I was conceiving strangeness cohesively, so much so a layer was projected in my mind. I thought, does X strange layered on the non-strange point to more existences. Was there this much strange at the time before the universe? Is nothing this strange?

So there's nothing right? You think nothing can happen now, but all evidence suggests something, bar the phenomenon of death. The nothing that exists out of our universe cannot be something. And strangeness isn't our only link?

Things are just the energy side of the matter- simple logic.

Deep down, wouldn't the worst hell be nothing? You'll never be jealous of those who see again?!

I'm going to need to think before I reply to this.

I had thought strangeness was more shallow than it is, in fact it's much deeper than first thought. I've got to think it through.

My guess, for now, is that you too have shallow understanding of something deep. What is your understanding of strangeness(lightning, etc)? If I could sum it up I probably could contest you.

Give me a few hours.

When I made the OP, I had a small glimpse of a big idea, yes I need to perfect the OP with more information. I'll come back at a later date with a lot of thought put into it. Where I'm stuck is the specific meaning of strangeness I had at the time.

processes need to be sustained by some higher power in the absence of

Yeah but you assumed I posit that this person is sat there as the moderator or something when all I'm suggesting is it's the catalyst.

It's not a higher power in so much as a builder is a higher power at building.

I think you're wrong about strangeness but I agree my explanation is insufficent, I'll change that soon.

I have not claimed God. I have claimed creator.

That means, resources were ordered so that a big bang would occur, I guess in the form of noxious clouds.

This doesn't mean the spirit of the creator passed into the fray and it become omnipotent. It means it had know-how and resources.

It's more reasonable that, pop, the big bang happened from nothing - it's the only guess - nonsensical - you miss out a vital part, how.

You'll soon see that you(no argument), are the whimsical one's who think life is ultra special and someone high up loves us.

What's stopping things from happening when, per se, power such as a universe exists? What's to stop a much simpler world from manifesting?

So, beyond the universe, is nothing?

Nothing does exist or can exist?

Even if this something is not like us at all?

Given 1. Super Massive Nature: there could easily be a parasite that feeds off of the energy.

And that's one strange element, given all strange elements the possibilities for other existences is high.

'What is pure strangeness?' Strange matter and force.

It's not 'nonsense'.

What you're saying is nonsense; writing like no is the answer to the question, was the universe created, when there's 0 evidence, to suggest that.

I've said the matter is hazy, we're dealing with an anomaly - something.

My reason to opt for yes, over no, is that there's a lot of strangeness(unknowingness, pure strangeness, super-massive nature, statistical anomalies); so, external to the universe, is probably not nothing, but, some kind of life.

Who's holding back this sort of phenomena?

I haven't claimed it's scientifically proven to be yes, I said it's probably yes.

There's nothing that points to no, but a plethora of strange things that point to yes.

Some strange: no-one is truly an expert on our universe; the chances of someone who knows more are high. Humans gain knowledge and make new technology; I've just applied my knowledge.

An explanation for why the universe came to be is something had the knowledge and resources.

It came from nothing is half an explanation, but the answer can be something or nothing, and a reasonable hypothesis can exist for yes and no.

Does 0 evidence for something or nothing, plus universal strangeness, equate probably something?

You and I definitely didn't create the universe. It must have been something else.

Was it something's work?

Does structure emerging from a big bang imply that the big bang was structured itself?

What's meant by intelligent designer is a related intelligent species, which to us is an anomaly, is capable of creating universes.

It probably did create the structure of the pre-big bang with the knowledge of universe result and resources.

I'm saying there is intelligent design, not suggesting God at all.

What I meant was like me saying not God, it's the subject taken seriously, in the title.

Yes I imagine.

I'm thankful for the small things that do matter but don't societially.

Isn't it thus the highest form of petty-pleasure?

I have a whole different definition, wants are a point and needs are a link. Try it out.

You point, want, to a part of your mind when you think or you link, need the experience.

And vice versa.

In the purest sense it is sense experience - then. You come at desire in two ways, want and need.

You'd think no wants are this definition but they are just complex algorthythms of the organism.

If Bill wants to exist again he probably will.

I think the word morality is the centre of a grander concept, which should NOT be touched.

Icarus, he who flew too close to the Sun, is a good metaphor.

