Actions and receptions I consider to be some special types of interactions, in which a certain entity occurs as:
- agent (action),
- receiver (reception)
- or agent and receiver (e.g. reflexive action, action “on yourself”)
The type of interaction depends on the entity, from whose perspective it is interpreted, and its role in the interaction.
For example, the same interaction $(a,b,a,+)$ (e.g. “$a$ attracts $b$ to $a$”) is an action from perspective of $a$, and reception from perspective of $b$.
The basic types of interactions are as follows:
| Arrow notation | Tuple notation | Example |
| $\ce{a → b}$ | $(a,a,b,+)$ | “a approaches b” |
| $\ce{a ⤙ b}$ | $(a,a,b,-)$ | “a leaves b” |
| $\ce{a ⤛ b}$ | $(a,b,a,+)$ | “a attracts b” |
| $\ce{a ⇥ b}$ | $(a,b,a,-)$ | “a repels b” |
And with participation of a third entity – $c$:
| $\ce{a \overset{c}{⤛} b}$ | $(a,b,c,+)$ | “a attracts b to c” |
| $\ce{a \overset{c}{⇥} b}$ | $(a,b,c,-)$ | “a repels b from c” |
We can also interpret the interactions above from a perspective of a certain entity, which is involved in them.
Below are the cases, interpreted from the perspective of an entity $a$:
| Arrow notation | Tuple notation | Example |
| $\ce{a^v → b}$ | $(a,a,b,+,a)$ | “a approaches b” (now, by a, we mean a concrete, specific, chosen entity) |
| $\ce{a^v ⤙ b}$ | $(a,a,b,-,a)$ | “a leaves b” |
| $\ce{a^v ⤛ b}$ | $(a,b,a,+,a)$ | “a attracts b” |
| $\ce{a^v ⇥ b}$ | $(a,b,a,-,a)$ | “a repels b” |
| $\ce{b → a^v}$ | $(b,b,a,+,a)$ | “a is being approached by b” |
| $\ce{b ⤙ a^v}$ | $(b,b,a,-,a)$ | “a is being left by b” |
| $\ce{b ⤛ a^v}$ | $(b,a,b,+,a)$ | “a is being attracted by b” |
| $\ce{b ⇥ a^v}$ | $(b,a,b,-,a)$ | “a is being repelled by b” |
And with participation of a third entity – $c$:
| $\ce{a^v \overset{c}{⤛} b}$ | $(a,b,c,+,a)$ | “a attracts b to c” |
| $\ce{a^v \overset{c}{⇥} b}$ | $(a,b,c,-,a)$ | “a repels b from c” |
| $\ce{b \overset{c}{⤛} a^v}$ | $(b,a,c,+,a)$ | “a is being attracted to c by b” |
| $\ce{b \overset{c}{⇥} a^v}$ | $(b,a,c,-,a)$ | “a is being repelled from c by b” |
How can the tuple notation be read?
The meanings of the tuple $\ce{(ag,rec,ref,orient,vp)}$ entries, are:
- $ag$ – (force) agent- entity which exerts some force
- $rec$ – (force) receiver – entity, on which the agent exerts the force
- $ref$ – (force) referent – entity, relative to which agent “directs” receiver
- $orient$ – orientation or tendence – how, relative to the referent, agent “directs” a receiver (in cases above, only specified by its sign)
- $vp$ – viewpoint – entity, from whose perspective a given interaction is considered
For example: Let’s consider a reception: “$a$ is being attracted to $b$ by $b$”: $(b,a,b,+,a)$
In this case, $b$ (ag) acts on $a$ (rec) relative to $b$ (ref), setting $a$ (rec) with positive tendence (“motion”) relative to $b$ (ref). We also consider this interaction from perspective of $a$ (vp).
It can probably be helpful for intuition, to consider a viewpoint entity as if it was you.
Therefore, the above reception could be interpreted as (assuming $a$ was “me”) – “I am being atracted to $b$ by $b$”.
There are actually yet few more types of interactions with a viewpoint entity, in which an object and a referent are the same entity:
| Arrow notation | Tuple notation |
| $\ce{a^v→a^v \overset{?}= a^v⤛a^v}$ | $(a,a,a,+,a)$ |
| $\ce{a^v⤙a^v \overset{?}= a^v⇥a^v}$ | $(a,a,a,-,a)$ |
| $\ce{a^v \overset{b}{⤛} b}$ | $(a,b,b,+,a)$ |
| $\ce{a^v \overset{b}{⇥} b}$ | $(a,b,b,-,a)$ |
| $\ce{b \overset{a}{⤛} a^v}$ | $(b,a,a,+,a)$ |
| $\ce{b \overset{a}{⇥} a^v}$ | $(b,a,a,-,a)$ |
These are the interactions, to which interpretations I’m not yet completely sure.
Just hypothetically – “being repelled from yourself” could maybe be interpreted as “being put in a targetless motion”, and “attracting self to self”, as “braking”, or, as a bit different example – “densifying yourself”.
For the sake of keeping this article relatively simple, I decided to omit few other types of interactions. For the complete list of types of interactions please refer to the Tree of interactions in this post: Scientific metaphysics – tree of interactions
Conclusion
I think that the concept of interactions is actually the major logical gap in sciences nowadays, and their classification and quantitative analysis could lead to many, new discoveries.
PS. For “a is attracted to b”, I’d also like to suggest a notation: $a↦b$.