There we be. Latest from psychology *finally* has our “mental models” of truth/belief/false/etc (reasoning) as a dynamic process, iterating continuously rather than discrete [although one could ‘digitize’ continuous change, although that might lead to errors in accuracy, even if ultra precise]
10 LET X = SOMETHING
20: f : X → X
30 GOTO 20
If X=1, then X keeps staying 1.
If x is a set of rules or something, then it gets interesting.
A set of rules applied to a set of rules which applies the set of rules to the set of rules continuously across time?
You’re probably going to get change.
The more interesting X gets, the more interesting things get over time.
Dynamic systems. In psychology it means we continually update our mental models over time.
[it gets more detailed than that but that’s the ‘gist’ of it]
====
Once I start iterating, I take it for a ride ’til I hit the constraint/boundary condition / limit. Usually it’s tiredness or boredom or interruption 
—-
Hey! I might just be leading up to that. I feel like I skipped ahead a couple of chapters in my follow-the-butterflies-of-interest route I’ve been on.
I *gotta* get my structures down first for a change. Right now I’m mentally at iterations / identity / change (time) and systems dynamics. Getting closer though. Might end up here.
http://www.csc.villanova.edu/~japaridz/CL/#Subsection1a5
—–
I keep trying to poke holes in modal realism – and I might be able to when I return to logico-grammar study – or I might not – but he definitely gives ALL the possible flexibility to handle any situation of any kind, like a huge piece of graph paper to draw anything on… and every possibility gets a separate sheet without any mixing or confusion.
==
===
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]