Structures of perspective

Adaptability breeds survival.

When comparing any pair for any quality, (intuitionism*-about:?) + unknown = from among all possible combinations of qualities among pairs for any model

*: sometimes i ride a rhythmic approach w/ an engineers mindset, aiming for improvement w/ considerations

Incidence angles may overlap among fields of view with offset centers, any point renderings as input to wit, a painting ...

Looking for: – sufficient reason(s) to in-/de-sist any belief – finding: distinction of difference(s) criticaling comparisons –

How many versions of any idea are there? How much do they vary? In what ways?

The greatest lie ever told was that lies don't exist. Well that's a bit of a lie, but how? As if i could say. And perhaps also it's just yet another metaphor, an asymetric characterization which has no effect on the truth of what it refers to, effected by it but not so much in the reverse, only insofaras it is inaccurately representing that thing which it points to as being (essentially) what it is, whether explicitly or not, directly or not, or from any way it is conveyed.

It describes, for a definition, as any may be or contain lies. Definitions don't determine truth, except to the extents to which defining impacts subsequent interactions, only under such influences do definitions make truth. If any words guide my actions, for example, they become realer than they were by doing more than just saying, but the critical difference there is still me and my own interpretations, for however observant I might be or not, rather than to attribute any supposed corporeal effects of the incorporeality of thought as being supernatural consciousness(es), which is an unfortunately common byproduct of any miscalibrated sense, as when off reasoning leads one astray from an accurate understanding of reality.

To consider any observation, we each have a limited perspective. For anything we can think of, there is more to it than all of what we might consider. No one knows everything. (No one knows it all and nothing can know it all; Everything can't but for a functionless counterfactual tautology, which would necessiarily conflate knowledge with existence ['all of the stuff is different stuff! pfft', if it were, we would be observing overlapping independent realities– each accessible, each operating entirely uneffected by the other, each cohesively occupying precisely the same space ... simultaneous yet different yet equally sound- laws of nature that map onto eachother and are symetric yet irreflexive]; and certainly not absolute Nothingness, because if that actually existed then nothing would exist, and that would preclude all thought.

For all our thoughts, we can guess until the end of our days and still be significantly different from hypothetical absolute accuracy; perhaps sufficient enough to warrant questioning of any idea in a cooperative environment. Any askers are capable of asking anything they can think of and convey. It takes time and effort but planning is the heading we've been going with, so thoughts ahoy! As we try to find the most efficacious view for anything we might consider. And there's much to consider about considering.

For example, supposing that it's ever better to pretend that 'Not is So', which of these is the better way to pretend it so (supposing a bias towards- more efficiently motivating towards relevant goals): Of deviance, is it radically or barely? Of bias, is it contrarian or supportive? Of significance, is it ... ? What're the tipping points in those terms? How and why? About anything, everything, all or nothing, or anywhere inbetween? How far do we think astray from reality, in what ways, and why?

We account for such things as thoughts to clarify any rendered model of a mechanism for self improvement in any approach (rigorously formulated or not, does the account account for the breadth and depth of critical factors within relevant contexts?), seeing as how we have persisted by being biased towards the impetus of persistence, as self preservation is individuated as a parsing of effective capabilities within one's environment. For any interaction, to the extent we might consider its possibility in relation to any other speculation: how do all relevant predictibles culminate? and in what ways would the biggest potentials change things? and what would be the long term effects of adopting either a one-time decision or a policy, as opposed to any other, supposing expectations with an expected accuracy? We can try to improve, but the plan doesn't always go according to plan.

To put it another way, looking backwards instead, our stories are not the events we describe. We can only speak more or less accurately. So how do we decide what is best to relate? And how do we best relate any information? ... what are the most accurately, efficiently, significantly related measures for any context?

I heartily agree that no question isnt worth asking, if that's what's of concern enough to ask, then who am i to question what questions any may have. To wit, in witnessing several assertions of refutation, i've heard combative questions aplenty– some intentionally defiant responses, guised rebukes probing for the limits of purposelessness, in the form of absurd irrelevance or otherwise rhetorically vapid questions. But for these I only characterize, not reiterate, yet enough to say that any joke might diminish any otherwise sound question. I'm barring it in my mind, if a question isn't a question to me, then it ain't a question; but it could also be a question for someone else, and that's mostly just how it is. Atleast we tend to coordinate around reality.

