Note: This is inspired by VISA behavioural approval system!
Sunday, 30 December 2012
The Removal of Lawyer's Competences from Any Given Embassy
A notice over "lawyer's competence and the withdrawal of this", that I've "sent" to a friend as a matter of saying "who I am", is this:
that one sets up a corporate consulting entity for a lawyer's services and removes the lawyer's status from the given embassy as a matter of disciplinary reaction in order "to say something about them", i.e., you've been rude or other, thus forcing them to be more _respectful_ by forcing the lawer's services outside the diplomatic immunity and being symbolic about removing the laywer's competence from the embassy in question, most shameful to most people.
"Sent" to this contact more than a day ago. (Not a valid time notification, only between "us".)
Thursday, 20 December 2012
How to Inflate a Currency Value - The Three Kings (Or How to Screw Your Country...)
The Three Kings:
1. Sell your currency beyond ability and thus to generate bonds to other currencies and by the expansion of existing "currency in markets", inflation happens! This is the hidden trick of the Central Bank's Board or Boss!
2. To overload the Goverment's expenses, to increase the public expenses so as to make inflation happen.
3. To set a general interest rate from the Federal Reserve or Central Banks extremely low. Again, inflation to happen!
Now, where's Greenspan?
Note: a matter of informing the public!
Note2: also correcting a wrong URL saying "deflation" of 18:32:00 CET.
1. Sell your currency beyond ability and thus to generate bonds to other currencies and by the expansion of existing "currency in markets", inflation happens! This is the hidden trick of the Central Bank's Board or Boss!
2. To overload the Goverment's expenses, to increase the public expenses so as to make inflation happen.
3. To set a general interest rate from the Federal Reserve or Central Banks extremely low. Again, inflation to happen!
Now, where's Greenspan?
Note: a matter of informing the public!
Note2: also correcting a wrong URL saying "deflation" of 18:32:00 CET.
Monday, 10 December 2012
Over Camus and "The Stranger" - Entering the literary debate of early, the contrib. to Intellectuality
"The Killer of Friend" - Over "The Stranger" further and apart from "Perfect Strangers / Perfect Lovers" ( / = slash )
"The Killer of Friend" is to be a lasting reference for me over "The Stranger" by Camus of France/Algerie. Indeed, by "The Stranger" I leave no doubt in saying that to kill a friend is to kill the concept of friend!! This seems to be a hard statement AND IT IS! To pay respect to proper sentiments is TO PRESERVE THEM!
The former message to "The Stranger"/"The Outsider" by Camus has been:
Perfect Stranger as performed by Deep Purple
Can you remember remember my name
As I flow through your life
A thousand oceans I have flown - Alt. "A thousand notions - I have flow (psychological and note on Christian cross of "t" by notions with connector as separator.)
And cold spirits of ice
All my life
I am the echo of your past
I am returning the echo of a point in time Distant faces shine
A thousand warriors I have known
And laughing as the spirits appear
All your life Shadows of another day
And if you hear me talking on the wind
You've got to understand
We must remain Perfect Strangers
I know I must remain inside this silent well of sorrow
A strand of silver hanging through the sky
Touching more than you see
The voice of ages in your mind
Is aching with the dead of the night
Precious life (your tears are lost in falling rain)
And if you hear me talking on the wind
You've got to understand
We must remain Perfect Strangers
The text anew with background (over "Perfect Strangers" and strangling The Stranger of Camus to death):
Can you remember - the memory of action, the memory of exactly this "lost" friend.
Remember my name - the lost friend talking to you, killer of "friend".
As i flow through your life - as the lost friend "flow" through your life, i.e., your memories as you die, day by day, or exactly now.
A thousand oceans i have flown - that the mystery of origin of /intelligence/ and humanity has a huge depth.
And cold spirits of ice - the spirits of deep logics, their rights to life, intuitively, their nature of cleanliness, and that they may be watching your pathetic self, you the killer of "friend"
All my life - all the life of a human being with human worth, i.e., the human rights I am the echo of your past - you will hear from your killed friend, your crimes will be known this way or that I am returning the echo of a point in time - the friend of killing is of this unknown nature, reiteration
Distant faces shine - distant faces of dignity and happiness shine, not where you are, killer of "friend", but their presence and nature of mystery find their own places in universe, despite a pathetic little soul like that of yours
A thousand warriors I have known (Sun Tzu and his Terracotta and the Japanese classic, Hagakure, if not the tank equipment and other funny remarks, growing up during cold war and so forth!)
Additional background material by Perfect Lovers / Perfect Strangers, having already won the discussion in France "a while ago":All of this goes to Camus' book of "The Stranger". This must be perfectly clear!
1. "I understand I must remain in this well of sorrow - to "you" as this person, as I speak to the insane, unable to understand humanity and consequently *demands* the well of sorrow /on other people/!- to the killer of "friend"!
2. "remain perfect strangers" - the relation between the person who rejected people and those who cherish life- the chasm between these two groups of people!- This is a wording that intermediates the written discussion, subduing the violences and other conflicts of life.
Given a slightly faulty memory, I have some restraint, but there is a suspicion of mine that there's a killer's signature in the middle of the book of Camus' "The Stranger" (according to police's standards). You need to read it carefully in order to detect ito r even recheck throughout the book in order to connect some information.
There's another peculiar thing about "removing" a friend who is "downward"/"on a downward trend" and it has to do with qualifying this "downward trend" of friend. I suspect they are retreating more and more from life as "everything" becomes weakness and only they maintain "a proper butcher's knife" for the real life to obtain!
I think I'm also entitled to claim that the song was produced in Kvinesdal, a neighbouring "kommune" to Farsund, because the song demanded specifics for it to be performed properly, probably implying more fame as well!
Lyrics found with the help from Lyricsfreak by http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/deep+purple/perfect+strangers_20038780.html .
Over "The Stranger" by Camus (as in English): I've now been looking over the text of Camus, 76/77, including a word on the author himself. The text is clearly about one part "in real life" and one part in being a prison inmate for a crime. The text also carries two rather unpleasant stories over "an old boy", what I take to be a teen-ager above 15, and a story over a dog that is /forced/ to attack another dog, i.e., the dog eats dog part of real life insofar... Well, well, no clear killer signature as such from the author's mentality himself. This holds no significance either. And on the contrary, given the background of Algerie (of poverty then, most certainly), he should be left the room to sympathise with communism "for France to come down, and for Algerie to rise respectfully". Clearly, my Ad Hominems must go, as they also have NO place in common history over him as person. Also, and sympatically enough, over life matters, he describes a "Home" what can also go for the very control over every individual and the denial of general freedom for people. Not becoming any better now as we are 7,1 Bn people (7.1 US Eng.). So this is where I stand, then rather /the/ attack on general stupidity everywhere in the World with ((Perfect Lovers Slash) Perfect Strangers performed by Deep Purple, and Oceans (of Time, i.e., the Buddhistic theories of many people destinies
before my own person) rather than "Notions"!
I'd also say this further:
There has been Alt. "A thousand notions - I have flow (psychological and note on Christian cross of "t" by notions with connector as separator.)
and that Deep Purple's solution has been to produce 2 versions while I could have seen an alternation song and these 2 or just one of them. Good?
Out of this, some people, mostly psychologists, started to get interested in people's "brain flows" and for good, I think, that you can compare the "brain flows" between schizophrenics and healthy people for example, another possible avenue as "indicator for diagnostication" and research.
The "flow" point may prove an additional point against (irrational) The Stranger by Camus under the hypothesis that the person has tendencies toward schizophrenia or "outward", but outside mental pathology, i.e., with no need for hospital care.
(More to come!)
Also, as I am the name-holder of mSomatism!
It takes the reading of Camus' book for understanding to obtain! You get it, please?
Note: First made a note to Facebook on Monday, 19 November 2012 at 12:06 CET.
Note2: Lyrics found with the help from Lyricsfreak by http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/deep+purple/perfect+strangers_20038780.html .
