> at some level of interpretation everything can be a higher-level runtime. I don't see how everything can be considered a higher-level runtime. The concept of

> at some level of interpretation everything can be a higher-level runtime. I don't see how everything can be considered a higher-level runtime. The concept of an execution environment just doesn't map to everything, unless you want to use a definition of it so general as to make it useless. If someone drops a glass and it shatters, would a higher level system describing the mechanics of glass shattering be a runtime? I don't see it. > Yes, protein-protein interactions are a higher-level runtime emerging from lower-level physical runtimes. That's pretty different from what I was describing. See my other comment for more details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16235639 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16235639 > ... Hacker-news is a higher-level runtime emerging, in part, from protein-protein interactions, emerging from lower-level physical runtimes. I think we disagree on the meaning of the word 'runtime'. I would not consider Hacker News to be a runtime. I do agree with your main point there, though, if you just replaced 'Hacker News' in your statement with, say, the Java runtime environment, then yes, I think it is a higher-level system, usefully described as a runtime, which has emerged as a consequence of the laws of physics doing what they always do. > Can we describe the runtime without invoking some notion of purpose nor questioning free will? My usage of 'runtime' does not involve free will nor purpose.