Curious about this approach to cancer

Maybe the more the antibody have dealt with different types of cancerous cells the more they'd be able to deal with even more types of cancerous cells. So increase in success for different types would open up the pathway to figure out more and more types. 

Polars of Adjectives v.19f - previously Assurance to Justice

So in terms of my way of approaching morality, my rule of thumb is in the prayer:

The Inclination to keep on Inclining forever be the ultimate winner of everything in all realities all variables of transformations forever Truthfully. 

Things that are good would be propagated forever while things that are bad will be solved. Eventually we will get to True Justice, everybody gets whatever they wanted and needed whenever they wanted and needed them forever. 

Therefore we can now what evil is, the misallocation of resources. Because evil prevents True Justice from taking place. 

The tricky part is that evil sometimes plays out in various different forms in reality. What is sustainable and what is not sustainable sometimes is not easy to triangulate. 

This is another way to relate to the whole thing:

It is evil if applied to itself it changed direction, it's good if applied to itself it propagates forward. 

So: 

- False Lies, changes direction / beats the purpose of lies

- Loving Love, propagates / enhances 

- Violating violence, changes direction

- Bad badness (I don't know about this but it seems one could say that it means good)

- Kind kindness, propagates / enhances

etc...

Maybe I'm wrong about this, maybe there's something that's not so in reality... but if people found this to be accurate then it's assured

----------------------------

Ok if you apply it to conflict that means conflicting conflict (change of direction), I'm ready to accept that. I like conflict but maybe I'm wrong. But then Heating Heat (enhancement), Chilling Coldness = Heat up (change of direction) ---> This I'm likely wrong, how could coldness always be bad. 

I do think that this thing is something though. So I wouldn't use it to separate good and evil, but it's a distinction of adjectives that might be good for something.

Another thing doubting doubt is an enhancement. Doubting doubt is good because it promotes skepticism and increases the demand for processing power to be allocated to assurance services in order to be able to afford increase in doubts. It seemed that doubt could ultimately be a good thing... however in reality there's such thing as too much doubt.

Maybe it's actually right, maybe doubt if we could afford it would ultimately be good, maybe ever increasing heat if we could afford it is the way to go, but also maybe not. Balancing balance  

----------------------------

If I use the point of view of Inclinations I get a better grip on it. 

For example if you darken the darkness then it'd amplify the darkness. Given the premise that positive words are synonymous with good, then darkness is good. But if you say darken the inclination to darken, then this darkness would branch out from the previous darkness because now it means lack of sensoric sensitivity. So if you darken the spirit of darkness then the spirit would had harder time to achieve it's goal which means things would become brighter. In this sense this darkness is negative. 

So when things are not penetrable by light it's positive, but if it means that it would imperil the flow of information it's negative. It's good to be dark as long as it doesn't hinder the utility of senses. 

Of course not forgetting to mention lighting the light would amplify it (positive), as well as enlightening the inclination to brightens (+).

----------------------------

Something wrong again about my perception previously. If you cool the inclination to cool it might not expand but it would intensify within / internally. If you see the reality of the universe within the field of gravity, the earth is heating up while the universe is expanding (cooling). Yes there's nothing to cool in space so it's hard to say that coldness expanded its territory, but such pattern is similar to what I said before, if the inclination to cool itself was cooling then the outside would be less cool but the inside would be cooler. Makes me think that if the inclination to heat up was invigorated, then the manifestation might be that it would spread heat while losing intensity per "pixel".

Such dynamism, the interplay between heat and coldness shows that they are "neutral". Which is an amazing phenomenon because it might speak of a constant. There the answer to what are the first things needed to be considered before making a reliable plan could be found.

------------------------

This is so weird, its still not usable yet

If you say justice is the state when everyone gets whatever they wanted and needed whenever they wanted and needed it forever (except for those who are against it)... then, 

To treat the inclination to be unjust "unjustly" would amplify the injustice. Yes, because it doesn't mean that the spirit would not get what it wanted and needed, but it would just mean that it would be treated in a way that cause everyone to be harder (sorry...) in getting what they wanted and needed whenever they wanted and needed them, forever. 

So Justice is positive, Injustice is also positive but both of them are the opposite of each other. 

What is this?

It's true that the definition of justice itself is not logical, definitely the reason why this weirdness take place, but maybe there's logic behind this that would wrap this up sensibly. 

