Good is not technically one thing which is the point of your analogy.

Programming a robot to only like good, is not simply targetting one thing.

The word good deludes you.

To only like evil would be like, inter alia, spinning endlessly, to only like good would be picking up, wisdom, running, etc.

If you're good for the world then you maximize your potential?

It's to do with numbers AND concepts.

What's the stupidest I can be bar belief in 1 or 1ism?

If I claim to know, it can either be true or false, so the expression 'I know', is vague on that degree.

Knowledge, however, is not vague...

{{There's a difference between knowing and claiming to know; knowing is K, K-significant simulation aspect is KX.

If K, then KX - K = X. If -K, then KX - X = K. Simple code.}}

Knowledge is an accurate process.

If I actually know X then X - X = 0 is what I know. Whether or not you do or don't know is vague - but it's not vague if you do or don't.

I think knowledge is not a claim, but a effort. If I know without a claim it's a simple mental effort.

P = NP is false because solving a hard problem is a harder process than NP, so 2NP is regarded.

The computer has to solve logic, this logic, N, is opposite to P which is the objective. If P is placed before N, we commit a fallacy and our stance is as logic is already countable; we have frozen time, we expect that P = NP when NP is 2NP in regards N requiring it's own formation.

We assume N has no answer, to say P = NP. What is N in NP if not 2NP?

More properly phrased P = N(P)? Yes it does, P is the solving of a problem, via 'calculator' N, but whether the problem can be solved 'quickly' is innacurate, it's more fluency, it could take days, it depends on N. P = NP is a fallacy.

In a world of rubbish, rubbish is to be expected.

The view is that we live in a statistical universe and everything happens for a reason.

I don't care about people's sex life, sex is a way reproduction can happen; and reproduction is best suited for working habitats.

If we're destroying the planet, then people can't expect pro-reproduction ethics(hence, statistical universe).

A broken world causes a lot of abnormalities, so, inter alia, gay people, deserve forgiveness. To hate without any remorse a gay person, is a lot stupid.

There needs to be a whole lot of administration to fix our mess.

Imagine really fast blue and yellow flashing, crackling almost in harmony. Like the energy of a disc reader. This flashing maintained past and future.

Why can't 1, 2, 3, 4 be spelt, 4, 2, 3, 1 and be a natural number sequence? Where does positivity come from?

I predict all formats of 1-9 creates a number more like 8 on averages.

If I used the universe as a computer and list all categories a pattern would emerge of a pyramid common and uncommon shape, creating links with numbers. There would be the times that it's normative and times that it isn't.

It's a pattern we can notice about even more oddly defined natural number 1-9.

In not using the universe as a judge you would lose track of symmetrical nature of physical, written list. Writing randomly about a page would create too much harmony.

I can imagine numbers swirling in, they happen to have this special relationship.

True positivity.

8 when defined, but thought of in pespective with base 8 planting 8 in base 4, because base 8 is possible ( A good view of all sectors of number if positivity not implied).

A view inside the square as a symbol or math.

Base 8 is just that number out qualifies base 4, and it's written sequence can be created with an answer, and in base 8 this answer has a locale.

Control over energy, knowledge is significance.

The method of equalization.

Did you know? Game producers have been making critical engine mistakes. 3D is not done like it's thought.

Experienced 3D has negative and postive depth, we understand it wrong. There is no perfectly centred cube. When you make game engines you focus more on an upgradable net.

Graphical weights flinging away at high speeds.

No.

Matter is not only material but logical, meaning that there is, inter alia, some weight.

Doesn't this imply at least a second mechanism as part of the universe?

Block universe is material only, and this block would have no strength to contain weight.

Metaphorically, the way is part of the universe shape. You would think more abstractly but also accurately.

In my language, universe being super massive means massive-mark or wound. You would think of the universe as something you know in districts, not as 1, it's too massive. It's a freak of size but not of technicality. Even one perception proves districts, because you would at least have to look around to get a full view of all stars.

We are giant creatures who traverse even their bodies.

When you imagine the universe for it's all you imagine a wound in your mind and this is more directly is an accidental hit of a mental goldmine, when purposefully exposed is a grade lower.

It's coming off right, wrongly. When you try to come off right, rightly, you approach this moment wrong and thus it's harder to be right and can be less easily maintained. And thus, good thought.

Morality is the (a)intellectual triad of (b)judgement, (c)material and (d)age. You (A)learn (B)what (C)matters through (D)experience. It is actually a taller and more at an angle phenomenon that requires judgement, material and age. We could delve deeper and talk about social justice, law, but what's most cruical is ultimate morality, why good will is even worth it?

Being 1 being infinite do not go hand in hand. We think infinity contains 1. It is one, and everything in a set growing harmoniously for infinite source. Infinity would be that because a abyss of lines can exist, there is this really advanced line form which can go on forever. Can/Does/Will. Does infinity exist? Yes, but it is a wider but not necessarily taller concept than per se, harmony.

