Comparative analysis of physical and functional objects

This article is a continuation of the Function and Function Object article .

As I wrote earlier, a functional object can be defined as the space in which the absorption or emission of flows occurs, which, from the point of view of the subject, is desired or necessary. By highlighting this space, you can ask two questions:

1. What will happen if the physical content changes in a given space. That is, if the flows remain, and the material object, which was in this part of space, changes?
2. What happens if threads break? Will the functional object be continuous, or will it also be interrupted?

All analysts unanimously answer the first question that the functional object will remain unchanged. This means that an object of this kind may have gaps in the material embodiment. This fact leads many to think that a functional object is somewhat different from a physical one. But, as I wrote earlier, a physical object also changes its physical content, so the criterion for the preservation of physical content does not make sense. What is the difference between a physical object and a functional one? Only point of view. Focusing on different streams gives rise to different objects, and there is no longer any difference between a physical and a functional object! This means that from one point of view, an object can be called a functional object, and on the other - a physical one. I think you yourself can find examples of this kind of "reincarnation."

The answers to the second question vary. Someone says that if the threads stop, the functional object will still be in place. Others say that a functional object will cease to exist for a while, until the threads resume. In the discussion of this issue there are difficulties that do not allow to make an exact decision in this regard.

1. It is generally accepted that functional objects are somewhat different from physical ones. If the physical object disappears for some time (for example, the lake dries up), then we can assume that it is not there at that time, and we have doubts about the functional one.
2. We do not know how to think correctly in terms of flows. For example, you can define a conveyor as an object producing a stream of machines. Then one can hear the following question: if a functional object is no different from a physical one, then at the moment when the machine does not go off the conveyor, there is no flow of machines, and therefore, the conveyor functional object also does not exist at that time? This paradox is associated with a misconception about flows. The stream, and, consequently, the function, do not distinguish between individual objects and events in the stream. A flow is a continuous process in which it is impossible to single out individual events and number them. To imagine this, imagine a very slow mind that does not share the events of the release of individual machines. And then this objection loses its meaning.
3. We tend to absolutize our perception of the world. This means that we give our opinions as reality. For example, it seems obvious to everyone that stone is a dense pore-free substance. However, any natural stone has pores. Is the pore part of the stone, or part of the environment? Until I asked you about this, you did not think that there was a medium inside the stone. You thought this: this piece of matter is stone. When matter turned out to be loose, the question arose of what to consider as a stone and what to consider as a medium. Suppose you said that a stone does not include pores. Then I will go further and show that there is no matter in stone at all, as Rutherford did. More precisely, it is, but it is negligible. The stone is an extremely friable substance. What is not loose, you ask. A neutron star is dense matter. It turns out that there is negligible matter and a lot of environment in the stone. Are you ready to consider the stone from this point of view? I'm afraid not. This means that we can coarsen reality. We can ignore the pores inside the stone. We can ignore the space between people in the department, saying that the department is an object. We must learn to be aware of the rounding process. Then, to the question of whether to consider a functional object to cease to exist at the time the conveyor stops, we can answer: it depends on whether we neglect this time or not. We must learn to be aware of the rounding process. Then, to the question of whether to consider a functional object to cease to exist at the time the conveyor stops, we can answer: it depends on whether we neglect this time or not. We must learn to be aware of the rounding process. Then, to the question of whether to consider a functional object to cease to exist at the time the conveyor stops, we can answer: it depends on whether we neglect this time or not.
4. The virtual and real worlds are often confused, passing off an object from project documentation as a functional object. It is alleged that since he appeared in the consciousness of the subject, he appeared in reality. But this is not so, because in the consciousness of the subject, when creating the project, a model of the virtual world is built, and the functional object and its flows are in the real world. To say that this is one and the same thing is an impressive example of the non-separation of real and virtual realities. We observe this confusion in systems engineering.
5. There is another confusion in systems engineering - they confuse the function and type of functions. I am often told that in systems engineering a function is an abstraction that is not related to modeling reality. When translated into Russian, it turns out that the function in system engineering is understood as the type of function. Therefore, in system engineering they do not distinguish the function of one car from the function of another - for her it is one "function". But two cars have one type of function, but different functions.
6. The subject can fantasize when looking at the project documentation, but it can also when looking at the object. Looking at it, the subject can imagine an imaginary world in which the object in question will perform some functions. For example, when looking at a stone, the subject can imagine that this stone can become a support for the wall. Or when looking at a flashlight, he can imagine how this object can illuminate the darkness. The term assignment is used to denote this kind of fantasy. Both the project and the assignment are terms of imaginary virtual reality. If you do not believe, then let us reason together. Take a flashlight. You will say that this is a functional object, because its purpose is to shine in the dark. Suppose that for some reason the flashlight must be assembled and disassembled after use. Will a bunch of spare parts remain in your mind as a functional object? yes it will. Looking at a bunch of parts packaged in a case, you will still consider this case a functional object. Suppose that before assembling the lamp it will be necessary to cast glass (suppose that it cannot exist for a long time in the environment where we work). Still a functional object? Do you understand that, following this chain of reasoning right up to the earth’s breed, we still retain our understanding of the breed as a functional object? Therefore, there is no difference between a boulder and a flashlight. These are all objects of the real world. and the fact that we can begin to fantasize on the topic of their application in certain cases does not change anything - these are still objects of the real world. packaged in a case, you will still consider this case as a functional object. Suppose that before assembling the lamp it will be necessary to cast glass (suppose that it cannot exist for a long time in the environment where we work). Still a functional object? Do you understand that, following this chain of reasoning right up to the earth’s breed, we still retain our understanding of the breed as a functional object? Therefore, there is no difference between a boulder and a flashlight. These are all objects of the real world. and the fact that we can begin to fantasize on the topic of their application in certain cases does not change anything - these are still objects of the real world. packaged in a case, you will still consider this case as a functional object. Suppose that before assembling the lamp it will be necessary to cast glass (suppose that it cannot exist for a long time in the environment where we work). Still a functional object? Do you understand that, following this chain of reasoning right up to the earth’s breed, we still retain our understanding of the breed as a functional object? Therefore, there is no difference between a boulder and a flashlight. These are all objects of the real world. and the fact that we can begin to fantasize on the topic of their application in certain cases does not change anything - these are still objects of the real world. Still a functional object? Do you understand that, following this chain of reasoning right up to the earth’s breed, we still retain our understanding of the breed as a functional object? Therefore, there is no difference between a boulder and a flashlight. These are all objects of the real world. and the fact that we can begin to fantasize on the topic of their application in certain cases does not change anything - these are still objects of the real world. Still a functional object? Do you understand that, following this chain of reasoning right up to the earth’s breed, we still retain our understanding of the breed as a functional object? Therefore, there is no difference between a boulder and a flashlight. These are all objects of the real world. and the fact that we can begin to fantasize on the topic of their application in certain cases does not change anything - these are still objects of the real world.