- Side note : Even though the definition of justice is not logical but as human beings we could somehow relate to the meaning of it. I'm not saying that this is the best definition of justice, in this context I'm focusing on figuring out this conundrum. 

------- Continued

So there's a better definition of Justice:

Justice is when The Inclination to keep on Inclining forever Truthfully gets whatever He wanted and needed whenever He wanted and needed them forever (and being the ultimate winner of everything in all realities and in all variabes of transformations forever Truthfully). 

Now this definition is logical in my opinion, better than before but still Justice and Injustice both positive while the opposite of each other. 

So maybe its just Justice, somehow Justice is special in a way

Edit 14 April 2022: Justice injustice is to me like an ultimate either or or, absolute binary. To just just is just Justice, to add into justice is just justice, injustice is the same. Crossing the two polars, to just injustice would mean Justice, to unjust the just means injustice, whichever is the doer / the operator is the one that would make the future... the one that would realize.

To not do injustice, self restraining, requires knowledge of justice or a sense of justice. In that sense, a just self restrain is operating Justice. This, is the most abusable for us as creatures of Justice. 

Edit 15th of April 2022: 

Now the question arise if once upon 3 seconds of your life you're neither adjusting for justice nor "unjusting" for injustice, would you be a part of the system that's productive or not productive? Let's say you were not being strategic about your idleness. 

Since Justice is an inherent binary in existence the way the second law of thermodynamics apply to the concept or the inclination itself should be like "the only thing that doesn't change is change itself". 

Ok now back to the first problem, we couldn't say that being idle would always be subjected to demeanings because we are talking about justice here. So my answer is if the level of availability of mutual solutions in the world increased the idle guy would be a part of the increase, if they decreased then the idle guy would be a part of the decrease. 

To give you an example let's say a baby is being abandoned and she/he defecated on him/herself. Obviously the baby would suffer and that's injustice. However the baby himself/herself weren't in control, couldn't restrain herself couldn't bring herself to communicate with anybody. She's not a part of the negative, injustice. When her body keeps on trying to survive, she became a part of the positive.

Maybe a bad example that one, let's say you just sit idly without knowing what to do. You've done your work, your health routines, your hygienes, and you just sit there... adjusting nothing, changing nothing, just letting things go by, not sensing, not observing, not experiencing any evil desires and restraining them. Would you be deserving of UBIs for that particular moment? Would it be appropriate to say that you've also helped?

Really hard to say, referring to what Jesus said don't do to others what you don't want others do unto you, I couldn't really tell whether that's just about self restrain or also including being idle. But one thing that I believe is right, whether your world is improving or it is not, ultimately it is improving in the long run. Why? Because if it's not then this thought would not matter then.

Melki's (first) equation v.03

 +Lies = +Hatred*

*Location not specific

Because the Truth is the protocol of existence, nature is trying to crackdown on lies, so the hatred invocation. Hatred is nature's answer to lies it wants to protect against it. 

-Lies = -Hatred

However, upon the elimination of lies the accumulated hatred that were spread became focused on a target / some targets. After the repercussions were absorbed or damage done, if there were no further lies invoked, the world should be a noticably less hateful place (even though unnoticably total hatred should have been reduced the moment the lies were brought to light). 

-------------------------------

It's not too much about semantic but be careful, for instance you jokingly said your face looks blue to a friend while actually it looked normal, then immidiately he/she knew that you're lying, that lie was unlied in a short time, I think it's ok. However if the case was your friend's kid ended up hear it and panicked, ran to get a medicine, fell down the stairs and sustained an injury, hatred would be invoked (towards you or towards somewhere else). In this case I'm going to explain another concept:

The lies within:

Let's say everyone acted normal whenever the sky was blue, but when the sky was dark some conspiracy followers overreacted and started shouting and pestering people "The end is near!, repent and sacrifice your money to our God!". The hatred invoked would circulate and make the environment less friendly for all of the people around. A scientist pointed out the fact that it's just a natural cycle and there was nothing to worry about, a lot of people believed and the problem went away. However amongst those who stopped believing in lies there were some who fell into depression. Apparently the conspiracy community was an escape to an even more lies inside their head that they were worthless alive, that all the time of their lives had been spent on nothing. 

