As Box 5 of D0 indicates, the Object model is intended to apply to the entire realization of the life cycle of an arbitrary object from its birth to its death. We obtain a deeper and more complete understanding of the model and of objects themselves by considering the way in which the model is able to capture properly, in accordance with its terms, the fleeting instant of birth when an object first begins to form, where previously there was no recognizable form. Not only is this instructive in showing a complete exercise of the Plex view of object in its most primitive (almost by definition) form, but it also serves to firmly establish the correct boundary conditions for interpreting the model in general, for in Plex the only proper boundary conditions result from the natural degeneration of the most general case into the most primitive.

6.1 Terminology Models

The Object model is a terminology model in the sense that its entire structure is composed from mostly individual words (rather than descriptive phrases) which, taken together in the structure of the model, take on very precise technical versions of the meanings which their natural language counterparts bring into consideration. In other words, each word is carefully chosen because of its already-established meaning in the English language, but like most words, there are many possible definitions given in the dictionary for each one of them. In some cases several of those meanings are applicable, but most are intended to have just one, precise meaning for the model. When these words are imbedded in the terminology model, the overall context and structure of the model tends to emphasize the acceptable meanings while making the undesired meanings inappropriate. The more a terminology model is examined and exercised with respect to specific cases in which the terms are used, the more strongly established become the intended technical meanings. This is the same phenomenon that occurs in attempting to define and establish groupings of like items. At the beginning, only a description of the intent is available. But as the population of the group grows, the appropriate interpretation becomes more and more clear on the basis of the similarity among the objects already populating the group. Therefore, the exercising of the object model to study the birth of an object, which we are about to do, will serve also to crystallize the intended interpretation of its terms.

6.2 Determining Applicable Terms

The Object model is not only a terminology model, but the box names at the detail level all are adjectival descriptors (ending in -ed, -ing, or -al). Because of the adjectival nature, more than one term may apply to a specific object in a given situation. Our problem in interpreting the Object model for the pre-birth and then the birth conditions of a specific object is to have an object-neutral way of determining exactly which adjectives should properly apply, and which should not. (Some will apply at various points later in the object’s life cycle, but cannot apply until the object has been brought into being through the pre-birth and birth stages.)

This determination of the applicable initial terms of the model is not arbitrary or whimsical, or even something we can choose. It is built into the overall principles and integrity of Plex, and their expression in RSA modeling form. The RSA Maxim requires that (in brief), in going from parent box to child diagram, everything must be expressed in no more than six non-overlapping boxes. In the adjectival terminology model form of the Object model we have here, this principle is followed exactly. Even though for a specific object, more than one adjective term from a single diagram may apply to that object, nonetheless the meanings of those six-or-fewer adjectives are indeed non-overlapping and do completely cover the meaning of the parent box name. The meanings are complete and disjoint. Therefore, through the RSA tie process, we can precisely determine whether each one does or does not apply in a given case.

Our problem in considering the pre-birth stage which is to be true for every cause-and-effect object is to determine which boxes must apply (if any) even without being able to take into account any specific aspects of the nature of object. After all, if the object does not yet exist, how indeed can we consider it at all? If it doesn’t exist, then on what basis can we even consider classifying it into the Object model?

This is yet another instance of the primary (and in this case, even primordial) view of Plex, that nature has no inherent structure or properties. Nevertheless objects and things quite obviously do exist, from all we can tell. Our consideration, here, of the pre-birth conditions for an object (any object) shows how this comes about. {The embedded footnotes are scheduled to be separately linked in the future. For now, please sample and scroll.}

