Yes, we do require models parameterised by both space and time -- but really, we require implementations of these models -- the implementation i'm thinking of i

Yes, we do require models parameterised by both space and time -- but really, we require implementations of these models -- the implementation i'm thinking of is called a body. Why? Well, consider the best sort of such models: physics. What is "the mass of the sun"? What is "the sun"? There is nothing in all of physics which says anything exists, nor what its boundaries are. Least of all what "the sun" is. Physics, all of science, is counter-factual: if something exists, then. You're never going to get to "what a table is" just by table(x, t) -- because there is something in the background which asserts "tables exist" and that is the concernful actions of animals which care to partition reality this way. Reality, in the end, measured in every possible way is still ambiguous. It still leaves open how one actually refers to any of it. Where one places a boundary. What the unit is going to be, in our descriptions. There is no way around starting from the other direction: not with facts already provided; but with no facts at all. You have to build a system which cares, that then induces a partitioning, that can then change its caring; and so on. This is an extremely partical concern. A car cannot drive itself, in the relevant sense, if it doesnt care about anything; and more severely, if it doesnt care like we do. The car isnt going to be able to modify its concepts in response to being challenged -- by other people, by the environment, etc. because it has no reason to. There is nothing which is important to it. And hence, when confronted by the need to adapt, the car will kill people.