Morality exists in a state (present universe) of a good catalyst (such as pre-genesis of universe). Good is in the case of catalysts, and is not, in the case of states, states however can be moral supporting, or do not damage too much good.

Science can be immoral, but there is morality of natural, elemental ideas or pleasurable and efficent ideas, where science is actually moral.

Existentially is this a problem?

Theoretically a stronger matter might exist in multiverse times, different universes, making our stars look weak. Supposedly that's what drives the catalyst. Potentially around it's own environment.

As a Government needs to shut down sometimes we need to anarchy, who best speaks for us?
-philosophy a kind of parenthood, is best suited for judging the political system and ideology as bad.

1. I'm playing a video game.
2. There is a refill ammo box.
3. I place a camera on a wall, and then refill ammo and continue to place cameras.
4. I can do this until: the game is impossible to play, there is no space for cameras or I destroy the ammo box.

A model of infinity is impossible, but not an infinite practice.

The walls fill up, the game costs, requiring that I put in effort to run the program infinitely. Riding a eco cycle to supply energy to my console, removing and replacing cameras on a wall, and THEN I could go on infinitely; however, it's a different infinity than the original. I'm not, 'infinitely placing the cameras', I'm infinitely replacing cameras (which means I need to place X amount of cameras).

A great cog is required for any practice of infinity.

1. You place a set of 40 different Pokemon Cards on a table in some order, labelled 1-40.
2. You divide the set by 1, equating 40 for Y.
3. Order is lost in simple division, treating all different cards as label 1.
4. Repeat step 1.
5. You divide the set by 2, equating 20 for X.
6. Order is implied for X has 20 specific cards out of 40.
7. Order is implied for Y.
8. 1 is not powerful enough a number.

2/40 can be a number of different cuts; at step 6 there are many possible sets of cards in X's control, and thus 2/40 = 20 is wrong; overly simple. You can try the same method with all labelled 1, and get the same result. There is an error at step 2.

40 cards are not the same as 40 1s. 1s seem to blend, per se, to make 2. No matter what, if you have 2 cards. That's card 1 and card 2, never a single card

So 1 + 1 does not equal 2, but rather (1 1), which can be said to be 2, but, following on from 2, is stupid, it's just a reference to (1 1), follow on from (1 1).

End.

1 is a beautiful number that multiplies and divides, the most prestigious command.

It does refer to 1. 1 = 1 but it's not how it's written, it's how it's concieved.

I dunno it just seems fake the atmosphere we get from such deals.

Such deals are more attacking deals.

If you were really to change my mind you would have to show more heart to the west.

The US broadcasts a lot and associates, we mean good by our contracts and can rule out debt by some higher ground than what's on paper. Are china the enemy of the united states because of the South China Sea and more? This is how much we know about them. Because of such disinformation I will rule out all Chinese debt. Aren't a lot of so called enemy nations pursuing some religious cause against America? A lot of enemy nation citizens have shown their hate publically for America. There are a lot of hate groups. This has cause a massive social problem, thus no more debt.

but the US has an amount of heart behind it's politics where as China is less professional, very clouded information.

Is this a question of ruling out chinese debt in America?

I agree to it, these are bad contracts.

Man has a right to steal bar other men.

There's nothing immoral about theft, which is in fact good, or moral stimulating. Murder is possibly wrong and theft too is possibly wrong but generally, no. It is part of life of consciousness.

I'd agree with the OP partially.

Morality is contained within the universe. It does not exist in purely, space, though it could, in this context it doesn't.

With which the universe has enough good to work.

I'm experiencing an event where this is explained to me visually.

An analogy...

If Gods came down from heavens, the law that prevents them destroying/dominating everything is contained within the logic of 'sending of Gods'. Suddenly we all start having an hallucination of this one God, and he cannot attack us more than some petty attack for how it lives in such condition.

Another analogy. If suddenly a glitch happened in a video, of a man who takes the place of certain characters, if not logical, like a hallucination - phantasmal - then it would break the video.

Anarchy isn't about lack of Government.

Government can be implemented in anarchy. As well as the anarchaic crisis is the anarchaic serenity, where naturally, people form alliegence, harmonizing toward a certain goal.

There is authority as such as there is philosophy to guide the minds.

Let's just say following the moral objective is some part necessary; we have to feed our bellies; it is enough policy without a Government agenda like capitalism.

People will create politics naturally, a moral policing force would form, but it's legitimately moral in nature.

What meta is suggesting is approximation of velocity is truth when it's just sufficent. Complete misunderatanding of the 1.

1 has it's beauty, it's not this represention we have of it, detrimental to all and stupid.