Try forming questions out of any of your known answers and see if you don't find even more questions there. "Why ... ?" is a shortcut to reverse engineer "How ... ?"; from a past perspective of the future, thru the present; or from plan to process. Why? Because with goals we can do more, better. How? By choosing our own (adventures) questions, we're more relevantly, significantly, and thereby efficiently able to learn from reality and improve, certainly. For example consider:

∀P(E) = x, Let ⁱ = 1 :: impartiality, for ⁱ an exponential curve thresholding sufficient credence (since things can be in want of more convincing or are more convincing), for ⁱ approaching 1 treading linearly determined, with neutral bias at linear until determined otherwise, find non-impartial biases not otherwise explicated. Ok but why? To be determined. How might ⁱ be determined for the following to hold?:

f(x) = |2(x-½)|ⁱ :: certainty

The outcome of a fair coin flip is maximally uncertain at zero. Indeed every equiprobable set of possibilities has maximum uncertainty by this definition and certainty approaches the impossibility of all but one possibility at one, from probability x at either 0 or 1.

These types of shapes we create, in attempts to see further with less or do more with ease, delay uncertainty often with the authority of purportedly better reasoning. Yet whose authority is to be trusted? When is proof 'proof enough'?

Lies exist as confounding counterfactuals. They are confabulations built from recombinations of the liar's memories. Necessarily pulling us further from certainty and into the void of uncertainty, the place where the confabulations of faith would guide us away to.

All the guesses or speculations or reimaginings we could ever muster amount to a fleeting drop in the bucket. I believe it is impossible, in any state of being, for anything but everything to know it all; and all of everything, in each and every state, cannot be said with honest certainty to be omniscient, nor omnipotent, nor omnibenevolent, nor omnipresent in the particulars.

Is it rewarding in the moment?

Happiness is in the present.

Whatever that happiness is- Whether that's a wistful expectation of some motivating promise; or the ravenous glee of devouring a great meal on an empty stomach; or the contentedness of passing time in quiet serenity; or racing down trains of thought with a goal and a plan; or enjoying the fellowship of lighthearted conversation; or a pleasant reflection of some fond memory; or literally any of all of the other things that bring benefit in the doing. Happiness can be found there. Always keeping in mind that every loss can provide some other gain.

Opportunity needn't always be chosen.

Sometimes continuing is enough in itself.

When thinking ahead, with what turbulence or cadence are such moments? Consider among the range of all factors that can be varied freely, bound by the constraints of everything beyond control. What can be done and what can't be done are demarcated by functionality, or the extent of controllable effects. Progress then searches for feasibly efficient new (breadth of) or improved (depth of) functionality. Categorize, classify; omit or invite. Thoughts can only be, either- acted on or eventually forgotten, once they are had ... as it is for anything when the present is concerned.

Only one set of all prior states led to this present.

What is the expected present magnitude of any class, of thing or abstraction?

Robustnes of metrics shared between them: For r=the count of defined and acesible measurement categories expresing both of any pair of states, R=the relevance with a third state by the floor of the set of each pair's r. For any model, find the ceiling of r and R for each pair and triples, etc as notated rR_number of defined and acesible rR framestates, e.g. a comon sense course of action from start to finish, which is compared to the anticipated range of responses, and to the facts of the matter in hand ... is rR₃ ... which denotes a quality of predictive strength in the abstraction of discrete quantization, fitting any pedagogical framework with like-terms.

How good a measure is it? By comparing accuracy among systems of calculating predicted values in terms of 0...1, i.e. percentage of correct predictions within any range for any measure. And how does rR_n scale proportionally with acuracy of prediction?

Decisions might be ethically bound towards the advantages of co-operation and,or friendly competition.

There're practical maths to be had, no doubt, unless i've missed something along the way ... of course, we all have; as a working hypothesis, axiomatically we can say that there's always something else to consider and thereby another way to look at it which is yet to be considered.