the way to see first law could be, that energy just don't randomly change itself or energy doesn't change without reason (this grammatical thing is trivial, energy could be like the trinity the way we could be a trinity too)
the way to see the third law could be, that its a display of e=mc2
Can I say that context is a point of reference for proper interpretation of the word/s?
Then, in this "context", "proper" means Truthful. The Truth is... The Truth, from my point of view, the Truth is a condition where the Truthful past could be traced back using the logic of the Truth, usually there's only one Truthful past.
Could two accounts of the Truthful past be Truthful? or more? then the test of the Truth should be able to be applied in both of them (towards further pasts) and they would still be the Truth. However the knowledge of the Truth of the testers themselves are limited, therefore likely it is reliable that eventually one of them would be wrong.
So when people were irresponsible talking, talking about one thing while actually sending a different message to another person without the other one had the same context for responding to it (the "real" second party had to invoke his/her own context in order to address the message because the real message wasn't anchored directly to the utterer's real context), maybe when they were bullying a person, in order to extract the proper "secondary" context of the speech, one must statistically associate it to the events that are going to be the consequence of such "message". Even this is potentially inaccurate as well and could've been a huge misunderstanding.
However irresponsible talking can be used to abuse people, extortion, threats, were hardly attributable when someone used this method, but the subject would suffer the consequences of one of the possible "secondary" contexts of the irresponsible talking.
So how would the court of law acknowledge such phenomenon? It is only great that judges are not machines but a person. I never seen the algorithm that could Truthfully pinpoint and discern such talking (accurately) and attributed the responsibilities to the right individuals. One way is through statistics. The utterer would inflict consequences using the same logic repeatedly in the past. However this too could be too soon to be Just.
It is hard, it is very likely that this shi* is the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. Maybe its just me.
(If its true, than solving this would lead us to paradise, I mean entropy, cookie crumble, would form paradise).
Individualism is about freedom but evil tends to ruin things. So now I suggest that we are in an era of privilige for individual freedom that individual rights are popularly practiced as freedom supporting. In the future in the wake of increase in entropy you would expect varieties of evil Individual freedom, forced individual freedom.
They would force this to diversify something, but we should all be able to form social bonds with each other. Or maybe it is happening right now subtly in a secluded economy, in the future hopefully we could bring this to the open and therefore figure it out
The unfortunate principal that still have domain in reality is... the ruination of voluntary virtues by making it a coercion. I love Individualism
So the sun is hard to destroy, but if there's another star coming its way, it won't dodge by itself.
Human beings saw activities in the vulcano, they left and the mountain exploded, then he/she went back in again after.
So how big is the force relative to itself that a thing could prevail upon could indicate that its alive. In the face of primordial chaos, I want to say that some Truths are alive, this version included. Can I?
Actually more like, how inevitable is the inclination if it were to apply to other comparable entities could be usable to set apart the living and the non living, upon the prevailing of the object (that is compared)
