Time. That is the difference. “substances (with innate properties)” _is_ nonsense. The notion of static, timeless, unchanging entities is but a convenience – a language artifact allowing concepts of complex realities to be transported from thought to paper to model to computation to engineering… and it is at the point of engineering that the realities of “substances with innate properties” are revealed to have been complex processes all along. So, yes.

Time.
That is the difference.

“substances (with innate properties)” _is_ nonsense. The notion of static, timeless, unchanging entities is but a convenience – a language artifact allowing concepts of complex realities to be transported from thought to paper to model to computation to engineering… and it is at the point of engineering that the realities of “substances with innate properties” are revealed to have been complex processes all along.

So, yes.

——

If you can take the reality-of-things that is systemic and complex (which is something physical engineers face) and create a manner to describe such realities sooner (such as in the mathematics or at the computational stages), I think you’ll find a superior model to work with.

=====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


two × 2 =

Leave a Reply