Re: Theory of beliefs, belief fields

I cant believe it, they.authorities are letting them be brutalized and go
perturbed. Not a single official has had the guts and authority to come
see me and explain what are they doing. There MUST be two letter in the 26
Federal Plaza Building FBI since 2004 that were ignored. They are
protecting and obvious thief and he is not I, anobvious cadre of thieves
and they are not of my group. The women were, and I am still confused as
to who are they, if they are the same after 15 years, and why am I being
rejected. Didnt they notice that the man producing ideas was left in the
street and advantages are being give to somebody else BECUASE of
essentially contradictory old... I cant even call it thinking! No moment
to philosophize, the direction of good should be quite evident, it is in
SEVERAL writings. It is OBVIOUS: whoever is behind the experience I and
the women and people who know are going through, has to be considered
enemy of humanity and treated as a war criminal.

Note this algorythmic ethic:

I. hurt yourself or I hurt you

This statement hold no value, few people will fall prey to it, that is,
they wont hurt themselves because they can confront the issuer of the
threat and it becomes a two parties affair. It is not compelling, as the
actor of the statement can wait til something happens and then act. The
termination of the statement is also obvious, a two parties situation,
once the issuer of the threat is confronted and acted on the cycle
finishes and there is nothing else to be done, or the threat is false and
the person can go on with his life; eventually the threatener acn be found
and disabled. Compare to the next one:

I*. hurt yourself or I send _somebody_ to hurt you

This statement closes a cycle and is compelling! It is now a third party
situation, an n-party situation in a sequence p<-c1,c2,c3,c4...<-t P is
person, ci is criminals, t is the threatener. In this case the actor
becomes t. p can stay in place and wait for successive hordes of ci,
without affecting the engine, t. Termination is then simple: just effect
the statement and hurt him or herself! Then accordingly t will stop
sending ci s. Under this logic p is forced to be hurt, even if no ci s are
sent! t may remain untouched. But p can do nothing and just wait for the
ci s to come to deflect them. In any case damage is t s responsibility.
Compare to the next:

I**. hurt yourself or I send _somebody_ to hurt you or to hurt somebody
else

The sequence is more compelling! But the solution would still be the same:
it is t who initializes the situation, the quicker t is disabled the less
will happen. In both cases there is no guarantee that t will stop once p
gets hurt, which is why for p is better to wait til something happens and
then act.

Applying I* or I** recursively to all p s in a group, some p s can be
turned into ci s! A single t can make a whole group go into
selfflagellation by aplying I* or II* to all members of the group
individually. In this case the solution is to ignore t. And to propagate
the knowledge of t to the whole population. It is an algorythmic ethic
once applied as every individual can follow a clear course of action: hurt
himself or do nothing and wait for trouble. But if all people in the
implied population follow EXACTLY the same behavior, either t succeeds
(everybody is hurt) or the ps win (nobody acts)! It is then more rational
NOT to hurt yourself and NOT to go hurt somebody else because the whole
situation is disabled. Which is then the correct rule to follow. This
solution depends on all ps in the population being aware of t. NOte that
to act t must communicate itself with at least one p and one c to issue
the __directive__. It means that a path between p and t can be found even
if several ci s are used. THe obvious strategy for t is to incommunicate
... thyis is beingstolen by a keylogger...

Mathematics... all symbols are nothing if you dont know the rules to
combine them; all symbols are worth nothing if you dont have the words to
interpret them.

Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Branch to return to Patriots?
    ... but it's the same you would do if Branch got hurt ... down the offense will morph into something dangerous. ... comfort zone and gets double teamed. ... I would rate Caldwell as a deep threat for sure. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: Branch to return to Patriots?
    ... but it's the same you would do if Branch got hurt ... I would rate Caldwell as a deep threat for sure. ... point of stretching the field is to stretch the field, ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
  • Re: CPS takes 10 year old to court for racisim
    ... I have never in my life had any desire to hurt a child. ... punishment that was used to maintain discipline more than its use. ... A threat is however of limited use if it is *never* carried out when ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Reliops
    ... Ruth or to someone else. ... But there was a dark threat from Sam that he was not going ... he'd left Brookfield (subtext "...I haven't really hurt you very much, ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: Reliops
    ... leading him on by suggesting that he could just forget about her once ... he'd left Brookfield (subtext "...I haven't really hurt you very much, ... no threat of bunny-boiling. ... It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)