A System as an abstract entity is built upon blocks. Blocks upon constructs. Constructs upon fundamentals.

Each of these entities are self contained, consistent and unbiased. I like to emphasize here on being unbiased. It plays subtle and a very crucial role in the strength and the consistency of the whole system.

Live a day without being biased to experience the strength and beauty of it. Its not a simple task for sure.


Blocks can be objects or concepts. Objects can be made up of other objects and concepts. Concepts are plain entities made up on constructs.


Constructs are built upon fundamentals. Based on most common usage and as a mere reusable component to comprehend/build bigger entities like blocks and concepts.


Fundamentals are the ones which are taken for being understood without a doubt. For the sake of keeping it within my explanatary boundary. I am not taking up the debate of resolution of a fundamental entity. It can be infinitesimally broken to even more sub fundamentalistic entities. May not really end anywhere, but may convolute back to the same point where we started. Just my hypothesis.


Ok. The whole point I started about "Abstraction of a System" is to explain about unbias and its relation to the strength of the System. Being consistent in being unbiased keeps the System safe for reasons, safe for building/extending it further.


The moment bias sets in to the System, its the doom for the system. Its a crack, an anamoly which invariable results in structural collapse. It causes the system to lose its direction, strength and the purpose.

Lets get on with this (un)bias, which has been described as one of the main backbone component for the structural stability of a System.

Bias - Any definition of a Block, concept, construct or a relationship which is driven (atleast partly) by influence. Influence which is not based on atleast one reason. Here the reason is defined as a construct, which makes it self-contained, consistent and unbiased. That makes it a recursive definition, which I think is by its nature. This recursiveness is the factor which feeds my point said above while defining "Fundamentals". I think hard about breaking this loop, a terminating condition. I've not seen it so far. Frankly, in my opine, I do not believe that it ever can reach a terminating condition.

Another important and subtle concept in the above definition is "Influence which is not based on atleast one reason."

Its about the possibilities of multitude of reasons to define the samething. To understand it better, it can be started by reasoning for transition from one state to another state for a given entity. By our knowledge of science, we know there is one and only one particular reason which causes the given transistion. Thats the basis of all our school or college experiments. To rule out all but one reason.

However, I am talking about the contradiction here. I am talking of multiple (possibly innumerable) reasons to cause that transistion. I will take this up hard sometime. Its a real rocking concept to shake the whole fundamentals, there by creating a complete chaos in the whole definition of the fundamentals. A complete choas which makes up the world (so thought stable world) we think we are living. A chotic world anyways, I suppose everyone agrees to it :)

The above explanation is so vulenrable that it provides so much room to hypothesis (theory)which can invade this definition and destroy it completely. It need not stop there, by projecting the same theory further and further it can re-establish the same concept again (which was destroyed earlier by the same theory). Its as much true as it is false.

By the way, where did I lose myself? Yes, defining Bias. Yet to be defined concept in the definition of Bias is, the "Influence". Influence is a factor which is a combination of one or more reasons. For instance, to build a shade - reasons could be "shelter from rain", "shelter from sunlight" and may be more. It can be thought of as needs which can be based on the context, blocks (objects), constructs while building/extending or even downsizing the System.

Now imagine, how difficult it must be to have a system in place in our socities, human civilization. I hold the concept of the "State" about our governments and Law as very close attempt towards building a system. Its an attempt to build a system, however its not an ideal system.

Its a task which nearly looks impossible considering the fact it has to deal with number of factors that affect it, number of different people involved in creating it, number of factor and people affected by it.