6.3 Required Data Modeling Conventions

In RSA, things are modeled by data modeling, and happenings are modeled by activity modeling. Because of the way our minds work, people find that activity modeling is much easier to learn than data modeling (which often is even ignored entirely, when lesser precision is adequate for the purpose at hand). It is well-recognized, by now, that in activity diagramming, every box must have at least one control arrow shown or else no real activity structuring is expressed in the activity diagram graphic language. For some activity boxes input arrows purposely are omitted (as being of subordinate and distracting influence for what is being expressed). Even though some input always is required, any suitable input that matches the control arrow, which is shown, will do. People trained in proper readership of RSA activity diagrams come to find this very natural and easy to do. The diagrams become more meaningful because of the freedom of interpretation allowed by the omitted input arrows -- just as I intended in designing the syntax and semantics of the diagram language to express Plex thinking. {In post-1979 terms, Input and Control collectively are called Entries, and both participate in the production of Output, so there is no need for any other "suitable input...". The omission of all input on an activity box has always been an allowed option and makes the modeling more general and abstract. In fact, even the case when there is no input and the control that is present is not adequate to produce the required output is allowed. In this, the most general case, the Mechanism must supply Support for a Call to satisfy the requirement. The standard example is the office copier, with its built-in paper supply being over-riden if an optional input of a blank transparency is inserted, but also it is prepared to ask the operator to re-load the paper supply, if that is necessary to produce the output, otherwise.}

RSA data modeling is dual to activity modeling, and the "omission of arrow" convention has a dual form. In data diagramming, every box must have at least one input arrow shown or else no real data structuring is expressed. This means that for data boxes it is control arrows that may be omitted. The rationale behind this is exactly what we need to begin to unravel the pre-birth considerations of the Object model. The fact that you cannot omit every input arrow of a data box, but must show at least one says that you must show how that data is created! Optional omission of every control arrow that might apply says that you can leave open and unspecified when and under what circumstances that creation is to take place. But you must specify what activity creates it -- or it won’t exist at all. This is just what we need to begin the understanding of pre-birth of an object.

Another convention of RSA diagram language that is so obvious that it almost always goes unvoiced is that every box -- data or activity -- must have at least one output arrow shown. This says that unless a box actually has a role in achieving the purpose of the model, it should not be shown at all. This applies to both data and activity diagramming, but is of particular relevance and importance in both the pre-birth and post-birth aspects of the cause-and-effect objects to which the Object model is addressed. Specifically, in the pre-birth context, it provides the key that allows us to actually start the unraveling process.

6.4 Remarks on Method

Before I press on into the actual unraveling of pre-birth of an object, let me remark first on why I feel that this long and admittedly difficult chain of reasoning is so important (in my assessment, at least) to these foundations for ICODE. I believe it is very important that these foundations (which come from, and are a part of, Plex) be seen to result from the nature of nature itself -- and that they are in no way the result of "foisting our viewpoint" on nature, other than as our basic way of attempting to rationalize existence itself. I believe that the chain of reasoning that I here am presenting in ordinary English, using ordinary words, can (and should someday) be made completely formal and explicitly rigorous -- in accordance with the most accepted etiquette of formal axiomatic systems (see Plex 1 and Plex 2 {These were two separate documents, but now are combined with another as one document, with this title. The goal of matching the accepted formalism now is met fully, but obliquely (distressing many people) -- because Plex has no axioms or assumptions, only definitions. Plex's formalism, called See and Say, is exactly the same, just carried out in reverse order. The "accepted formal systems" method operates as "Say and See": In it, a formal language with rules of well-formation and derivation for proofs, is complemented by a separate model, through a satisfies predicate, so that the combination can address matters of completeness and consistency for a full interpretation. In Plex, the model comes first, as a PLM, a Picture Language Model, with No-Rule Seeing -- and Formal Sayings in every-day (or other) language provide the definitive understanding and interpretation of all that shows in that (stage of ) model(ing). Careful reasoning with the supplied terms and the definition of Definition supports proof.}). In this vein, the derivation I am now doing will be seen to be a series of lemmas and sub-theorems leading up to the pre-birth situation as a constructive proof of a major theorem. In other words, "If this Object model expresses the premises, hypotheses, and definitions of what a cause-and-effect object is to be -- then this is the way in which any such object comes to be!" And the actual steps of pre-birth, birth, and post-birth will be shown by the structure of the proof to be inherent consequences that follow from the premises and definitions. In this sense, there is no "foisting" other than the initial selection of those premises and definitions (and that, in turn, I already have addressed by pointing out that Plex itself has no cause-and-effect, but if we choose to think of things [literally, think up things ] in that way, then …) . Only in this way can I convince myself, at least, that these ICODE foundations are truly foundations -- regardless of what I or anybody else may say (or even understand) about them. ...With that said, let us proceed to the unraveling.