Sunday, 9 December 2012
The Removal of the Haunting Ghost of "The Trial" by Franz Kafka
Killing the haunting ghost of "The Trial".
There are some very important concepts in English and for this purpose only we name them:
"Legal Process", that contact with a court has been established or that a lawyer has been approached with a description of the problem at hand.
"Litigation" is a very satisfying concept in that it allows one to "air" concerns about a certain issue and start talking about it with the aim of reaching a more formal process later, "the legal process".
Thus, the poisonous edge of "The Trial" has been done away with. The Ghost is laid to rest?
I hope you like it (and are helped by it too)! Life is more than hard enough either way!
There are some very important concepts in English and for this purpose only we name them:
"Legal Process", that contact with a court has been established or that a lawyer has been approached with a description of the problem at hand.
"Litigation" is a very satisfying concept in that it allows one to "air" concerns about a certain issue and start talking about it with the aim of reaching a more formal process later, "the legal process".
Thus, the poisonous edge of "The Trial" has been done away with. The Ghost is laid to rest?
I hope you like it (and are helped by it too)! Life is more than hard enough either way!
The Psychologists' Insistence on Social Scheming and Murder (of Old)!
One voice says, telepathic or not, to its followers, that former pres. "de Gaulle" [a name relevant to France in this matter] is to die inside the next 10 years.
The psychologists follow up with the usual "gaming" of carnivore nature, vowing and displaying "much feelings", drama!
Then the former pres. of France actually dies within the next 10 years, but nobody can say whether it has occured naturally or whether it has been a murder, the circumstances are indeed obscured.
Not only this, but some time after, another "head in the clouds" take on the blame for what he says is murder and that he now holds this great man's murder in his soul, that he is THIS BIG!
Now what does this mean, that if I say it's my nature to kill people and to present myself as an insult to the public at the same time, what is the significance of this?
And as this must be said to be self-confirming prophesis, then what? Aren't they insults all in all if they are to say this in FULL seriousness, in full academic honesty?
What if one is managing to present another case "on the other side", that people are by and large law-abiding, what is the meaning of this to the above?
And finally, why do we then have something that we call "the legal system" and consider this to be a brand-mark of civilisation, the meter we measure civilisation by?
So I just keep questioning these "carnivore-notions of old fashioned psychology"! Let's see where this goes! Cheers!
PS: Unnecessary to say perhaps that this places it with the demanded, of mine at least, Quality Revision of Psychology incl. the Erich Fromm dispositions and fascinations with diseases and the Scientism-Scientists debate against Resp.towardMysteries-Scientists, ethics in hand, soundly!
PS2: You may add some hidden assumptions by the police, the tacit "hate-management" assumptions of the old tradition, the "material" presented and the mSomatism of mine, relating to the cognition of right from wrong in describing Schizophrenia, a not-yet-dead-concept, to say it mildly!
The psychologists follow up with the usual "gaming" of carnivore nature, vowing and displaying "much feelings", drama!
Then the former pres. of France actually dies within the next 10 years, but nobody can say whether it has occured naturally or whether it has been a murder, the circumstances are indeed obscured.
Not only this, but some time after, another "head in the clouds" take on the blame for what he says is murder and that he now holds this great man's murder in his soul, that he is THIS BIG!
Now what does this mean, that if I say it's my nature to kill people and to present myself as an insult to the public at the same time, what is the significance of this?
And as this must be said to be self-confirming prophesis, then what? Aren't they insults all in all if they are to say this in FULL seriousness, in full academic honesty?
What if one is managing to present another case "on the other side", that people are by and large law-abiding, what is the meaning of this to the above?
And finally, why do we then have something that we call "the legal system" and consider this to be a brand-mark of civilisation, the meter we measure civilisation by?
So I just keep questioning these "carnivore-notions of old fashioned psychology"! Let's see where this goes! Cheers!
PS: Unnecessary to say perhaps that this places it with the demanded, of mine at least, Quality Revision of Psychology incl. the Erich Fromm dispositions and fascinations with diseases and the Scientism-Scientists debate against Resp.towardMysteries-Scientists, ethics in hand, soundly!
PS2: You may add some hidden assumptions by the police, the tacit "hate-management" assumptions of the old tradition, the "material" presented and the mSomatism of mine, relating to the cognition of right from wrong in describing Schizophrenia, a not-yet-dead-concept, to say it mildly!
Saturday, 8 December 2012
In Organising the (Public) Health Sector - Advise to the Health Minister of Norway
My only advise to Gahr Støre/Store these days in organising an effective (public) health sector for his nation, is a simple one: get the system engineers and quality engineers moving (while also caring for a patient-friendly "interface"/welcoming approach!
The rest is taken care of by consensus medicine and I don't know much of medicine that's now, you know, pretty well taken care of ("outside the classics like all cancers", but only in this quote-marked sense, the palliative side should now be most excellent).
The rest is taken care of by consensus medicine and I don't know much of medicine that's now, you know, pretty well taken care of ("outside the classics like all cancers", but only in this quote-marked sense, the palliative side should now be most excellent).
Sunday, 2 December 2012
"Echelon" (by CIA) against the World Population Forever NO MORE!!!
It's of my opinion under former accusations of USA by "Hindenburg-New York-USA" that USA shall for all time further be (explicitly) prevented from executing such surveillance schemes as "Echelon" as they are now shown to be NO MORE than any other nation! This excludes charges going on against any nation by the International Criminal Court of the Hague and similar charges in any *national* court. (Sharp note (also formerly to IRAN here on Facebook): Perhaps the World should use more "political attempts" against blatant wrongdoing by USA (and Canada)!)
Note that USA also "chains"/holds Facebook (Communication), Google (Search), Gmail (Email), Microsoft/Apple (Operating System), Intel/AMD/formerly IBM (Processors) and other (fx. Accenture)! Beware!
Note that USA also "chains"/holds Facebook (Communication), Google (Search), Gmail (Email), Microsoft/Apple (Operating System), Intel/AMD/formerly IBM (Processors) and other (fx. Accenture)! Beware!
Saturday, 1 December 2012
Upon the Final Days of Living in Norway
...I have this to say:
In "feeling"/"sensing" these awful thoughts of getting tortured to death, medically or not, I demand the definite support of the entire World population, 7,074 Bn people, directly/tacitly or implicitly, in order to take the State of Norway to the courts and defeating the Justice Department by Minister of Justice, Grete Faremo! (Sorry, no (pathological) possibility for objection here!) Cheers!
Update, 2017-12-16:
https://controversial777.blogspot.no/2013/07/the-legal-process-is-finished-in-norway.html
Here you can find the legal references for my case against the Justice Department of Norway all the way up to "Høyesterett" (EN: Norwegian Supreme Court). I'm sorry that this update comes "a bit" late!
The case will be updated on here among other places, probably.
In "feeling"/"sensing" these awful thoughts of getting tortured to death, medically or not, I demand the definite support of the entire World population, 7,074 Bn people, directly/tacitly or implicitly, in order to take the State of Norway to the courts and defeating the Justice Department by Minister of Justice, Grete Faremo! (Sorry, no (pathological) possibility for objection here!) Cheers!
Update, 2017-12-16:
https://controversial777.blogspot.no/2013/07/the-legal-process-is-finished-in-norway.html
Here you can find the legal references for my case against the Justice Department of Norway all the way up to "Høyesterett" (EN: Norwegian Supreme Court). I'm sorry that this update comes "a bit" late!
The case will be updated on here among other places, probably.
Saturday, 24 November 2012
The White Room - the Original Front Page of My Old Websites - from 1999
Firstly, the old presentation as byHTML code directly:
Ident
Crossroads
Comfy Ident
Comfy Crossroads
(Please, allow me some time to repair to this toward the original impression.)
