I have not read the paper in detail, but a paper on "digital ontology" that does not mention computational complexity, the quantum Church-Turing thesis, or the

I have not read the paper in detail, but a paper on "digital ontology" that does not mention computational complexity, the quantum Church-Turing thesis, or the fact that analog computation leads to unphysical "hypercomputation" makes any other claims in the paper extremely questionable. How can one take a philosopher of information seriously if they do not address the most typical arguments in computational complexity (you know, the actual science of processing information). Edit: page 7 discusses some of the points I complained about, but it does not seem particularly convincing to me (it only brushes them off, without explaining them). Admittedly, the language of philosophy is frequently unconvincing to me, so maybe the problem is in me.