Hehe.. ease off on the drama. Of course I meant disagreement.Greta wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:33 am Oh for f's sake, ease off on the drama, Mary-Lou! No one is "attacking" you. You will note on other threads where people really are "attacking". This is not attacking but is known as "disagreement". We are allowed to disagree with you and challenge your statements.
I don't think so. Stuff and unevenness of the stuff is ontologically the same thing. Lumps and eddies are an abstraction, a metaphor for some of the stuff. As far as I can tell you pretty much disagree with uwot.Above you have misinterpreted my post based on the absence of an optional comma - there is the stuff and there is the unevenness of the stuff - lumps and eddies. Like uwot, I have argued this point from the very start. The reductionism of everything to information is highly speculative and also needs to demonstrate the emergences from the initial "source code".
There is nothing highly speculative about reducing everything to information. Just rename stuff to information and there you are. (For example personally I think purely in information, connections, I just translate it into stuff.)
I don't know what you mean by emergence from the initial "source code". Soft emergence is an abstraction, a metaphor. Hard emergence is magical thinking.