So, the answer to the second question: as soon as the streams ceased, the functional object, taking into account the organizational destruction, also ceased to exist. As soon as the flow ceases, the object ceases to exist, it does not matter whether it is physical or functional.

Comparative analysis of functions and properties

If we talk about a functional object, then the flows associated with it are called functions, if we talk about a physical object, then the flows associated with it are called properties. By flows we mean flows of mother, energy, and states. Properties and functions are all threads. And it is precisely the properties and functions in the consciousness of the subject that form the object, and not the object that has properties or functions. It's funny enough that in the mind of the subject, everything turned upside down. It would be correct to say: an object of a given property, not a property of a given object, or an object of a given function, and not a function of this object.

In this sense, SOA is first OOP

Comparative analysis of physical and functional objects (continued)

The difficulties that concerned the answer to the question: “Will a functional object cease to exist if the flows cease?” Also apply to physical objects, only now instead of a function, you need to read the property.

1. It is generally accepted that physical objects cannot have gaps in time. However, if the physical object disappears for some time (for example, the lake dries), then we can assume that it does not exist at that time, but then it will reappear.
2. The correctness of thinking in terms of flows is just as difficult for both functional and physical objects.
3. The issue of coarsening our perception when creating objects is relevant for both physical and functional objects.
4. But nobody confuses the world of virtual objects with the world of real objects. For example, no one thinks that Pokémon really exist. And this is surprising because virtual functions are easily confused with real ones.
5. Are property types often confused with properties? Constantly! On the contrary, few who model the properties of objects. More often, property types. For example, when they say that a car is red, they mean that it has a property of type "red", and not a specific property of being red, because different cars are red in different ways.
6. Does the subject often fantasize when looking at an object? Constantly! He can say that the property of this object is to be red. But, if this happens in the dark, when all the cats are gray, then this is a fantasy.