Secondly, some of the code:
DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"
html
head
link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/favicon.ico" /
link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="t_daemon_lea.css" /
meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="en-GB"
meta name="Author" content="Terje Lea"
meta content="Terje Lea" name="author"
meta name="GENERATOR" content="Gedit"
meta name="ProgId" content="Gedit"
meta name="google-site-verification"
content="2F6XYDjfEMMjE3GBXld1m3jzfesp2lnK2eveZ92T8o0" /
META name="y_key" content="8724486e7f89457f"
title>The White Room</title
!-- style type="text/css"
#indexl:active {color:#0091F0;}
#indexl:link {color:#0091F0;}
#indexl:visited {color:#0091F0;}
#indexl:hover {text-decoration:underline;}
body {background-color:#FFFFFF;}
body {font-style:italic;}
#indexbl {font-style:normal;}
p {font-size:12pt;}
body {font-family:"Times New Roman";}
#indexdiv {text-align:center;color:#0091F0;}
/style --
/head
body id="indexdiv"
The White Room
h3>Links:</h3
p><a id="indexl" href="ContactInfo.html">Contact Information</a></p
p><a id="indexl" href="index100.html">Ident</a></p
p><a id="indexl" href="crossroads.html">Crossroads</a></p
h1> </h1
h1> </h1
p><a id="indexl" href="cindex100.html">Comfy Ident</a></p
p><a id="indexl" href="ccrossroads.html">Comfy Crossroads</a></p
h1> </h1
p id="indexbl"><img src="rss.gif"> <a id="indexl" type="application/rss+xml" href="rss.xml">RSS</a> feed for this site. Alternatively, 10 latest additions of
<a id="indexl" type="application/rss+xml" href="rss10.xml">RSS</a>.<br
Here are the RSS archive files collected in items/writings of 100 each, <a id="indexl" href="rss-archive.html">link</a>.</p
p> </p
link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/rss10.xml" title="The White Room 10"
link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/rss.xml" title="The White Room Complete"
/body
/html
The White Room
Links:
Contact Information
Ident
Crossroads
Comfy Ident
Comfy Crossroads
img src="rss.gif" RSS feed for this site. Alternatively, 10 latest additions of
RSS.
Here are the RSS archive files collected in items/writings of 100 each, a id="indexl" href="rss-archive.html"-link-a.
link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/rss10.xml" title="The White Room 10"
link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/rss.xml" title="The White Room Complete"
(Please, allow me some time to repair to this toward the original impression.)
Secondly, some of the code:
DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"
html
head
link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/favicon.ico" /
link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="t_daemon_lea.css" /
meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="en-GB"
meta name="Author" content="Terje Lea"
meta content="Terje Lea" name="author"
meta name="GENERATOR" content="Gedit"
meta name="ProgId" content="Gedit"
meta name="google-site-verification"
content="2F6XYDjfEMMjE3GBXld1m3jzfesp2lnK2eveZ92T8o0" /
META name="y_key" content="8724486e7f89457f"
title>The White Room</title
!-- style type="text/css"
#indexl:active {color:#0091F0;}
#indexl:link {color:#0091F0;}
#indexl:visited {color:#0091F0;}
#indexl:hover {text-decoration:underline;}
body {background-color:#FFFFFF;}
body {font-style:italic;}
#indexbl {font-style:normal;}
p {font-size:12pt;}
body {font-family:"Times New Roman";}
#indexdiv {text-align:center;color:#0091F0;}
/style --
/head
body id="indexdiv"
The White Room
h3>Links:</h3
p><a id="indexl" href="ContactInfo.html">Contact Information</a></p
p><a id="indexl" href="index100.html">Ident</a></p
p><a id="indexl" href="crossroads.html">Crossroads</a></p
h1> </h1
h1> </h1
p><a id="indexl" href="cindex100.html">Comfy Ident</a></p
p><a id="indexl" href="ccrossroads.html">Comfy Crossroads</a></p
h1> </h1
p id="indexbl"><img src="rss.gif"> <a id="indexl" type="application/rss+xml" href="rss.xml">RSS</a> feed for this site. Alternatively, 10 latest additions of
<a id="indexl" type="application/rss+xml" href="rss10.xml">RSS</a>.<br
Here are the RSS archive files collected in items/writings of 100 each, <a id="indexl" href="rss-archive.html">link</a>.</p
p> </p
link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/rss10.xml" title="The White Room 10"
link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/rss.xml" title="The White Room Complete"
/body
/html
Friday, 23 November 2012
Invitation to My Fellow Europeans - The Relocation to EU Europe
Dear [you at fx. University of Hamburg, in conn. with pref. Physics]
As I´ve been to your city recently, rather unsuccessfully in terms of relocating, I wonder if we can "meet" in terms of sharing goals and more in being "good Europeans" together.
I bring to the table in this respect this "bragging list":
- New gravity theory, Cascading Effects as Gravity expressed through property of mass, m.
-> comparison of electron shells to the atom core
-> to gravity from the Earth itself starting with the Earth where its most heavy and then outward toward the upper limits of Earth gas atoms
- Wave collapse to psychology
- Schrödinger's rat
-> First to decisively crush Schrödinger's theory by his rat/cat
- Revisionist Standard Model, 27 particles
- Definite destruction of QCD
- Likely destruction of String Theory
-> Mathematical point over Grigori Perelman
- Demolition of the Copenhagen Interpretation
-> only 1 direct observation and 2/3 indirect observation points to remain
- First HARD realist in Physics for the World to follow
- Two photon experimental designs meant to pave the way forward to
-> quantify the photons and to make possible the studies of photons interacting with materials, here, the metals
- Photon theory has also emerged from my works
- Impossibility of both the Graviton and the Higgs Boson have also been completed
- I've also added two additions to The Free Will by John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen
-> that address complexity and size of body to obtain Free Will and that the neutral state has to be included in the Free Will Theorem, thus making the whole thing look less sharp or "more relaxed" so that not every moment is about "good and evil", but rather about "good, neutral and evil", time being more at your discretion
I also like to mention the stapling of Fermilab to the wall with demolishing Technicolour theory, given my questioning over it (see the Higgs´ Kill List).
Lately, by economical data from NYSE (WTI oil) and FTSE (Brent Blend oil) by December 2012 and full impact in June 2012 with my theory of new "Crust Formation Theory", I´ve also managed to move the "mountain" of oil and gas "10 centimeters"!
I hope you like some of this and that you want to welcome me to your city next time I plan to travel to Hamburg so that relocation can safely happen and "Einwohner Hamburg" can obtain. Thank you!
I´m possible to reach by terjelea@gmail.com , leonardofolsneslea@gmail.com , and phone +47 988 17910 .
Sincerely yours,
T. Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea
Prospective EU citizen
PS: This email goes out openly because Norway and "susp. Genocide-Jens and Stoltenberg-Jugend" can either way persecute me to death "in more than 10 ways", like travelling with Norwegian for a start or tracing my Netcom-mob.phone(-robot) signals. Yes, this is advanced and serious!
As I´ve been to your city recently, rather unsuccessfully in terms of relocating, I wonder if we can "meet" in terms of sharing goals and more in being "good Europeans" together.
I bring to the table in this respect this "bragging list":
- New gravity theory, Cascading Effects as Gravity expressed through property of mass, m.
-> comparison of electron shells to the atom core
-> to gravity from the Earth itself starting with the Earth where its most heavy and then outward toward the upper limits of Earth gas atoms
- Wave collapse to psychology
- Schrödinger's rat
-> First to decisively crush Schrödinger's theory by his rat/cat
- Revisionist Standard Model, 27 particles
- Definite destruction of QCD
- Likely destruction of String Theory
-> Mathematical point over Grigori Perelman
- Demolition of the Copenhagen Interpretation
-> only 1 direct observation and 2/3 indirect observation points to remain
- First HARD realist in Physics for the World to follow
- Two photon experimental designs meant to pave the way forward to
-> quantify the photons and to make possible the studies of photons interacting with materials, here, the metals
- Photon theory has also emerged from my works
- Impossibility of both the Graviton and the Higgs Boson have also been completed
- I've also added two additions to The Free Will by John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen
-> that address complexity and size of body to obtain Free Will and that the neutral state has to be included in the Free Will Theorem, thus making the whole thing look less sharp or "more relaxed" so that not every moment is about "good and evil", but rather about "good, neutral and evil", time being more at your discretion
I also like to mention the stapling of Fermilab to the wall with demolishing Technicolour theory, given my questioning over it (see the Higgs´ Kill List).
