In this post, I’d like, for the first time, to share my ideas with you.
These ideas sparked my particular attention about more than a year ago, when I started to write them down and try to translate them into science.
I think I start to notice a progress in it, although I can’t yet, so far, provide you with anything more, than the rough and loose ideas, related to what, I think, are the foundations of what, at the moment, still remains in the area of our beliefs and/or imagination.
What I mean, specifically, are the scientific (logical, mathematical, physical, etc.) foundations of many philosophical disciplines, whose questions still remain without an unambiguous answer, like metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, etc. I can’t yet exactly precise, how far can these ideas lead.
Even though, as I mentioned, these are ideas, but, I hope, they could already, at least, spark some inspiration in you, and maybe even convince you a little.
I decided to share them already, at their present state and form, in case, I could not do it in the future.
Please, excuse me, in advance, if the names and/or symbols used e.g. in definitions are not completely intuitive. I may want to change them in the future.
Interactions
Interaction is usually though of as some event, in which some (numer of) subjects get into some contact with each other (e.g. impact or influence each other in some way).
In this chapter, I’d like to reduce a meaning of interaction a little, to a case of contact of only two entities, in which only one acts on another (so, also, the other receives from the first one), and then extend them with some additional properties.
I’d like to define a set of interactions $INT$, as a Cartesian product of a set of entities $ENT$ with itself:
$INT = ENT^2 = \{(ent_1, ent_2)\}$, where
$i \in INT$ is an interaction
$ent_1 = agent(i)$ is an agent in an interaction $i$
$ent_2 = object(i)$ is an object in an interaction $i$
I’ll will try to also describe interactions in a more colloqual way further.
Let’s choose a subset $Int$ of $INT$ of interactions, formed on a set containing only two entities: $Ent \subseteq ENT$, $Ent = \{x,y\}$, where $x, y$ are choices of two different entities elements from a set $ENT$ (assuming $ENT$ contains at least 2 elements):
$Int = \{(x,x),(x,y),(y,x),(y,y)\}$
So, we have 2 different entities and 4 interactions, in which any of them occurs.
If we now tried to interprete the meanings of these interactions:
- $(x,x)$ – interaction, in which $x$ is both an agent and an object – x acting on self and receiving from self
- $(x,y)$ – interaction, in which $x$ is an agent and $y$ is an object (of (action of) $x$) – x acting on y and y receiving from x
- $(y,x)$ – interaction, in which $y$ is an agent and $x$ is an object (of (action of) $y$) – y acting on x and x receiving from y
- $(y,y)$ – interaction, in which $y$ is both an agent and an object – y acting on self and receiving from self
I’ll leave the problem of causality of acting and receiving for now.
Now – please notice – that $x$ occurs in only 3 of those interactions (as well as $y$ occurs in only 3 of those interactions). These are the interactions, in which $x$ is involved (the same being for $y$).
Let’s now choose one of those entities, let’s say, $x$, and define a set $Int^x$ of only those interactions, in which $x$ is involved (we could do this for $y$ instead of for $x$, but knowing nothing specific about those elements, would that actually matter?):
$Int^x = \{(x,x),(x,y),(y,x)\}$
, and let us now, again, interprete the meanings of those interactions, but now, only from a viewpoint/perspective of $x$:
- $(x,x)$ – x acting on self and receiving from self
- $(x,y)$ – x acting on y
- $(y,x)$ – x receiving from y
These are the 3, only possible cases of the subjective interactions of $x$ (x, being (theoretically) any existing entity/object/person etc.)
Let’s add yet one thing to the interactions – an additional referent entity – roughly speaking, an entity that the agent refers the object to, when acting on it (on the object).
Interaction with a reference (interaction relative to a referent entity)
In general, a set of interactions with reference $INT’$ is defined as:
$INT’ = ENT^2 \times ENT, int’ = ((ent_1,ent_2),ent_3), ent_1, ent_2, ent_3 \in ENT$, or, for simplicity: $int’ = (ent_1, ent_2, ent_3)$
Remind, that, previously, $Ent$ refered to the set with two, arbitrarily chosen, different elements from a set of entities $ENT$:
$Ent = \{x,y\}$, $Ent \subseteq ENT$
We will use this same set also now, to include a referent entity:
$Int’ = Ent^2 \times Ent, int’ = ((ent_1, ent_2), ent_3), ent_1, ent_2, ent_3 \in Ent$, or, for simplicity: $int’ = (ent_1, ent_2, ent_3)$
Having an additional “place”, that could take one of two possible entities ($x$ or $y$), one can check, that there are $2^3 = 8$ cases of possible interactions $int’$ (interactions $int$ with a referent entity).
There are now also 6 possible cases of subjective interactions with a reference, which are:
- $(x,x,x)$ – x acts on x (also receives from x) relative to x
- $(x,x,y)$ – x acts on x (also receives from x) relative to y
- $(x,y,x)$ – x acts on y (also y receives from x) relative to x
- $(x,y,y)$ – x acts on y (also y receives from x) relative to y
- $(y,x,x)$ – x receives from y relative to x
- $(y,x,y)$ – x receives from y relative to y
The interactions $(y,y,x)$ and $(y,y,y)$ were not included, because $x$ (a chosen viewpoint entity) does not occur, as neither an agent nor an object in them.
