But the word “attractor” is a misnomer (much like the word “force”). There is very rarely any actual attracting going on. The systems that they are talking about involve coincidental clinging or merging over time. Nothing is being “drawn in” or “attracted to”, but rather merely delayed, bonded, or trapped once in proximity. A glue doesn’t attract a fly, but rather traps a fly. They would have been more appropriately named “Trapping systems”.
I suspect that the idea of “attraction” should only be used concerning conscious entities, although in a simple-minded materialistic sense, it wouldn’t really apply there either. Life itself could be called an “Attractor System”, because it seeks out (thus is “attracted to”) and absorbs nutrients (traps), grows, and spreads.
A high density region of affectance delays coincidental propagating affectance that is passing through it, thus the affectance density increases toward a maximum density. Nothing is being attracted, but such a system is what they chose to call “an attractor”.
Most attractor systems have no attraction in them. And they all break the “Second Law of Thermodynamics”. Because that “law” was proven to be easily broken, they reworded the law many times in an effort to make it a truth (as I have mentioned before). It is actually a mere tendency. They insist on keeping it a “law” merely out of religious devotion. I have personally been attacked back in the 1970’s by a professor for denying the holiness of the “LAW” (and many times online).