Moves among the standing

The Rabbi paid! The Sed returns to the third book, and here are some questions that came to my mind.
1. In distinguishing between a command and an indication, the Rav says that this is precisely the Gemara that all that is kept in mind is nothing but a do not do, otherwise it would be just an indication, and I asked – how is it possible that there is no special idiom for a command regarding positive commandments? Could it be that they “missed” something so fundamental? (Or is it that this division was not so clear at the time of the writing of the Torah?) I agree that there are verses that certainly indicate an indication, such as the man Moses was humble, and those that certainly indicate a command, but there are also those that can be debated, I suppose, and why is there no idiom and they relied on our understanding, and in the commandments of the Torah there is an idiom?
2. The rabbi says that studying Torah in a haphazard manner is everything that helps me personally understand the world and the Torah, etc. Can we say that studying physics or Kant for me is studying in a haphazard manner (or that after all, they do check whether the author’s mother is Jewish or not?)?
3. The Rabbi says that the validity of the commandment comes only after our agreement to be commanded (then the commandments come and obligate us), and this is what changed on Purim. So, for the Gentiles, there was no event that they agreed to be commanded, and from where do the 7 commandments of the sons of Noah come into effect? ​​And another question, does a public agreement to be commanded two thousand years ago actually obligate me as an individual today?
4. The rabbi says that there is no contradiction between two private value principles and that there must be an overarching value principle for a contradiction to occur, and so the chocolate Doge, the student Doge who came to Sartre, and more, are private value principles? I went back and forth and couldn’t find what I missed (maybe it has to do with the difference between a substantive and circumstantial contradiction?)