Lately, by economical data from NYSE (WTI oil) and FTSE (Brent Blend oil) by December 2012 and full impact in June 2012 with my theory of new "Crust Formation Theory", I´ve also managed to move the "mountain" of oil and gas "10 centimeters"!
I hope you like some of this and that you want to welcome me to your city next time I plan to travel to Hamburg so that relocation can safely happen and "Einwohner Hamburg" can obtain. Thank you!
I´m possible to reach by terjelea@gmail.com , leonardofolsneslea@gmail.com , and phone +47 988 17910 .
Sincerely yours,
T. Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea
Prospective EU citizen
PS: This email goes out openly because Norway and "susp. Genocide-Jens and Stoltenberg-Jugend" can either way persecute me to death "in more than 10 ways", like travelling with Norwegian for a start or tracing my Netcom-mob.phone(-robot) signals. Yes, this is advanced and serious!
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Then the 2 Real Points Today - The Public Judgment of The Norwegian Bar Assocation and the Doctorate of Mine!
Then the 2 real points today:
The Public Judgment on The Norwegian Bar Association: First of all, I like to announce that I intend to report the "Advokatforeningen" (The Norwegian Bar Association) to the "Kontroll- og konstitusjonskomiteen" (The National Assembly´s Control- and Constitution Committee) for violating fundamental rules of the international society of civilisation, the CCBE, by how they have handled my reporting to them of 3 lawyers and how, effectively, I´ve been denied a way to fair trial in being in agony of stress, possibly by threats of the hardest kinds, the torture, medical or not. I grant no mercy if they fail again in a country of the vilest!
The Doctor: Secondly, I have the pleasure to say that I now declare myself Dr. phil. (in Physics) L. F. Olsnes-Lea under the convention of "you´re now a doctor" in coming up and above deep Norwegian subversion of my person in being now accomplished and revered in academic matters!
Thanks for now. Cheers!
The Public Judgment on The Norwegian Bar Association: First of all, I like to announce that I intend to report the "Advokatforeningen" (The Norwegian Bar Association) to the "Kontroll- og konstitusjonskomiteen" (The National Assembly´s Control- and Constitution Committee) for violating fundamental rules of the international society of civilisation, the CCBE, by how they have handled my reporting to them of 3 lawyers and how, effectively, I´ve been denied a way to fair trial in being in agony of stress, possibly by threats of the hardest kinds, the torture, medical or not. I grant no mercy if they fail again in a country of the vilest!
The Doctor: Secondly, I have the pleasure to say that I now declare myself Dr. phil. (in Physics) L. F. Olsnes-Lea under the convention of "you´re now a doctor" in coming up and above deep Norwegian subversion of my person in being now accomplished and revered in academic matters!
Thanks for now. Cheers!
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
The Suggestion for Extra Administrator Approval for Log-On to Other Networks and by Other Methods- Another copyright...
The Suggestion for Extra Administrator Approval for log-on to other Networks and by other methods:
I suggest by copyright, for Wi-Fi systems primarily, that there`s a behavioural log-on criterium for choosing log-on routine to the internet and choosing network, that is, switching from Fixed-cable to Wi-Fi or satelite system. This should require extra administrator approval for doing.
Note: This is inspired by VISA behavioural approval system!
I suggest by copyright, for Wi-Fi systems primarily, that there`s a behavioural log-on criterium for choosing log-on routine to the internet and choosing network, that is, switching from Fixed-cable to Wi-Fi or satelite system. This should require extra administrator approval for doing.
Note: This is inspired by VISA behavioural approval system!
Friday, 19 October 2012
Inspirational People - As much as word for the day, I'll add to this list as I want to...
"Inspirational people" now amount to twenty-one and they are:
Hans-Georg Gadamer
Jürgen Habermas (Juergen Habermas)
St Augustine
St. Thomas Aquinas
Yamamoto Tsunetomo
Confucius
Tsun Tzu the Art of War
Carl Gustav Hempel
Jacques Derrida
Rudolf Carnap
Immanuel Kant
Merrie Bergmann - author of the "Logic Book" for being thorough in writing a book of learning
Neville Chamberlain +
Winston Churchill, both of whom won a Nobel Prize, and both were agressive on the Nazi-Germans with Battleground Mentality to go! (Against WP:Battleground by WP:Idiots.)
Thomas Paine
L. Ron Hubbard, that is, people can laugh at mr. Hubbard all they want "in being (so) academic or not", but fact is that they don't know religion very much and that his text of follower autonomy, common-sense (vs. "headless-Sharia" by deluded religious) rel. ethics and tolerance toward other religions and creeds as such, personal or... sets him in with the geniuses for all time to come, like it or NOT!
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli
Charles André Joseph Marie de Gaulle
André Malraux
Gaius Julius Caesar, for matters of Rome and our New Roman Empire and for being, probably, I don't really know, the best Roman emperor!
These are essentially the list from Facebook!
The religious code of Scientology (Hubbard's) is found here (for free): http://www.thewaytohappiness.org/ , The Way to Happiness. In the same breath, I also now recommend Scientology 0 -8 (from Planet Earth/"here"/Thetan to Eternity/Infinity).
Hans-Georg Gadamer
Jürgen Habermas (Juergen Habermas)
St Augustine
St. Thomas Aquinas
Yamamoto Tsunetomo
Confucius
Tsun Tzu the Art of War
Carl Gustav Hempel
Jacques Derrida
Rudolf Carnap
Immanuel Kant
Merrie Bergmann - author of the "Logic Book" for being thorough in writing a book of learning
Neville Chamberlain +
Winston Churchill, both of whom won a Nobel Prize, and both were agressive on the Nazi-Germans with Battleground Mentality to go! (Against WP:Battleground by WP:Idiots.)
Thomas Paine
L. Ron Hubbard, that is, people can laugh at mr. Hubbard all they want "in being (so) academic or not", but fact is that they don't know religion very much and that his text of follower autonomy, common-sense (vs. "headless-Sharia" by deluded religious) rel. ethics and tolerance toward other religions and creeds as such, personal or... sets him in with the geniuses for all time to come, like it or NOT!
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli
Charles André Joseph Marie de Gaulle
André Malraux
Gaius Julius Caesar, for matters of Rome and our New Roman Empire and for being, probably, I don't really know, the best Roman emperor!
These are essentially the list from Facebook!
The religious code of Scientology (Hubbard's) is found here (for free): http://www.thewaytohappiness.org/ , The Way to Happiness. In the same breath, I also now recommend Scientology 0 -8 (from Planet Earth/"here"/Thetan to Eternity/Infinity).
Wednesday, 10 October 2012
The Literature Research of Norway - The Aftermath Research of Literature Conn. with WW2/Nazi-Relation
Knut Hamsun of displaying "atheist standing" in Growth of the Soils, by theory of mine of him as referring the educated Erasmus Montanus to the Erasmus of Rotterdam "for sitting/being King of the Bible on top of a mountain of Bibles throughout Europe. He is known for anti-semitic position/Nazi-sympathies and that my judgment on this stands /more firm/ since I have set up the /new mSomatist Two-Category psychiatry theory/ (that is, I am the holder of this /name/)!!! So even if I may be reiterating previous suspicions by other literature-researchers, I can still be said to reinforce this view /because/ of this theory (of mine, my intellectual work)! Good?
Url for Erasmus of Rotterdam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_of_Rotterdam !
Note: this finding has first been published on Facebook "a while ago" and on grounds of the psychiatric theory of mine, mSomatism Two-Category Diagn. System, I am alone on this.