Interactions with a well-defined action vector
Interactions can be analysed with use of the vector between some property of an object and some, of the referent, e.g. their positions in a space.
Having an interaction $int’$, it still does not, however, define the sense of a vector of action of an agent of this interaction. I mean, we, so far, know, that this vector of interaction $int’$:
- has a tail at a position of an object
- has the same angle as the line, going through the positions of an object and a referent
We, however, still did not define a sense of this vector – a (real) number, somewhat, a quantity of the vector.
Interactions, with a well-defined vector of action, would therefore be defined – on a set $Ent$ – as:
$Int^{{‘}{‘}} = Int^{‘} \times \mathbb{R}$
A vector interactions, with a sense value equal to 0, mean, that there is not actual influence of an agent on an object.
It will also be useful, to define interactions, and considering only a sign of that real number further, in which case, the interaction will have a form: $(ent_1, ent_2, ent_3, +)$ or $(ent_1, ent_2, ent_3, -)$.
In this case, the number of interactions would be equal to $2^4 = 16$ (if defined for $ENT$) and $3*(2^2) = 12$ (if defined for $Ent$).
This $-$ sign will be interpreted as to/towards inside (of a referent by an object), and the $+$ sign – as to/towards outside (of a referent by an object).
Transformation types
Transformation is some change of an object, that is defined with use of two additional conditions:
- Is the hypothetical motion change related to exterior/surrounding or interior/self of an object?
- Is the hypothetical motion change related to a whole or parts of an object?
There are 4 possible cases of such transformations:
- External ($\times$) motion change of a whole $(⚊)$ – rigid body motion
- External ($\times$) motion change of parts $(⚋)$ – change of integrity
- Internal ($\cdot$) motion change of a whole $(⚊)$ – change of rotational motion
- Internal ($\cdot$) motion change of parts $(⚋)$ – change of a form
In some cases, a “whole” can be related to a “preserved integrity” of an object, and “parts”, to its “integrity change”, although it’s probably a less general interpretation.
- (Motion) orientations: $ORIENT = \{ \cdot, \times \}$
- Integrities: $INTEG = \{ ⚊, ⚋ \}$
- Transformations: $TRANS = ORIENT \times INTEG$
Interactions with transformations
Defined for a set $Ent$:
$Int^{{‘}{‘}{‘}}= Int{{‘}{‘}} \times TRANS, int^{{‘}{‘}{‘}} = (ent_1, ent_2, ent_3, r, orient, integ), ent_1, ent_2, ent_3 \in Ent, orient \in ORIENT, int \in INTEG$
In case of $r \in \{ -, +\}$, the number of interactions would be equal to $2^6 = 64$ (defined for $ENT$), and $3*(2^4) = 48$ (defined for $Ent$).
These 48 interpretations seem to may have very common and intuitive interpretations.
Interpretations and hypothetical meanings of the interactions with transformations
What I presented to you, so far, could seem to be more like the dry definitions. But now, I’d like to actually suggest their hypothetical interpretations.
My suggestions of the interpretations of all of the subjective interactions with transformations (with use of the $+$ and $-$ signs, used, to denote positive and negative real numebrs, instead of arbitrary real numbers), are as follows:
- $(x,x,x,-,\cdot,⚊)$ – x (agent) acts on x/self (object) relative to x/self (referent), with a centripetal tendence (orientation/sense), changing itself internally (orientation), with preserved integrity/as a whole (integrity) – x is spinning down itself (relative to itself) (e.g. boring yourself)
- $(x,x,x,+,\cdot,⚊)$ – x is spinning up itself (relative to itself) (e.g. causing excitation to yourself)
- $(x,x,x,-,\cdot,⚋)$ – x is closing itself (e.g. flower closing for the night, losing confidence by self-demotivation)
- $(x,x,x,+,\cdot,⚋)$ – x is opening itself (e.g. flower opening in the morning, gaining confidence by self-motivating)
- $(x,x,x,-,\times,⚊)$ – x is stopping itself (e.g. a person stopping walking)
- $(x,x,x,+,\times,⚊)$ – x is moving itself (e.g. a person starting walking)
- $(x,x,x,-,\times,⚋)$ – x is integrating itself (e.g. becoming proud of yourself, building own ego)
- $(x,x,x,+,\times,⚋)$ – x is disintegrating itself (e.g. ego-dissolution, de-identification)
- $(x,x,y,-,\cdot,⚊)$ – x is spinning down itself relative to another (e.g. losing excitation about something/someone)
- $(x,x,y,+,\cdot,⚊)$ – x is spinning up itself relative to another (e.g. gaining excitation about something/someone, *creating expectations)
- $(x,x,y,-,\cdot,⚋)$ – x is closing itself from another (e.g. losing interest to talk with someone)
- $(x,x,y,+,\cdot,⚋)$ – x is opening itself to another (e.g. opening to another in a discussion)
- $(x,x,y,-,\times,⚊)$ – x is moving itself toward another (e.g. going to a school)
- $(x,x,y,+,\times,⚊)$ – x is moving itself away from another (e.g. skipping off school, escaping from a building in a fire)
- $(x,x,y,-,\times,⚋)$ – (??)
