You're just reframing the article as though it's obvious and then claiming that it is obvious. The problem is - the article already does just that.
Further, you have changed your stance from one of "of course it moves from some noise in the environment" to one more closely resembling the article's main points.
You basically aren't making sense. Your initial abuse of "platonic ideals" is the sort of thing that gives philosophical arguments a bad reputation.
Further, you have changed your stance from one of "of course it moves from some noise in the environment" to one more closely resembling the article's main points.
You basically aren't making sense. Your initial abuse of "platonic ideals" is the sort of thing that gives philosophical arguments a bad reputation.