Regardless of the nature of transformation, all transformations are atomic. there can be no transformations where: (a,b) -> c AND (a,b) -> d because both cannot be true, atomically.
whenever this situation occurs, there must be at least one of the following conditions:
one part of the transformation, such as "a", is a representation. such that (x,y) ; a or (x,z) ; a "a" is representation of multiple hidden conditions.
if we unpack the representation and include what is being represented we see: ((x,y), b) -> c OR ((x,z), b) -> d
the second situation is when the transformation contains a hidden element. Sometimes we describe this via an extraneous rule or condition, where some hidden element is applied to describe the transformation as following a "rule" or having a "state" condition that changes the transformation. either way, this transformation is atomically the same.
((a,b), h) -> c OR ((a,b), i) -> d Where h and i are hidden or invisible elements or a hidden rule.
Rules and state present us with a particular problem. When we rely on rules or states as the hidden factor or element of a transformation, we assert that there is some invisible force, or invisible condition that alters transformations. This is often a supernatural claim. Or, as with computation, it is a way to describe computations (which are transformations) where the transformational process is mediated through a program that we assert as having state because of some rule condition.
There is no such "thing" as state. That is, state is always some kind of representation. Even a state in a computer is a collection of elements where (m,n,o,p) ; state1 and (m,n,o,p,q) ; state2 We use the concept of state as a way to encapsulate complexity, to hide a complex situation behind a simpler representation. When we refer to differences in state, we mean there is some hidden difference of elements, of data, or some hidden function (transformation) that is taking place. But there is no state as some kind of extra-physical or extra-systemic rule or condition that affects the transformation. There are simple invisible factors which we representationally encapsulate behind the concept of state.
Now we can see what the difference is between a representation and a transformation. Both are functionally the same, but they have different CONDITIONS. i.e., the differences are representational, they are not functionally different.
a transformation is (a,b) -> c or z -> (x,y) If (a,b) -> is true, there is no c -> (a,b) for c to transform to (a,b) there must be some hidden factor or element. eg. (c,x) -> (a,b),x (c acts as a catalyst here) All transformations are one way.
chemical state: chemical state is not an extrinsic factor in the behavior of molecules or atoms. chemical states (gas, liquid, solid, plasma et al) are conditions produced from atomic components. State references in physics, eg. temperature or pressure are not extrinsic facts about atoms and molecules, but are representations of what atoms and molecules are doing - eg. of the kinetic function of molecules and atoms. eg. (h20, h20, h20…., tiny space) ; high pressure, liquid water or (h20, h20, h20…., huge space, infrared radiation) ; low pressure, boiling point, water vapor
more simply, chemical states are descriptive of atomic conditions, they are not rules or programs of atomic functions.
State sometimes is representation of transformation, sometime it's representation of atomic elements, sometimes it's a representation of function.
In this last mode we state as representation of function we say ((a,b) -> c ) ; t
Auto arrangement, conditions, configuration:
Design tricks us into thinking there are extrinsic representations that "force" atomic elements into arrangement and structure. This is not the case. If objects, materials, atoms auto organize, we mean that there is no extrinsic force or program that initiates or "forces" the organization of atoms - that forces the transformation of atoms into larger structures.
If we assume that there is an extrinsic force or program, then HOW does the program or force produce the transformation behavior of atoms, molecules, materials etc. What is the mechanism by which the idea of the force or program is translated into actual force and actual transformation of atoms and molecules. How does a design become an action?
And if we can describe or explain this mechanism, by which some "force" idea becomes force action, or some program idea becomes executed action, then where is that function? Is that function extrinsic both to the program or force which produces atomic transformations or actions? And how is the force, or program or law or rule itself created, to then produce force or initiate action by atoms and molecules?
This is the problem with (cartesian) dualism. It forces us down a rabbit hole of homunculi or an onion skin of greater and greater design generated forces. In lay and religious discussions, we see the dualism manifest as arguments about spirit and law, as if spirit and physical laws were separated from atoms and ideas.
Newtonian physics are descriptions, but they are often treated as extrinsic laws of the behavior of matter. This is a mistake. There is no extrinsic place where Newtonian equations reside that somehow, MAGICALLY, causes the behavior of bodies to ADHERE to those laws, to follow instructions, or to behave according to newtonian physics. There is no extrinsic program. Of if there is, then we live in a simulated universe, and in that upper level universe, that is where we would encounter physics that auto-generates, auto-arranges atoms into molecules etc.
the idea of design, the idea of dualism, the idea of extrinsic laws all rely on the concept of state. States of all kinds are subjective illusions. By this I mean, that we only see state from a subjective perspective. Sunsets are subjective states. There is no such thing as an actual sunset, in the same way there is no such thing as an actual unicorn. But when we see the sun disappearing below the horizon, we call that situation, a sunset. Sunsets are very beautiful. But unicorns are very beautiful too. If we see a horse with a single horn, we see a unicorn. We can recognize illusions.