Entity - logic, question

carl37 July 25, 2017 at 19:51 2100 views 4 comments

Hello

I recently came across the definition of the word "entity" in Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity
According to her, 'entity' is all that is potential, current, concrete, abstract, physical, or not. And my question: If you are guided by this definition, you can conclude that this "entity" is also something conceived of such as elves or other fictional and not true objects? Can this apply to what was in the past such as dinosaurs? So does this definition refer to just everything that is now, was or will be and even imaginable, potential, untrue, not physical, not material, possible and no possible, non-existent things like a numbers, words, prayer, justice, certainty? Just everything?

Thanks!

Comments (4)

Sir2u July 26, 2017 at 02:32 #90366 0 likes

I prefer this definition.

Entity: That which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving)

Everything goes that can be described as an individual object. Even abstracts.

alan1000 January 27, 2018 at 10:39 #147306 0 likes

Good question. Offhand I would say that, at least in its very broadest logical sense, an "entity" is any object of thought which can be differentiated from its context or surroundings. It could even be "that which does not exist", because as an object of thought, that can be differentiated from "things which exist".

As part of a logical or philosophical discussion, you might want to postulate a less general definition of what you consider an "entity" to be; but of course, to the extent that you would like your definition to place limits upon the kinds of thing which could be considered as a legitimate entity, you would need to have reasons to justify that definition.

litewave January 27, 2018 at 14:28 #147345 0 likes

We might also define "entity", in the most general sense, as something that has an identity, that is, something that is identical to itself and different from other entities. Or simply something that is what it is and is not what it is not.

This would rule out impossible "entities", that is those that lack identity (are what they are not). I think such "entities" are simply nothing, the content of an empty set.

sime January 27, 2018 at 14:46 #147351 0 likes

Unless a definition rules something out it isn't useful.

There are a huge number of both partially-overlapping and distinct uses for the word "entity", e.g in software-modelling, psycho-analysis, law, supernatural fiction,....

Each particular use rules out something as not being relevant to the considered application.
So in conclusion, we can ask "what is an 'entity' in this particular context?" but not "what is an entity in general?".