The guardian


October 28th 2017 was a busy day for me.
When I came home in the evening I found a message from John: “Are you kidding me? You can see a shadow. A shadow is NOT abstract. What do the doctors say about your problem?”
And because I had a good day I wrote: “First, let us define. What do we mean when we say “something exists”? Commonly we understand that the moon, the sun, you, me, ect. all exist. If you run into a brick wall that’s because it exists. So what do we mean by that crucial term, exist? We mean, that anything in existence (i.e. an object, entity, thing) has xyz dimensions and location. That is why we break our nose when we run into it and why it casts a shadow. In other words, the wall exists because it is physically present, an object with location. Unsing this definition, does a shadow exist? A shadow is the disruption of a EM torsion produced by a light source. It necessarely embodies 3 or more objects (a light source, a disrupting object and an object in the background). It is impossible to illustrate a shadow as a standalone object. Clearly, the shadow is a concept as objects must stand with shapes of their own. Since a shadow embodies a relationship and has no physical presence, it does not meet the definition of existence. Now, is a shadow abstract? I let you decide. When I see a shadow I see a concept, or in other words ‘an abstract idea’ and that’s why I say ‘shadows are abstract’. Concerning the doctors, the one I saw yesterday said: “It’s all good!”.”
[Johns answer being against the Community guidelines I did decide not to post it.]

Later on that day I posted “The guardian”.

365 days later I wonder if he is still there.