Basically it's a one way road leading to war with Russia I'm against. That is, at the least, not Trump's ideal. That is there, two White Primary locations locking horns based on Obama.

Whites non existent.

It is deemed so, you can be pointed out.

First. Try and find something you like.

But a lot more seriously, and said non-jokingly, kill yourself, is the only answer. I presume it gets better quickly.

If you don't see your hell through, you may suffer again. Perhaps, have a deep thought.

Nevermind. I think a pro immigration policy is stupid for the West, and some military policies would be stupid, of other candidates.

Trump is onto something good. Big change now would be X to V.

Who cares about his image? If there was another like Trump, but better, sure it's good to vote against. I know there is. But not in the line-up.

sheer policy would be bad from other candidates, Trump has excelled.

Why don't some of you like Trump?

The innocent politics he does, has been good. He has been criminal on occasions, but shouldn't the people he's working good for, pardon him?

What will you do?

Impechment of Trump, to elect anew potentially more corrupt president. Be careful then.

You think Hillary wouldn't have comitted a crime? Are some candidates policy worse than that crime?

What do you think of the latest candidates? Trump is a lot different than most politicians, there's a bit of right in there.

In my opinion you're lucky for Trump and you wanna keep it like Trump.

From all that information can come knowledge, knowledge that can be converted to technology, and more.

Another relevant question is, are our thoughts recorded? Does anyone have a bright idea that, not only effects the world, but all of existence?

This topic is a level above that question, I'm not asking if our thoughts are recorded, I query the means necessary. 'Nature spirits', 'hijack/mining', may seem like child's play, but it's more mature than God.

God does all that, is all that, but there's no dissection.'He peers through my eyes', 'he came into my room'.

I guess everyone is not worth hijacking or mining, so I'm querying, are faclilities for such actions available?

Art is agility-based, lest aid.

to be agile enough to put paintbrush to canvas.
to be agile enough to paint arc'd eyes.

An agile artist draws more precise eyes.

I struggle to define art, I think we need a new 'para' word.

Perhaps art is about the seed and the peer, and we're choosing side.

A seed may be the most agile artist, but the peers might prefer the jester's silly works. Does a good artist require a good peer?

Art is created by an artist. Does this statement even stand? Am I false when I say 'Art is'?

Yeah I would call it hard but I think there's stuff to learn on this topic.

Utilize our sensory data, and other data from other objects(I.e. stars and planets)such as by seeing through our eyes.

To the best of my knowledge, this is hijacking our senses. I also theorize second method: mining.

There's lot's of information to be gathered by doing this.

For whom? Is a good question, but is a whom probable?(in reference to production and waste).

Sounds like mysticism.

Thoughts require a thinker. If thinking, I'm the thinker. And I exist at that time.

It doesn't prove what I is, I is associated.

I'm suggesting there are more things to consider about I.

I can knuckle it down to is mind good for I, yes, and agree with you at most.

You can't add what takes from you, sometimes; number isn't everything but what gave the idea of number.

Respectively number steals the idea of infinity or you naturally think 1.

Reformatting is something that should happen often in thought.

The answer to life is a number, but it's likely not base 4.

Therefore infinity is a something, and a number of it. We make use of the infinite. Pulsation, for example, where we love doing things repetitively. Addiction, etc.

Fine, then I will stop talking.

excuse me. Acquiring new information is good. Clearly, new is an important concept as well as other. There are what things represent. You build your own child like you make your future. Is it good or we need something new? You wouldn't be in this position without people's new stuff.

they are not as good as a mind is when theorizing new shapes.

There probably are super computers that can, we don't own one. Depends which one's that were discovered.

no computer can generate unknown shapes.

some thoughts are good too.

Some food is tasty.

in the real world our conscious is mined a lot?

Like the rock.

The probibility of some other creatures we don't already know about, existing in ways we haven't realised, is pretty high.

I'd agree it is qualititive and quantitive.

It is a number but also a concept.

You can have infinite numbers, but that doesn't make infinity a number, it makes the number infinity.

It's more a complex shape; you have come out of a womb, it is a complex time.

Understanding the evidence about forever is like understanding how you exist out of a womb.

You get to grips with the shape, over time channeling thought, you'll project some sort of infinity.

Infinity is an equation of something and something. When does 1 = infinity? Infinity is it's own base number.

"It was 1. 1111,1111,1111,1111,1111r" - this would prove imagination is finite at most. (joke)

It is not created out of number, but mind of eternity through harmonious principles discovered in the world, or better yet, mind.

Does 1.1R imply 1.1r^i?(last joke)

Interested in this discussion.

I would agree with the original post, but not for a happy long life.

