Talk:Q12131

Antonym

Non-disability? --Fractaler (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Healthy, complete, enabled, lot's of words for this, and depending on the concrete definition of the disability some of them are discriminating in some cases. Just leave this empty, it's nott needed for any useful purpose. Sänger (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, now disability (Q12131) is homonym (Q160843) --Fractaler (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, who cares? Only limited people, who have to force everything simple boxes to meet there limited thinking, and I don't care about that. Reality outclasses artificial restrictions. Sänger (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This does not concern those for whom time is not an invaluable resource. As I have already explained to you, homonymy is the cause of chaos here. Fractaler (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That's life, life is chaos, that's so wonderful about it. Learn to live with it, you won't get any other. Sänger (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that for you there is no difference between the initial state (by the criterion of orderliness) of life when it appears and its present state?--Fractaler (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you don't understand anything, as usual. First: Life is Life ;), then: There is no useful antonym to disability, full stop. That's all I said, and that life can't be pressed in artificial mental systems, it's far to chaotic, and that's very fine. Sänger (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You did not answer the question (I know why, but now it's not about that). Information from the statement "Life is Life" = 0 (also as from: A is A, B is B, uselessness is uselessness, etc.), because it is tautology (Q841606) (=uselessness). About ambiguity of "disability" I said: "Yes, now disability (Q12131) is homonym (Q160843)". I'm starting to think that you do not understand the meaning of terms homonym (Q160843), homonymy (Q21701659), polysemy (Q191928), etc (hence all your questions). Let's study them, then I'll check how much you understand the material. Now, there is a very large loss of time, which I feel sorry for. Fractaler (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Your question had nothing to do with the item here. What has "difference between the initial state (by the criterion of orderliness) of life when it appears and its present state" to do with disability? Right: Nothing at all. The real world, outside artificial boxes/properties/subclasses/whatever is chaotic, and has lots of homonyms, probably different in different languages. Any try to press the world in such artificial systems of boxes/supersets/classes/whatever is deemed to be useless brainwanking, as the real world won't follow those restricted thinkers. Sänger (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You said above: "That's life, life is chaos". It had nothing to do with the item here? to do with disability?

What a "real world"? WD don't know this (again your?) term. From your statement "the real world, outside artificial boxes/properties/subclasses/whatever" it follows that there may be some other real world. I get the impression that you do not understand the difference between the scientific object (Q30060700) (what), scientific worldview (Q12132639) (how) and knowledge representation and reasoning (Q3478658) (where). --Fractaler (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't understand the difference between such artificial, constructed and restricted, sorting in boxes, however you call them, and the reality outside this artificial construct. Reality trumps artificial brainwanking. If there is no such thing as an antonym to "disabled" in the real world, then there is no such thing as an antonym, to "disabled" in the real world. The real world is that, what you see, once you get up from your chair in front of a monitor and open your eyes. Sänger (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The real world is that, what you see, once you get up from your chair in front of a monitor and open your eyes? At last some definition! Ok, your are a real world expert, and now you can say, dark matter (Q79925), for example, is "real world" or not? --Fractaler (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Dunno. It's not proven yet, just a hypothesis, but imho could be one. As long as it's not proven beyond any reasonable doubt, I would not sort it anywhere in there. Sänger (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Now take the opposite direction. electron (Q2225), for example, is "real world" or not? --Fractaler (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any interest in your nonsensical sophistry. WD will never be a coherent picture of the world, nor should it be nor is that of any use. WD is just a database in the background of the wikiverse where to store naked data used in the real user projects like wikipedia etc.

Electron is a real world item, at least according to any scientific relevant theory. So what? Sänger (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you have time machine (Q1195697)? Have you already used it and know how it will be? Now Wikidata (Q2013) is knowledge base (Q593744).

So, we have now: 1) scientific relevant theory and 2) your "real world". By your definition of "real world" (The real world is that, what you see, once you get up from your chair in front of a monitor and open your eyes), electron (Q2225) is not "real world". --Fractaler (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It's "seeable" enough for me to make it part of the real world, I even made experiments with electrons in high-school, so they are there. Dark matter on the other hand is a very handy, but nevertheless only hypothetical, construct to explain some things in the real world, that can't be explained with th e real-worldly stuff we call "the real world" with our limited knowledge now. Sänger (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow! You've seen electrons! And what are they? What color, shape? Did you keep track of their flight? --Fractaler (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)