You’re agreeing with me—I acknowledged in the post that such shorthands are consistent with my view.
But EY clearly rejects that view, and others I’ve run this by also reject it. If I could get everyone to agree that the meaning is tied to expectations, that would be a success.
Well, you have a definition of exists, and others have a different definition. Pointing out that the definition others use is incoherent might not directly lead to greater clarity, but it’s a valid point to make.
You’re agreeing with me—I acknowledged in the post that such shorthands are consistent with my view.
But EY clearly rejects that view, and others I’ve run this by also reject it. If I could get everyone to agree that the meaning is tied to expectations, that would be a success.
Why? In what domain does unpacking the definition of “exists” lead to more clarity?
This looks a lot like saying “5 isn’t real, it’s just 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1”
Well, you have a definition of exists, and others have a different definition. Pointing out that the definition others use is incoherent might not directly lead to greater clarity, but it’s a valid point to make.