I would like to introduce an idea I have been considering for some time, which reflects my observations of the behaviour of all things sentient. I am very keen to hear from readers their reaction to this, especially any suggestion that these ideas are not new.

The basics of generic systems.

Define a closed boundary. Define everything inside that boundary as a system and everything outside as not that system. The mind then defines characteristics or dimensions as they become apparent. If those dimensions are mutually exclusive then the mind can more simply comprehend that system. If not, if they are interdependent, the mind becomes a little confused. Intellect is essentially clarity, it doesn't suggest what you know about the world nor how advanced your understanding is.

Consider now, how the state of a boundary and the rules of a system resonate throughout. Consider how the physical world might be considered a perfect system. That is, how any boundary enclosing solely a part of the physical world, will show the effect of the same rules being applied. Anywhere you define a closed boundary around a physical system, you would see the 'laws of nature' at work. In simple systems, they would be less apparent but nevertheless, the potential is there to observe them.

Consider now, that whatever world you live in, whatever makes that world resonates throughout. Any and all systems are affected by the world around them. As a consequence of our living in the physical world, the laws of nature have a very profound effect on our understanding of the world. Consequently even those things not directly related to the physical world are affected by how we understand the natural world. Society, politics, business and especially individuals are a very direct reflection of understanding or, more accurately, lack of understanding.

Self aware systems

Consider now how a system would behave if it didn't know the rules of the world around it. Systems with limited understanding are exactly how humans and all other self aware systems behave. They are all, very much, reflecting their lack of understanding of how the world works and how all things necessarily acknowledge the natural behaviour of systems.

Describe then how any systems including a self aware element, are imperfect and how they interact with others. See then how the idea of generic systems, of the profile of a systems understanding of the world, can describe not only the physical world but individuals, ideas, social systems, indeed any system.

Failure and imperfect systems.

The failure of a system is entirely a reflection of it's own lack of understanding of the world. It's important to note here 'the failure of a system' is taken as if, the world around it is perfect, i.e. the physical world. If failure involves other self aware systems then the cause of failure is proportional to all those involved. I should also suggest, that I do not take the randomness of a physical event and consequent destruction of a system as failure. A perfect system in unfortunate circumstance hasn't failed.

The evolution of mind

Consider how sentient, self aware systems learn about the world around them as they evolve. The understanding of those self aware systems around us is incomplete, be they individuals, society or indeed more abstract. Consequently those systems tend to distract us and draw us to their own world view. However if we consider only the physical world and how self aware systems would behave had they limited knowledge of the rules, we can then describe, indeed derive, psychology and all types of other behaviour studies.

Considering how systems advance and interact, we are then able to find pointers to best progressing an imperfect world and to bettering ourselves.

To be clear, the self aware are necessarily affected by the physical world around them. The rules that govern the physical world necessarily resonate throughout what we are. This extends far beyond our physical selves right into the heart of what we consider it is to be human. Our political, social, business, ideological systems all reflect our understanding of the world to such an extent that it is unclear as to whether any of what we are, or what we will be, can be exempt from this influence.


To conclude there are four points I want to make.

1. The basics of generic systems.
All systems obey the rules of a generic system. A generic system is one which is representative of all systems, be they physical, sentient or more abstract. You can define a boundary anywhere, the system it defines will acknowledge the same laws.
2. Self aware systems.
If we consider physical, or natural, systems as ones which know the rules, then self aware systems behave like physical systems which don't know the rules.
3. Failure and imperfect systems.
A system that doesn't acknowledge the rules governing itself and those systems around it, will tend to fail and when it does it will fail in a way representative of it's ignorance of those laws governing and resonating throughout the world around it.
4. The evolution of mind.
There is a tendency for the self aware system to evolve. The environment or society a system finds itself in encourages awareness of those rules it understands and although it's possible for a system to learn any of the rules, one order of learning appears more common than others.

Having derived my understanding from considering a point system in a void developed to a system interacting with others, my description includes seven dimensions, characteristics or tenets which drive the behaviour of the systems I see. There are then two areas which interest me. Firstly can another set be suggested, as polar co-ordinates might be suggested as a partner to cartesian? Also is there anything that is completely removed from the effects of the physical world, indeed can we be any more than, dare I say mere, reflections of the world we live in?

That many systems are affected by the physical may be of no surprise as many have roots in the physical world and so are affected by the natural laws. However the point is that even in the abstract these laws continue to resonate and we appear to act as their conduits. I do wonder that since the abstract appears so affected, whether it is not ourselves so much as the world itself, that conducts the laws throughout all types of system and into the abstract. Maybe our definitions of the natural laws are not broad enough and really need to be more generic in their description thereby describing all system types, rather than, as I am attempting to do, using current understanding of the physical as a basis of defining abstract understanding which we then transmit.

Finally, I would be interested in hearing of any other similar ideas to this. I'm thinking it's quite possible that someone has followed this line of thinking before, for though it's not immediately apparent, neither is it especially complex.


It's because they're stupid. That's why everyone does everything.
[Homer Simpson]