understand and use the stuff that could represent a benefit for them. To hell with the rest. For long centuries science has tried to be objective, to understand systems as a whole. Now is the time to understand systems as subjects. That means an amazing approach: trying to learn as nature does.
  3. Bad paradigm: This is a three-dimensional universe. Fact: There are more dimensions than you think, and they can even be mixed. This is probably the toughest to break, but here we go. The fact that geometry use three dimensions does not mean that there are three dimensions. In simple words, anything you can measure about a thing is a dimension. Dimensions just express states. Measuring does not mean you should use the metrical system, it does not even mean making an objective measurement. So, formally, any property of a system is a dimension. In fact, hyperdimensional spaces are normal in math. Is this useful? Of course! if we want to understand nature, we should understand how does nature does things, how it measures stuff, how does any system approaches the value of a content, even what is the subjective value of a seed for a bird. Nature is amazing. Natural systems use not objective dimensions. They measure elements subjectively, that means, they use compound dimensional sets to evaluate properties of other systems. You can extend this example to other natural systems and even to chemical bonds: imagine you see two apples with the same price on the store. You may just choose the one that is closer to you. So the final value of the apple has two dimensions: price and distance from you to the apple. But if you extract the apple transport cost from the price, and leave it at the tree's foot, the price will decrease. I don't want you to go there. What I want you to understand is that the price already includes an additional distance from you to the apple, exactly the same dimension as before. So the price is a compound dimension: has the same positional dimension plus other stuff inside. Well, nature works like this. An entity can approach another measuring it with some dimensions that already include others. Useless for math... not really, only impossible. But useful for nature. Snakes do not know straight lines, bees do not know Cartesian coordinate dimensions. So, forget about x,y and z and welcome the twisted line, the heat of her lips, the color of the sky, the bad smell, the empathy of this kid... the dimensions we use everyday! Difficult to believe, but this was just a logic reflection.
  4. Bad paradigm: Only some stuff can be considered as a system. Fact: Everything that can be named is a system. Everything that exists -even on your mind- and you can name on this universe is a system. That is not difficult to understand. But this idea is amazing, let your mind fly: this concept is completely compatible with the Systems Theory (system=group of parts acting together as a whole with some purpose). An equation is a system... of course! Fire is a system. It is difficult to delimit, but interacts on its internal spaces, its parts act together (despite they are only energy, like atoms) and the whole system have an homogeneous effect on other external systems. The same occurs with two lines on a plane, a hand, a tree, a web chat group... etc. Why is this important? Wait to see how this elements interact.
  5. Bad paradigm: I need to understand thermodynamics laws to understand order. Fact: Thermodynamics is incomplete and does not deal with order. The 2nd thermodynamics law deals more with the dissipation properties along time and space. Entropy study deals with the laws that govern the transition from one dimensional state to other with more probability, and the irreversibility of the new state. In other words, you can broke an egg, but it is impossible to get back to it after it's break. But there is no definition of order in thermodynamics, just states with probability values. Probably thermodynamics concepts of chaos and order will be formulated at some point, and probably they will be coherent from those on the TOI.
  6. Bad paradigm: Order is when some group of things follow a physical pattern. Fact: Order is related to interaction in one specific dimension. Three balls can be in order if they are aligned over a straight line, so they have a positional order, but if they have different temperatures they are in chaos respect to absolute temperatures. Two molecules can be in order of they have the same kinetic energy. In final terms, order is related to interaction. The three aligned balls are in order regarding the straight line because they have the same interaction to the line: distance is zero. The same for the two molecules: their interaction with a value is the same. The order of points in a circle is determined by their equal distance to a point. A molecule is a type of order not because all the atoms are at the same distance of other or they form constant angles. They are in order because they hold positional interactions with other atoms in the same group. A human crowd could be in chaos regarding the position of the people on the street, but they are in order in the sense have the same interaction with one goal: they share it. Order is not physical, but dimensional. When interaction stops (we don't know the distance of points regarding a line), chaos rise.
  7. Bad paradigm: Few systems have the capability of reacting to stimulus. Fact: All systems react to all stimulus. You've been said -and you have tested it- that rocks are dead, that they don't react to stimulus. A rock a dead object? Wroooong!!! If it would be a dead object, it should dissipate as sand if you kick it. This is a beautiful subject to think on: when does something gets broken? After reaching a limit on its flexibility. Think that a rock behaves like a beach ball. You kick it, it deforms, it absorbs part of the energy, and it reacts increasing the pressure on your feet when recovering its shape. Part of the energy is converted by its elementary particles into kinetic energy, part in heat, part in a reaction. Amazing? hah? Rocks are alive because its parts interact internally, it can deform, and even if there is space between atoms, they try to keep aligned in some order, at some precise distance. When the distance changes, they apply forces that will cause a resistence to the deformation. But after keeping the order, they still have to deal with the kinetic or potential energy that each molecule has absorbed, slowly and organized, they get back to order. You can extend the idea to clouds, fire, equations, etc. But I warn you: you have to be creative without leaving reality. Why does a cloud tries to keep limits? You will talk about pressure. Ok. Why does a low-pressure system keeps some limits? Wow, gourmet appetizers for thinkers :) Another way of proving that systems react is due to their effects on the environment. Put a rock on a table and speak to it. Now imagine that you did the same action without the rock. The sound pressure waves would have changed. Wow again! That is the rock answering you! One more thing: All systems react, therefore the action-reaction mechanism works the same way on all systems in nature. In other words, the interaction rules are the same for all systems in nature.
  8. Bad paradigm: Attraction is independent from interaction and repetition. Fact: Interaction cause dimensional attraction (positive or negative), and attraction may cause repetition. By chance, you get near her, that beautiful girl. You talk her. She likes your performed action. You like her reaction. So both of you attract. And the next time, you don't only talk. You also laugh. You continue interacting for some days, in a growing number of dimensions. An then, you kiss. Wow! this is a beautiful way to describe how a molecule is created, in this case the molecule is named a couple. But real molecules are formed the same way. Two atoms get close by chance. They may get atomic stability due to other presence. In the atomic nature, that means physical attraction. So, they may form a molecule. In formal terms, constructive interaction (interaction that provides internal order) may cause attraction, attraction may cause repetition which means existence. But two systems may also get chaos from an interaction. That will cause repelling, increase of the dimensional distance and then, dissipation of the system into two or more subsystems.
  9. Bad paradigm: We evolved from monkeys. Fact: We descend not from the monkey, but from rocks. The mechanisms described above allows us to understand that nature can create a huge chaos, and inside that chaos, order will be produced in some isolated areas. A difference of chaotic masses which tends to instability and dissipation, ordered systems tend to existence. With time, space and a lot of chaos, ordered systems follow the dynamic of organization and dissipation until strong structures are formed. Strong structures will just get more complex with time. Darwin was not wrong, but he didn't saw that far. We are made of mineral atoms, we came from the sand of this universe following the mechanism of systems interaction. We descend from rocks.

Now you may be ready to start with some basics.