(By post I meant post-it note)
Why isn’t it a moninote?
It can be. Call it that if you like, and if it adds value to communication, it will catch on. If not, then it probably won’t.
Did you really consider this to be a “Great Debate”?
Yes, it’s a Great Debate. It’s just not great or debatable.
It depends on context. When viewed gravitationally, they are functionally one item. When viewed chemically, they are not. There is no one answer to this question.
I agree and disagree at exactly the same time.
Shoot, my cat just died. Or did it?
Maybe it’s a Grebate!?
It’s really a question answered by Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory as part of the Axiom of Union.
It depends on what Marketing says about it: depending on the market it may be best to sell them as a kit or separatedly.
Post-It with Wi-Fi.
A portmanteau is used when the definitions of each morpheme can blend together to form a useful new concept. Do you ever find yourself in need of communicating the idea of a ‘moninote’?
Cars are one object, but they’re also many different objects ‘stuck together’. We don’t call them exhausteeringwheelindicatorchassisheadlightsetc.
Well, my monitor on the left used to be a moninote, but I split it and now it’s just a moniharglu - which is what you get when you have bits of hardened glue stuck to a monitor.
I think, seeing as there is a slight film of dirt bonding the moniharglu to my desk that maybe what I have here is a deskoniharglu.
But I also have two more monitors so what I really have is a duomonideskoniharglu.
Actually what I really really have here takes a much lengthier word, but I’ll spare you this.
[When tweetle beetles
fight these battles
in a bottle
with their paddles
and the bottle’s
on a poodle
and the poodle’s
eating noodles…
…they call this
a muddle puddle
tweetle poodle
beetle noodle
bottle paddle battle.](Fox in Socks - Wikipedia)
Why are Fox in Socks not easily detected?
I do not like it on a Fox,
I do not like it wearing Socks,
I do not like a moninote,
I do not like it, Sam-I-Wrote.
If putting a post-it note on a monitor makes it a different object, the guys in Asset Management are gonna be pissed. They’ll have to issue new bar codes every time somebody does it.
So, I’ll just say no.
Whatever you do, don’t look at it.
ETA: Just wait until it stinks up the place. If it smells like cat shit it was alive, at least until recently. If it smells like rotting cat you can presume that, sometime since you last observed it alive, it had died. But you may not know that it died because you shot it or for some other reason. Or no reason at all. Cats do lots of stuff for no reason at all.
“Objectness” is an artifact of the human mind, just as color is. Our brains process raw sensation into a computationally-convenient fiction that allows us to rapidly solve problems of movement and interaction. In other words, we perceive the world as a 3D volume filled with things because that umwelt was a useful way to solve the survival problems faced by our ape ancestors on the plains of Africa.
So, to answer your OP, a monitor with a post-it note stuck to it is two objects for exactly the same reason that the post-it note is yellow, i.e. that’s the user interface for reality that our brains supply.
Thanks Hamster for adding the proper philosophical gloss.
Coat two debates in one continuous coat of proper philosophical glosss and you get one single debate.
I was about to type an answer, but my daughter just took yet another breath, so now I have to go come up with ANOTHER name for this one.
I ran into a situation like this once at work. We wanted a computer in an office. We asked and were told that there was no budget for one. Somebody who did some computer work on the side said he could pick up an older used computer for about fifty bucks and bring that in to the office.
The problem was bringing new equipment into the workplace was a big deal. You need all kinds of authorization for that and there was no way we would ever get permission. And you can tell unauthorized equipment because all authorized equipment has a little gold sticker with an ID number.
So I went to a lower level and ran the following line of argument. There were a bunch of old computers we had in storage. They didn’t work but they were authorized to be in the workplace. So could we have one of those? Sure, nobody wanted them because they didn’t work. And could we fix one of those broken ones to make it work? Sure, why not. And could we replace some parts to fix it? That was okay.
So we got one of the broken authorized computers and put it in the office. Then we brought in the working computer. Then we removed the sticker from the broken computer and put it on the working computer. Then we threw out the broken computer.
From a legal standpoint, we were still using the original authorized computer. We had just replacing the part that didn’t work (the entire computer) with a replacement part (a different computer).