3.11 Interactions

Pursuance is the interaction that occurs between objects to achieve specific purposes. This occurs, for example, when two living objects are close enough to each other that one or both of them might want to reach a goal. For this to be pursuance, it is necessary that the object is able to: set the target, locate it, analyze it's movements and work out a way to approach - briefly speaking, to be able to reach the goal. Location is due to sensors and measuring instruments. Living objects use these senses, given by nature. Higher animals are equipped with typical organs of sight, hearing and smell. Some, as a result of adaptation to environmental requirements, developed more advanced sensors, such as the lateral line in fish - sensitive to small movements of water, electroreceptors in fish sensing the weak bioelectric fields generated by other animals or sonar in bats sensitive to ultrasound. Humans construct instruments such as the measuring scoop, watch, radar or telescope expanding the capabilities of our senses. In turn, the analysers are responsible for analysing the received information, calculating how to react upon this information and finally controlling the achievment of the task. The brain and the computer are examples of analysers. The third group of characteristic elements are acutators which transforms the information into real actions, for example: muscles, hydraulic cylinders, engines and even the warning lights in your car. Finally, in order to maintain the functionality of the three groups different kind of resources, stored in accumulators, are necessary, such as glycogen, battery, petrol, algorithms and methodology.

Let us now introduce two new definitions. The first is the pursuing object - which is any object capable of carrying out pursuance. Examples include a person, a car, a department, the board of directors, a platoon of soldiers, a football team. The second definition slightly narrows the first definition, namely the self-pursuing object, a pursuing object which is capable of carrying out pursuance fully autonomously. It is, therefore, any object which can set targets and achieve them using its own sensors, analyzers, actuators and resources and, if necessary, to acquire or produce the appropriate resources. Consider the fact that the same objects can be considered as pursuing or self-pursuing, depending on circumstances. If a platoon has been ordered to take a bunker, and the whole unit participates in this action, the platoon should be considered as a pursuing object. However, when the decision and the action is made by the platoon leader, the platoon is to be treated as a self-pursuing object, provided, of course, that they did not benefit from any external support.

The basic process of pursuance is implemented, as a rule, by two separate self-pursuing objects: a cat chasing a mouse, a rocket intercepting a plane or an individaul self-pursuing object achieving its goal: the climber reaching the top, a vulture searching for carrion. If the goal is to catch a mouse or to intercept an aircraft, it is very easy to determine whether or not it has been achieved, and on this basis indicate the winner. If the target was reached it means that the pursuer won and the adversary lost. The reverse is also true. It is possible to spend a lot of time talking about the reasons for winning or losing, but the essence of this process lies in gaining or losing (resources). It should be kept in mind that not all pursuant processes can be considered as a simple "chase - avoid" situation, but, at this point, let's keep this simplification. In the basic pursuant process, regardless of the result, everything depends on the objects involved. Whatever is the result, they can blame or praise only themselves. Things are different when we analyze pursuance implemented by complex objects composed of a number of self-pursuant objects cooperating with each other, such as a herd of horses, or a pack of wolves. In animal groups, the observation, analysis and decision-making are not made by all members. In general, it is the task of a single entity - the leader of the herd, or a separate subgroup. Only they perform the role of sensors and analysers for the group, considered as a unique self-pursuant object. In human societies, by developing methods of cooperation based on a high level of specialization and trade, people designated roles of sensors, analyzers and actuators to other people. As far as accumulators are concerned, we use banks, dams, storages etc... Each individual is still a self-pursuant object, but only in those rare situations where we set our goals by ourselves and reach them without the help of others. However, in most cases, because we are part of a community, we should be considered as a pursuant object instead of self-pursuant.

One of the main research methods of the physics of life is the definition of (self) pursuant objects, observing their self-development and analyzing their relationships when they constitute a more complex (self) pursuant object. It is like assembling and disassembling a Russian Doll. An atom is the smallest part of matter, whilst a (self) pursuant object can be considered as the smallest element within a community.

Pursuance is a universal process observed almost everywhere. It manifests itself in the acquisition of food, earning money, education and to ensure public health. Interestingly, each of these issues can be examined and analyzed in exactly the same way as we did in the "chase - avoid" situation. In all of these issues, we can easily define: target, pursuant object (the object who want to reach this target), its sensors, analyzers, actuators and accumulators. Of course, all of these can often comprise of multiple sub-objects. When these basic elements are already defined, an analysis of the system and its behaviour can be performed.

The diagram shows a schematic of a self-pursuant object, which consists of of sensors, analyzers, actuators and accumulators. Each sphere symbolizes a different element. Do the proportions seem weird? Does it seem to be unnatural? Does your intuition suggest that the self-pursuant structures we know have different proportions? An example might be a fighter plane, which consists of a monstrously big jet engine and huge fuel tanks as well but relatively small sensors and analyzers that take up a lot less space and weight. Similar proportions are found in the construction of humans and animals. Sensors and analyzers are much smaller and weigh less - usually constituting a small percentage of the volume and weight of the object. So our schematic drawing does not retain the proportions found in nature. You can certainly argue that the bones of the skull which protect the brain are analyzers or accumulators, but it does not change the fact that the general proportions are different.

In 2007, the Polish press reported that the police employed a hundred and ten thousand full-time police officers, but only eight thousand were working in the field. Immediately I imagined two tiny balls symbolizing the actuators and sensors, which represent these eight thousand police officers. Only they are in direct contact with law violations, and ten times less than their sphere analyzers - the remaining one hundred and two thousand officers sitting at their desks. If we consider the police as a pursuant object, its proportions, given by the aforementioned numbers, are not natural. Which means that in nature one cannot find a self-pursuant object with ten times more analysers than actuators and sensors combined. These findings prompt the question whether man-made pursuant objects (e.g institutions such as the police) are effective?

An effective self-pursuant object optimizes its elements. It is concerned with taking enough resources to complete the action but not too much in order to not be overcharged. It takes care of its acutators by ensuring they are resource-efficient. Their sensors should provide fast and relevant information, their analyzers should be the wisest and react correctly and quickly. The case is quite different when the pursuant process is performed by not one but two objects, when they have a clear division of roles and should cooperate. Imagine that one of them only performs the function of analyzer and the second one is responsible for providing resources, actuating and sensing. A paradoxical situation may occur when the first object, after thinking a little bit, decides not to reach the mutual target, because it will consider that it will gain more by exploiting the second object. The second object will give any of its resources and will perform any actions required because it is unable to analyse the situation. In these circumstances, the analyzer achieves its personal goal rather than both of them reaching a mutual goal. This phenomena, in physics of life, is defined as game-within-game.