>>11630133>>11632155I think the whole "removing properties" is an observation about the extrinsic properties of abstraction. intrinsically, abstraction is about forming object based on properties that a set of objects have in common. you can think of this as removing properties, but I think that misses the point, that's what abstraction *looks like*, it isn't what it is. The fact that something that is abstract is typically derived from a set of objects, that you have one derived from many, that seems to be the "structure" of abstraction, the intrinsic property of it.
I mean, compare what happens when you take a group of animals, and a list of their properties for each of them, and then create a new type of animal that has all the traits that all the animals from that group have in common. That's a true abstract process (and how we classify any set of objects hierarchically)
But now consider you have some widget, with wiggly woms and wurdly doos, and you took away one of its wurdly doos. Now it's just a broken widget, it's not necessarily "abstract" just because you took away one of its features.
Abstraction simplifies a set of objects, but simplifying an object doesn't necessarily make it abstract.
