Thinking Trap: Do Not Ignore Interactions

Photo by Robert Hrovat on Unsplash

Drawing on my experience as a systems engineer, I have been independently researching the origin of life from a systems perspective.

In doing so, I have frequently noticed that some mainstream explanations for the origin of life seem unnatural from a systems perspective, or that hypotheses with higher plausibility as systems are often overlooked in the prevailing discussions. While the introduction of systems thinking has gradually gained recognition, it still seems insufficient overall.

As I delved deeper into this topic, I realized that the underlying issue lies in a cognitive bias that emphasizes inertia or unidirectional effects over the perspective of interactions. Even when interactions are acknowledged, they are often treated as partial or exceptional, resulting in an imbalance.

Moreover, this tendency is not limited to discussions about the origin of life but is also prevalent in debates about other phenomena that are scientifically difficult to verify.

This article will highlight, based on evidence, the existence of such cognitive biases that overlook interactions. I will argue that focusing on interactions in certain cases is essential for obtaining appropriate insights and that overcoming cognitive biases to adopt suitable thinking methods is crucial.

Inertia and Unidirectional Effects

Physical laws, including the equations of motion, have traditionally centered around behaviors independent of other elements or unidirectional effects from one element to another.

When behavior is independent of other elements, it follows physical inertia. In cases of unidirectional effects, the element exerting the effect remains unchanged, while only the affected element undergoes change.

For example, consider the relationship between the Sun and the Earth. The Sun remains in place due to inertia, while the Earth moves in a circular orbit under the Sun’s gravitational influence. Although the Sun is also affected slightly by the Earth’s gravity, this perspective of inertia and unidirectional effects effectively captures the essence of the relationship between the Sun and Earth.

Interactions

However, this view captures only one aspect of the real world. In reality, interactions occur, as seen in how the Sun is slightly influenced by the Earth’s gravity.

Of course, in many cases, the essential understanding does not change even when interactions are ignored, as in the Sun and Earth example. Overemphasizing interactions can cause one to lose sight of the essence, making such abstractions and omissions meaningful.

While analyses based on inertia and unidirectional effects have achieved numerous successes, there are equally many situations where analyzing interactions is fundamentally important.

The Thinking Trap of Success-Based Bias

As emphasized earlier, focusing on inertia and unidirectional effects while omitting the analysis of interactions is crucial in appropriate contexts and has historically yielded significant successes.

However, the repeated success of analyses based on inertia and unidirectional effects has led many to become overly accustomed to ignoring interactions. Consequently, even in cases where interactions should be the primary focus, people fall into a thinking trap by reducing the analysis to inertia and unidirectional effects.

Of course, some fields and theories have successfully incorporated interaction-focused analyses. Nevertheless, the scope of such efforts is limited, and there are numerous examples where only inertia and unidirectional effects are emphasized, even in areas that demand attention to interactions.

Recognizing the tendency of contemporary scientific thinking to overly focus on inertia and unidirectional effects while neglecting interactions can help us escape this thinking trap.

Here, I will present examples of phenomena considered scientific mysteries and re-examine them from the perspective of interactions. These examples illustrate cases where ignoring or omitting the analysis of interactions is inappropriate. By reconsidering them through the lens of interactions, I will demonstrate that these mysteries of nature may, in fact, be artificially constructed thinking traps.

Fine-Tuning of the Universe

The universe is believed to be continuously expanding. If the expansion rate were too high, the distances between stars would increase so rapidly that galaxies as we know them could not form, and the Earth would be unable to maintain a stable orbit around the Sun. Conversely, if the expansion rate were too slow, gravitational forces between stars would dominate, causing excessive clustering of stars, which would again prevent galaxies, the Sun, and Earth from maintaining their current states.

In essence, the expansion rate of the universe is finely tuned to allow galaxies, the Sun, and the Earth to exist in their current forms.

The mystery lies in why the universe’s expansion rate is so precisely suited to sustain galaxies, the Sun, and the Earth. This is part of what is known as the fine-tuning problem of the universe. Other aspects of this problem include the balance of microscopic forces that allow particles and atoms to maintain their structures. Even slight variations in these values would disrupt the balance, making it appear as though the universe is fine-tuned to favor galaxies, atoms, molecules, life, and humanity.

There are several interpretations of this fine-tuning problem. One prominent explanation is the multiverse theory, which posits that numerous universes exist, and ours happened to have drawn the right conditions by chance. This is akin to the notion that, while winning the lottery is improbable, buying every ticket guarantees a win. Another interpretation is the anthropic principle, which suggests that the very fact of human existence is why these parameters are just right. This approach reinterprets causality by centering the universe around human observation, avoiding a direct explanation of how fine-tuning occurred.

At the core of the fine-tuning problem lies a traditional assumption: that the values of cosmic parameters like the expansion rate and microscopic force balances act unilaterally on the stars and matter within the universe. In other words, the stars and matter are thought to have no influence on these parameters.

However, Einstein’s general theory of relativity has shown that gravity affects space itself. Similarly, the specific quantities and types of elementary particles determine the balance of forces at the microscopic level. This means that matter and space in the universe interact, and elementary particles interact with the forces that govern their behavior at the microscopic level.

