+ While this vision is philosophically provocative and mathematically elegant, its broad prescription warrants scrutiny. In many scientific domains, treating certain entities as objects remains a practical necessity. Taxonomies, ontologies, and models often rely on discrete categories and stable abstractions to organise knowledge. Moreover, maintaining multiple complementary viewpoints can be a strength rather than a liability: in complex systems it is common to explain phenomena at different levels or with different formalisms, each capturing distinct aspects of reality (for example, a gene as a molecule versus a component of a regulatory network). Here we examine the philosophical stakes and practical modelling consequences of Fields and Levin’s proposal. We will argue that even if the object–process distinction is in some sense “construed", it often serves genuine epistemic and organisational functions. In practice, pluralistic models and the concept of objects remain essential tools in biology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, and other fields. Abandoning them altogether risks losing valuable insight and clarity.
0 commit comments