Url for Erasmus of Rotterdam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_of_Rotterdam !
Note: this finding has first been published on Facebook "a while ago" and on grounds of the psychiatric theory of mine, mSomatism Two-Category Diagn. System, I am alone on this.
Sunday, 7 October 2012
Pride over ISO and the System Work in Europe and Elsewhere - Hurray!
As a believer in systems and thorough work, to which I've made a point against Psychiatry because of its negligence and corrupt nature (for now), I'd like to make a special mention of ISO, The International Organization for Standardization.
From their own web-site (listed below):
"Who we are
We are a network of national standards bodies. These national standards bodies make up the ISO membership and they represent ISO in their country."
and that
"Our story
The ISO story began in 1946 when delegates from 25 countries met at the Institute of Civil Engineers in London and decided to create a new international organization ‘to facilitate the international coordination and unification of industrial standards’. In February 1947 the new organisation, ISO, officially began operations.
Since then,we have published over 19 000 International Standards covering almost all aspects of technology and manufacturing.
Today we have members from 164 countries and 3 335 technical bodies to take care of standard development. More than 150 people work full time for ISO’s Central Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland."
"Our name
Because 'International Organization for Standardization' would have different acronyms in different languages (IOS in English, OIN in French for Organisation internationale de normalisation), our founders decided to give it the short form ISO. ISO is derived from the Greek isos, meaning equal. Whatever the country, whatever the language, the short form of our name is always ISO."
Some links:
http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about.htm
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/management-standards/iso_9000.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fc/ISO_english_logo.svg/1000px-ISO_english_logo.svg.png
Finally two pictues that do look good:
From their own web-site (listed below):
"Who we are
We are a network of national standards bodies. These national standards bodies make up the ISO membership and they represent ISO in their country."
and that
"Our story
The ISO story began in 1946 when delegates from 25 countries met at the Institute of Civil Engineers in London and decided to create a new international organization ‘to facilitate the international coordination and unification of industrial standards’. In February 1947 the new organisation, ISO, officially began operations.
Since then,we have published over 19 000 International Standards covering almost all aspects of technology and manufacturing.
Today we have members from 164 countries and 3 335 technical bodies to take care of standard development. More than 150 people work full time for ISO’s Central Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland."
"Our name
Because 'International Organization for Standardization' would have different acronyms in different languages (IOS in English, OIN in French for Organisation internationale de normalisation), our founders decided to give it the short form ISO. ISO is derived from the Greek isos, meaning equal. Whatever the country, whatever the language, the short form of our name is always ISO."
Some links:
http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about.htm
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/management-standards/iso_9000.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fc/ISO_english_logo.svg/1000px-ISO_english_logo.svg.png
Finally two pictues that do look good:
Monday, 1 October 2012
Personal Acceptance of Faculty of Theology and Considerations over Thomas Paine
I can now accept Faculty of Theology as part of every university because as much as one studies arts and more (subjective) aesthetic topics, that it can provide a kind of satisfaction (and avoid the cultish) to provide the openness of university to show for the artful / senseful ways of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and the others, also, by formal notice, the main mission, to provide the religious guidance through life in properly educated ways (let's forget, therefore, as a kind of celebration of priesthood "speaking to us today", the very uneducated quality of a perverse person such as Hitler)!!!
Caution: I don't want the association with Thomas Paine yet although I've been inspired by his clear thought as much as Johann Kaspar Schmidt has inspired me by his (early Schmidt) statement over God!
I have yet to read Paine's most important work (and that this is the biggest reason) and that I may be of strong Christian belief given some possible exemptions of the liturgical / theological kinds (despite the fact that I have written that I am NOT a Christian, but that this has to do with membership of a given Church, that it has been impossible for me to take part in the Norwegian Church because I haven't had the ease of mind and that I've feared they would use it as an excuse for further violations against my life, maybe unpopular too with the common church-goer, result thus, exit 2003), that fx. I refuse to lay my sins on Jesus, but expect to be punished for them "until God satisfied" in the Purgatory!
I'm good and I hope you are too! Cheers!
Sunday, 30 September 2012
Ethical Objectivity - Objection to Arguments of Companions in Guilt - The Ethics
To begin with, I believe in ethical, moral objectivity. I believe there's no
particular problem in proving this/make a good case for it.
1. That the ethical system is flawless in the sense that there is no obvious allowance of moral wrongdoing in it.
2. "...ethical claims are objective if it is possible for agents who make them to do so correctly or incorrectly. Objectivity in this sense implies the possibility of moral error.(3)" That is to say that moral mistakes exist, not that moral errors are committed ethically.
3. "...ethical claims are objective if they are 'answerable to substantial [ethical] facts and properties in the world that exist independently of the contingent practice of making those claims and the relevant attitudes of those who make them' (p. 6)(1).(4)"
4. "...ethical claims are objective if reasonable agents competent with the concepts that constitute them would converge in 'favorable circumstances of rational inquiry' (p. 7)(2).(5)" That is to say, in my opinion, that there are objective moral duties in relation to the object in question.
From the book review of (1)(2)Hallvard Lillehammer's Companions in Guilt: Arguments for Ethical Objectivity written by (3)(4)(5)Terence Cuneo in the journal Mind Volume 118, Number 470, April 2009, ISSN 0026-4423.
It's also worth mentioning the book of Paul Bloomfield's Moral Reality, OUP, 2004 that the review mentions.
I see the description of an Ethical Objective system as an (mathematical) intersection of the above 4 points. The Ethical Objective system should thus satisfy the most strict and strongest requirements for such a system. It's worth noting that it should be humanly possible to fit into it with a least one member, one human being, and that it should live up to general requirements of plausibility and reasonability.
One more thing: I think it should be noted that "reasonable agents" mean people who are able to separate right from wrong and are basically in agreement with the actual system of ethics in question. If the case is otherwise, they fall into a different group and are not relevant to the system that is being discussed. This may limit the number of people who can adhere to that system quite severely, but that is the nature of the current diversity of humanity.
I've made some additions to the book review and as such the whole is more a new argument than a factual instance that I like to address.
The framework for every Ethical Objective System can be as extensive as every legal framework as I see it, without imposing particular problems.
The further work to the Ethical Objectivity is this. The obstacle one meets is concerning depth. I think the human cognition decides the depth of the ethical system's reach, absolutely and objectively, of the Ethical Objectivity discussed. If the human being can't have knowledge about a deeper fact of nature then one can't also say that the human being can commit any mistakes in that relation. It's therefore of no use to point to a phenomenon that lies outside the normal or possible human cognition because a sufficient ethically objective system isn't constructed at all to take care of those phenomena's ethical content. No matter what, the ethically objective system will therefore relate to our common life-world, the life-world that one can actually say something objective about. It's therefore the case that all hypothetical micro- and macro-phenomena are outside the domain that actually can have some influence on the human being's ethical and moral life. It's therefore not decisive to have absolute knowledge to have an efficient ethical objective system as long as one does one's duties for the best in this actual effective ethical objective system in what concerns information and possibilities. In that kind of view, one can plausibly say that doctors in ancient history may have been acting ethically objective in some cases, if not all, of course, despite a very limited knowledge about the human body. It's clear that science will form an outer frame for our life-worlds wherein this Ethical Objective System functions as in the question of preventive measures concerning Global Climate Changes and also about our limitations in size of total world population that should or can exist without collapsing into chaos and extinction of being examples of conscious beings capable of knowledge, possibly effecting one's own salvation.
Consequently, let's look at abortion again. What if two parties agree on the fact that guilt may not apply for abortion because there are factors that speak strongly for and against as well as the indeterminate status of the fetus to be removed, both on brain function and emotional function(1) when the procedure is carried out? Thus, abortion for these two parties remains a private, informed and "esoteric" decision, yet respected by either party in companionship without guilt!