6.5 Solution to Object Pre-Birth

So consider any data model (including specifically the Object model we are trying to unravel for the pre-birth stage of an arbitrary object). The facts that 1.) every box must have both 2.) at least one input arrow and 3.) at least one output arrow plus 4.) the parent-to-child box-to-diagram relation of RSA decomposition -- all together require that 5.) every data diagram must have at least one connected path through (at least one of) its boxes that 6.) connects the parent box input to the parent box output. Otherwise there can be no meaningful interpretation of that diagram at all. Since this must be the case for every RSA data diagram, it specifically must apply to every diagram of the Object model, whether or not we yet have any specific object in mind. In other words, it must apply specifically to every pre-birth situation. This is what we have been looking for. This is the proper Plex degeneration that determines inherently the proper boundary conditions of interpretation of the Object model. {A bit verbose, but this is Plex's "careful reasoning" at work. Your own appreciation will be greater when the exercise is completed.}

The basic idea is, in fact, quite simple. Recall that {The preceding Section 5 will be added here next.} all of the detail diagrams of the Object model have box names that are adjectival (ending in -ing, -ed, or -al). The fact that each diagram must have at least one path that passes through at least one box that applies to every pre-birth interpretation says that at least one adjective from each group of adjectives (the names of boxes in a diagram constitute a group) must apply to any pre-birth situation. {Plex's definition of Model is:'M models A to the extent that M correctly answers questions about A.' Keep in mind the Object Model's stated goal. If the extent of the modeling is not adequate, it needs to be modified and improved. Otherwise, that "any pre-birth situation" claim must hold.} This means that the activity (arrow) that starts the path somehow is triggered -- i.e., that happening actually starts to happen -- so that the adjective can start to apply. Conversely, whenever a box name does not apply, it is either not on the key path at all, or is only a "path-maker", not yet truly applicable. In this case, its input activity has not yet actually happened. We will trace through these activity labels that actually must happen even in the most degenerate case of an object, if that object is to come into existence at all. [Notice that this "come into existence" phrase refers to our ability to recognize the object as an object. Whether or not anything physical happens is a quite separate point.]

6.6 The Object Itself, at Birth

As an example of the most evanescent type of object subject to cause and effect, consider the dusty surface of a liquid in random fluid motion. We will trace through the creation and birth of an eddy in that swirling pattern, considering that eddy to be a part constituted purely of the swirling pattern of dust. Such an object is essentially self forming, but nonetheless can be subject to laws of cause and effect.

{Throughout what follows, the old, original Figure-number references have been replaced by the corresponding SA Node Numbers, so that the SA Reference Language expression's dot (meaning "q.v." = "which see" -- i.e., that's the diagram to have in view at this point, literally) can be exploited.. Also, lower case ICOM letters make easier reading of SA Referenece Language traces. <4i1>=<input1 of box 4>, <i1>=<boundary arrow tagged i1>, etc. Also angle brackets < >, called "finding brackets" in this context, in Plex, sometimes are added to ease reading.}

Consider first its extension (D2). The degenerate case of extension is <i1 to 4i1 to 4o1 to o1>, i.e., the eddy is not specifically shaped, (box 1) has no defined structure (box 2), is not explicitly constrained (box 3) (except perhaps by the unknown forces causing the swirling), but it is roughly bounded (4c2) in a reasonably localized place (4c3) which it fills (4i1) and occupies (4o1). Indeed it is confined (box 4). Notice how the fact that 4c1 is missing merely reflects the potential for cause-and-effect interaction whenever a constraining force (c1 to 3i1 to 3o1 to 4c1) is recognized. Thus the degenerate case does yield an appropriate cause-and-effect object in its most primitive form.

The degenerate form of the location (D3) is similar. The required degenerate path itself is the one that passes through box 3, for that gives the stable, unchanging case. (Notice that this is centered (box 3) with respect to the self of the object, and may or may not be spreading (1), curving (2) or tumbling (4) with respect to the encompassing space.) [Even though the adjective <SPREADING> may not yet be known to apply, it's degenerate case of no spreading does provide the basis for the crucial <CENTERED> of box 3, as shown. Hence box 1 merely "makes the path," as was mentioned above. {In general, the "omit all controls" option for any SA data box would be taken (as though 1c1 and 1c2 were not there) to logically make the pre-birth path to box 3.}] The critical input-output path that goes <D3.cl <occupy> to 1i1 to 1o1 to 3i1 to 3o1 <locate place> to o1> has the same nature as the degenerate EXTENSION in that the missing control at 1c2 shows that there is potential for cause-and-effect interaction, but before birth, no such interaction is in fact taking place. In a similar way, the missing coordinate system from the encompassing space (1c1) only becomes relevant when the question of the application of some force is relevant. Thus again there is a valid degenerate case for the pre-birth location of the eddy.

