Talk:Entity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Substance_theory

"for instance, one could say that any entity that enters a black hole would be transported, in many pieces, to another dimension."

Is something that enters a black hole transported to another dimension? - I don't think so. It just stays there.

Entities: What do they have?

Property and quality

Quality is the substance that makes an object/entity what it is. A quality is inherent, a property is relative. A quality is typical of the whole, a property is typical of a part.

cf. qualifier, quantifier

Property is relative. Quality is absolute. An object can survive without some properties, but not without its quality.

spotted lizards agree. they need those spots.

A property is comon in all members of a class. Properties are of two kinds. Group 1 property shows the limits (contains constraints). If they disappear, the object itself disappears.

They are substantial (not substance) properties. The constraints here are not the same as the specifics of an object, though.

Group 2 properties are simple properties. They do not delimit objects. It is the quality that makes a difference among objects.

The number of qualities of an object is endless.

A particular quality may be the property of different objects, and vice versa.

A quality itself is a propetry, it is relative as any other property, i.e. it does not depend on the object that it is a quality of, but on other objects associated with that object.

Or: what is a quality for one object is a property only for another. (Example: an ability to do something – with an amateur and a professional).

A quality is not complete specifics. Therefore we have a separate sense for it (quality). If two substantial properties make up a quality, then combined, they are again a substantial property. The complete set of qualities is what you call the specifics.

Apogr 20:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Substance_theory"

This page was last modified 20:36, 9 Jun 2005. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details).

some changes

1. NPOV'ed reference to "the zionist entity" 2. deleted blogspam -- links appeared to be personal blogs. if there's a justification for adding them, please re add them and explain.

removed "lalalllalala go gut feeling" if it has some meaning, please explain.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.220.67 (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Entity vs Universe (Symban)

Entity is the MOST-GENERAL concept and Universe is the MOST-WHOLE concept. Kaseluris, Nikos (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

opening statement

ignore - meant to go on sign

eh?

Entities are used in system developmental models that display communications and internal processing of, say, documents compared to order processing.

I have no idea what that means. Can anyone clarify? Wouter Lievens (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed, it is unsourced. --George100 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

…4:06 P.M. E.S.T. ENTITY: Is this factual if One has a form of currency and is willing to spend it, is this an entity.Thank You To Help Another Needed Keeper You Aughto UnderstandDavid George DeLancey (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Objects

This article should not be merged with "object", as the meaning of "entity" is much broader.1Z (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

undid good faith edit; why

I undid this edit.

The reason is that it put into the first sentence of the lead a link to a very specialized use of the words of the lead, a use that is not intended by the sentence, and is unsuitable for that place. It would be misleading to accept the edit that I undid.

The link was to the article Being in itself. That article is in its body worded differently from its title. Its body uses the wording 'being-in-itself', not 'being in itself'. This indicates the very special character of the usage of that article, very different in intent from that of the present article.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Here Editor Donkarlo has restored the just-above mentioned post that I undid. He gave no edit summary reason for his restoration, and did not seem to respond to my just-above talk-page reason for my undo. According to Wikipedia policy, to sustain his restoration, Editor Donkarlo would need to justify it successfully on this talk page. Apparently Editor Donkarlo is not familiar with this requirement. Therefore I will not just undo his currently unjustified restoration. I will wait a little for him to respond on this talk page. I think it will turn out that his post and restoration will not be sustained. The post will not survive because it is mistaken.Chjoaygame (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I have now tried to remedy the problem indicated by Editor Donkarlo. The problem was a lack of clarity in the phrase 'in itself'. I have removed the phrase and replaced it with 'as itself', with some other changes.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead revison

"An entity is something that exists as itself, as a subject or as an object, actually or potentially, concretely or abstractly, physically or not." concrete means physically existing, abstract is not. So to say "physically or not" is redundant. Gordon410 (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

(User talk:Gordon410) is right that the words are in a sense redundant. In such an abstract topic, however, an element of redundancy can be helpful, preventing unnecessary doubt.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)