Hypothetically speaking, it's plausible to say that being a human without an ethical system in the 21st century and aligning oneself with the ancient humans and humanoids like the Cro-Magnons, seems just crazy! It's laying such a waste to a whole heritage, legacy of philosophical civility! The ancient humans before civilization can be said to be driven by evolutionary, biological instincts! Nihilism, relativism or other destructive ethical approaches are historically insensitive, possibly rationally insensitive, absurd or out of touch.
As much as Paul Bloomfield makes the argument of having and maintaining good physical health, I'd like to add the following:
It should be possible to determine Integrity, Mental Health and Physical Health by keeping one's ethics. People may fool themselves, but I think that the most sensitive factor of these three, being Integrity, is very much affected by both bad attitude/mindset and bad actions, altogether being bad morals and possibly bad ethics.
Through the arsenal of diagnostics like various lie-detectors, (f)MRI-scans, interviews, somatic examinations and what have you it should be possible to make good judgment on the status of these 3 factors, Integrity, Mental Health and Physical Health. Any reasonable doubt can therefore be removed for what kind of companion one is socialising with. Any person with substantial deviation in either Integrity, Mental Health and Physical Health from the characteristics that are condoned by exactly this Ethical Objectivity can thus be excluded from the desirable group of people that comply with Ethical Objectivity. The days of the Arguments of Companions in Guilt are consequently numbered!
It should be a fundamental belief that morality/ethics is to respect rationality in others, also the potential of such in others, eg. children. This doesn't capture ecology very well, but I can think of it as intelligent/rational to allow nature and animals alike a natural life (for various reasons) incl. agricultural/aquacultural. Thus, as this is a facet of being rational as a person, every person should respect people with ecological views and the ecological view therefore becomes the only ethical view in this respect, a general starting point.
Rationality in this sense is nothing mysterious. It's just the capacity to score well/great on IQ-tests, having a fine, intelligent flow of thoughts and doing a good or great working performance, whatever this may be, being in the stream so to speak!
Although I've written about rationality above I like to write the following to make it perfectly clear. There are (at least) two kinds of Rationality that it's fair to speak of. One is the rationality according to function, being the way you apply your mind to whatever problems, practical or intellectual. The other one is rationality as in being of good mental health, being well-developed. It should be clear that rationality is the top premise of this Ethically Objective system that I ascribe and develop from a Neo-Kantian position.
This is a writing for removing any religious notion to the word Rationality and thus the system of Rationality may seem reasonable to everyone. I'm in doubt whether I. Kant has meant any religiousness at all with his "kingdom of ideas". People have interpreted it this way, but I can't see that there's a single factual instance of this in his text. Quite the opposite, I think he thinks that the common person is able to make clever thoughts, to take part in the "kingdom of ideas". I find this a much more charitable reading of him and it makes him look better too!
Repugnance and appeal to emotions/feelings/aestheticism are not any good way to get there even though I support every argument that makes a good foundation for Ethical Objectivity.
It should be noted that people of good moral attitude and behaviour seem better able to create and maintain, by keeping the duties, social relationships both in symmetric and asymmetric terms.
I'm with Dr. Sam Harris when he argue by objectivity of flourishing and happiness, potentially by and in everyone, on TED Talks that some/all moral questions or some/all outside spectrums of some/all moral spectrums can be answered by science. Now, I don't know if this is consensus within a group of scientists and philosophers alike and if this is documented by scientific articles. He does mention psychology and neuro-science as two (obvious) angles to answer this scientifically. It must be admitted by myself, whether or not Dr. Sam Harris agrees, however, that flourishing and happiness are still normative, unscientific, ethical objectives. One can indeed be relatively poor and still be generally happy and one can work too much and thus flourish beyond one's happiness. It's also a question to what ends we are supposed to be flourishing and happy. Where does this flourishing and happiness lead to if there's no destination in sight? Isn't then life only a matter of taste and artistry in life? What about doing extreme sports and other activities where one does risk one's own life? The question is not so much a matter of this risk-taking person's life, but this person's social connections, possibly causing grief in these people by the risk-taking. Thus, it's yet to see to what extent one can fully argue that the objectives of flourishing and happiness can be scientific. Indeed, this scientific notion has implicitly some kind of normative destiny to it that Dr. Sam Harris is in debt to answer.
It's admirable of Dr. Sam Harris of denoting this "scientific", given the normative objectives, and at the same time quenching the lunatics who promote death and destruction. It's certainly worth a thorough scientific study of what underlying causes there are for people's misfortunes when it's so commonly known that most or all people like to be happy, flourishing or both.
(1)Remark concerning abortion by The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG):
By The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG),
"Fetal Awareness - Review of Research and Recommendations for Practice".
From this link:
http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice
Fetal Awareness
* The fetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks because the connections in the fetal brain are not fully formed
* Evidence examined by the Working Party showed that the fetus, while in the chemical environment of the womb, is in a state of induced sleep and is unconscious
* The Working Party concluded that because the 24 week-old fetus has no awareness nor can it feel pain, the use of analgesia is of no benefit
* More research is needed into the short and long-term effects of the use of fetal analgesia post-24 weeks.
The full report: http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/RCOGFetalAwarenessWPR0610.pdf
Article, this particular webpage, is published: 25/06/2010 (summary and more).
Game over! You lose, relativists and subjectivists! I'd say there is no objection by the subjectivists and relativists that can overcome Ethical Objectivity (now)! I've been meditating this for quite a while and I'm now at peace by the preceding sentences. There is simply no chance to refute Ethical Objectivity anymore.
The argument is not finished by these words and remains to be made a paper of academic quality, if not a book.
By Terje Lea / Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea, 2009 - 2010, 2012 - and still ongoing.
By Terje Lea, 11th November, 2009, 9th December, 2009, 11th December, 2009, 6th March, 2010, 24th March, 2010, 26th March, 2010, 12th April, 2010, 22nd April, 2010, 25th April, 2010, 26th April, 2010, 4th May, 2010, 10th May, 2010, 9th June, 2010, 28th June, 2010 and 24th October, 2010. Minor change of title, 18.11.2010. Now controlled under my new name, Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea.
1. That the ethical system is flawless in the sense that there is no obvious allowance of moral wrongdoing in it.
2. "...ethical claims are objective if it is possible for agents who make them to do so correctly or incorrectly. Objectivity in this sense implies the possibility of moral error.(3)" That is to say that moral mistakes exist, not that moral errors are committed ethically.
3. "...ethical claims are objective if they are 'answerable to substantial [ethical] facts and properties in the world that exist independently of the contingent practice of making those claims and the relevant attitudes of those who make them' (p. 6)(1).(4)"
4. "...ethical claims are objective if reasonable agents competent with the concepts that constitute them would converge in 'favorable circumstances of rational inquiry' (p. 7)(2).(5)" That is to say, in my opinion, that there are objective moral duties in relation to the object in question.
From the book review of (1)(2)Hallvard Lillehammer's Companions in Guilt: Arguments for Ethical Objectivity written by (3)(4)(5)Terence Cuneo in the journal Mind Volume 118, Number 470, April 2009, ISSN 0026-4423.
It's also worth mentioning the book of Paul Bloomfield's Moral Reality, OUP, 2004 that the review mentions.
I see the description of an Ethical Objective system as an (mathematical) intersection of the above 4 points. The Ethical Objective system should thus satisfy the most strict and strongest requirements for such a system. It's worth noting that it should be humanly possible to fit into it with a least one member, one human being, and that it should live up to general requirements of plausibility and reasonability.
One more thing: I think it should be noted that "reasonable agents" mean people who are able to separate right from wrong and are basically in agreement with the actual system of ethics in question. If the case is otherwise, they fall into a different group and are not relevant to the system that is being discussed. This may limit the number of people who can adhere to that system quite severely, but that is the nature of the current diversity of humanity.
I've made some additions to the book review and as such the whole is more a new argument than a factual instance that I like to address.
The framework for every Ethical Objective System can be as extensive as every legal framework as I see it, without imposing particular problems.
