Objective differences doesn’t have to mean physical differences of the thing at the time. It is an objective fact that certain people have won elections and that others have not, for example, even if it doesn’t change them physically.
In this sense, it is true that every meaningful distinction is based on something objective, since otherwise you would not be able to make the distinction in the first place. You make the distinction by noticing that some fact is true in one case which isn’t true in the other. Or even if you are wrong, then you think that something is true in one case and not in the other, which means that it is an objective fact that you think the thing in one case and not in the other.
It is an objective fact that certain people have won elections and that others have not, for example, even if it doesn’t change them physically.
No, it’s intersubjective. Winning and elections aren’t in the laws of physics. You can’t infer objecgive from not-subjective.
In this sense, it is true that every meaningful distinction is based on something objective, since otherwise you would not be able to make the distinction in the first place
You need to be more granular about that. It is true that you can’t recognise novel members of an open-ended category (cats and dogs) except by objective features, and you cant do that because you can’t memorise all the members of such a set. But you can memorise all the members fo the set of Seanators. So objectivty is not a universal rule.
I think you might be arguing about words, in relation to whether the election is an objective fact. I don’t see what the laws of physics have to do with it. There is no rule that objective facts have to be part of the laws of physics. It is an objective fact that I am sitting in a chair right now, but the laws of physics say nothing about chairs (or about me, for that fact.)
Even if you memorize the set of Senators, you cannot recognize them without them being different from other people.
Objective differences doesn’t have to mean physical differences of the thing at the time. It is an objective fact that certain people have won elections and that others have not, for example, even if it doesn’t change them physically.
In this sense, it is true that every meaningful distinction is based on something objective, since otherwise you would not be able to make the distinction in the first place. You make the distinction by noticing that some fact is true in one case which isn’t true in the other. Or even if you are wrong, then you think that something is true in one case and not in the other, which means that it is an objective fact that you think the thing in one case and not in the other.
No, it’s intersubjective. Winning and elections aren’t in the laws of physics. You can’t infer objecgive from not-subjective.
You need to be more granular about that. It is true that you can’t recognise novel members of an open-ended category (cats and dogs) except by objective features, and you cant do that because you can’t memorise all the members of such a set. But you can memorise all the members fo the set of Seanators. So objectivty is not a universal rule.
I think you might be arguing about words, in relation to whether the election is an objective fact. I don’t see what the laws of physics have to do with it. There is no rule that objective facts have to be part of the laws of physics. It is an objective fact that I am sitting in a chair right now, but the laws of physics say nothing about chairs (or about me, for that fact.)
Even if you memorize the set of Senators, you cannot recognize them without them being different from other people.