The degenerate case of COMPOSITION (D1) clearly is that which passes through the RESTING state (i1 to 1i1 to 1o1 to o1). Therefore the ultimate degenerate pre-birth case of being or existence (D0.4c1) is that there is at least some bit of resting substance located in an ill-defined region, ready to be apprehended as a new object -- if and when the create activity (D1.i1 to 1i1) actually takes place.

6.7 The Build-Up of Participation

The degenerate pre-birth case of participation is not what one might expect, but is quite elegant in its self-starting nature. An examination of D4 (OBJ/D4) shows that although it appears that conceptual participation (box 1) is dominant, no valid, purely input-output path passes through it. Instead, the degenerate case of participation is <D4.i1 <perceive, invent> to 2i1 to 2o1 <name> to 5i1 to 5o1 <describe> to o1>. In other words the "gleam in the father’s eye" is in fact the perception that something is interesting enough to merit a name (D4.2o1). Without knowing what it is at all, as yet, a response to its potential for existence begins. Notice that with respect to D0, OBJECT (which is the diagram from the point of view of the object which is about to be born) -- it is not the object itself (which, in its degenerate form, is at D0.4c1{because OBJ/D-1.6i3 = OBJ/D0.i3 = D4.4c1 is <supply>, not D-1.6i1 <create> as is needed for the pre-birth}) -- but everything else (the dusty swirling liquid, in our example) that actually is supplied that triggers the process (D0.i3 <supply> to 4i1 = D4.<PARTICIPATION>i1 to <invent> 2<NOMINAL>i1 at box 2). It is, in fact, in and through this participation degenerate case that the ill-defined location, extension, and composition cases already considered come about, but I could not describe the situation as clearly if I had started with this pre-birth participation. So let us trace how those ill-defined degenerate cases become well-defined, according to the model.

So having arrived at box 2 of D4, the built-in patterns (enculturate, 2c2) and the corresponding use of language (5c1) employ the perception itself (il to 2i1) as an invention of a primordial name (2o1 to 5i1 for refering to it) which provides a degenerate description (5o1 to 5c1) which self-strengthens the initial urge to name (somehow) the Center of this swirling background (which somewhere encloses the nugget of resting, not-yet-created composition). As this nominative-descriptive (boxes D4.2 & 5) stimulus builds up, the feedback D4.5o1 <correct, change> to 1c2 in conjunction with the ill-defined degenerate case of being, D4.c1 to 1c1 <conceive> (which comes from the degenerate cases of composition, extension, and location via <D0.1o1,2o1,3o1 all to 4c1 <be, exist>>) causes a subjective, conceptual participation of the now-being-born object to be envisioned (D4.1o1). Not only does this strengthen the selection (1o1 to 2c1) of the self-describing, invented name (2i1), but also because of the degenerate shape and place bounds supplied by 1c1 it begins to propose a structure (1o1 to 3c3), again in the context of preexisting enculturation (3c2). Notice that in the process, both the background (i1) and the degenerate pre-birth vision of the object (c1) both participate (D4.i1,c1 to 3i1), and it is this interaction that allows the name to firmly be ascribed (2o1 to 3c1, both directions) to the form (3o1 to 5i1) to further strengthen the descriptive, referential participation (5o2 to 5c1 feedback) -- still further enforcing the feedback to concept formation (5o1 to 1c2).