Despite these well-established facts, the fine-tuning problem is often considered without incorporating interaction as a premise. This is a classic example of a thinking trap. While it may be possible to dismiss interaction as negligible, interpreting fine-tuning as the result of interactions shaping the current state of the universe is an explanation that deserves to stand alongside hypotheses like the multiverse theory or the anthropic principle — or at least be critically debated. The absence of such discussion strongly suggests that the fine-tuning problem might itself be a thinking trap.

Symmetry Breaking

All matter in the universe is fundamentally composed of atoms, which in turn are made up of elementary particles. These elementary particles are known to emerge from the interactions of quantum fields.

Additionally, particles with negative mass, known as antimatter, are also generated from quantum fields alongside ordinary particles. In a vacuum, particles with normal mass and those with negative mass (antimatter) can spontaneously appear as mirror images of each other. When they collide, they annihilate each other, returning the vacuum to a particle-free state. These particles are symmetric in that, aside from the opposite sign of their masses, they share identical properties.

Despite this inherent symmetry, the observable universe consists almost entirely of ordinary matter, with antimatter being scarce or vanishing shortly after it forms. If symmetry were complete, we would expect both forms of matter to coexist or repeatedly emerge and annihilate in equal measure. The overwhelming dominance of ordinary matter is a central mystery of symmetry breaking.

The leading explanation for this is that symmetry is not perfect but partially broken under specific conditions. Identifying these conditions is the main approach to addressing the symmetry-breaking problem.

Here, too, we encounter the thinking trap of ignoring interactions. Even in a symmetric system, slight fluctuations at certain moments could favor one type of matter over the other. Without interaction, this initial advantage would quickly even out, restoring symmetry. However, if the initially dominant particles interact with each other in ways that prevent their annihilation, this dominance could amplify over time. If this process continues, one type of matter could become overwhelmingly dominant, explaining the observed asymmetry.

The Arrow of Time

Equations of motion and quantum mechanics both describe changes in state over time using linear mathematical formulations. These equations imply that time can flow equally well in either direction, allowing states to be accurately calculated forward or backward in time. In other words, the physical world, as described by such equations, appears to have no intrinsic direction for time.

Yet, we perceive and believe that time flows in only one direction. This paradox, where time seems to have a direction that equations cannot account for, defines the problem of the arrow of time.

A central explanation attributes the arrow of time to the increase in entropy. Time flows in the direction in which entropy increases, with this progression defining the direction of time’s arrow.

This explanation, however, neglects the perspective of interaction. When multiple objects interact, their motions can still be described by coupled equations of motion. Yet, as seen in the three-body problem, solving these equations analytically becomes impossible as the number of interacting bodies increases.

This analytical intractability means that even if equations define all states for a given time, calculating the system’s state for all times becomes impractical. Instead, these equations are transformed into differential equations for incremental time changes, with each change calculated step by step and integrated over time.

Such computations resemble iterative processes in computer simulations. While the calculations themselves are simple, the iterative layering creates a nested structure that extends over time.

The direction in which these calculations unfold defines the flow of time. This interpretation establishes a clear temporal direction within the framework of physical equations without invoking entropy or external factors.

The key idea here is interaction. The mystery of the arrow of time, too, emerges as another example of a thinking trap caused by inappropriately ignoring interactions.

Verification of Evidence

In this article, I have presented three examples — fine-tuning of the universe, symmetry breaking, and the arrow of time — as cases of thinking traps.

The purpose of this article is not to propose new hypotheses or to resolve these examples. Rather, it is to demonstrate that hypotheses or discussions based on the perspective of interactions, as outlined here, are conspicuously absent from mainstream discourse.

This absence serves as evidence supporting my observation that the perspective of interconnections is often overlooked in various contexts of scientific discussion.

If this issue were isolated to just one example, it could be dismissed as an exceptional oversight specific to that case. Similarly, if hypotheses derived from the perspective of interconnections were demonstrably ineffective, their absence from discussion would not be a concern.

However, in these examples, hypotheses based on interconnections have the potential to be as compelling as, if not more compelling than, existing hypotheses. Moreover, the lack of such hypotheses in not one but three cases indicates that this is not merely an exception or an oversight but rather a systematic blind spot in scientific thinking.

Conclusion

The tendency to overlook interactions is not confined to the realm of physics. As mentioned at the outset, it is also evident in discussions about the origin of life, extending into the fields of chemistry and biology.

Furthermore, this tendency appears in social sciences and humanities, which study social systems and human interactions. While interactions in these fields are seldom completely ignored, there still seems to be a tendency to abstractly reduce them to inertia or unidirectional effects. Alternatively, there may be an implicit and uncritical mixing of analyses with and without interactions, without consciously distinguishing between the two.

This article is not merely an attempt to point out oversights or criticize existing methods of thought. Nor is it an assertion that all interactions must always be analyzed rigorously.

Rather, I aim to emphasize the importance of recognizing that interactions, to varying degrees, are present in all phenomena, alongside inertia and unidirectional effects.

Additionally, I encourage consideration of whether the omission of interaction effects in existing discussions or models arises from a conscious recognition of their insignificance or irrelevance, or merely from oversight.

In developing new discussions or models, it is crucial to deliberate on whether interactions need to be included or can be safely omitted. This should be explicitly stated, as failing to do so makes it difficult to objectively assess whether an omission is intentional or an oversight.

Acknowledging and addressing the tendency to overlook interactions — often seen as a complex and unwieldy concept — are essential for sound and appropriate thinking. This is the central argument of this article.