- $(x,x,y,+,\times,⚋)$ – (??)
- $(x,y,x,-,\cdot,⚊)$ – x is spinning down another relative to x (e.g. turning somebody off about us, taking away their excitement about us)
- $(x,y,x,+,\cdot,⚊)$ – x is spinning up another relative to x (e.g. exciting someone with us)
- $(x,y,x,-,\cdot,⚋)$ – x is closing another relative to x (e.g. trying to humiliate someone or put personal guilt on someone, facing something away from us)
- $(x,y,x,+,\cdot,⚋)$ – x is opening another relative to x (e.g. showing someone, that they can trust us, opening a book to read)
- $(x,y,x,-,\times,⚊)$ – x is attracting another/x is moving another to x (e.g. our perfumes attracting another sexually, taking someone to hug them, proton attracting electron)
- $(x,y,x,+,\times,⚊)$ – x is repelling another/x is moving another away from x (e.g. smelling bad, e.g. unconsciously, pushing someone, proton repelling another proton)
- $(x,y,x,-,\times,⚋)$ – (??)
- $(x,y,x,+,\times,⚋)$ – (??)
- $(x,y,y,-,\cdot,⚊)$ – x is spinning down another, relative to this another (e.g. de-exciting another about their ideas)
- $(x,y,y,+,\cdot,⚊)$ – x is spinning up another, relative to this another (e.g. exciting someone about this someone (e.g. by making proving them, that they are cool))
- $(x,y,y,-,\cdot,⚋)$ – x is closing another, relative to this another (e.g. wrapping a gift)
- $(x,y,y,+,\cdot,⚋)$ – x is opening another, relative to this another (e.g. opening a candy)
- $(x,y,y,-,\times,⚊)$ – x is stopping another (e.g. an air slowing down or stopping a moving object)
- $(x,y,y,+,\times,⚊)$ – x is moving another (e.g. field accelerating a particle)
- $(x,y,y,-,\times,⚋)$ – x is integrating another (e.g. solving puzzles)
- $(x,y,y,+,\times,⚋)$ – x is disintegrating another (e.g. demounting a car into pieces)
- $(y,x,x,-,\cdot,⚊)$ – x is being spinned down by another
- $(y,x,x,+,\cdot,⚊)$ – x is being spinned up by another
- $(y,x,x,-,\cdot,⚋)$ – x is being closed (relative to self) by another
- $(y,x,x,+,\cdot,⚋)$ – x is being opened (relative to self) by another
- $(y,x,x,-,\times,⚊)$ – x is being stopped by another
- $(y,x,x,+,\times,⚊)$ – x is being moved by another
- $(y,x,x,-,\times,⚋)$ – x is being integrated by another
- $(y,x,x,+,\times,⚋)$ – x is being disintegrated by another
- $(y,x,y,-,\cdot,⚊)$ – x is being spinned down by another, relative to this another
- $(y,x,y,+,\cdot,⚊)$ – x is being spinned up by another, relative to this another
- $(y,x,y,-,\cdot,⚋)$ – x is being closed by another, relative to this another
- $(y,x,y,+,\cdot,⚋)$ – x is being opened by another, relative to this another
- $(y,x,y,-,\times,⚊)$ – x is being attracted by another (to this another)
- $(y,x,y,+,\times,⚊)$ – x is being repelled by another (from this another)
- $(y,x,y,-,\times,⚋)$ – (??)
- $(y,x,y,+,\times,⚋)$ – (??)
The above interactions do not define, neither, whether the agent acts in them “on purpose” or “consciously”, nor, the progress of these interactions (whether it’s the begenning/start, process, or ending/end, for example).
Spinning up/spinning down can also, probably be interpreted as exciting/de-exciting.
The (??) signs mean, that I wasn’t wasn’t exactly sure how to interprete the given interaction or what applications would it have.
I didn’t give exampels of interpretations of interactions with a pattern $(y,x,\_,\_,\_,\_)$, because they are somewhat the reflections of interactions with a pattern $(x,y,\_,\_,\_,\_)$.
What is still wonder about, however, is, if all of those interactions are unique; for example, if the interactions 19 and 27 are not the same, or in some situations the same, because, if we close something relative to itself (necessity of closing?), it also probably becomes closed from us.
In some cases, considering an interaction without a referent – $(ent_1,ent_2,\_,sign,orient,integ)$ – could also probably be useful.
Also, in the real world, probably the combinations of those interactions can occur at the same or almost the same time.
Summary
I hope I did convince you at least a little, that those 6 elements of interactions with transformations can actually define many, if not all, common types of change.
Thank you for your time reading this.
You can let me know about your considerations and thoughts about these concepts and/or interpretations.
In the later posts, I’d like to give some special cases of interactions and try to interprete the interactions with reactions.