'What's good is...' assumes a long list that is tricky to define, requiring an apt tongue, not word.

Did we make a mistake by thinking our language can contain good?

Some people will find meaning in the pleasure and knowledge of life.

Do you have meaning as a part of the universe?

What are we asking? If a being has any point to it's existence?

Objects seem to be aiming for the pleasure and pain of consciousness and discovery in general, subjects are either with this or not, which tells a different story about the subject exists. It's meaning is strange, but we all have meaning, at least your meaning includes to be the sensory data in people's eyes.

I would say that learned is correct. We become adults through the world.

We are virtuous but this is management.

Are you saying it's better to be childish, or both childish and mature?

All good is based on some adult knowledge.

Meaning has it's own purpose. It also has other meaning.

To depict life as meaningless is a kind of mind nihilism.

Is green doing green?

We are trapped in this simulation by the elements, pain is a deep cut in space.

Colors are this pain at a sustainable level, converted through matter to pleasure.

You want to see someone else so there is powerplay if all you experience is your own simulation required for God's perfect world.

Perhaps all it took was knowledge.

Yes, think of it like a tesseract. Your heart can get lost in the game. However, it's not as good as the outside, often referred to as the real game.

An illusion in your mind may say it's so.

Gaming is better than the world, but what's really going on is is worldly reaction - and the world is made for it.

You can do better, or can you? If you cannot use the outside, you may feel better off the alternate way of life. This to some degree is legal.

Just lost a lot of money but learned a few things playing online poker.

Such as 'play the bad side of luck', betting style and more.

What's even more imperative than gaming is a natural mind version, a mind phenomenon which can play games and connect.

Playing poker today makes me think rhythm of bet and style of bet let us in on what the player is thinking.

There is a way of reading, and there is the flow of understanding at the time of the event. This is where I would begin.

You can literally trap someone into a state where all they make is errors.

Religion can be good, it should be artistic. It should put hope in the hearts of the hopeless, richness in the hands of the poor. I prefer, not purely a book of wisdom, but a book of art.

This is the art of life.

My ability to create symbols is damaged by the movement that base 4 math is good.

Imagine that sound visualization that creates a zig zag - you probably know what I'm on about.

Imagine a pure symbol that can be anything; much like the sound visualization, picture the symbol fluctuating.

Do I want to restrict my minds capacity to create symbols?

I know that base 4 isn't going to restrict that, but understood in a manner contrary to the way that I understand it, it does.

When I think mathmatically, I use line-form, icons squares, projected motion, mapping, etc.

I said in a previous thread that thought is partially mathematical in nature. This side of thought is not restricted to base 4. That would be stupid.

I don't understand why if God is omnipotent he MUST create a perfect existence. That forgets the problem of evil - evil happens.

Evil ruins good work - tones stuff down - survives through some alternative.

Were you expecting the same simulation for all? Were you expecting no grouping of people?

No risk? Toned down existence?

I believe that good is pro-creative and pro-logical. It is a complex thing. It's not like the judge is empathetic, I believe, he is a law abider. Hell is a logical and creative process, criminals MUST have done something bad.

There is bad, but there is also good who produces the event of hell - the judge.

What's perceived is consciousness with view of the simulate verse(s).

Perception is a data from eye and Let's say, world, and experience from consciousness and another experience from energy in that consciousness. We don't stop.

I would say all mathematics, non regarding of the basic up, left, right, left, is impartial. I'm not saying it's bad, but it's language holds no bearing over purer symbol.

I need to create symbols, I do, why would I think in symbols that are base 4?

Why not base 8 which would sum up base 4 as 08? Also any symbol or pure symbols ' I am working', per se.

I think our language is bad but lexscribed well, I like more a language like a whisper. Short words, pauses.

I think N is 0.8

If there is a natural number then there's the natural golden number which proves N, which is 0.8, on base 4 you move at 0.8, and on base 8 you move at 64.

If you were imagining shapes, a finger is a finger number more than a 1 number, it's that simple.

Mind is, evalutation as well as observation, of shapes in nature amongst other things.

How you formulate a shape is very partially, by drawing a line and at minimal you can formulate dots to help you, that is why we use a rule to draw a straight line, we connect two points. You can imagine two dots and if powerful enough, connect them. Imagining a illusion of a line. This line can take us into a powerful thought network.

