Physics debunk the terminology of we're animals and confirms linguistics itself are corrupted

<b>History of linguistic use :</b> In previous paper we stated that life purpose is absolute order and that means mental order must maximised too. This means language itself inevitably will change radically to remove noises of perspectives and subjectivity. Titles are used to help our brains to detect objects in seperate manner, based on anti-entropical nature some words are linguistically corrupted because is not absolutely immune that could create more than 2 mental images, for example calling someone animal is very simplified and could easily cause some anger issues instead of the person focusing on the biological basis, to be fair the definition of animal itself is outdated linguistic use of giving titles to objects. Based on evolutionary linguistics, language changes overtime, especially if it becomes more and more efficient overtime, language is a symbolistic mechanism where it allows gestures combined with sounds like ancient people did, into more ordered way of sounds that we call language today, like "look" and more, because language is a communication mechanism to increase survival rates by sending information of the world. The more seperate and isolate mental recallings of things, the more efficient and more objective recalling and namings we have, our subconscious now is less biased and will not confuse things with other ideas. Anthropomorphic Misinterpretation of "Animal" is very outdated terminology, the earliest known use of the noun animal is in the Middle English period (1150—1500). In the past, animal original terminology was animalia or Latin anima means "breath" or "soul," and animalis, the adjective that comes from it, means "having breath or soul." Why is outdated linguistic use that sadly is even used in modern sciences?, the problem comes from the experts that are not capable enough to change the language, because language is fluid and must change overtime, especially if we want to create a efficient objective language system that reduces biases. The problem of animal and soul is huge and extremely subjective and is even used in science communication now days, the origin of soul is purely supernatural and animal word too, we know ghosts and souls and supernatural do not exist as long as evidence do not exist, especially when isaac mosinyan previous papers disproves the existence of god for good using physics. The Origin of the Soul : The concept of the soul has deep roots in various religious, philosophical, and cultural traditions. It is often regarded as a supernatural element that transcends the physical body and embodies the true identity of an individual. According to many religious beliefs, the soul is an immortal essence that continues to exist beyond physical death, connecting individuals to realms beyond the material world, such as Heaven and Hell. The soul is considered the seat of consciousness, emotions, and morality, providing a sense of purpose and meaning to human existence. It is believed to originate from a divine source, bestowed upon individuals at the moment of their creation or birth. The conclusion is animal word is ancient outdated linguistic use, is by far the most subjective and false terminology for real world uses and is not neutral at all, dare to call a human that see itself as superior and prideful as "animal" and you will have many signs of punches or get insults against you.<b>Explaining the professional linguistic use of terminologies : </b>A objective professional linguistic use to recall living beings, is the terminology : "Bio-consumers" and is literally impossible to create misunderstandings and biases for personal optional purposes, the word "bio" is used as short cut for "biological." A bio-consumer is : "Consumers are organisms that obtain energy by feeding on other organisms, playing a vital role in the flow of energy through ecosystems. A living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli, because that way adapts mechanically to consume matter to increase survival rates in perpetual consuming." Thats literally the scientific definition of "animal" in biological sense, but the word "animal" itself is biased and largely biased use against human social sciences in terms of behavional patterns and such, since we explained in our previous papers what is "pure human" and "perfect human" objectively, even when the communication in case of english was intentionally bad to confirm it was not ai generated, even a highschooler would understand what were saying. Remember, the scientific description of what is "animal" is unchanged, we just changed the terminology to be correct instead of using word "animal." So, the only use of animals remain the insulting definition rather than scientific definition from professional scientific point of view, like in the past where the word animal was used to insult others "you are such a savage animal" was often the most inferior insult. Since the terminology of animals was about souls, you could even replace the idea with "beast" instead, saying "you are such a beast" is more objective, since we know beasts are savage mindless animals and often with rage, but the core idea is they are only meant to survive and breed, breed means mindless hormonal behavior and move forward to reproduce as many babies as possible, like animals do. We confirm hare a professional linguistic use "Bio-consumers" to replace the outdated linguistic use of "animals" and we call the scientific community to change their attitudes because every human are biased and no one is yet officialy a pure human, so even a expert is biased in their entire lifes, we must do it because based on anti-entropical nature, is our duty to blindly follow the idea of absolute order and create maximised ordered lingusitic systems everywhere, here english is our first target.<b> </b>Bio-Light Consumers, could used for plants as objective terminology, so when we ask "what category of bio-consumer we belong to?" then you start to give names and say "The category as bio-consumers we belong to homo sapiens, known as humans recently." So to give more details of what is a insulting version of "animal" use since is no useful for professional academic lingusitic use. We acknowledge that there are many subjective linguistic uses in our world, like "atoms" and such, but harmful mental negative connections must removed, sometimes our “agents of order” followers we call them “mental viruses” but this should not be used as excuse to violate the only life purpose and that is "absolute order" that is concluded in our previous papers about the anti-entropical nature, a work discovered by erwin schrodinger about the book "what is life" where while he explained the details about self organising matter, they never bothered to show the conclusion when life reaches on the extremes as "final endgame" for anti-entropical nature, but we did and is absolute order, because life only care for order and more order means harder to die. The insulting version of animal is even when explained previously, a more detailed is here : An "animal" in its derogatory or insulting sense refers to a being perceived as driven solely by primal instincts, lacking sophistication, moral reasoning, or higher intelligence. This usage strips away individuality, autonomy, and dignity, reducing the individual to base, inferior existence.