This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
As far as I can see this should be a disambiguation page.The various different meanings are very different. A number isn't at all the same sort of thing as a ghost or an urge. Dmcq (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. The meaning is the same, an "entity" that's "non-physical", it's not like we have completely different things that happen to share a name. It's going to be a short article anyway, there's no point in splitting it. — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk) 20:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there any secondary source for the topic? Something that includes things like ghosts, morals, and numbers? That's what articles should be based on. There is for example for abstract object, but that wouldn't include things like ghosts though it could include humanity or death. Dmcq (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I think this should also be a disambiguation page. I doubt anyone is actually going to improve the article, it would require alot of work. GreenUniverse (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
An abstraction of "two apples" is actually "a ghost" yes. "A ghost" of a person, is an abstraction of that person. Which again is related to "spirits" and the subconconscious and what Jung called "archetypes". Fun research for those who want, but I doubt wikipedia will contain the conclusions on that for a while, as psychology is yet not there. While religion though, do teach about jinn, sufficiently, atleast Islam, that contemplation on the subject, may give the user the insight. My experience with posting such things on wikipedia though, is bad, and such information is often replaced with more "popular", and unfortunately often, ignorant mindsets. - Spirits are ghosts of concepts that are unreal. For instance polytheism. These hinder the world collaborating in peace, beacuse idolaters act on these concepts, and they are not reconcilable with universal human nature and reality. "Satan" the spirit of idolatry, distorted the religions of the world. If he did not, you would all live in peace, because the experience of God, is the same all over the world, and the religions are always about consequences of morality and belief. And always a transcendent first cause God, that also is compatible with Aristotles logic. So "Ghost" indeed can be interesting research. - Peace Be With You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree it should be a disambiguation page. Or possibly a redirect to reification fallacy - it is based on the flawed assumption that any concept for which we have a word is "an entity".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no source for the concept "non-physical entity" or for considering that the concepts in philosophy, mathematics and information science can be grouped together as a single topic. This makes this article basically OR and suggests that the article will suffer from ther same problem as "ethereal being". If a source is not presented that clearly an unequivocally describes a topic of "non-physical entity" in the sense described in the lead of this article - it will have to be AfD'd like its predecessor.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Well feel free to go do that right now and see how it goes. I'll just mention that the sources that have been used here all actually use the term "non-physical entity" (including the one that was removed earlier for some reason). — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk) 14:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
That is not enough - they have to use it in the sense defined by the article. They have to justify that the different usages constitute a valid well-defined topic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You're very welcome to actually come up with practical ideas about what to do with this article then. I'll wait. — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk) 14:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Practical idea number 1. Find a source suggesting that this is a topic suitable for an encyclopedia. Put that source in the article. Practical idea number 2. AfD the article as Original Research and synthesis. If you wait to long default goes to idea number 2.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I added a new section called Ontology, which is directly and pertinently related to the topic of this article. (The other section, called Ontology (information science), might need some clearer connection to the phrase "non-physical entity".) I also added substantially to the "See also" section. Since I see a need to rewrite the intro to the article, I may consider rewriting that soon. Misty MH (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I rewrote the intro, and think it's pretty good as it now stands. I moved items that were previously there into related paragraphs, below the intro. I renamed the "Beliefs" section to "Various uses", moving items that were previously in the intro into related paragraphs, and rewriting them to fit. I think it's more in line with what was needed. I also removed reference to qualia, unless its relevance can be clearly connected to the article. (Perusing/Skimming it, I didn't see the relevance.) A bit more work needs to be done on the article. And I'd like to see the math and computer sections rewritten to show that they are clearly related to the article. As it now stands, the article is now more in line with similar Wiki articles. Misty MH (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC) More work should probably be done. Misty MH (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)