a function is a relational object. an object is what... a thing? also, in what sense are objects real when defined inside of a computational substrate?
>a function is a relational object.A function is a function. It's a primitive.>also, in what sense are objects real when defined inside of a computational substrate?What do you mean by real?
>>17051518all roughly equivalent: functions are verbs objects are nouns. functions are matrices objects are vectors. functions are data transformations, objects are data. functions are the laws of physics and objects are the material/together they describe basically anything you often treat functions like objects to pass them around, reason about them etc
>>17051585>>17051518as for the reality of information-based objects it is unclear. quantum systems are describable in pure math but what gives that specific math the presence and causality in the universe is still unclear, if that's the right way to look at it. there is a kind of platonic space of all math that exists a priori but its not clear how the universe emerges from that
>>17051518If the morphisms are functions then the objects are types. Types are not real in a computation, they are stripped away during compilation
>>17051630That's not how type theory works retard.
>>17051640what indication has OP given you that the question is type-theoretic? I'm thinking objects as part of a category: Should the objects themselves be functions then the arrows between them are also functions, in this case those of higher order.
