What's the difference between an object and a process?

What's the difference between an object and a process?

the definition

Is sound propagating through space a process or an object?

Whoa, we got Mr. Aristotle in person over here.

You know, there really are stupid questions. This has to be the absolute worst question I have ever heard. I would not reply to a person asking it with anything other than thoughts on different different topics. I cannot engage this monstrous stupidity directly.

objects only exist for cognition; thus a process could be an object. the distinction you're trying to make is probably between a thing and a process, in which case sound waves are the thing and their propagation is the process

An object is always partially withdrawn and thus never fully exhausted.

A process is something an object might or might not do.

Objects perform processes.
I'd say they also have matter but then again energy.

But isn't the "thing" we are describing just a snapshot of a process? Is this what a "thing" or an "object" is, a snapshot? That just kind-of moves the problem one step forward towards a heap of sand-ish problem.
What do you mean by partially withdrawn?
What makes you think that objects come before processes?

"Nothing" can perform processes, it just happens to be turned into an object by that.

Don't listen to anyone here, the world is merely an infinitely disivisible mess constantly rearranging itself.

>What do you mean by partially withdrawn?

That not every process the object is capable of is available to whatever object(say, a human observer object) simultaneously. An object is only ever partially knowable in any given instantiation of said object.

An object has qualities, or effects OR processes. The object necessarily precedes process, because without it the idea of process is senseless.

I'm just spitballin' here though.

>don't listen to anyone here
>listen to me

So, who's the girl?

>What's the difference between an object and a process?
i don't know

But the objects came from somewhere. There had to be a first process to create the space and time for objects,.
Is the easy, but unsatisfying answer.
I'm going to invoke the cosmological argument again against your conclusion though.
>OR processes
Can you give me an example of an object that doesn't have any processes attached or related to it?

This really seems more like a problem of language the more I think about it. Nouns versus verbs.

Local hobbyist poet

You can go the Whitehead route if you please. It doesn't convince me.

I don't need to give an example of an object without a process though. That's not the question. You asked what the difference is. I gave it to you. You're mistaking the fact that they are intimately linked for the idea that they are the same thing. The idea of an object exists specifically to denote something substantial that precedes and thus enacts (or doesn't enact) a process, among other things.

Your origin argument is cheaply aporetic. You can level it against nearly anything. It's not refuted, it's abandoned.

>You asked what the difference is. I gave it to you.
Fair enough.

Thank you for your patience with me. Your posts have been very helpful.

>there had to be a first process
See: Hume on causality.

No problem. Just sparring.

For more on the subject of objects try Harman on OOO.

For more on the idea of process try Whitehead (although it's fucking impossibly dense shit).

Both thinkers are opposed to one another loosely, if not directly.

Harman with Object Oriented Ontology,
Whitehead with (I guess it could be called) Process Ontology

Duration and purduration.