In the philosophic position of mereological nihilism only "simples" exist when discussing objects, etc, simples are akin to byte types for sure and primitive types maybe.
Nothing complex, like objects, higher level types, etc. exist.
Composition of simples in time and space is what determines everything other than simples. Anything that isn't a simple is just emergent from the space/time arrangement of the simples.
So if the implications are that nothing is real outside of time/space/simples, then calling something higher level a "type" is to label something as discrete and real when it isn't, so now you are using language and models that are wrong to reason about things, which means your model will have frustrating drift from reality that you can't rectify.
That's where schemas come in, we are just labeling common arrangements of simples for semantic reasons but they don't really exist so they shouldn't be elevated to the position of a type as that is a wrong abstraction and causes divergence and mess.
In the philosophic position of mereological nihilism only "simples" exist when discussing objects, etc, simples are akin to byte types for sure and primitive types maybe.
Nothing complex, like objects, higher level types, etc. exist.
Composition of simples in time and space is what determines everything other than simples. Anything that isn't a simple is just emergent from the space/time arrangement of the simples.
So if the implications are that nothing is real outside of time/space/simples, then calling something higher level a "type" is to label something as discrete and real when it isn't, so now you are using language and models that are wrong to reason about things, which means your model will have frustrating drift from reality that you can't rectify.
That's where schemas come in, we are just labeling common arrangements of simples for semantic reasons but they don't really exist so they shouldn't be elevated to the position of a type as that is a wrong abstraction and causes divergence and mess.