I don't think this is a good analogy. FT is like changing the reference frame. Similarly, the movement of planets are more easily described in an heliocentric model than in an Earth-centric model. You can write the transform between those two models, but this does not increase the complexity of the solar system itself: you don't add features, which is exactly the issue with software.
A slightly better analogy would be the shift from Newtonian physics to relativist physics, that describes more accurately how things move. However, you still don't add complexity to the described thing, you just discover more of its complexity and get a more complex description as a result.
What we have here is simply the effect of something we know one expect of as Parkinson's law [1], which is a specific case of the Induced demand phenomenon [2].
A slightly better analogy would be the shift from Newtonian physics to relativist physics, that describes more accurately how things move. However, you still don't add complexity to the described thing, you just discover more of its complexity and get a more complex description as a result.
What we have here is simply the effect of something we know one expect of as Parkinson's law [1], which is a specific case of the Induced demand phenomenon [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand