God(s)

[nothing]

"Real"...my bad.

And yes spatial movement, movement is the inversion of one static state to another, thus movement is multiplicity.

The line is the progression of one point to another, the same with the circle, with both observing the progression of the point from one state to another.

Only scalar motion is static - by definition can not be multiplied.
Lines, circles and points are not nature, they are devices used to model nature.

False, all models of creation exist as a subset of creation thus are "creation" itself.

One is thus liable to create much confusion pointlessly playing with theoretical balls and sticks.

All numbers are variations of 1 and themselves through 1, numbers are recursive.

Numbers are numbers, cosmos is cosmos.

Curvature is the projection of one point to another position through multiple position. If point A moves to point B under a curve, it is manifesting an infinite number of directions through its progress in one direction.

In moving one direction it is moving in multiple directions.

lol

There is no axis in the universe that says "this way is up" for any such infinite number of directions.

False that is an assertion based upon belief, much of science was grounded in trying to understand (a) God(s) the scientist(s) believed in.

...and subsequently falsified.

Knowledge can be broken as well...

By BELIEF.

False, a person can suffer for having knowledge of a loved one's betrayal. They may also suffering from knowing they will die. Wisdom and sorrow go hand in hand.

The suffering is due to having believed the loved one would never do such a thing.
Knowledge of impending death causing suffering is ignorance, not knowledge.
Wisdom and understanding sorrow go hand in hand -
emotional maturity is a discipline reflected in one's temperance.

No, I just can't take your theory seriously and my evidence is the number of responses your theory has merited online here. It is gibberish, for such a ground breaking theory is appears only you understand it.

If nobody understands the theorem - how can they respond to it?

Have you seen anything come from me that even remotely resembles
an actual formal theorem which derives a postulate(s)
and progresses to a model(s) that can make predictions? No.

I would never release the full theorem until it goes live on another platform:
it is too up-ending and would just create noise with no coherence.

[Eodnhoj7]

"Real"...my bad.

And yes spatial movement, movement is the inversion of one static state to another, thus movement is multiplicity.

The line is the progression of one point to another, the same with the circle, with both observing the progression of the point from one state to another.

Only scalar motion is static - by definition can not be multiplied.
Lines, circles and points are not nature, they are devices used to model nature.

False the internet cycles of natural law, all phenomenon reduced to point space because of distance, and the progression from one position to another necessitates the circle, point and line respectively. It is the monad.

False, all models of creation exist as a subset of creation thus are "creation" itself.

One is thus liable to create much confusion pointlessly playing with theoretical balls and sticks.

False, all models of creation are a subset of creation.

All numbers are variations of 1 and themselves through 1, numbers are recursive.

Numbers are numbers, cosmos is cosmos.

False, numbers as countable are numbers as forms. All forms share the same loop nature in both action and the traceability of their structure; numbers are loops.

Curvature is the projection of one point to another position through multiple position. If point A moves to point B under a curve, it is manifesting an infinite number of directions through its progress in one direction.

In moving one direction it is moving in multiple directions.

lol

There is no axis in the universe that says "this way is up" for any such infinite number of directions.

No, up and down are relative. From a position of space an astronaut is below the earth, from a vantage point of the earth they are above it.

False that is an assertion based upon belief, much of science was grounded in trying to understand (a) God(s) the scientist(s) believed in.

...and subsequently falsified.

Knowledge can be broken as well...

By BELIEF.

False, I may know the sky is blue given certain variables, but this is wrong if I get the variables wrong.

False, a person can suffer for having knowledge of a loved one's betrayal. They may also suffering from knowing they will die. Wisdom and sorrow go hand in hand.

The suffering is due to having believed the loved one would never do such a thing.

it is also caused by knowing a pattern...one can know it is within the nature of a loved one to lie and steal.

Knowledge of impending death causing suffering is ignorance, not knowledge.
False, one still suffers from the process of death.


Wisdom and understanding sorrow go hand in hand -
emotional maturity is a discipline reflected in one's temperance.

No, I just can't take your theory seriously and my evidence is the number of responses your theory has merited online here. It is gibberish, for such a ground breaking theory is appears only you understand it.

If nobody understands the theorem - how can they respond to it?

Lol, barely anyone is responding to it and what they respond to is keys variables (ie no belief, x is evil, etc.)

Have you seen anything come from me that even remotely resembles
an actual formal theorem which derives a postulate(s)
and progresses to a model(s) that can make predictions? No.

It predicts a negation of belief if applied.

I would never release the full theorem until it goes live on another platform:
it is too up-ending and would just create noise with no coherence.

It is not upending because few to noone understands it...it is your private language.

Life is suffering, the only way to deal with suffering is to embrace it.

[nothing]

False the internet cycles of natural law, all phenomenon reduced to point space because of distance, and the progression from one position to another necessitates the circle, point and line respectively. It is the monad.

Define 'internet cycles'...

False, all models of creation are a subset of creation.

All false models of creation are a subset of a false creation.

False, numbers as countable are numbers as forms. All forms share the same loop nature in both action and the traceability of their structure; numbers are loops.

How many 1's does the universe contain?

No, up and down are relative. From a position of space an astronaut is below the earth, from a vantage point of the earth they are above it.

So the universal axis is defined by the planet earth?

False, I may know the sky is blue given certain variables, but this is wrong if I get the variables wrong.

Who gives them to you?
Were they given to you by... yourself?

What gives?

What variables?
Which variables are right, which are wrong?

it is also caused by knowing a pattern...one can know it is within the nature of a loved one to lie and steal.

Whose to blame from the perspective of the sufferer?

False, one still suffers from the process of death.

Not necessarily true - there is no mandate that death need be suffered.
Moreover: the suffering endured regarding fear of death, being irrational,
serves as a widespread shared impetus of sustained suffering perpetuated by...
...you guessed it...

Lol, barely anyone is responding to it and what they respond to is keys variables (ie no belief, x is evil, etc.)

x is evil? says who?

It predicts a negation of belief if applied.

False - the question (whence the basis of) the theorem addresses is:

'from whence human suffering?'

thus is designed to generate a negation of 'suffering'. That 'belief' happens to be
the culprit was, and is, of no principle concern such to be negated:
the theorem would just as readily designated loopyness as principally causal
should it have been. Fortunately, it seems a limited, local one, but easily undone.

It is not upending because few to noone understands it...it is your private language.

Life is suffering, the only way to deal with suffering is to embrace it.

Others understanding it does not remotely reflect any will that I have that they should understand it.
The theorem is not at a stage to be understood by many, thus neither was it ever purported to be so.

Suffering need (nor can) not be embraced less: it exists.
CKIIT is designed to cease suffering beginning from within *A. It begins
with knowing not to believe one (or 1?) to be something one is not.

[Eodnhoj7]

False the internet cycles of natural law, all phenomenon reduced to point space because of distance, and the progression from one position to another necessitates the circle, point and line respectively. It is the monad.

Define 'internet cycles'...

Input and output of search options.

False, all models of creation are a subset of creation.

All false models of creation are a subset of a false creation.

False they are still variations of a single source, anything falsity is derived from self contradiction but the variables used still have truth values.

False, numbers as countable are numbers as forms. All forms share the same loop nature in both action and the traceability of their structure; numbers are loops.

How many 1's does the universe contain?

One and many.

No, up and down are relative. From a position of space an astronaut is below the earth, from a vantage point of the earth they are above it.

So the universal axis is defined by the planet earth?

Is the planet earth defined by the universal axis?

False, I may know the sky is blue given certain variables, but this is wrong if I get the variables wrong.

Who gives them to you?
Were they given to you by... yourself?

Variables are assumed, those that which do not align are not assumed in a manner in which they connecg.

What gives?

What variables?
Which variables are right, which are wrong?

All are right and wrong depending upon alignment of contexts.

it is also caused by knowing a pattern...one can know it is within the nature of a loved one to lie and steal.

Whose to blame from the perspective of the sufferer?

Why put blame if there is no reason to it, one must pull reason out of suffering.

False, one still suffers from the process of death.

Not necessarily true - there is no mandate that death need be suffered.
Moreover: the suffering endured regarding fear of death, being irrational,
serves as a widespread shared impetus of sustained suffering perpetuated by...
...you guessed it...

Lol, barely anyone is responding to it and what they respond to is keys variables (ie no belief, x is evil, etc.)

x is evil? says who?

Context does.

It predicts a negation of belief if applied.

False - the question (whence the basis of) the theorem addresses is:

'from whence human suffering?'

thus is designed to generate a negation of 'suffering'. That 'belief' happens to be
the culprit was, and is, of no principle concern such to be negated:
the theorem would just as readily designated loopyness as principally causal
should it have been. Fortunately, it seems a limited, local one, but easily undone.

It is not upending because few to noone understands it...it is your private language.

Life is suffering, the only way to deal with suffering is to embrace it.

Others understanding it does not remotely reflect any will that I have that they should understand it.
The theorem is not at a stage to be understood by many, thus neither was it ever purported to be so.

It is not understood by anyone but you.

Suffering need (nor can) not be embraced less: it exists.
CKIIT is designed to cease suffering beginning from within *A. It begins
with knowing not to believe one (or 1?) to be something one is not.

You are recycling buddhism. Sorry there are easier ways to promote certain things.

[nothing]

Input and output of search options.

Explain 'input and output of search options of natural law'.

False they are still variations of a single source, anything falsity is derived from self contradiction but the variables used still have truth values.

Single source being (rooted in) imagination(s) as displaced from reality which places one at odds with oneself.

A ≠ A
√A = +A, -A
A = *A

One and many.

Where is the first one to be counted?

Is the planet earth defined by the universal axis?

There is no universal axis (!)

Variables are assumed, those that which do not align are not assumed in a manner in which they connecg.

So variables rely on assumption for utility?

All are right and wrong depending upon alignment of contexts.

Under what circumstance(s) does a variable collapse into one or the other?

Why put blame if there is no reason to it, one must pull reason out of suffering.

Is it possible to imagine a reason where none really exists?
Under what circumstances (if any) does blame have "right" reason?

Context does.

Who is Context? If context is not a "who", but a "what", how does context serve as arbiter of such orientation?

It is not understood by anyone but you.

It would be a miracle if it were - there is no substance to understand.

You are recycling buddhism. Sorry there are easier ways to promote certain things.

I know nothing about buddhism, thus have no means to recycle what I have not.
What does buddhism promote?

[Eodnhoj7]

Input and output of search options.

Explain 'input and output of search options of natural law'.

Of natural law, food and feces, semen and child, air and carbon dioxide, etc.

False they are still variations of a single source, anything falsity is derived from self contradiction but the variables used still have truth values.

Single source being (rooted in) imagination(s) as displaced from reality which places one at odds with oneself.

A ≠ A
√A = +A, -A
A = *A

False, as imagination is rooted in reality, a unicorn may be false but is composed of many actual empirical phenomena.

One and many.

Where is the first one to be counted?

Either. 1 progressing to 2 as 3 allows 3 to occurs simultaneously with one.

Is the planet earth defined by the universal axis?

There is no universal axis (!)

Really? North and South poles result in the axis.

Variables are assumed, those that which do not align are not assumed in a manner in which they connecg.

So variables rely on assumption for utility?

Yes.

All are right and wrong depending upon alignment of contexts.

Under what circumstance(s) does a variable collapse into one or the other?

A unicorn is real as imaginary but false as empirical.

Why put blame if there is no reason to it, one must pull reason out of suffering.

Is it possible to imagine a reason where none really exists?
No, as reason is equilibrium and equilibrium occurs in the psyche.


Under what circumstances (if any) does blame have "right" reason?

If contexts aligns. For example to say someone saw an empirical unicorn is false. True if they seen an abstraction of one.

Context does.

Who is Context? If context is not a "who", but a "what", how does context serve as arbiter of such orientation?

Context is identity and identity is a loop.

It is not understood by anyone but you.

It would be a miracle if it were - there is no substance to understand.

I know .

You are recycling buddhism. Sorry there are easier ways to promote certain things.

I know nothing about buddhism, thus have no means to recycle what I have not.
What does buddhism promote?

Negation of illusion.

[nothing]

False, as imagination is rooted in reality, a unicorn may be false but is composed of many actual empirical phenomena.

That happens to include all such responsible for human suffering
due to absolution of belief in/of the imagined. Idol worship.
Moses, Jesus and Muhammad are imagined idols.

Either. 1 progressing to 2 as 3 allows 3 to occurs simultaneously with one.

How does 1 progress to 2?

Really? North and South poles result in the axis.

Where are the universal north and south poles (?)
Not planetary poles whose poles are self-referencing only, universal poles.
Where in the universe is it marked "this way is up"?
viz.
There is no universal axis (!)
(only a local one)

A unicorn is real as imaginary but false as empirical.

Replace unicorn with any idol as needed and/or desired
such that it matches the true empirical state of human suffering
as due to the absolution of belief surrounding the phenomena of:
idol worship. Imagination not needed: real phenomena emergent
of human suffering.

No, as reason is equilibrium (?) and equilibrium occurs in the psyche.

(!)

If contexts aligns. For example to say someone saw an empirical unicorn is false. True if they seen an abstraction of one.

And if they happen to believe the imagined abstraction to be real?

Context is identity and identity is a loop.

I don't take to your "loop".

I know

I very recently discovered CKIIT is compatible with an existing theory of everything which rejects Einstein's bendable space (?) and privileged clock time (?), in favor of a universe of motion. With CKIIT's rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law A = A (as motionless) *A is a valid motion. Thus, the bi-directional orientation system derived is valid in such a an existing theory. I thus move from here, and elsewhere to there, my time here having fruitfully served towards a formal construction of the geometry of the logic it derives and utilizes such to serve towards the cessation of human suffering.

Negation of illusion.

So we're both on to the same problem, then. Did Buddhism work, yet?

[Eodnhoj7]

False, as imagination is rooted in reality, a unicorn may be false but is composed of many actual empirical phenomena.

That happens to include all such responsible for human suffering
due to absolution of belief in/of the imagined. Idol worship.
Moses, Jesus and Muhammad are imagined idols.

You are imagining suffering is caused by these Gods as many claim peace.

Either. 1 progressing to 2 as 3 allows 3 to occurs simultaneously with one.

How does 1 progress to 2?

Through 1 self referencing as a new number

Really? North and South poles result in the axis.

Where are the universal north and south poles (?)

At opposite ends of an axis between the two.

Not planetary poles whose poles are self-referencing only, universal poles.
Where in the universe is it marked "this way is up"?
viz.
There is no universal axis (!)
(only a local one)

False, the opposite ends of a line are a universal axis, as the line is universal.

A unicorn is real as imaginary but false as empirical.

Replace unicorn with any idol as needed and/or desired
such that it matches the true empirical state of human suffering
as due to the absolution of belief surrounding the phenomena of:
idol worship. Imagination not needed: real phenomena emergent
of human suffering.

Then insert it with Memory as memory is grounded in empirical but is only abstract.

No, as reason is equilibrium (?) and equilibrium occurs in the psyche.

(!)

If contexts aligns. For example to say someone saw an empirical unicorn is false. True if they seen an abstraction of one.

And if they happen to believe the imagined abstraction to be real

So what, it is real as a concept.

Context is identity and identity is a loop.

I don't take to your "loop".

I dont care, the infinite number of cycles, as well as all shapes having the same ending as beginning point necessitates a loop.

I know

I very recently discovered CKIIT is compatible with an existing theory of everything which rejects Einstein's bendable space (?) and privileged clock time (?), in favor of a universe of motion. With CKIIT's rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law A = A (as motionless) *A is a valid motion. Thus, the bi-directional orientation system derived is valid in such a an existing theory. I thus move from here, and elsewhere to there, my time here having fruitfully served towards a formal construction of the geometry of the logic it derives and utilizes such to serve towards the cessation of human suffering.

Negation of illusion.

So we're both on to the same problem, then. Did Buddhism work, yet?

Is anyone besides me and one or two other people responding to your theory yet?

[nothing]

You are imagining suffering is caused by these Gods as many claim peace.

The suffering is actual (ie. measurable), not imagined.
It is potentially possible to claim the opposite of what is actual.

Through 1 self referencing as a new number

Lol - 1 self-references into 2 (?)

At opposite ends of an axis between the two.

Between the two what? Universes?

How many of them are there?

False, the opposite ends of a line are a universal axis, as the line is universal.

Well there's yer problem - 'the line is universal'.

Then insert it with Memory as memory is grounded in empirical but is only abstract.

What kind of memory? Does it have ECC?

So what, it is real as a concept.

Concepts are themselves not real.

I dont care, the infinite number of cycles, as well as all shapes having the same ending as beginning point necessitates a loop.

I don't know what universe you are describing - certainly not the one we live in.

Is anyone besides me and one or two other people responding to your theory yet?

There is no theory to respond to, neither a need - this forum has already served the purpose intended, as the theorem was developed to such a degree as to be able to be plugged into an existing system of theory that can formally derive the findings of CKIIT, thus I go there now.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are imagining suffering is caused by these Gods as many claim peace.

The suffering is actual (ie. measurable), not imagined.
It is potentially possible to claim the opposite of what is actual.

Many claim the God, relieves suffering.

Through 1 self referencing as a new number

Lol - 1 self-references into 2 (?)

To is 1+1, 2 represents a recursion of 1.

At opposite ends of an axis between the two.

Between the two what? Universes?

How many of them are there?

False, the opposite ends of a line are a universal axis, as the line is universal.

Well there's yer problem - 'the line is universal'.

All distances between two points is linear.

Then insert it with Memory as memory is grounded in empirical but is only abstract.

What kind of memory? Does it have ECC?

So what, it is real as a concept.

Concepts are themselves not real.

Then CKIIT is not real.

I dont care, the infinite number of cycles, as well as all shapes having the same ending as beginning point necessitates a loop.

I don't know what universe you are describing - certainly not the one we live in.

All occurs through recursion, recursion is a looping of the same variables. All being occurs through forms, all forms when traced equal a loop as you end with the same point you started with.

Is anyone besides me and one or two other people responding to your theory yet?

There is no theory to respond to, neither a need - this forum has already served the purpose intended, as the theorem was developed to such a degree as to be able to be plugged into an existing system of theory that can formally derive the findings of CKIIT, thus I go there now.

prove it.

[nothing]

Many claim the God, relieves suffering.

Knowing all not to believe does the same, as
suffering is a product of local belief-based ignorance(s)
requiring not any claim, but knowledge of the same.

To is 1+1, 2 represents a recursion of 1.

2 is disjointed from 1, as one can not have 1/1 as unity, then add unity to unity.

All distances between two points is linear.

Not only.

Then CKIIT is not real.

Having no conscious knowledge of one's own ignorance is real.
Thus, if knowledge of the same were attained to, it can be used
to infer any/all belief-based ignorance(s) local to any individual
in as much as it is a root of their own local suffering.

All occurs through recursion, recursion is a looping of the same variables. All being occurs through forms, all forms when traced equal a loop as you end with the same point you started with.

Take only four variables: to exist, to exist not, to begin to exist, to cease to exist.
The loop is not real - anything and everything has intrinsic capacity to cause/cease anything and everything
including internal suffering(s) - it is not a mandated property of the universe unless
one has not conscious knowledge of their own ignorance: then it is mandated
endlessly creating impedance(s) for which (bodies of) knowledge are produced
until suffering is locally ceased.

prove it.

I recently made a thread outlining the need to reject Aristotelian logic A = A,
the proof therein derives a simple logic that identifies elective universal roots and operators
such to satisfy a universe of motion wherein a being has intrinsic nature to choose.

[Eodnhoj7]

Many claim the God, relieves suffering.

Knowing all not to believe does the same, as
suffering is a product of local belief-based ignorance(s)
requiring not any claim, but knowledge of the same.

To is 1+1, 2 represents a recursion of 1.

2 is disjointed from 1, as one can not have 1/1 as unity, then add unity to unity.

All distances between two points is linear.

Not only.

Then CKIIT is not real.

Having no conscious knowledge of one's own ignorance is real.
Thus, if knowledge of the same were attained to, it can be used
to infer any/all belief-based ignorance(s) local to any individual
in as much as it is a root of their own local suffering.

All occurs through recursion, recursion is a looping of the same variables. All being occurs through forms, all forms when traced equal a loop as you end with the same point you started with.

Take only four variables: to exist, to exist not, to begin to exist, to cease to exist.
The loop is not real - anything and everything has intrinsic capacity to cause/cease anything and everything
including internal suffering(s) - it is not a mandated property of the universe unless
one has not conscious knowledge of their own ignorance: then it is mandated
endlessly creating impedance(s) for which (bodies of) knowledge are produced
until suffering is locally ceased.

prove it.

I recently made a thread outlining the need to reject Aristotelian logic A = A,
the proof therein derives a simple logic that identifies elective universal roots and operators
such to satisfy a universe of motion wherein a being has intrinsic nature to choose.

I read...you know what I was going to say how much I read...then realized even if I read all of it, the fact that you CKIIT is not being discussed by anyone here means I am the only one reading it. I don't see any value in it. If other's can see some value in it, in the respect they see something I don't I will address it further.

Honestly the theory is boring me, I see no value in it.

Good luck with overcoming...whatever it is you are trying to do.

[nothing]

I read...you know what I was going to say how much I read...then realized even if I read all of it, the fact that you CKIIT is not being discussed by anyone here means I am the only one reading it. I don't see any value in it. If other's can see some value in it, in the respect they see something I don't I will address it further.

Honestly the theory is boring me, I see no value in it.

Good luck with overcoming...whatever it is you are trying to do.[/color]

I don't know what it is you are reading - there is no real theorem to read here. It started out as crudely conceptual, since it has grown into something that adapts into an existing system of theory. Therefor the development of it is in that direction, and not here on these forums.

I may do a thread before I leave that shows how existing reciprocal systems of theory find that space and time as intrinsically of this nature: multiplicative reciprocals, and show how CKIIT integrates into this existing system of theory (a universal theory of everything) such that it can be used as a universal orientation system which ceases suffering/death over time.

The solution is theist/atheist invariant, and solves for the metaphysical properties of the two Edenic trees such to satisfy any/all relevant (or not) "Abrahamic" context(s) by deriving the identity of the culprit of the two: absolution-of-belief such to infer it's reciprocate: absolution-of-knowledge between which (un)consciousness resides. Because the reciprocal systems theory is rooted in the physical universe, what it has found can be tried/tested for in any/all possible metaphysical realm(s). I do this privately, as its co-author. The other does the same...

...we just do not agree on the root problem, therefor our solutions are different.

[Eodnhoj7]

I read...you know what I was going to say how much I read...then realized even if I read all of it, the fact that you CKIIT is not being discussed by anyone here means I am the only one reading it. I don't see any value in it. If other's can see some value in it, in the respect they see something I don't I will address it further.

Honestly the theory is boring me, I see no value in it.

Good luck with overcoming...whatever it is you are trying to do.[/color]

I don't know what it is you are reading - there is no real theorem to read here. It started out as crudely conceptual, since it has grown into something that adapts into an existing system of theory. Therefor the development of it is in that direction, and not here on these forums.

I may do a thread before I leave that shows how existing reciprocal systems of theory find that space and time as intrinsically of this nature: multiplicative reciprocals, and show how CKIIT integrates into this existing system of theory (a universal theory of everything) such that it can be used as a universal orientation system which ceases suffering/death over time.

The solution is theist/atheist invariant, and solves for the metaphysical properties of the two Edenic trees such to satisfy any/all relevant (or not) "Abrahamic" context(s) by deriving the identity of the culprit of the two: absolution-of-belief such to infer it's reciprocate: absolution-of-knowledge between which (un)consciousness resides. Because the reciprocal systems theory is rooted in the physical universe, what it has found can be tried/tested for in any/all possible metaphysical realm(s). I do this privately, as its co-author. The other does the same...

In light of quantum foam all phenomena occur spontaneously from void thus all reocurrence of variables necessitate an element of randomness from them. This randomness to knowledge means order spontaneously occurs. A psychological example of this would be images spontaneously appearing from the subconsciousness.

As such belief is a necessary subsidiary to knowledge as knowledge takes on a random pattern of spontaneously occuring, while beliefs spontaneously occur as well.

...we just do not agree on the root problem, therefor our solutions are different.

[nothing]

In light of quantum foam...

Not real.

all phenomena occur spontaneously from void...

Not real.

thus all reocurrence of variables necessitate an element of randomness from them.

The randomness is apparent: there is a scalar natural progression which expands indefinitely at the speed of light,
and an inverse scalar gravitational contraction. All physical/cosmic phenomena are defined by relationships
(ie. displacements) from the speed of light c.

This randomness to knowledge means order spontaneously occurs. A psychological example of this would be images spontaneously appearing from the subconsciousness.

The randomness is not random - it has motion(s) associated with it.

As such belief is a necessary subsidiary to knowledge as knowledge takes on a random pattern of spontaneously occuring, while beliefs spontaneously occur as well.

evil........live
↓{to believe}↑
↓.{all}{not}.↑
↓{to know}..↑
____________
KNOW to TRY: both {to} and {not}: to BELIEVE
KNOW to TEST: both {true} and {not}
KNOW to FALSIFY: all BELIEF(s) not necessarily {true}
...ad infinitum...

Knowledge does not spontaneously occur,
insight/inspiration does this
which may (or may not) lead to knowledge.