Prioritizing non-fiction amounts to unbelievability by Daniel Thomas Hawkley

My response to all ratings of 1/10 in this contest is to please leave a brief explanation, then reconsider the "first" law of thermodynamics in comparison to "me first thermodynamics" ... not only as suggested in my essay, but wherever "what is true" comprehensible: "between" additional observations and "before" being created and destroyed by strangers :)

Nvmd have fun w the contest. my only suggestion is to predict complete annihilation again #tomorrow as #always, amounting to identifying the first law of thermodynamics non-locally as Schrodinger suggested "the particularly exigent demand was the square root" like one square root of 3d disproves zero evidence cubed. I'm too dumb for this place but was going to read all the submissions. it's too tiring they're all too copy and paste from academic popularize RS or themselves, not the foundational, first law of #all #thermodynamics: 0

predict #everything against #tomorrow maybe fo the next collaborative contest

Hi Andrew thx for giving my essay a try! ... I'm back to the drawing board bc my communicating skills must stink. It's supposed to be this simple, using whatever words or symbols a person chooses to use:

the followjng statements are scientifically identical in terms of what they identify (in reasonable English, given any numbber of predictions and observations)

additional observations (between exclusive predictoons)

additional diagonals (between exclusive points, "predicting aka anticipating nothingness as zero points using negative ones")

everything we observed (between shared observed diagonals) disproves "generic nihilism" which is the (identifying the first law of thermodynamics) the false prediction of being created and destroyed in the past or in the future; so the myth is equating birth and death with entering and exiting existence.

It must still be crappy writing by me if it doesn't make sense. But my only prediction is that what we identify as "consciousness" in English is perfectly consistent with "diagonal arguments" as "additional inverse squaring, excluding zero". It seems like I'm a dunce but the logic is consistent with incompleteness theorems and best abbreviated by famous "geniuses" like Schrödonger: "the particularly exigent demand is the square root". We all think we have so many ideas but really only two non-localizations (generalizations, ideas, contrasting predictions):

counting from zero (aka prioritising zero amounts to generic fiction)

counting from potential (aka prioritizing potential amounts to generic futurism as provable)

counting from zero and potential is the same thing as identifying the first law of thermodynamics: everything is the conserved (between false points = general contrasting predictions)

Sorry if I'm lame but it's perfectly relevant to the contest and foundational questions in both math and science; try explaining "the ability to identify" and "years ago" without using square root symbols ... it'll end up w the cliche "nobody knows the difference between squaring negatives (fictional rule) and inverse squaring (accounting for and disproving the fictional rule) oh well 303.898.3295 Dan Hawkley, Boulder ... until everything is annihilated I doubt I'll stop prioritizing what exists instead of denying reality (I'm only as smart as other people: "one point is not another"

Hi, unfortunately I'm not a good science writer but I do keep simplifying the logic and illustrations. The realization though is that what we identify as "consciousness" we also identify as "the ability to point". The "reason" individuals "sensationalise our pointing" is not because we are human but because all information is "nonLocal" which is just as terrifying for BEES and primates(with the same ability to point). The dfiference between Einstiein pointing and Noether pointing is that we're "grounded" in "psychological equality": one point is not another; aka "compress two psychologies like #THIS #NOW):

fiction: BeCreatedAndDestroyedCubed!!!

non-fiction: +1squareRoot{4) тЙа +2squareRoot(1) > +1squareRoot{3} тЙа (-)(-)(-)

labeling all points as "Square roots of negative one points, disproving this sensationalized rubbish (all information being generic contrasting points amounting to opposite directions):

1.00 points - 1.00 points

Noether #Equality

"Compress two psychologies like #THIS on a sheet of +3D graph papger"):

fiction: BeCreatedAndDestroyedCubed!!!

non-fiction: +1squareRoot{4) тЙа +2squareRoot(1) > +1squareRoot{3} тЙа (-)(-)(-)

labeling all points as "Square roots of negative one points, disproving this sensationalized rubbish (all information being generic contrasting points amounting to opposite directions):

1.00 points - 1.00 points

"Consciousness, including human consciousness, is the ability to point, including the insect ability to point". Additional evidence: point out Neil Shubin #SomeAssemblyRequired ... we've always been wrong when "pointing out antecedents" (aka Noether #TimeInvariance is like staring at the spelling predict #Now again #Tomorrow for the rest of your #AbilityToPoint at #Now: #DoctorsWithoutBorders