Bad wisdom, 

Bad wisdom composed of configuration of lies, whereas revelation of the truth would manifests different lies that lie dormant within. 

Lies beget lies,

When the revelation of the Truth caused people to lie even more (maybe in order to protect themselves), the lies that were being faced was not just that particular lies, but bad wisdom.

In the end hatred and lies are a problem when they manifests problems in reality, what really matters are problems and solutions and justice. Lies and hatred are problems because most of the time they are sanctuaries for injustices or evil. The priority is justice, there might be little hatred in the air, but an extreme evil could still lie hiding behind the little lies. In contrast, there might be a lot of stupidity in a community but if the stupidity was powerless to cause damages then the hatred wouldn't translate into injustices as bad as the previous case no matter how much the hatred were.

Still we should keep on moving forward, who knows what potential or what heaven is waiting for us beyond the end of one or two hatred. 

Teleportation

So if you created 2 identical worlds in computers, it might be easier than our intuition to teleport an object to another computer, relatively speaking. 

As long as the relativity is the same, it doesn't matter which world. So the way it manifests should be...

An object is moving the x trajectory, with a little nudge the object suddenly appeared in the other computer, and then it went back, or not. 

The nudge should be about eliminating some relative differences that remained... in terms of the big picture (including the real world). 

Actually it's still incredibly hard... probably if those simulations were in the same computer though

Where language is used when dealing with equation v.05

Let's look at e = mc^2 , Albert Einstein's famous equation

The m actually is delta m, but delta m is m, m is mass. So, imagine an object, before it weighs 10kg, after being used to produce energy, it became 8kg, the 2 kg was mass too, the 2 kg now had became energy (conceptually speaking). 

The equation tells us that such mass is energy, but through language we could get to the difference between mass and energy, when a mass is not convertable or when a mass is very stable relative to what's available in the surroundings, mass is mass and it's distinct from energy. When a mass is volatile like fuels, or if someone knows how to quickly convert dirt to something else, then the dirt or the mass is energy. For example 10kg of gasoline is 10kg of energy, but 100 kg of pavements are rarely energy, relatively speaking it's just mass. 

So my argument is, you wouldn't conceptualize energy if there were no transformation of things. When we speak joule, we talk about conversion of things (e=mc^2 entails that the reference to "The power to convert things" is the very "Conversion of things" itself). Mass that doesn't convert might have the potential to convert, thereby energy, but... it's not really energy originally. By the virtue of language mass and energy are still distinct from each other, particularly, mass that are stable relative to the perceivable environment are not energy, yet. While mass that are convertible relative to what's available or what's going to happen in the near future, are then "energy".

But people perceive energy to be something other than that right? When we feel energy, we feel the key to unlock the conversion... those keys might not be the things that are being talked about in e = mc^2 

-------------------------

Edit: Ok so I think about this further, I noticed that my assumption was wrong. The e here is not all e ever, it's just mass is energy. So, not all energy manifests as mass, not all e that currently exists took the form of mass

--------------------------

Check out this video: The Science Asylum's: Why Doesn't Light Have Mass?

So e = mc^2 + pc^2, not just e = mc^2

Have I just discovered the recipe?

So somewhere in the world of something that's moving really fast, it appeared to them that the knight moved first then the bishop, while here on earth, the bishop moved first then the knight.

As the consequence of the knight moved first the king castle, the consequence of bishop moved first the queen check. So, if it turned out that the king castled, then we on earth should adhere to the reality that actually "knight moved first"... or should we?

Is this how multiverses were formed?

Questioner masa tua v.02

Diantara 4 pilihan ini, yang mana masa tua yang terutama anda inginkan?

a. Diakui sebagai orang yang hebat / spesial akan sesuatu

b. Dihormati, dikenang, dan diperhatikan

c. Dibebaskan dari gangguan atau masalah yang mengganggu

d. Telah mengubah jalan sejarah

Asumsi keyakinan saya (mungkin saya salah tapi saya lumayan yakin) bahwa genetik, perbedaan ras akan mempengaruhi populasi atau pilihan jawaban orang

4d v.03f

The 4th dimension is thickness, There's also the dimension of popularity. 

So you would have 4dA and 4dB... 4dA is when the three dimensional image was connected with another three dimensional image into one object. 4dB is when the main axis (xyz/w) itself were more than just one, due to the relativity or the variability of the variables themselves. 

