Although one might argue that an objective nyt may not exist, I have nothing but praise for this kind of explication. We need more of it in such a forum as this! Way to go!
Great summary! I like the careful definitions of terms and division of categories, it definitely helps organize some of the muddy waters. A lot of the disagreements online probably come from people having different meanings in their heads behind the words they say
Interesting argument! I’m inclined to say it does exist independent of observation. I think the particles bouncing around into the light and floor make it ‘many to many’ using the framework in the article, although your husband’s opinion on the table is ‘one to many’.
Although one might argue that an objective nyt may not exist, I have nothing but praise for this kind of explication. We need more of it in such a forum as this! Way to go!
Thanks so much - very kind words!
Great summary! I like the careful definitions of terms and division of categories, it definitely helps organize some of the muddy waters. A lot of the disagreements online probably come from people having different meanings in their heads behind the words they say
🤔 i like this...
Oh thanks for saying!
I think it’s just ‘a piece of furniture designed to put something on’. Note *designed* to put something on not that you *can* put something on it
Interesting argument! I’m inclined to say it does exist independent of observation. I think the particles bouncing around into the light and floor make it ‘many to many’ using the framework in the article, although your husband’s opinion on the table is ‘one to many’.
What’s the argument that it doesn’t?