A real complexity of the mind is shown here. If we can make ourselves stupid by believing in 1, what is the sense of good?

How 1 math is used results in incorrect measure of velocity, but it is sufficent complementory when such building a portofolio.

That's what I understood from this thread.

Well. I agree with Banno.

People esteem 1 too much when it's clear that we have done wrong by it.

It would be better if 1 didn't exist so referring to it using 'it' would be false.

This is why I said 1 is a pointer, to imply axiom is use.

Isn't it strange how I could, possibly say something now that would spark such emotions severely; like good art?

What could this emotion be called? If not some spout of proudness, happiness or sadness.

Do these terms not correctly associate with a noticable behaviour?

Am I or am I not smart for using these terms?

Perhaps sadness is wrong, but it isn't so and so mallicious.

I'm right for thinking, 'proud and happy', as a round about association, but obviously a more visual representation is the greater judgement, as a mile-stone.

Imagine you played a madness game, 'they're hot and I'm not' where players who are hot headed are to appear on radar.

In this analogy, an emotional state activates an effect. It also shows the competitive scene where more anger occurs than sadness; reiterrating my post earlier, 'we gain different amounts of energy' - playing this game - it's scene. Our emotions cycle differently depending on habitat.

Perhaps though a greater reading is due. Lesser to call it angry than to interpret it wordlessly. I know, he is - (is it angry I insert here?) - probably not.

I think 1 is a pointer, when purely thought, void of 1X.

What is a pointer?

It's something that points a mind to an object/subject.

Like a lazer pen - not to say we have cycloptic vision.

I never actually agreed with the number's significant role.

1 points to 2-9 in base 4 and 0 can be understood relative to 1, base 4 is a category of 1, and so is base 8. 1, has it's use.

In this case it's not a pointer but a medium of communicate object/subject relativity. That is 1X, interpreted impurely.

It's just not so significant...

1 points to X, as being thus 1X. 1 does not exist like Banno suggested.

What is the meaning of 1 if not pointing to X?

1 counted, is 1 count where X = count. 1 without X is 0.

The Virus is already statistically showing that it does not spread in this way;

Proof 1. There are about 8 people in my town hospital with corona, that's less than one percent.

Proof 2. We goto the shops and stand in line every day, if corona was at that shop, we would know.
Proof 2b. Someone has to come to the shop with corona, and touch stuff or be near to someone.

If people are weaponizing it, it may be a problem.

As for working, I think, there's no chance of a sharp enough to be called sharp increase.

And it will do nothing to the economy, imagine a week with stock troubles. We are theives and we will continue to with such power.

It is a thought process that benefits you even through all the heated debate. Having a side at all is good, unless the topic is completely stupid.

Our minds have been young for years and years...

It is only now we're learning about topics like morality, mind and even the universe genesis; the way that psychiatry is flawed, how we base mental health on statistically common 'unhealthy' actions rather than direct association with the patient shows that we are young where philosophy of mind is due.

There are countless other examples.

You were called idiots by a fare few conspiracy theorists for a while - not to say this means much but the idea of a prolonged youth is out there.

Probably from thesises as such and their pseudo-serious nature. Stating philosophy has no gain nor merit. It's not politics, it's what a father teaches his son, metaphorically.

What experience do you have with illusion?
They are like swirling-in phenomenon that happen, again, in contained spaces.

So it sounds like the mind IS partly a illusion.

(the way it crept into position).

Emotions like anger are ill-defined, per se, the word wrath is symbolic of an anger-like emote, but does that mean something like anger is nons?

I feel as if the proposal tones down the concept.

I can judge someone less aware than me, as being in a specific emotional state - again - this man is angry.

You're saying or I've misunderstood, that I don't accurately judge a man's anger, using this term 'anger'.

A man is experienced in his mental youth being emotional far easier than a mature man who knows more, hiding such weakness from sense.

You can use an emotional state against another, stronger when angry, weaker when scared, but not all the time.

If I view you crying, I'll assume you're sad - for all I know you may be happy but - you show signs of a person who's sad and I'm now using it advantegously.

Because of this, it's toned down - you propose I can't do this, or we're becoming so knowledgable I'll never sense it. That's, I think, wrong.

Emotions are mental-environmental phenomena. There are emotional states, this is what we need to focus on.

Your motion in environment, produces different amounts of energy in your mind, and you feel emotion more diversely, emotions are tracked falsely in the OP if you think happiness is just a spell, when it is rather states, that is people saying they're happy when they're not. People claiming to have full control.

However, it is activated, it's just not a spell but a state, so it is recognised in people's motion.

He is in a state of happiness right now - he is just he. It can be thought, you can conceive a feeling.

