Comparative analysis of physical and functional objects

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

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

1. What will happen if the physical filling changes in this space? That is, if the streams remain, and the material object that was in this part of the space, will change?
2. What happens if threads stop? Will the functional object be continuous, or will it also be interrupted?

To the first question, all analysts unanimously answer that the functional object will remain unchanged. This means that an object of this kind can have gaps in the material embodiment. This fact makes many of them think that a functional object is somehow different from a physical one. But, as I wrote earlier, the 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 spawns 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 - physical. 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, then the functional object will still be in place. Others say that the functional entity will cease to exist for a time until the threads resume. There are difficulties in reasoning on this issue that do not allow us to make an exact decision on this matter.

1. It is considered that functional objects are somehow different from physical ones. If the physical object disappears for some time (for example, the lake dries out), then we can assume that it is not at this 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 pipeline as an object that produces a stream of machines. Then you 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 roll off the conveyor, there is no flow of machines, and therefore the functional object "conveyor" does not exist at this time either? Such a paradox is associated with a misconception about flows. A stream, and, consequently, a function, do not distinguish individual objects and events in a stream. A stream is a continuous process in which individual events cannot be distinguished and numbered. To imagine this, imagine a very slow mind that does not share the events of the production 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 to everyone that the stone is a dense substance that does not contain pores. However, any natural stone has pores. Is pores a part of a stone, or part of a medium? Until I asked you about it, you didn’t think that there was a medium inside the stone. You thought this: this piece of matter is stone. When the matter turned out to be friable, the question arose of what to consider as a stone and what should be considered a medium. Suppose you said that the 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. Stone is an extremely loose substance. What is not loose, you ask. The neutron star is dense matter. It turns out that in stone there is very little matter and a lot of environment. Are you ready to consider a 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 a department, saying that a department is an object. We must learn to be aware of the rounding process. Then the question of whether to consider a functional object ceased to exist for the time the pipeline is stopped, we can answer: it depends on whether we ignore this time or not.
4. Often they confuse the virtual and the real world, passing the object from the project documentation as a functional object. It is argued that since he appeared in the mind of the subject, he appeared in reality. But this is not so, because in the mind of the subject, when creating a 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 the same thing is an impressive example of the non-separation of real and virtual realities. We see this confusion in systems engineering.
5. There is also another confusion in system engineering - they confuse function and type of functions. I am often told that in system engineering a function is an abstraction, not related to the simulation of reality. When translated into Russian, it turns out that a function in system engineering is a type of function. Therefore, in system engineering they do not distinguish the function of one car from the function of another - for it 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 maybe when looking at the object. Looking at it, the subject can imagine an imaginary world in which the object in question will perform certain 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 designate this kind of fantasy. Both the project and the purpose are terms of imaginary virtual reality. If you do not believe, then let's talk together. Take a flashlight. You will say that this is a functional object, because its purpose is to shine in the dark. Assume that for some reason a flashlight must be assembled and disassembled before use. Will a bunch of parts remain in your mind a functional object? Yes, it will remain. Looking at a bunch of parts packed 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 long in the environment where we work). Still a functional object? Do you understand that having passed through this chain of reasoning down to the terrestrial rock, we will still preserve our understanding of the rock 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 about their use 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 flows ceased, the functional object, taking into account the organization, also ceased to exist. As soon as the flow stops, the object ceases to exist, whether it is physical or functional.

Comparative analysis of functions and properties

If they talk about a functional object, then the threads associated with it are called functions; if they talk about a physical object, then the threads associated with it are called properties. Under the flow refers to the flow of the mother, energy, states. Properties and functions are all streams. And it is precisely the properties and functions in the consciousness of the subject that form the object, and not the object possesses properties or functions. It's pretty funny that in the mind of the subject everything turned upside down. It would be correct to say: an object of a given property, and not a property of a given object, or an object of a given function, and not a function of a given object.

In this sense, SOA is more primary than 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 in case of cessation of flows?” Also apply to physical objects, but instead of a function, now we need to read a property.

1. It is considered that physical objects can not have breaks in time. However, if the physical object disappears for some time (for example, the lake dries out), then we can assume that it does not exist at this time, but then it will arise again.
2. Correctness of thinking in terms of flows is just as difficult for both functional and physical objects.
3. The question of the coarsening of 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 Pokemon really exist. And this is surprising, because virtual functions are easily confused with real ones.
5. Is the type of property often confused with a property? Constantly! Rather, on the contrary, there are few who model the properties of objects. More often - types of properties. For example, when they say that a car is red, they mean that it has a “red” property, and not a specific property of being red, because different cars are red differently.
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 it happens in the dark, when all the cats are gray, then this is a fantasy.