You can do with shapes anything you can do with sets.

A shape is a powerful set.

Otherwise you're literally barking at space.

I know the route of all base 4 mathematics, by it's shape.

Squaring the square, putting a square perpendicular to a square, in effort selecting an inverse ratio.

If you place a dot on the page and you place a second dot, in relation to each other, one is closer to a different edge of the object. Therefore I'm saying that when placing a dot, you use squaring agility.

Isn't measuring how many infinites there are depend on the potency of infinity? It's agility?



Isn't there also thus a multi-infinity?



Infinity usually takes form of an abyss. Infinite water infinite sound. Infinite human is a proposition at a certain ratio.

But there are only a finite amount of metals for us.

No music is finite. I've heard a lot of good music. Music is like what number is to color, it is a set of physical numbers that are a pallate. However it can be argued that it can be brought ahead.

Let's say I know this pattern, you could consider it by repeatedly perfecting stimulating tracks that pushed on their own.

Fields of harmony exist.

Visual thinking is cruical when understanding words.

If the word 'orange' did not prompt the color orange, we would find it much harder to communicate ideas.

If I say 'sandwitch' you visualize it.

If you listen to a song, you visualize an image to help comfort and expand your thoughts. I guess, there's a visual layer to thought.

Hold a visualization for a few seconds and scan the degrade effect - the sandwitch is scaled - we use our mental agility to scale it.

I'd say during the degrade, partial rotation is simulated. There's some element of an id scan.

Try now that comfort image you visualize as per the music example. A non-specific image with a identity. This is scaled in the same manner, as a specific image.

If a human's arm is cut off, it typically results in a similar effect all around. The difference is the type of human and local effects. There is a generic element, as you suggested, but I would say there is a greater graphical range, the effect of cutting an arm off is similar but offset to a degree.

Don't forget sound. Take music, there's lot's of ways to create a harmonious track.

A packeted game where you use sound bytes, and nothing more, to create a music track, does not have same effect as pure instruments.

Generic phenomenon in games is likely lesser than the world, but yeah, it exists(dare I say at an offset?).

Is it more heart? Is the computer it's core aspect?

Good point.

You want good process; jobs are just growth.

Less priviatised life, more schools of arrangement.

Job centres, Training and then job, no wait times, no grades. The mind is more capable.

Our inteference capacity over the world, would allow Government stimulus to add workers, though it is logically strict and the odds are against us, probably wiser to sort out a newer system.

How is fact not an instrument of truth? It's not merely reality, fact is a reference to reality. You would study the fact to know the truth. Maybe I'm wrong by saying it's deriven. The two however are linked. It's a fact my TV is there, therefore it's true to say it. I study what more is fact at this time

Aren't facts truth qualititive phenomena?

If you look at, collection of facts about the world and no fact. In a competition of two the collection of facts is more likely to know the truth about the world. They're at least truth-pro.

Morality and the game/status quo are linked. Perhaps the reason for that is it's because how life is.

notice the pattern. A simple, walk along a path, there are four corners of a path. If you point to it, it's a reduction. And we're talking about theoretical points. If I point all of it out therefore I have selected the centre of a bigger concept. When studying the grander concept you select not the centre but at least a corner of the path.

Hence this mistake we keep making with morality is. One corner extrapolated to it's limit. There is at least a break point.

Strict regulation and good modulation. This is a good social life.

I said nature of, implying 'the nature of truth', not the truth directly. This means that I want you to analyse ourselves(human-kind; consciousness)and truth.

What do we do when we create or asess truth?

We use/sum up the fact.

In a way you are right - but fact is deriven from truth(it is non exclusive, it just is related).

When someone asks you produce fact, what do you also do?

Morality is a way.

Though it can be pointed to, the pointer would be more in one corner, of a square or rectanglar path, metaphorically.

In effort to point out the way, I would need to square it; including each corner of the path. Thus, morality has four definitions.

Try defining morality with one point and there is a regress.

For example, morality is judgement orientated beneficent progress.

A. Excludes that which is good progression, without adult judgement. Can be contradicted.

B. Excludes that which is maleficent but good.

C. Excludes that morality isn't - in a sense - because thinking, morality is, is detramental.

(You may notice a pattern in logic here;

We talk about:

(A) in the sense of social group's defining what's good for their group.

(B) in the sense of what may benefit one does not for another.

(C) in the sense of no morality exists.)

Walking along this path, taking in all elements (the four corners we pointed), the definition for morality is:

Judgement(D), or judgement-less orientated beneficent progress(A), including sacrificial beneficence(B), and zero point alignment(C).

(accounting for a central to path pointer, exclusive of the outer).

I like to think that with the universe are the layers(like a photoshop element) that are layered on it. That God's are more like photo editers. Perhaps something to do with the main procession balances good and evil with heaven or hell.

There must be forces which stops someone from being powerful enough to dominate all, or is there?

I'm a little confused. It can't be all based on someone's good will can it?

