4 ms·

> Bob at time t is still Bob at t+1 I guess we're getting more into philosophical issues now. If I leave an ice cube on my counter, at exactly what time is it

• seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Mutability is mutability, it also applies to ontology even if most OO languages don’t model dynamic ontology with inheritance (unlike say Self or Cecil). Your ice cube was never just an ice cube in the first place, it was just some water that happened to be frozen as a cube...once heat was applied to the water, it’s state changed so that it eventually could no longer be classified as an ice cube.
  • greydius 9y ago
    > Your ice cube was never just an ice cube in the first place That's my point. This idea that there are objects with mutable state is a myth. Even at the smallest scale, what we call elementary particles, are abstractions. There is nothing except the state of the universe at a given instant in time.
    • seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Again, we are unable to work or perceive at that level. So the abstraction of state is incredibly useful to us non-sub-atomic beings.
      • kerkeslager 9y ago
        Agreed, but if we're accepting an abstraction instead of reality, than arguing for mutability because you think it's reality doesn't make much sense now does it? You're saying it's okay to abstract things away from molecules, but it's not okay to abstract things away from mutation. Why? (Note that I'm not even persuaded yet that mutation is reality. I'm just saying that even if mutation were reality, it doesn't follow that mutation is the best abstraction with which to model reality.)