The further work to the Ethical Objectivity is this. The obstacle one meets is concerning depth. I think the human cognition decides the depth of the ethical system's reach, absolutely and objectively, of the Ethical Objectivity discussed. If the human being can't have knowledge about a deeper fact of nature then one can't also say that the human being can commit any mistakes in that relation. It's therefore of no use to point to a phenomenon that lies outside the normal or possible human cognition because a sufficient ethically objective system isn't constructed at all to take care of those phenomena's ethical content. No matter what, the ethically objective system will therefore relate to our common life-world, the life-world that one can actually say something objective about. It's therefore the case that all hypothetical micro- and macro-phenomena are outside the domain that actually can have some influence on the human being's ethical and moral life. It's therefore not decisive to have absolute knowledge to have an efficient ethical objective system as long as one does one's duties for the best in this actual effective ethical objective system in what concerns information and possibilities. In that kind of view, one can plausibly say that doctors in ancient history may have been acting ethically objective in some cases, if not all, of course, despite a very limited knowledge about the human body. It's clear that science will form an outer frame for our life-worlds wherein this Ethical Objective System functions as in the question of preventive measures concerning Global Climate Changes and also about our limitations in size of total world population that should or can exist without collapsing into chaos and extinction of being examples of conscious beings capable of knowledge, possibly effecting one's own salvation.
Consequently, let's look at abortion again. What if two parties agree on the fact that guilt may not apply for abortion because there are factors that speak strongly for and against as well as the indeterminate status of the fetus to be removed, both on brain function and emotional function(1) when the procedure is carried out? Thus, abortion for these two parties remains a private, informed and "esoteric" decision, yet respected by either party in companionship without guilt!
Hypothetically speaking, it's plausible to say that being a human without an ethical system in the 21st century and aligning oneself with the ancient humans and humanoids like the Cro-Magnons, seems just crazy! It's laying such a waste to a whole heritage, legacy of philosophical civility! The ancient humans before civilization can be said to be driven by evolutionary, biological instincts! Nihilism, relativism or other destructive ethical approaches are historically insensitive, possibly rationally insensitive, absurd or out of touch.
As much as Paul Bloomfield makes the argument of having and maintaining good physical health, I'd like to add the following:
It should be possible to determine Integrity, Mental Health and Physical Health by keeping one's ethics. People may fool themselves, but I think that the most sensitive factor of these three, being Integrity, is very much affected by both bad attitude/mindset and bad actions, altogether being bad morals and possibly bad ethics.
Through the arsenal of diagnostics like various lie-detectors, (f)MRI-scans, interviews, somatic examinations and what have you it should be possible to make good judgment on the status of these 3 factors, Integrity, Mental Health and Physical Health. Any reasonable doubt can therefore be removed for what kind of companion one is socialising with. Any person with substantial deviation in either Integrity, Mental Health and Physical Health from the characteristics that are condoned by exactly this Ethical Objectivity can thus be excluded from the desirable group of people that comply with Ethical Objectivity. The days of the Arguments of Companions in Guilt are consequently numbered!
It should be a fundamental belief that morality/ethics is to respect rationality in others, also the potential of such in others, eg. children. This doesn't capture ecology very well, but I can think of it as intelligent/rational to allow nature and animals alike a natural life (for various reasons) incl. agricultural/aquacultural. Thus, as this is a facet of being rational as a person, every person should respect people with ecological views and the ecological view therefore becomes the only ethical view in this respect, a general starting point.
Rationality in this sense is nothing mysterious. It's just the capacity to score well/great on IQ-tests, having a fine, intelligent flow of thoughts and doing a good or great working performance, whatever this may be, being in the stream so to speak!
Although I've written about rationality above I like to write the following to make it perfectly clear. There are (at least) two kinds of Rationality that it's fair to speak of. One is the rationality according to function, being the way you apply your mind to whatever problems, practical or intellectual. The other one is rationality as in being of good mental health, being well-developed. It should be clear that rationality is the top premise of this Ethically Objective system that I ascribe and develop from a Neo-Kantian position.
This is a writing for removing any religious notion to the word Rationality and thus the system of Rationality may seem reasonable to everyone. I'm in doubt whether I. Kant has meant any religiousness at all with his "kingdom of ideas". People have interpreted it this way, but I can't see that there's a single factual instance of this in his text. Quite the opposite, I think he thinks that the common person is able to make clever thoughts, to take part in the "kingdom of ideas". I find this a much more charitable reading of him and it makes him look better too!
Repugnance and appeal to emotions/feelings/aestheticism are not any good way to get there even though I support every argument that makes a good foundation for Ethical Objectivity.
It should be noted that people of good moral attitude and behaviour seem better able to create and maintain, by keeping the duties, social relationships both in symmetric and asymmetric terms.
I'm with Dr. Sam Harris when he argue by objectivity of flourishing and happiness, potentially by and in everyone, on TED Talks that some/all moral questions or some/all outside spectrums of some/all moral spectrums can be answered by science. Now, I don't know if this is consensus within a group of scientists and philosophers alike and if this is documented by scientific articles. He does mention psychology and neuro-science as two (obvious) angles to answer this scientifically. It must be admitted by myself, whether or not Dr. Sam Harris agrees, however, that flourishing and happiness are still normative, unscientific, ethical objectives. One can indeed be relatively poor and still be generally happy and one can work too much and thus flourish beyond one's happiness. It's also a question to what ends we are supposed to be flourishing and happy. Where does this flourishing and happiness lead to if there's no destination in sight? Isn't then life only a matter of taste and artistry in life? What about doing extreme sports and other activities where one does risk one's own life? The question is not so much a matter of this risk-taking person's life, but this person's social connections, possibly causing grief in these people by the risk-taking. Thus, it's yet to see to what extent one can fully argue that the objectives of flourishing and happiness can be scientific. Indeed, this scientific notion has implicitly some kind of normative destiny to it that Dr. Sam Harris is in debt to answer.
It's admirable of Dr. Sam Harris of denoting this "scientific", given the normative objectives, and at the same time quenching the lunatics who promote death and destruction. It's certainly worth a thorough scientific study of what underlying causes there are for people's misfortunes when it's so commonly known that most or all people like to be happy, flourishing or both.
(1)Remark concerning abortion by The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG):
By The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG),
"Fetal Awareness - Review of Research and Recommendations for Practice".
From this link:
http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice
Fetal Awareness
* The fetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks because the connections in the fetal brain are not fully formed
* Evidence examined by the Working Party showed that the fetus, while in the chemical environment of the womb, is in a state of induced sleep and is unconscious
* The Working Party concluded that because the 24 week-old fetus has no awareness nor can it feel pain, the use of analgesia is of no benefit
* More research is needed into the short and long-term effects of the use of fetal analgesia post-24 weeks.
The full report: http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/RCOGFetalAwarenessWPR0610.pdf
Article, this particular webpage, is published: 25/06/2010 (summary and more).
Game over! You lose, relativists and subjectivists! I'd say there is no objection by the subjectivists and relativists that can overcome Ethical Objectivity (now)! I've been meditating this for quite a while and I'm now at peace by the preceding sentences. There is simply no chance to refute Ethical Objectivity anymore.
The argument is not finished by these words and remains to be made a paper of academic quality, if not a book.
By Terje Lea / Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea, 2009 - 2010, 2012 - and still ongoing.
By Terje Lea, 11th November, 2009, 9th December, 2009, 11th December, 2009, 6th March, 2010, 24th March, 2010, 26th March, 2010, 12th April, 2010, 22nd April, 2010, 25th April, 2010, 26th April, 2010, 4th May, 2010, 10th May, 2010, 9th June, 2010, 28th June, 2010 and 24th October, 2010. Minor change of title, 18.11.2010. Now controlled under my new name, Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea.
Friday, 28 September 2012
My German Texts - Entering the German Language - (German Text to enter here as title.)