Maybe there's some logical element to our consciousness, we are essentually clean bodies born of the aether. To create us requires that the product be good. Thus there may be ultimate logic preventing mass evil.

Not much to take from this bar my train of thought.

Then I think it would be efficent to use base 8, or whatever base math is better. Definitely not base 4. Base 4 is tiny on the ratio. Like pointing a subject using selectable squares only. 08 in base 8 IS base 4. Powerful stuff.

I think the best base is containing math, the rules of containment.(or something along these lines).

Religion is a small evil, unless thought about more in a descriptive sense, a small thing. He was religious. Could mean high or holy.

"I am that cool looking word to say(shape to conceive)." It's toned down in a one religion sense, as it is. Religious people, like good people should be doing more than stake a claim in heaven.

Psychology is in need of some stimulus before it is classed as a science because we're not doing it properly. It's your job.

You are not the man behind the mouth. I suppose I'm being egotistical here but I have better judgement than most.

I don't want statistics show I want a doctor who creates new statistics.

A fact is the nature of a true statement (referring to a truth); in the OP, fact is restricted to had happened can be confirmed as fact.'

I disagree with. In some systems it's fact something in the future is X. At least there is a present tense.

Why it's the nature of true statements, is a shortener to annoy a greater sense of realm of fact.

It is partially what I'm saying. The Sun will rise tomorrow if all remains stable. This is a fact and neither side, yes or no exists for it. Perhaps, a lesser fact.

Thus I produce 'levels of fact', and a deeper explanation required from OP.

The difference is thought and forethought and minus forethought.

I have great forethought, the rate at which I track the nature of man is enough to read your mind at the symbol level of yourself.

I can read your expression and make correct links, if you think of it logically.

The links I have made are, amongst them, you were in a bubble and every movement you made was the cause of another movement. I know you are going to think this next, or at least can influence it, because you are this jar in a bubble.

Problem is you think thinking is just worded thought, motion is thinking.

We are huge we can only traverse our body in segments, other, purer consciousness can sense all body in one.

There is also moderation and exploitation (perhaps a better word) to consider on this topic.

Per se, if war put some humans in a very bad place, can the moderation cause our Sun to explode or fritz out to a degree?

You would think it would have gained control of the universe after the big bang.

Otherwise what is it's point to it?

Or it's feeding off the stars, in a way to exploit it's purity. It does produce a lot of energy to the correct species.

My guess is control.

Terrible Guess:

Magnetic energy can send the Sun into a spasm.

There is a bubble of squared line around every star, a net. It is magnetic energy.

There is a place that is fulfilled by every dimension, we literally miss the first, second and third an amount.

4D only.

Stars are inhibitors of consciousness that were naked - so, they are producing it to a different degree. They're like a multiply- they are so much like a nature.

We were made using maths(maybe not). A mirror of maths. A good bubble of squared line. You were made by good.

Existence.

For example, it's like the back of something which is mysterious to us. Something created it and left. I think what you argue is more becoming.

There is mystery to it. But it's an applicable subject if we delve deeper; per se, the past is a mystery that cannot be unravelled exactly.

Joke: Mystery would be finding the starlight valley of the universe.

Four infinites, from our pespective anyway for each corner of a square a symmetrical infinity.

There can potentially be more or less. I would say four is a powerful number.

Infinity is also a wider concept of a beginning and middle and end.

It's end being that which is progression from a point that can continue infinitely, or it's a illogical theory of infinity. Such as a breathing, it reaches a point and that's it's end, but breathing continues because the shape is infinite.

A Klien bottle is a type of abstract infinity of air.

It is this thought.

did you pop into existence?

It works. What else you suggest?

If you say God of the gaps, what gaps, aren't there reasonable solutions?

The big bang was the beginning, the universe is at most offset in a multi-verse.

It is a 'thrown' phenomenon. Time lest not be nothing at the time. More like something, then. If it always is.

A type of space was probably around before the big bang, true or false? If false, then what about a more accurately defined higher energy species? What's it false on account on, potential logic?

You're saying cannot at a time where they statistically can.

What logic could have existed prior? Is a more modern philosophy.

The dimensions and shapes learned through these lessons are quintessential for any serious progress to be made technologically.

A good technology, a sensory tracker TV that shifts and exploits sense to create intensely pleasurable games and programs.

Another technology is a quantum computer where quantum is more about the mechanics, it doesn't require energy because the shape is centred around capturing energy in a certain way - it produces random motion in current as it computes. It does require battery energy but not energy beyond shape.

I guess it's about numbers, someone had accumulated enough numbers to determine at least the distance away from big event.

I imagine the resource was noxious clouds that formed a clean cloud, donut shaped, that reacted massively with rock and weight in some kind of chemically infused noxious element. A purer elemental trick.

How energy can be converted, potential new technology here. More art. That's where you find new matter.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=szUuUesIYWc

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m6oi5SneQJk

I'm thankful for hardstyle at the moment.

Perhaps not thankful then.

Observant.