6.8 Conceptual Object Formation

While this is going on, this concept formation, being more and more confirmed by the growing strength of the relationship between the declarative structure and the nominative names for that structure in the descriptive expression, means that boxes 2, 3, and 5 of D4 begin to have a strong effect (D4.5o2 <describe> to o1 = D0.4o1 to u-turn at D0.cl branching to 2c1 and 3c2). This is how the weak and imperfect degenerate cases of extension and location are self-strengthened, for if we trace through, in D2 -- D2.c1 to 4c2, is strengthened, making the confined extension filled by the composition (2.i1 to 4i1) more precise. Thus 2.4o1 to o1, which is D3.c1 to 1i1 <spreading> also is stronger. It always is the case that D2.1c2, which is the encompassing space for the birth of the object, is the same space that embodies the background which is supplied for that birth (in D0.i2 <encompass (origin)> to 3i1 and the spatial aspect of D0.i3 <supply> to 4i1 are compatible, if not the same). Therefore even though the cause-and-effect force still is missing (D3.c2 to 1c2) the centered location (1c1 to 1o1 to 3i1 to 3o1 to o1) also is strengthened. This in turn becomes the place (D2.c2 to 1c2 and 4c3), where the growing concept (D0.4o1 u-turn at c1 to 2c1 = D2.c1 to 1c1) allows an actual <shape> for the object to be conceived out of the same composition (D2.i1 to 1i1) which from the beginning has <fill>ed the degenerate case (D2.i1 to 4i1). Notice that as soon as this shape for the object begins to form conceptually, it immediately constitutes a primitive structure consisting of a single component (D2.1o2 to 2i1) which also <fill>s (D2.2o1 to 4i1) the confined and no-longer-degenerate bounded place that is occupied.

As a result of all this strengthening, the actual <create> activity of D1.i1 to 1i1 conceptually takes place. Once the extension of D2 actually becomes shaped, then <D2.1o1 to i1 = D1.o1 <contain, shape> to 1c1> provides an actual shape to contain the created substance which is the composition of the object. This in turn, by the chain <D1.1o1 to o1 = D0.2i1 etc. to D2.4o1 <occupy> to o1 = D0.3c1 to D3.1i1>, will cause <spreading> of the intended object until the appropriate conceptual definition (D4.1o1, etc., to 5o1 = D2.c1) is completely satisfied.

This finally completes the birth of the object as an object. But it is not yet a thing. In order to be a thing, it must undergo some physical participation (D0, box 4) which can be seen to match the prescribed concept (4c1 and 4c2). (This really is the same Plex observation that requires that every RSA box have an output arrow, regardless of its specific type or role; otherwise it’s not there at all.)

6. 9 The Object Seen as a Thing

This is perhaps the most important central concept of this entire ICODE presentation, for it is absolutely central and crucial to the understanding of parts not only as objects, but as real cause-and-effect things. All that we have described so far in terms in the birth of an object merely describes the way in which a potential thing can be conceived of and can be postulated. This is why I chose the dust-on-swirling-liquid-surface example as the mental image to be carried along in the mind as this elaborate process was described. That swirling-eddy object, now well defined and completely perceived, will not be a thing unless it in fact acts on (or is acted upon by) some other object through some cause-and-effect relationship. The difference between a simple swirl and a whirlpool is that a swirl disappears and dies (by exactly the reverse degeneration of the birth process we have just gone through) as quickly and as evanescently as it was perceived, conceived, and formed. It transforms back into nothingness, with no cause-and-effect interaction. A whirlpool, however, can be known to be a real thing if some floating object other than the whirlpool itself is seen to be spun around and affected by it, or if the intrusion of a solid object causes the whirlpool to break up and distort, in which case it is the thing affected. In either case the whirlpool interacts, but the eddy did not.

The birth of an object progresses to the birth of a thing only when some such physical interaction takes place -- the missing forces which we referenced in the birth process are made manifest. Unless there is cause and effect, an object does not really exist. When there is cause and effect, and that relationship is understood in terms of concepts, names, and structure, then the cause-and-effect object becomes a recognized thing of a known type. All of this is by definition. I do this on purpose because ICODE itself would have shaky and untenable foundations were I to adopt any other posture. As we will see, this requirement that objects interact to become things has profound implications with respect to ICODE coding, for it not only enables the description of any kind of manufacturing process (via the couplings of Figure 5. 1) but it also guarantees, through that required interaction, that the overlapping triples of Figure 3.1 will always be present. As we have already covered, this also guarantees that the ICODE code segments will properly overlap and intersect. Therefore every ICODE code will be an effective code. Without this set of viewpoints and definitions at this most fundamental level, I cannot guarantee the effectiveness of ICODE codes. With these foundations the effectiveness is guaranteed by definition.