The Fractal Theory of Everything
Are we caught in a loop? Are we caught in a loop? Are we cau...
Hi! We’re Boots and the Brain. Alan is the brain (neuroscienc-y stuff) and Sarah is the boots on the ground (let’s make this actually relevant to real life stuff). We basically just like each other a lot and talk to each other a lot and that’s why our substack has back and forth, too. Without further ado, here’s a piece by Alan…
I have a theory.
Sarah: “It might be bunnies”- Anyanka Christina Emmanuella Jenkins.
Sorry, everyone, that’s a Buffy reference and it just automatically spills out of my mouth…
I call it my fractal theory of everything.
Which is implicitly ironic because definitionally it fails in this endeavor, but more on that later.
First, what is a fractal? it is a self-similar, recursive, but fundamentally simple structure that is the product of asymmetric equations. These equations repeatedly apply rules that are non-linear, dimensionless, and, interestingly, they’re everywhere.
Sarah: Ok. I’m thinking the golden ratio in nautilus shells and honeycomb. Which then made me think about Honeycomb cereal. And now I’m back after a 20 minute rabbit hole googling whether Honeycomb cereal still exists. It does. And, apparently, it actually tastes like honey.
So first off, we experience the world through rules. There are the obvious rules (e.g., don’t run with scissors, don’t put that in your mouth — you don’t know where it’s been, etc.) and non-obvious rules (e.g., don’t step on a crack — you will break the back of your mother) but those are not the rules I want to talk about first.
In many cases, a rule is a functional heuristic, for example “what goes up, must come down.” The rules play a role in teaching us how to understand and deal with a world that works in a certain way the vast majority of the time. Generally, this is sufficient, but not always. We apply functional heuristics all the time in academics to understand general ideas such as: “the amygdala handles fear and surprise.” It’s helpful, but the rule is incomplete on its own.
Laws do the same thing. They’re a set of rules for societal living that we have created. So, “thou shall not steal” is a good rule — but, again, it is incomplete on its own. What if someone was holding up a store and would kill everyone in the store unless I stole 20 dollars from the register for them? I’d hand over that cash so quickly that I’d get a paper cut.
Fun fact, this is why I didn’t get a job at Footlocker.
Sarah: Woah. I’m going to give a little background here or else everyone is going to think you either threatened to kill a bunch of people in a Footlocker or you stole 20 bucks for a potential murderer in a Footlocker.
Alan was in high school and applied for a job—something to do when he wasn’t playing basketball or exploding trashcans with home grown science projects. At the time, Footlocker had an employment screening questionnaire. Now, back to Alan…
They had about 20 open ended “I would never...” questions and I felt that no rule, no matter how well-intended, covers all conditions.
“Would you steal?”
“Yes.”
End of interview.
A rule can work sufficiently for most situations, but no rule covers all conditions. For example, I have long thought that given the options between rock-paper-scissors that rock is the best choice. I will put my rock up against anyone’s paper any day.
Sarah: He’s the easiest person to play rock, paper, scissors with…EXCEPT it quickly becomes an exercise in ethics because you know he’ll pick rock. So really you’re just deciding if you want to win or lose or stalemate. FYI, stalemate is always the answer because then you can use a different philosophical exercise to decide if it’s burritos or sushi for dinner.
I believe this even though I’ve seen “Dead Again”
Sarah: spoiler alert— scissors win
and “Brazil”
Sarah: I’ve no idea what he’s referencing here. I haven’t seen Brazil.
and the deadliest choice is not rock.
Also, I’ve seen “The Mummy Returns” and understand that the Rock does not always win.
Sorry, got distracted there — now back to the main point.
Our laws work this way: Politicians write laws (probably virtue signaling to their base). People and their lawyers (editorial note: lawyers are actually people) find the gaps the rules don’t cover. Judges and politicians (editorial note: judges are also people) attempt to make new rules to fill those gaps. Repeat. Repeat again. Then this repeating dimension-less cycle continues.
Sarah: Ah! Like looking into a mirror within a mirror.
Each conceptual gap between the truth and the rule is filled by another rule. But there will always be another gap begging for another rule.
Visual illusions and magic tricks work the same way. Our rules and heuristics handle normal situations, but there are gaps, leaving some space uncovered. These illusions and tricks slip through that space.
