Editing Talk:General Semantics

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 4: Line 4:


"equals" especially when used in the context of expressing mathematical and scientific laws is not limited to a moment in time.  It is universal.  (Except, of course when the law is really only an unproven theory thought to be a law due to a healthy mix of hubris and ignorance)
"equals" especially when used in the context of expressing mathematical and scientific laws is not limited to a moment in time.  It is universal.  (Except, of course when the law is really only an unproven theory thought to be a law due to a healthy mix of hubris and ignorance)
:Scientific laws are not eternal.  They are limited to the time when they are believed in, and applied.  All such "laws" are theory, forver, since proof is not an empirical idea, but a definitive one.  Thus "equals" applies only to a snapshot.  Visit the whole theory of snapshot algebra in time related databases.


"remains" is often a distinction that needs not be made.  if something already was, and it continues to be, it is not critical to know that historically it was.
"remains" is often a distinction that needs not be made.  if something already was, and it continues to be, it is not critical to know that historically it was.
:Nonsense.  Historicism is key.  There is no ahistorical theory.  Nor even any ahistorical proof.


For my understanding, some examples of how "to be" can be used unethically would help to make things more clear for me.
For my understanding, some examples of how "to be" can be used unethically would help to make things more clear for me.
:Read [[General Semantics]] itself or good articles on it.  A simple one is that if someone says "A is a troll" that is inherently abuse.  At some future time that person may cease to satisfy the conditions that apply to being a troll.  At another time those conditions may change.  And choice to be one or not is denied.  The statement stands universally for all time, it is eternal and from [[God's Eye View]].  It has no [[time horizon]].  It's just nonsense.  Not information, but dogma.
:Now, a proud claim to be a [[troll]] or at least [[troll-friendly]] is quite different, in that, it is a choice to become one... ;-0
:See you around the [[world tree]].
Please note that all contributions to Consumerium development wiki are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 or later (see Consumerium:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)
Retrieved from "https://develop.consumerium.org/wiki/Talk:General_Semantics"