I am not convinced—by this article, at least—that there could only be two kinds of stuff. It sounds like the answer to the question, “why two and not one or possibly three ?” is, “because I said so”, and that’s not very convincing.
I am also not entirely sure what the Great Reductionist Project is, or why it’s important.
Note that I’m not arguing against reductionism, but solely against this post.
I am not convinced—by this article, at least—that there could only be two kinds of stuff. It sounds like the answer to the question, “why two and not one or possibly three ?” is, “because I said so”, and that’s not very convincing.
I am also not entirely sure what the Great Reductionist Project is, or why it’s important.
Note that I’m not arguing against reductionism, but solely against this post.