***( I would like to say also something about assyro-caldeen relation to
astrology but I feel that it would be a disaster with my english -- if
however you really want to know what I wanted to say I can respond you
in french :-)
Now comparing these models/tales to our object oriented models we
realise that our models have a different kind of input. We call these
inputs scientific parameters.
If we would a model to be complete, we should integer all the parameters
from the past wich had influenced the object-oriented thinking itself
and let it exist, and so on, in a regressive way tracing each
"cause-effet"... By this way the model could contain a model of itself,
expect that the operation i'm describing below is allready infinite.
A.I.
> Now that I read this again, this sounds like object-oriented programming,
> object-oriented design, etc. The driving principle of OO design is that
> the universe is composed of "objects" with "interfaces" to one another.
> Engineers have been using OO design for a long time in their circuit
> boards, they just look up a cookbook of commonly used component layouts.
> More recently, these methodologies have been applied to software. In
> software, one also has the notions of inheritance and polymorphism, for
> instance that a "cat" is a kind of animal, a "lion" is a kind of cat, and
> that an object may be valent between lions, tigers, and bears (oh my!) The
> latter requiring multiple inheritance.
>
> OO metaphors always break down at some point, though. Much of the world is
> not so easily compartmentalized into discrete objects... you get caught up
> in representing the boundaries of the object, the relations to the other
> objects, and pretty soon you're not really working with a compartmentalized
> "object" anymore. By extension, I'd expect the methodology of "switches"
> as applied to urban architecture to break down at some point.