The multi-verse may just as well exist in the background of our universe.

Will he evolve into a dictator if he gets another term? Is this forever? No. He won't last long he someone like him should proceed. Clear out some of the left.

God is a word we use to point at something which is not God.

So the abrahamic God is technically false.

The word God is our way of communicating the concept of a thing that is more than our pointer.

Bill died.

We, Bill's friends and enemies, know that Bill is decomposing, and from our view he's no longer conscious.

Proposition 1:
The energy that experienced Bill, has returned to the environment.

Proposition 2:
Something recorded Bill's life and Bill is awaiting judgement.

In any case, Bill no longer exists. However, if my propositions stand any ground here...

In proposition 1, Bill's energy may exist again, it's not fully gone and unrelated.

In proposition 2, if Bill can't be distinguished out of the energy, something, that recorded Bill's life, may re-create Bill.

What I'm trying to suggest is, even if afterlife is a factor of existence, Bill, upon death, is more of a non-existent, even in a passage to another life...

Not really.

I dream every other night.

Sometimes dreams are strange because what you're doing when awake is wrong...

I only get a good dream, regularly, but I've had strange dreams.

Dreams sometimes help to clear my heart after day of smoking tobbaco, sometimes this process requires that they be strange.

Why do dreams help me this way? Is it my minds own love for my heart?

I'm not saying dreams are a schizophrenia, however, if something regularly presents itself, it can be considered a personality.

I treat my dreams as a ongoing coversation and evolving imagery.

The state and what it means to me, directly and indirectly, can hold a coversation. Tonights dream will be a follow up. I say 'yes, actually', now, to a image in the dream from last night.

If I have a thought, such as I did the other day about 3D space being wrong, it willfully aids me in my thoughts. I was told the answer in dreams.

I've dreamed so much with so much science, I don't believe lucid dreams exist.

When are you ever in control? Did you really bend the dream your way? Wasn't it just a good dream with special effects?

I agree.

Extra-judicial punishments are sometimes bad - the law is not perfect.

I believe in the Death Sentence for some people.

I have a good question:

Is an eye for an eye, moral? Should it be 3 - 1?

If you blind someone you should be blinded yourself. Literally, it may not be immoral, but lawfully, it is.

You should not outlaw stealing with the threat of stealing, instead things can be resolved without application of the law; and forgiveness - in some cases - is implied. So, an eye for an eye must be with regard to good judgement of a case, to be a moral judicial system.

Okay, thanks for your input.

May I ask that you read the 'shadow argument' I edited into the original post?

I think I'm onto something here...

Especially where I mention 'good bias'.

The defined word morality has a good bias.

The defined word 'morality' is alignment to good, an evil alternative would be as sub-versive as possible.

Morality is a potentially double-edged word.

Thus I propose two definitions exist for morality, one is good and one is evil.

Truly understanding morality requires good sense of both definitions.

X - morality is good or evil alignment.
Y - morality is Z(sub-version).

Suffering implies not getting through, struggling implies getting through but uncomfortable.

You'll much appriciate that a lot of what's classed as suffering doesn't include some pain.

I think the healing/harming of the time, is a good prospect, in relation to not getting through the ultimately good prospect, and getting through. A lot is to be discovered.

You obviously like to think, measure the value of thought, at least in some regard.

maybe God is this type of species. He is the best species. Maybe it is represented by good energy that contains us and gives us form. However that is at least multiple parts in one organism, if not multiple organisms in a species. If not such chaos in the universe, there would be no matter. There are kinds of energy we haven't defined. Potentially a species could evolve from this energy?

Parasites could be anywhere, but do not have to be and has laws of it's own somewhere else, and one of many who are kin to the greater energy in our universe. Other universes may have a purer energy spectrum.

Can it be a too difficult process though? Perhaps entropy cannot.

Will it all just fade away some day? Is this permenant?

Belief in God is like but not a belief in that something that enforces that you exist. I think physical laws enforce their existence. There would also be non physical present.

One day someone will say there is no more God, but truly understand it.

we offer people homes from war. We help impovished countries, we aided Japaneze earthquake, etc.

You expect us to make a work.

Pathetic, there is the most, lots of charity.