The dynamics and meaningful implications of system boundaries.

What determines the proximity of an attractor?

Theoretically speaking, if one were to be competely isolated from inception (to be abundantly clear - I do not support exercising experimentation on such inquiry..) are there still existing attractor states held by the genotype of the organism? Is it possible to remove all states in which life is equally probable to experience all states equally upon creation, and what would be the survival rate? If considering a model with no training data, which yet holds the scaffold for existing by simply being, introception is the natural direction of growth to consider.

And yet this seems conflicting as the implication of a scaffold is itself a training mechanism. Bounds to guide "life" - or the dynamics of relations, through the flux of interaction. Which hints at why such bounds are inevitably dynamic. Consider a circle - that bound within such interacts, generating the topology of the system. This topology is critical in enabling, restricting, guiding all states and forms of being, within said "fixed" circle. The boundary of the self is what determines the perspective of this topology - which, I imagine, is easily confused with the circle itself. Existence beyond this circle is an unfruitful concept as connectivity itself is undeterminable, therefore there is nothing to be known from the perception of a mind within it. And yet within, holds the potential of infinite adaptation, evolution, creative expression and capabilities. All the while, aside from that of philosophical debate, there exists, to be frank, no concrete evidence (or logically supported conjecture) of returning answers or useful information beyond mere hallucination - at least not that which seems to be verifiable beyond ones creative ventures (and within immediate grasp).

This is a beautiful place to be - a mental space where a lot of creative spark brews - but to fixate on such obsessions may not be the most appropriate approach to both understanding, and happiness (if you separate the two concepts, but I'll offer the tickling suggestion hinting strong correlation between the two outputs).

I must present an opposing argument as self debate is one of my most cherished passtimes. Why must such an evaluation be considered limited to that of hallucinatory driven concepts when nature is increasingly presenting itself as a nested, fractal like structure (and I say increasingly with an excessively humble attitude considering presentation arrives in the form of that which one seeks). Consider this figurative "circle" in discussion similar to that of a black hole (another wink of comedy considering how little is known here as well, but nonetheless..) In this sense, the surface does appear rigid in law, but not fixed in the sense of that traditionally understood to be unchanging. Also likely to be largely scale dependent, as it appears all is (consider a cell and how to determine where to draw the bounds of a unit - "what is "one" of anything" questions Michael Levin in one of his video uploads on his academically driven Youtube channel- a great approach to probing the depths of systematic understanding. It seems by nature these arguments are infinitely expansive, and while often fruitful, exciting and certainly thought provoking, relational based anchors offer grounds to an adaptable and timeless (pun intended) foundation.