We experience the same thing in science: a model of the world explains some things, but a gap is found and the model is either replaced or augmented. Newtonian rule then succumbs to quantum mechanics or thermodynamics or general field theory which then succumbs to something else.
My Our fields (psychology, neuropsychology, neuroimaging, psychiatry, etc.) experience this more than most. We are constantly living in groping desperation of finding heuristics that explain the mind enough to create a workable rule. But, like laws, magic tricks, and Footlocker quizzes, each rule needs revision and augmentation. By the way, this happens more often in psychology than physics. Why? Because physics rules align numbers to numbers whereas psychology aligns numbers (the data) to concepts. This mismatched alignment leaves gaps and the very imprecision of the concepts compounds the gaps.
Actually, let’s stop for a second.
If you would be so kind grab a pen and paper, or at least pretend to — I’ll never know. Now draw a bumpy amoeba or a ketchup splash or something like that. This is a concept. Now draw a square around the splotch, allowing the splotch to optimally fills the space. In the gaps you can draw another splotch and a square around it. This is a nice
Sarah: weird idea of nice.
visualization of the attempts of our rules to fill these shapes and gaps. It’s not a perfect example, but, frankly if it was a perfect visualization then it would not need augmentation thus it wouldn’t maintain its fractal structure thus it would be an imperfect example — think about that for a second. But not too long.
Sarah: I actually chuckled at that one.
So, this fractal structure occurs all over the place. In learning chess. In learning how to paint. In learning to play an instrument. In learning a language. These mismatches of our heuristics compel us to fill these self-similar and repeating gaps.
It’s not just laws, and magic tricks, and Footlocker exams and learning new skills. Fractals apply to everything.
Sarah: Ooh. I think we’re getting to why you called it your fractal theory of everything.
We live our lives—we exist—in a fractal. I’ve spent much of my career in my particular arm of my particular fractal. But some day, hopefully not too soon, they’ll stop paying me to explore that fractal
Well, you do work for the federal government and we all know how that’s going…
and I’ll close my computer, I’ll get up from my chair, and I’ll find another fractal and all the things I learned in tracing the shape of fractals will come with me. I’ll be somewhere new but somewhere familiar.
I expect at this point my clever reader will have come up with situations or places where my fractal theory of every fails. Something I never thought of, some concept outside what I know. And you are completely correct, my fractal theory of everything doesn’t cover everything. There are gaps. Because this too is a rule and this too is a fractal. So, in a way the rule is right because it is wrong. Think about that for a second. But not too long.
Sarah: In keeping with our theme, of Boots and the Brain. It’s time to interject some boots-like action…
I like Alan’s fractal theory of everything. There’s something very calming and reassuring about it. Perhaps you’re in a bad situation—financial stressor, relationship stressor, work stressor and you’re feeling like there’s no solution. Maybe you’re stuck, feeling hopeless and overwhelmed. With the fractal theory of everything, do not despair. The answers are within and around you.
You’ve been here before—not this exact situation—but this feeling, a conflict, facing an obstacle. You’ve gotten through this before—most likely by applying heuristics, then applying even more heuristics, and then even more heuristics in the gaps.
The real trick is to identify whether the heuristics you’ve been applying are working for you. We often find ourselves engaging in patterns of thinking or reacting because of rules that we project onto society and our place in it. Sometimes the rules we apply undermine ourselves or our goals. Consider Alan’s example of drawing squares around splotches in an involuting repeating pattern. If one draws circles rather than squares around splotches, this gives a very different repeating pattern.
If you’re facing a situation now, it’s time to think about your past and how you reacted to that situation. How did that situation resolve? Did you retain your strength and identity at the end despite the outcome? Decide if you actually applied maladaptive rules—and are you applying them now? Maybe it’s time for a new set of rules. Especially if you’re stuck in a pattern of pain, or depression, or emotional upheaval. Consider drawing circle instead of squares. Apply a different set of heuristics and enter a new fractal—one of harmony, beauty, and purpose.
Please drop us a heart and consider subscribing—we’re new here and we’d love to find fellow neuroscience & philosophy & psychiatry & psychology & big thinking friends like you. Thank you!