Can we understand the world through the lens of interactions?

[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?

 

[wuliheron]

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.

 

[Manuel_Silvio]

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.

 

[Eh]

This smells a lot like SPAM.

 

[arivero]

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.

 

[LURCH]

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.

 

[Manuel_Silvio]

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.

 

[wuliheron]

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.

 

[John274]

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!?).

 

[Dissident Dan]

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.

 

[wuliheron]

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.