Since our perception follows the path of natural light trajectories, and thickness are not perceivable to us that way, the axis w in 4dA would be represented separately in a way that it is interchangeable for one of the other 3. 

In terms of 4dB, it is a picture of how many dimensions or axis applicable to the object. The shape is kind of non geometrical even though it is based on geometry. The idea behind it is, if you'd draw an imaginary line between the object in reality, to its copy inside someone's mind, then the object's size would be extended in terms of points of views. The reality is that there are multiple point of views, multiple relativities that governs the behaviors of matters. In this case its relative to perception and memory. 

So if 2 people having perceived the same object met with each other and exchanged their points of views with one another, the shape of the object would change. Even when perceptors never met with each other, we could drew the imaginary lines between them, and it would also be real.

-------------------------------

Hmmm... now I kind of see more why the Intellectual Property Law is important, if an artwork was misused or utilized for things that would defiled its shape, then it could ruin the experience for the author. So the exclusive control over one's artwork really is logical, you'd want your art to be the way its supposed to be, not something else you don't want it to be. 

Not only artworks, other inventions or designs could also be used in ways that are counterproductive to their own sustainability or to humanity as a whole... but too much control over a design especially when it is massively widespread would put a person in an inhumane realm / field voiding him/her off of the relevance of his/herself. Moreover, such limited point of view over something that's so big / influential also would be a counter productive experience for everybody else involved. 

Its not an easy problem... the Intellectual Property Law though is a legacy that often dismissed by even the most distinguished persona. On this I hope that people would build up the legacy and reanimated it, instead of ruining it carelessly

-----------------------------

Now I'm talking about geometric 4d, the easier way to picture it is, when you reached let's say m^4 (meter to the power of four) you'd want to specify what is the object in real life. For example air, water, cotton, etc. By doing this you'd understand that beyond the power of ^3 usually we would time .0 of something instead of a round number. 

The reason being is the purity of the thing per m^4, within water you could have salt or air, within air you could have dust, within cotton you could have air, etc. 

Example:

You wanted to map out the shape of oxygen in space at a point in time

1d:

Was just a straight line

Starting at 2d you defined a pixel

2d:
pixel = gas, others blur; (so define everything that's not gas as others whether it's empty space, water, or solid mass). (x = altitude, y=horizontal distance)

result --> 50 cm^2 

you grasped 1m tall x 1m long space, while blurring everything that's not gas, you got 5cm tall and 10 cm long oxygen.

Mind if you just used no blurs you'd probably got some more oxygen within water or mass, but the scope of measurement in this context would only be gas.

3d:
pixel = gas, others blur; (x = height, y=horizontal distance to the side, z horizontal distance forward)

result --> 100 cm^3 

means you grasped 1m x 1 m x 1 m volume of gas, and found 5cm tall, 10cm and 2cm long of oxygen in it with a particular 3 dimensional shape.

Now you've identified that the 3d picture you've made might still contain some elements of gas that's not oxygen because you weren't taking into consideration the thickness. 

4d:
pixel = gas, others blur. (x=height, y=horizontal to the side, z=horizontal forward/backward, w=thickness)

result ---> 70 cm^4 means you grasped 1m x 1 m x 1 m, x 1 m of air and the 100cm^3 image of oxygen taken was reduced to 70 cm^4 since there were 0.7 concentration of oxygen for the particular cubic m of air. 

Such concentration was rendered as a shape, but due to unlimited complexities of reality some elements might need to be simplified by estimation / a ratio of concentration. 

Or...

4d:

pixel = everything (x=height, y=horizontal to the side, z=horizontal forward/backward, w=thickness)

result ---> 80 cm^4 means you grasped 1m x 1 m x 1 m, x 1 m of space and the 100cm^3 was reduced by 0.8.

The same reason for the result but this time the pixel of "gas, others blur" was not used because the measurer thought that there's no need to specify a type/types of pixel when 4d is already taking into account the thickness of things. The image created would differ from the previous one where there were some oxygen in other spots previously blurred.  

The reason why having a pixel is important is that the 4d plain needs to be attached into a concept otherwise the dimension would be limited into 3d. 

