“I’d like to know the Thoughts of God, the rest are details", said Einstein, limited by his lack of interest in Quantum Theory and Evolution, to observe an abstract, mathematical, continuous image of the Universe; without understanding that those ‘details’ were what really mattered. Since all what exists, including human beings and the Universe at large, are fractal,, cellular networks made of spatial energy and temporal information, the 2 substances of the Universe, that combine, forming all its systems. So we could say that ‘The Universe is a 4 dimensional fractal of spatial energy and temporal information’ and God a painter with 2 colors… 1. 2 different approaches to the Unification of Science. Einstein spent the last 20 years of his life searching for a Unification Theory, which could gather all the forces of the Universe into a single equation, a feat that from the perspective of physicists would be the cornerstone to their theoretical explanation of the Universe. Since physicists sponsor a philosophy of the Universe called ‘platonism’ or ‘mathematical simplicity’, which means that the ultimate reality should be described with a few, simple mathematical elements, constituents of that underlying reality. In words of Galileo: God speaks mathematics. In mythic terms, we could say that God uttered in the beginnings of Time such equation, which generated through geometrical symmetries and decouplings of new particles, the entire zoo of forms we observe in the Universe. In fact it would be more accurate to affirm that Einstein was looking for a few dynamic, geometrical forms, which are what physical equations describe. The very same Plato had stated that ‘numbers had forms’. And equations were nothing but the description of forms in movements, forms-in-action, in-form-ation of geometrical nature. What were those universal forms and how they evolved into each other? Could we resume those forms and their movements in a fundamental set of numbers and symbols? So thought Einstein. And he kept searching for that equation after finishing General Relativity. But he failed. 50 years have passed since Einstein died and every other physicist who has attempted to unify the 2 physical forces of the Universe, gravitation and electromagnetism and his theoretical explanations, Relativity and Quantum Theory, has failed. The closest thing to such Unification is a Theory called String Theory that at best, reduces reality to 2 geometrical forms, the lineal string and the closed string. What we can learn from that failure? The most obvious conclusion is to suppose that the Universe is dual: there are 2 irreducible forces or scales to reality, the invisible cosmos of gravitation and dark matter and the human cosmos of light and radiant matter, which can be reduced to 2 Universal geometries, the cyclical form that in string theory describes gravitation, and the lineal form that describes better electromagnetism. And that is why we cannot reduce them to a single equation, or rather we have to write an equation with 2 different dynamic forms, the line and the cycle, whose nature we will inquire latter on. But the second conclusion is bolder and ignited an entire new discipline of science, as it was formulated 50 years ago, precisely on the occasion of Einstein’s death: Perhaps physics didn’t have enough tools to unify our comprehension of the Universe and we needed some other principles and languages besides ‘mathematical simplicity’? Mathematics were a language which described very well the mathematical properties of the Universe, concerned specifically with geometry, the science of space. But perhaps, thought some congressists at the Macy’s conference hold 50 years ago on occasion of Einstein’s death to inquire about the future of science, we should widen our methodology of science to research a wider Unification of the principles that ruled the Universe? But what other languages/principles besides mathematical simplicity, repeated constantly in the Universe? The congressists at Macy’s, mathematicians, biologists, technicians of information sciences, physicists and philosophers came to the conclusion that most of those principles were of biological nature: forms in the Universe tend to evolve into more efficient forms, as Darwin had rightly explained a century before. Forms in the Universe were created repeatedly with the same forms, with a tendency to organize themselves in herds that created bigger systems and structures. So atoms became molecules that became cells that became organisms that became societies… growing in size, and then decaying and becoming extinct after a certain time in ‘existence’ in a process similar to the cycle of death and life of living beings. Those processes could sometimes be described with numbers and equations, but its nature escaped mathematical rationality; its causes were biological, a will to exist, a game of survival and social organization that created ‘numbers’, sets of social, equal cells… So a new Science, called General Systems Sciences, was born, out of the realization that Mathematical Physics did not have enough content and linguistic tools to understand the Universe. That biological principles of self-organization, evolution and survival were needed to explain many details of that Universe and some of its fundamental quantic properties: its capacity to create herds of similar species from the atom to the galaxy, that organize themselves and evolve in cyclical patterns of creation and destruction… Some scientists thus concluded at the Macy’s conferences that there should be a science of sciences, which could merge together the logic principles of Organic Evolution and the mathematical laws of form and movement that define the sciences of biology and physics into a single set of logical laws and equations. General Systems Theory is therefore the alternative, Unification Theory of scientific knowledge, to the Physical Grand Unification Theory that searches only for the mathematical Unification of Physical forces. It was born out of the limitations of Physical Theory and though it has a shorter name, its scope is far wider than that of the Grand Unification Theory, as we shall see in this book.”