Is anything ever complete? I think Buddhists agree that the past cannot return, look at e.g. Dogen on firewood, or perhaps the Awakening of Faith

all that had been conceived in the past was as
hazy as a dream, that all that is being conceived in the present is
like a flash of lightning, and that all that will be conceived in the
future will be like clouds that rise up suddenly.

There are no &quot;wholes&quot; in Buddhism. But are there, conventionally speaking?

Vasubandhu rejects both wholes and combined sets (whether cohesive or
merely contiguous). Wholes are rejected by appealing to the Buddhist
reductionist principle which says that only the component parts of an
entity are real (aggregated wholes, on this view, are not).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/
I was merely some things may be of the sort that could potentially be wholes, but never are: and so they are never complete. Is that the case, why, and if so, so what?

Take the canonical example of a chariot.
Does anyone say that the chariot is not ultimately real, but you can conventionally find the chariot in among its parts - that it has then itself as a part - meaning the chariot appears to be a whole: it is potentially but not actually as there is always more.
Everything is work in progress (becoming)  except Nibbana (non-becoming) according to Buddhism.