Old guy rant

I just realize, customized intuitiveness brought about certain expectations over smoothness of interface. This expectation could bite your asz later when things were different / changed. 

There is utility in minimizing amounts of clicks to get into the desired activity, especially if that's the only activities you do in that application. But for applications with various functions catered for different types of occasions we must realize that often the most frequent usage is not the only important one.

When users got carried away with their usual habits in the application, the moment he/she tried to get into another usage which were infrequent but also important, their intuition would be a stumbling stone to them, they would experience an extra difficulty in using the interface. 

For a lot of things practice helps, but in this case practice hinders while there's just not enough occasions to practice for the rare occasion... obviously. 

So the answer to this is some kind of maneuverability of context, where the context theme of the application changes in accordance with different occasions. But not only do the application needed to make available this feature, the users also need to be made aware of this behavioral hindrance

For personality test v.04

Has the world lived up to its potential in terms of the average quality of life of living beings?" Yes / Maybe / Unlikely / No / Other

Further Explanation (optional) or other answers:

Or

The potential of the world in contributing to all of the people's quality of life in average is actually constant no matter what changes people made to it... Strongly Agree / Has some Truth to it / Somewhat Disagree / Strongly Disagree / Other

Explain your answer (optional if not Other):

A property of 1/0

x/0 = y

x = y * 0

x would always be 0

therefore

1/0 makes 1 = 0, (...)/0 makes (...) = 0

is this right or wrong or something else?

1dividedby0.com made a point that it is a matter of point of view / vantage point. Is this guy right? How?

Exploring Infinity v.31

Infinity is the largest number of divergent arrays of counting numbers, and it is the same figure for all of them. 

That's how I look at it

So Infinitely small is not for the number, but for the magnitude of the smallness. Which is beyond huge

---------------------------

Is infinity minus one infinity? I see no reason why infinity minus one could be infinity.

Is infinity plus one a bigger infinity than the initial infinity? The initial infinity must have been defined for it to be able to be increased in number. So they are no longer infinity

Assuming the space is infinite, is infinite km's of space smaller than infinite m's of space?

Is 1000 km of string the same with 1000 m of string? no

Is infinite km of space the same with infinite m of space? yes

So these arguments are my ways of defending my position, any response? please

-----------------------------

So the understanding of Infinity contains the element of "Uncomparable largeness" in respect to the counting number that is to be assigned to the order of magnitude.

So the key to this comprehension is to firstly always think in terms of relativity... or at least it is my most straight forward precondition/way to be able to achieve so. 

-----------------------------

Edit 23/04/2021

Ok so there was a definition problem. I still think people should distinct between limitlessness vs finite numbers that are so big they are inarticulable. These are two different things

-----------------------------

Let's define infinity as limitlessness, what is 1/infinity? I tend to not say zero as the answer, I rather say infinitely small. 

What is 1/0 then, well, when we say 2 divided by 2, we are saying 2 divided by 2 equal segments and each segments were equal to... 1 is the answer (1,1). When we say 1 divided by 3, we are saying 1 divided by 3 equal segments and each segments were equal to 0.333333... is the answer (0.333,0.333,0.333). When we say 1 divided by zero, we should be saying 1 divided by 0 equal segments and each segments were equal to 1/2, 1/3, 1/6 OR 1/3, 1/9, 5/9, OR 1/4, 1/2, 2/15, 1/5, OR 1/7, 3/7, 1.6/7, 0.8/7, 0.6/7... etc. It would be an array of ORs that were stretched to who knows where, I don't know maybe (...) or infinity.

Table:

Numerator: 1

Divided by infinity of the same segments = ([infinitely small],...to the infinity)

Divided by 1/(...) of the same segments a.k.a super small segment = ([...])

Divided by 3 of the same segments = ([0.333],[0.333],[0.333])

Divided by 2 of the same segments = ([0.5],[0.5])

Divided by 1 of the same segments = ([1])

Divided by 1/2 of the same segments a.k.a half a segment = ([2])

Divided by 1/3 of the same segments a.k.a a third of a segment = ([3])

Divided by 1/(...) of the same segements a.k.a a super small fraction of a segment = ([...])

