Well, I’d say a strange loop for myself. I I don’t think these are closed thermodynamic processes as I don’t think there is such a thing. And maybe …
..
..maybe that’s where I need to go next _away from_ process again. There was something nagging me that I remembered wasn’t “quite right” about process philosophy and I _think_ that, despite its perpetual becoming… it still has a closed-ness of a kind – the digitizing of a butterfly’s flight without the cat swiping at it because the programmer didn’t think of such an interaction.
Then again… autonomous processes whose etches in spacetime trail off as it gets further away from them, might interact as-if traditional objects …
-
Like
===
oh wait up, is process philosophy just early 20th century computer programming pre-computer? Yeah.. I think so. Whitehead etc led into Church/Turing perhaps.
-
Like
====
Ok good. There’s Whitehead (process philosophy) linked with computer science. “Flowthings” compared to Input process output
==
Let’s say one maps the process of a butterfly’s flight and recreating it then declaring: this is a complete model of how butterfly flies.
But, it does not consider how a butterfly recovers from a cat swiping at it, so it is not a complete model of how a butterfly flies.
====
There’s an obvious ‘something’ i’m hitting against… object vs process… functional vs interactive. … and another related seems to be geometry-alone vs geometry-over-time… probably something going back to Plato or whatever.
===