Can we understand the world through the lens of interactions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John274
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interaction
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of interactions as fundamental to existence, drawing on philosophical ideas from Heraclitus and Zeno. Participants explore whether entities can exist independently of interactions and the implications of such views on definitions of reality, perception, and existence itself. The conversation encompasses philosophical interpretations, theoretical implications, and the nature of reality as understood through interactions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Philosophical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that everything is defined through interactions, suggesting that nothing can be self-defined without the context of other entities.
  • Others argue that the concept of a "source of interaction" may be misleading, proposing that entities are better described as "parts of interaction."
  • A participant questions the assertion that existence can be understood solely through interactions, referencing Berkeley's philosophy about perception and existence.
  • There is a discussion on the paradox of existence and the implications of Zeno's philosophy, with some participants suggesting that rational explanations of existence lead to paradoxes.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the utility of the philosophical framework being discussed, questioning its relevance and applicability.
  • One viewpoint suggests that if something ceases to interact, it would cease to exist, framing existence as dependent on interaction.
  • Another participant connects the discussion to fractal geometry, suggesting that self-definiteness and existence are tied to interactions that exhibit self-similarity.
  • There is mention of the diversity within Taoist philosophy and its comparison to atomism, with some participants advocating for a nuanced understanding of these philosophical traditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of interactions and existence, with no clear consensus reached. Disagreements arise regarding the implications of interactions for definitions of reality and the interpretations of philosophical ideas from Heraclitus and Zeno.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various philosophical interpretations and assumptions that may not be universally accepted. The definitions of terms like "interaction," "self-defined," and "existence" are not uniformly agreed upon, leading to potential ambiguities in the arguments presented.

John274
Everything is Interaction!?

Everything appears in an interaction and therefore everything is a self-defined and hence self-similar interaction according to Eugene Savov in his book Theory of Interaction - http://www.eugenesavov.com

In his world of similar multiscale interactions everything is everything at scales of its own. So he proves the famous Heraclitus' citation "everything is everything" in a quite new all-explaining context, created from one self-reproducing interaction.

Are there real bodies, which are not sources of interaction?

Is there anything without an origin and a source?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Heraclitus' philosophy is a form of Pantheism that closely resembles what is sometimes called Energetic Taoism. The paradox at the heart of this philosophy is, "Change is the only Constant." Heraclitus argued that life is like a flowing river, unified by its own unceasing flow.

Are there real bodies, which are not sources of interaction?

Is there anything without an origin and a source?

The paradox of existence itself has no apparent source or origin. Thus, in some sense everything that exists has no ultimate source or origin or, at least, none that we can make sense of. What caused the big bang? OK, then what caused that? Ad infinitum.

As Zeno pointed out, any attempted rational explanation of existence leads to a paradox. This contradicts the author's assertion that his philosophy is the "simpliest explanation of everything" unless, of course, you consider a paradox to be an explanation. If so, then Zeno's explanation is just as simple. He asserted existence is indivisible, indestructable, eternal, and unchanging. In other words, there is no such thing as "real" objects and change, all is illusory.

Personally, I'll leave the counting of how many angels can fit on the head of a pin to others. If this guy's philosophy is useful, great. If not, its a waste of my time.
 
If there can be something that can exist without being perceived there also can be something without being a source of interaction. Otherwise, everything by the virtue of participating in the process of observation is a source of interaction for observation is an implicit interaction (do you write C++ or C# programs?)

Besides, why do you call it a source of interaction? Doesn't "part of interaction" sound better? "It" participates in the interaction but doesn't emit or release interaction to be called a source.
 
This smells a lot like SPAM.
 
Originally posted by wuliheron Heraclitus' philosophy is a form of Pantheism that closely resembles what is sometimes called Energetic Taoism.
Hmm. To me Taoism is closer to atomism. I do not know of Energetic Taoism.
As Zeno pointed out, any attempted rational explanation of existence leads to a paradox.
It seems far reached to put these words in Zeno's mouth. The most I could claim is that any attempted linguistical (thus rational) explanation of movement leads to a paradox.
 


Originally posted by John274
Everything appears in an interaction and therefore everything is a self-defined ...

I don't wish to appear dense, but you've already lost me at this point. If things only appear through interaction, doesn't that mean that nothing can be self-defined? If the interaction is the definition, then all things are defined by interaction with other things, yes? So a thing can never be defined but by the other things with which it interacts.
 
Last edited:
I'm not the one who initiated the topic but let me explain my view ...
LURCH said: So a thing can never be defined but by the other things with which it interacts.
That's all the point with interaction. Remeber Berkeley and the tree that falls without anyone hearing the sound of falling?
This is a controversial topic. A battle has been raging out there for centuries. If I asked if glass is transparent when there's no light there would be two catergories of answers:

1. Yes, because transparency is a structural quality of glass that depends on the glass itself and nothing else.
2. No, because transparency is only then meaningful when you have perceived it.

These two categories have always had their share of defenders. Nowadays the second category is seeing its high time.

If we consider the second answer then it would be clear that existence of a thing or a quality is dependent on its being observed and as I stated before observation is an implicit interaction.
 
Hmm. To me Taoism is closer to atomism. I do not know of Energetic Taoism.

Energetic Taoism I believe is a term first coined by Houston Smith, a famous author on world relgions. Essentially energetic Taoists hold the maxim, "Change is the only constant" and their philosophy tends to be much more Pantheistic than mystical as is the case with other types of Taoism.

To merely compare Taoists with the early Atomists is a huge mistake. At one time there were over 4,000 distinct sects of Taoism and, in general, Asian religions and philosophies are much more diverse than western ones.

It seems far reached to put these words in Zeno's mouth. The most I could claim is that any attempted linguistical (thus rational) explanation of movement leads to a paradox.

Zeno believed motion itself was impossible, that despite the evidence of our senses the universe is indivisible, indestructable, eternal, and unchanging. His paradoxes were not mere puzzles he created for fun. Thus his philosophy was a paradoxical one because it contradicted experience and was self-referential.
 
A thing is self-defined by the interaction driving its parts. Its self-definiteness or otherwise its existence makes it a self-similar (fractal) interaction. Thus things show up as they are (see also the tread The Universe is a Fractal Interaction!?).
 
  • #10
I have considered the idea that everything exists by virtue of its interaction withs other things. If something could somehow cease to interact with other things, it would cease to exist, according to this hypothesis.
 
  • #11
A thing is self-defined by the interaction driving its parts. Its self-definiteness or otherwise its existence makes it a self-similar (fractal) interaction. Thus things show up as they are (see also the tread The Universe is a Fractal Interaction!?).

Yes, this is related to fractal geometry and a number of other pursuits. Like fractal geometry, it is a pursuit of something that is not well defined. Just what is a fractional dimension? Holistic reality has decended upon the modern world, and where it goes from here is anyone's guess.

What is apparent is that chaos subsumes order. Magic has no limitations while order does. Thus, whether we believe in magic or not it remains a useful avenue to pursue.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K