I would emphasize new information. If the meaning of life is information, we are information gatherers, etc.

Information equals life, thus I posit the meaning of life, where any pain exists, is new information. Otherwise what is the relevance of the unknown, if not mystery, to a mind user?

Is there a pain suppresion great enough for this universe to justify?

That's good information.

Of course there is, this is perfect ground for all simulation to be improved, with the right mind it can be conceived.

OP.

Your argument about 1 divided by infinity is false.

I imagine this fits into your definition, and you'll force it.

I said in a different thread.

There has to be a great turning effort to keep anything infinite in continuum.

Infinity is always something's something, but this something dies with the user. How else are you going to conceptualize forever?

You project forever, but there must be turning forces and a specific something that is forever bound.

Otherwise it is just 'yep, forever[random, partial imagination of a great number]'.

There should be two definitions, literal infinity, and false numerical infinity.

I think your guess misses something but for the most part I agree.

It is not that space is a pure cube, but more a web of potential knowledge of space. There is probably a field.

Matter is the fullness, we are transforming.

Matter is chemical, per 1.

A degrade of a massive elemental equation, matter is of the 'big bang' more than space.

There has to be a great turning effort to keep anything infinite in continuum.

Infinity is always something, but this something dies with the user of that something.

Greater quality comes in finite supply, how do we make finite things infinite?

There are probably greater worlds/zones than Earth; we have spotted exo-planets. Our species is probably not the best in the universe. This is because of resource allocation. Resources can be, and probably are, allocated in greater ways in the universe.

If we're talking about existence, our future children's forms may already be known, especially in purer simulations where bodies are created differently.

Somewhere, there is a comprehensive view of species.

It's my guess that we're not so significant for our species but more our minds.

Why do we use the term God in intelligent design discussion and debate? It is a deviation of serious talk on the matter. Someone created the universe? To immediately characterize it as God is infantile.

Does the fact it is a simulation overlap with intelligent design?

Does the structure of the universe imply some thought-process?

Yes, I think it does.

Cycling a figure of eight an infinite amount of times is seemingly a possibility because of it's cycle shape.

It's a fallacy however.

You can plot infinity on the figure of eight(saying yes to it can be infinite) but you can not concieve it(saying yes to what amount of cycles that is.)

Forever gets boring and repetitive.

Yes we've had this figure 8 simulation going on for a while now, it's all the same. What other simulations are possible that can go on forever?

We're the tireless imps and if we keep goin' we can keep the figure 8 in continuum.

Then you and I know different infinites. You can stop and resume infinity in your knowledge of it.

You can theorize set-conversion, though.

taming the wind.

A moving object spins if it collides with a special object.

There is not always regress, there can be harmonious groups of individual sets.

What's to stop all sets in a sphere of sets, becoming a ringed sphere - doesn't infinity imply separating?

No individual set needs to include itself but all sets must take on some form of shape; all sets of infinity is a point in infinite growth?

I think implying a set is primary is fine, but that you're explaning it as the primary mover, an expanding set, and that is a measure of it's infinity - it's movement. Which also implies your thought is mechanical.

tell me how the hoverboards go.

The skeleton of all sets is set in the perfect position for a perpetual system. It can be rotated as one.

You changed it from all sets to all sets moving.

Does infinity mean increase?

I thought it was forever.

The past is a mystery that can't be unravelled.

You can sense past events, think past memories, but this happens in the present, it's mysterious. It is more time-cut off.

Is there a past? Didn't we invent the clock? Is the past waste energy?

In which set do you start the system? Is this an important question? Are all sets a moderator of sets therefore?

What is the significance of all sets? How does it imply a self consistent system?

Is the formation of sets spherical or square-form?

So all sets equate each individual set. The fact that it is, is important. Right?

Is this just one perception of all sets?

In this projection are twelve sets in 2D abstract map.

Do you describe all sets as some sort of machine, you say self consistent system?

Does that imply an intelligent user of points (and not sets), set in area formation?

I might agree if you can elaborate.

If someone pressed the programmed sphere it executed it's program.

It won't heal soil itself or water, but yeah that's a good move. We need more sacrifices.

We'd all help build a utopia quickly - on the side.

Rules of chess =/= someone's opinion?

Not in the present tense.

When someone create chess, they use rules of square-form and other mathematics.

Much better board games could be made using the element of mysticism.

Cheers and while you're at it keep up the good posts.

Well no good means you're up to no good. It's not beneficent. People are intellectually annoyed.

The answer is like the opening of a womb. It's quite a complex shape to register afterward.

Well that's your ineptitude.

It's something to do with world, there is the black standard but there are good things which would be quite a confusing topic to explain. When world is included with consciousness, there are good things and truthfully good things it can do.