What is more simple to describe reality with a primitive "is"-ness or "me-sness" ?

You can as virtual machines demonstrate make the argument hardware is nothing but software running a layer up. You can do this ad eternum. A simulation within a simulation within a simulation. Of course you may argue ha but there must be in the end some real hardware there right ? Well, why not just sets of information layers ? I don't see nothing more fundamental then pure information...perhaps I am wrong.

They are pretty hard to read, like Derrida, and now dated in their outlook (lots of psychoanalysis and marxism in there) but the basic idea I think is: virtual machines with desires. Virtual machines that want to do some thing(s).

Even so, those layers constitute different planes where different things happen. Eg a text written with ink on paper carries some information (eg a poem) that does not reside within the micro-structures of the cellulose and ink molecules themselves. It's at a different level of organisation, or structure. And the same poem can be written on many different papers with different inks, or engraved on stone, or displayed on computer screen, and yet it will still be the same poem. There's a certain degree of independence between the two different levels.

What about if the "stone", the "paper", the "computer" are all just another layer of software ? You can in so far always argue any of those mediums are reversible to structures of information. That is the matrix argument. And yes you said it well what stays is the pattern not the medium. The poem is the same poem due to its pattern not the medium in which it runs.

hallo, uhm... I was reading your conversation and I wanted to ask... What is the name of alcohol or drug you are using? No seriously, I would like to try it!

THL? Maybe? Also, if you could describe how you use it, because inhaling stuff makes me no good (sport reasons..)

V.

Maybe that's a terminology we can use: medium vs pattern. It all boils down to the distinction between two different levels of organization. The pattern cannot exist without a medium but the same pattern can be made of or written on different media. Also, the pattern takes a life of its own, independent to a degree from the medium.

I still like the software vs hardware analogy better, to explain consciousness, but I see your point that hardware is also "information" in the sense that it has structure, without which it could not support or run the software structure. Yet those two structures are at different levels I think, and the same software can run on different hardware platforms, like mind and brain are at different organisation levels...

Well go extreme on reducing the medium to its minimum possible primitive...

...your left with 1 dimension space and a long string of organised information.

...all other dimensions of space could be "computed" within this one string.
(I know I Occam Razor a lot, but that's how it feels right for me to go, of course I may be jumping the gun n be wrong, but that's how I chose to do my own philosophy)

You'd still need SOME STUFF that is put into (or that supports... or that is engraved with...) SOME FORM. The ink and the letters it forms, the vinyl and the groove carved in it. So you'd still need two "things": medium and pattern. There's no way around it.

Yes. You don't have information without ordering it. That requires 1D space in the least.

I think it goes without say that "Is"ness is easy to explain.

while "Is"ness is based on the physics and mechanics, "Me"ness relies upon personal interpretation of ones own emotions to explain or conclude their existence.

"Is"ness is simply simple because, it is like saying, "The universe, whether physical or illusion, simply is. That is unchanging reality. We are, and determined effects of nature are, they simply are. We can evaluate "Is"ness as being provided to a scientific community in Facts, while "me"ness is entirely testimony.

Such a testimony of "Me"ness is as though to say, "I am without unity to the world around me. When the fly flies, I am without understanding of it's goals, nor it to mine. Yet, in actuality, I am a portion of those fly's curiosities, and it is a contributing factor to my musing."

one is built upon "rational stipulations"(Is-ness) for scientific evaluation, while the other is a foundation for providing Material used for philosophical evaluation {Social Science.}(Me-ness).

You don't have information without a medium that's put into some shape. I see two "things" there: the shape is different from just an amorphous medium. That's in my view where the duality of mind and matter resides, ultimately.

You can reduce geometry to patterns of information, to maths.
I could give you a very crude picture. Say you define three vectors in 1D string of information by defining their lenght, information size, and stipulate they converge. You have a triangle. You may argue that structure does not explain the effects in the world. Those are true enough real. But in turn the fact that you have all this variety of effects doesn't require materialism be true. We for instance know that the solidity of a wall is due to the strong force in the nucleus of atoms which in turn could be due to a rule on fundamental forces not letting X cross Y. You simulate solidity but there is nothing really solid there. In fact space between atoms is huge beyond huge.

What I am trying to say is that information itself can be a fundamental unity of what constitutes reality independently of all the effects we witness. Now please note I am not saying these effects are not real (real is a tricky slippery word) I am just saying they are not primary order fundamental. Certain effects emerge when certain patterns are in place. Just that. "Solidity" is one of them.

Still "me-sness" is reducible to "is-ness". Not the other way around. Recollection of what is, witnessing, itself requires being...there is no way around "is-ness" being the ultimate fundamental master primitive to assemble information in patterns. Testimony is a posteriori or you have nothing to talk about.

Shh! Maybe they won't notice us as they continue their discussion of reality vs perception.

Your irony it is noted !
(you still confusing epistemic problems with Ontic ones)

Try thinking. It is a very powerful drug. It might just take you out of whatever delusion you live in !

You still need something to write your mathematics on.

Are we talking of Occam's razor here or Occam's sledgehammer?

Fil, therefor, If Me-ness can be reduced to Isn-ess but Is-ness cannot be reduced to Me-ness than Is-ness is without say, easier to describe.

I do not testify that the mountain which we are looking at is real, I remark~ 'RE'mark. I testify to that which is not evident.

I presented the medium 1D space.
When you say something to write your maths you imagine it must be "material" and I empathise...but the problem is I don't really know what "material" ultimately ends up meaning...honestly I don't. I am not sure you need anything but a discrete space 1D string where bits fit in.
(Note I said discrete space not continuum space)

discrete space is still space and thus is material. Material is anything which is not theoretical or philosophical.

I assume discrete space is in your mind? correct? Meaning despite, Theoretical or philosophical space is not manifest, Discrete space, which is still fictitious factually has bearing. Correct or false impression?

If discrete space is a reference to something which is unknown, such as the contents of my bedroom, then still, regardless of your awareness, the mater exists. Anything that has manifestation is Material.

please describe Discrete Space.