Divided by 1/infinitely_small of the same segment a.k.a an infinitely small fraction of a segment = (infinity) 

Divided by 0 of the same segment  (1/2, 1/3, 1/6 OR 1/3, 1/9, 5/9, OR 1/4, 1/2, 2/15, 1/5, OR 1/7, 3/7, 1.6/7, 0.8/7, 0.6/7... etc) a.k.a irregulars

Divided by 1/0 of the same segment (I'm not sure about this but 0 is my answer for now). 

So any number divided by irregulars would yield the sum of the numbers in the array

HOWEVER: This irregular thing is kind of weird, it seems like it could contain anything anywhere...

Edit: Oh, because it's an array the answer is in it not the sum of it.

Edit: so for example you get this (nice video from Josh Hush, accessed April 2021): 
2b = b (irregulars) the irregulars' value would be 2. 

It depends on the equation, it shouldn't be just any number I feel.

-------------------------------------

Filling triangles within circles will have this behavior:

Length of the bases of the triangles = r / (Total number of triangles / 4)

So when comes to finding the area of a circle using this method, pay attention that:

The infinitesimal = 4r / The (...)

This one is wrong too... 4(2r^0.5)/The (...) ?

r' = 0.5 δ'

r'' = 0.5 δ''

r''' = 0.5 δ'''

etc

δ' = 4r/(...)'

δ'' = 4(0.5 δ')/(...)'

δ''' = 4(0.5 δ'')/(...)'

etc

So,

[1/2 * δ' r * (...)'] + [1/2 * δ'' * r' * (...)' * 1/2] + [1/2 * δ''' * r'' * (...)' * 1/2] + etc...

Now, this should go make pi if I could simplify it,

No, the arch was not half a circle. That was wrong

To Achieve Understanding v.02

I remembered a saying by Mr. Richard Saul Wurman that said, if I'm not mistaken:

Understanding is relative to the information you already know, or something like that... "You already understand information relative to what you already understand", there you go (thank you Google). 

But a concept appeared in my head about "Replace Abstraction", not only true understanding is about updating your existing ones, but also about updating your previous abstraction. So if your abstractions weren't updated then you haven't understood anything. 

So we might think that understanding should provide certainty in replacement of abstractions, but our mind proceeds towards abstractions... time follows behind wisdom. If we were to separate wisdom and knowledge as wisdom is about how to deal with the unknown and knowledge is about knowing. Then understanding should gave birth to new abstractions as well.

So it is ok to have unanswered new questions in class, or in your mind while learning, moreover it should be the climax of your understanding. Also it is incomplete to assume successful presentation if the audience didn't came up with new questions, or it is incomplete to assume that the subject has been understood if the abstractions in you weren't renewed after being exposed to new concepts. 

My Modern Dating idea

Since marriage is a lifetime contract, I think the next modern way of dating, since women have recovered their humanity... is to set up businesses together. I mean traditional dating is because women needed to stay at home for various dangers and other reasons. Now it's only right to return to business as dating. 

Marriage must be times and times more than a business that could be temporary if not profitable. So if after the business is successful then you'd know that the both of you have discovered the right synergy and on the right track for marriage. If the both of you failed but still love another, set up another business to try. 

Consciousness is a manifestation of transcendence? v.02

Could it be that to invoke consciousness means to make it able to perceive transcendence?

So once it was achieved then it was consciousness?

There might be defining relations between Antibody and Emotions

 I think our personality, our feelings could be seen through our antibody system

So this is true?

Men Provides Structure                                                           Women Provides Details

Sad again and again

There are a lot of reasons for people being hateful and making things difficult for other groups of people. Besides catering to some senses of belonging, and particular personal unpleasant experiences, the most unnecessary but real reason is:

People don't want to deal with the truth from new point of views yet/ever. 

There are more reasons but to deal with the above you got to be wise... change the way you set your ambitions, train yourself to play with the Truth. So when the Truth won't work with you, you'll know, or when the Truth want your ambition to be real, you'll know. 

People do could force their ambition through, by ignoring the countering point of views... in this case this is the case of bad history bound to repeat itself. Is this liberating? Or you just put yourself in a position where whatever you do is just machine-like for those who knew?

But when Hitler/Stalin is in power, no matter how dumb, no one's going to stop them right?

YOKOZO minna!

Who wants to be the next dictator? Is it you? Or is it you!! 

                                                                                                                                   me! me!

Well let's see, whose turn is it now... Darling, spin the wheel of zetsubouness!