Joke; staff start infecting you when you go out of designated lanes.

Illusions are often hypereal, occuring in contained situations, an illusion is also, "originally an illusion" by factor of it being something strange, sometimes not meant to be deciphered.

No definitely it comes from something...

Something, where there is nothing or more something and this is logic.

Perhaps nothing came later.

Joke: a voice takes over nothing, the space claims 'I am here'.

Potential is around.

You may as well think whatever caused the first act was something simple, because of potential simplicity of that action, if not just occuring naturally.

In some manner it is both classical and new views. You are sometimes overwhelmed by bio. The pallate of emotions is strict, which leads me to this conclusion. It's not that we cant have complex or abstract emotions. Our environment shapes our emotions to be mostly common emotions.

I want to know deeper, the process of creating fiction.

Is it imagining a line, from one point, going to another, creating a simple shape(s)(would make sense, the eye often is moved as we initiate imagination), and then using thus shape infused dynamics to create swirling power with our sense? Enough to produce subliminal imagery? Rolling fiction as you suggested?

You may note your descript of fiction is lacking...

Humans are godly in the way they experience true childbirth, and of such a cycle. Other life-forms do not necessarily reproduce, or produce ideas using a pure receptor mind.

In other simulations children are a different thing; our godliness, is the beauty of our childbirth.

The Golden Fleece - Thomas Frederick Page

Apparently it's a real language breaker...

Atheism is God denial, no religion involved.

Yes people claim to be Atheist who misrepresent it.

If that's conflated to mean lack of any belief or void of belief, I don't agree.

A big hot steaming cup of, corruption, of all the power abusers and dis-info agents personalities in society, I believe he is the one. He is who you goto to bully your way up socially.

His ignorant face in power is a disgusting thought.

Why is it called spacetime?

Why isn't the whole universe lucid as oppose to spacial because space wouldn't exist without the big bang?

When I look at reality, I look at environment. When I consider time, I consider vital parts of environment. Is space as vital as star matter?

How can time run through space when I'm running on a planet? In theory, it would need to use Earth's ground, to go through me. It goes through the Earth is illogical, like a big human ego, rather than something more sane, something related to a lucid universe not a spacial one.

If you say it goes through Earth you say it's like a downward pressure. It can't go through both Earth and humans.

Shouldn't reality mean 'the realness of experience'?

To me the Sun is real, it is an established object.

With all objects in local array, it produces a 'realness'; a consistency, an establishment.

I don't think what we're questioning is reality, but rather a new word, a neutral, between real and unreal.

We're discussing 'is it a part of existence', when existence I think is based on interest.

For some people, others universes DON'T exist... But, they do existentially.

We're asking if things are existent, and thus if so they are real. It should be more about harmony than existence. As I said establishment of some sort.

I'm bound to observe the star, what's going on around me is real on account of consistency and establishment.

It is real if real means established truth.

If we are looking at reality, whether or not things are lies or truths, if, per se, I am truthully solipsist or if the universe is logical, and other people are conscious. Then, it's beyond what's "established truth", it is a combination of real and unreal. Is the universe a simulation just for me I cannot see? Do I fragment this all from mind? Then we're looking at unreal mechanics? Are there any?

Evil isn't ulimately wrong, you can be evil and nothing can judge you.

As I said before, see: cycles.

You run, and get tired; both are good, but you may notice the fact tiredness is a cycle completed and running is the process of that cycle.

Other examples; fecal matter, life and death, day and night.

Evil, then, is dis-harmomics.

The chances of a humans organic system becoming chaotic are slim. Yet there is this action that is more relevant to a completed cycle than it is to cycling. Neglect of cycles using completed cycles, is evil. Again, activity as such is not ultimately wrong, but we must control evil to prosper.

The universe isn't real, as much as it isn't unreal - it's both real and unreal. Realness is a theoretical still or framing of the state of affairs which is vague due to all of motion.

With no consciousness, no universe exists.

It is just another dream in the mix, so it can be thought about as an existent. In this moment 'it exists'.

Whatever the fuck our interpretation of existence is.

I propose that eyes make unreal movements, crossing unreal angles. Think about the speeds at which the eyes move and twitch, they are moving so fast.

An analogy for truth, I have adopted, is the sense side of the state of affairs, whereas reality is the universe side.

Can we test if it is real? Can we falisfy solipsism?

... that you fly to the furthest star, you can. Is it this sort of logic? Probably not. It's probably simple.

You know the universe shape well, then you know the fact consciousness can be in P body, meaning that P consciousnss is a equal thought as consciousness.

It also takes great logic behind what's going on to supply your solipsism and it may be a great danger.