Well, I'm for accurate definitions, but I understand how they can apply in different contexts and change. I like to use symbolic analogous language to paint an image in the mind's eye, not that it's a perfect use of the word symbol, like a rigorous definition that applies absolutely.

Existence is what can be demonstrated, in a pure definition. Like maybe there is a 13th dimension, but we can't demonstrate it. That level of alleged "existence" is not existence as we know it, if it is possible. That's how I relate to the quantum.

You can look at a house constructed as ordered, and a house demolished as chaos. And that is objective. It's like how do you know something is 20 degrees, or 21 degrees, because of comparative measurement. That's what dualistic conceptual frameworks are for, in order to identify and define aspects of reality. There is no temperature scale in nature, we make it. We put the numbers on a comparative scale. But there is still an objective difference in temperature, just like this is in state of order or chaos.

How can you say that comparing things is subjective? That's how science works, applying contrast of one thing from another. That's what knowledge is, sciere (science), to divide and cut. Maybe in my example I was using symbolism of chaos to apply to the quantum physics, compared to the symbolism of order for classical physics. And that's what you mean by the subjective part? Because it doesn't accurately apply, since the quantum world does have order to it?