Just because I take an interest in the German language, also under the fundamental in European politics by European Union after the WW2 and general wisdom in forming the future for Europe, I have these texts for display for now:
First:
Scientology (L. Ron Hubbard)
Aims of Scientology
Bitte, vergessen Sie nicht die "Aims of Scientology" für dieser Artikel. (Schlecht Deutsch aber Notwendigkeiten...) Url: http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part12/Chp37/pg0684.html, for the Aims of Scientology.
Auch, S. 34 of "A New Slant on Life", "There is a way to answer these questions to his [Meaning us!] own satisfaction: find them himself [us again]. These are fundamentals and every student should undertake to discover them himself [us again], thus raising Scientology above an authoritarian category." und S. 33.: "He should make up his mind about each thing that is taught - the procedure, techniques, mechanics and theory. He should ask himself these questions: Does this piece of data exist [Also sceptical of "Scientology data"]? Is it true? Does it work? Will it produce the best possible results in the shortest time?"
Antidemokratische oder nicht, GUT or was?
Sie können nicht akzeptieren, ein non-"David Irving" historische Darstellung? Keine Logiken über Tatsachen gibt es [when one lives in denial by wanton]?
Second:
Telepathie
Note on Telepathy and Its Standing in the World, the Reality
I suggest you add: "Note on scientific standing insofar as obtaining status as real. Given a plain university result by use of Zener cards or other and then aquiring a mean result of 33% score, by 4 of these, rather than mathematical 25%, definitely describes Telepathy for being real. To this, there can be no doubt because telepathy has been fringe and people are different and usually more unaware and closed and that scores therefore "on the average", never hit really high. Therefore, these 8% means quite much and that therefore, the definite standing on telepathy has now been cleared and that telepathy now exists in the World for real[1]." I leave it here to for discussion. Cheers! I'm sorry for writing to you in English, but mr. Humpty-Dumpty from USA thinks he can shut down translation services from Google into the face of 23 languages EU and control the word "importance"! I think this is important and that we do it when they insist on stupidity! Any good?
I also note that this is a small article and that you may want to enter a number of university cases out of the Ganzfeld concept. I recommend you start with Daryl Bem (Cornell University) and skip the idiocy of the English article.
I think not because the information provided (over the 8%) tells us something significant here. The most important thing then is to inform people over the significance they need to look for with these telepathy experiments (preferably the Ganzfeld experiments) so that people can relate better to the phenomenon that may deeply want to know more about! (Entschuldigen Sie mich, bitte, für diesen Englisch Text.)
In dem Artikel, angesichts der Bedeutung über die telepathische Forschung ein sonst bestimmt eine unverhältnismäßig hohe alpha-Ebene, um die 8% unterzubringen, aber es gibt einfach keine Rechtfertigung dafür! Außerdem sind diese Literatur / Bibliothek-Studien als "Meta-Studien" oder "überqueren-Umfrage-Studien" bekannt. Verschiedene wissenschaftliche Arbeit geben die Leitlinien für diese, wie "Research Design und Methoden - A Process approach" von Bordens und Abbott (McGraw-Hill Higher Education). Alles in Ordnung?
Spekulationen und Fakten
Für andere Gegenstände, insbesondere der Wissenschaft, es geht um den Zeitschriften und Bücher, sondern auch für Scientology Sie scheinen zu "genießen" die Zeitungsartikel mehr und so der Verleumdung Art. Z.B. ein Thetan ist die Einheit von Körper und Geist, sagen sie in klaren Worten. Xenu? Wo? Welche Bücher? Stille... Dann fängt es wieder... Und so weiter für die Ethik ("Aims of Scient." und "The Way to Happiness") auch... Sind sie, Scientologen, um Bedeutung und Sinn ins Leben zu bringen? "Ganz klar nicht, bei Definition hier." Nein, Leute, es gibt nur ein Wort, um auf diesem Tisch Dokumentation gemäß Geschichtsschreibung und ordnungsgemäße Journalismus bringen!!! Ach... Viel Glück für Sie weiter!
Spekulationen, ganz sicher, "Ein zentrales Problem der irdischen Thetane wird hierbei durch den Xenu-Mythos erklärt, der von einem das „Böse" verkörpernden intergalaktischen Herrscher handelt, der Thetane von weit entfernten Planeten auf die Erde verschleppt hatte und dort durch gewaltsame Verfahren so schwer traumatisierte, dass sie nun als körperlose Cluster (Körper-Thetanen genannt) anderen Menschen anhängen und sie in ihren Möglichkeiten beeinträchtigen.[41]" wenn es SAGT ganz, ganz klar dass Thetan ist "Einheit für Leib und Seele zusammen". Wo ist Xenu noch in dies??? Und was? Dass "ein zentrales Problem..." Nein! Es sagt, mindstens nicht in die "Basics" und ebengenau dass Sie bringen "die Behörde" von "J. Gordon Melton: A Contemporary Ordered Religious Community: The Sea Organization. In: Derek Davis, Barry Hankins (Hrsg.): New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. Baylor University Press, Waco, S. 43–62, S. 44." was braucht es für sie lügen, wenn sie ihre eigene Kirche zu finanzieren haben und mit ihm zu "gewinnen hearts and minds"? Der entscheidende Punkt für mich über Scientology ist die Ethik von ihnen ("Aims" und "The Way to Happiness"), dass Sie wahrscheinlich nicht bleiben Ihre Fußspitze zu sagen oder wollen für andere Menschen! Dass, wenn Sie die Wahl bekommen, abwertend, können Sie die Satanist über jede andere religiöse Person zu wählen, weil Sie die Satanist "ist böse genug" kennen! Das ist nicht nett! Diese fringe Fragen über Reinkarnation und Xenu und verschiedene andere absurde kleine Dinge, sie gar nichts und ich sagen, dass sie nichts zu bedeuten! Sie immer noch nicht die Mühe, die Bücher zu lesen, so dass Sie sie auf das einzige religiöse Gesellschaft auf Autonomie, seine Anhänger zu gewähren, die von den Seiten 33 bis 36 in "Eine neue Sicht des Lebens" ("A New Slant on Life") sein zu finden! Nein, und Ich weiß es: NEGATIV! Ich gebe zu, ich Plaz die Rhetorik Trick hier, und ich bin nicht dogmatisch über Scientology diesem oder jenem. Sie können tun, was Sie wollen, löschen Sie diese oder nicht. Dann noch, die besten Wünsche für Sie auch! Das ist genug für mich. Der Rest der Diskussion wird wahrscheinlich mit diesen anderen Teilnehmern und dass mein einziges Ziel war es, frei zu "brain power", so dass diese Verschwendung von Zeit gegen den besseren Teil der religiösen Menschen zu stoppen! Auf Wiedersehen!
Third:
Gödel und die Unvollständigkeitssätze
Hinweis und für Pädagogik der Artikel - Gödel und die Unvollständigkeitssätze
by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea on Thursday, 27 September 2012 at 07:56 CEST.
Hinweis und für Pädagogik der Artikel
Die stumpfe Sinn der Gödel daher für diese beiden Unvollständigkeitssätze, dass Primzahlen ("höchstwahrscheinlich") sind unendlich, aber dass es keine mathematische Formel für sie zu identifizieren, und dass, als sie ganz sind, von einem Punkt "da oben" unbekannt vornherein, Primzahlen sich genommen, zumindest teilweise und als Phänomen, diese beiden Unvollständigkeitssätze und dass, natürlich, damit Gödel behauptet, dass die Sätze endgültig sind, wahrheitsgemäß erhalten, wie durch seine Arbeit, das ist, seine Verwendung von "Beweis" braucht.
Deshalb ist die erste Zeile der "Angriff" auf Gödel ist zu behaupten und unter der Prämisse arbeiten, dass der Lügner-Paradox bedeutungslos ("meaningless") ist.
Nächste Überlegung ist dass für die Leute, die das machen ein Titel "Das ist nicht ein Titel" auf einem Buch (Raymond Smullyan, fx.) Angelegenheiten denken, müssen Sie nicht viel tun, außer Setzung eines Austin Aussage, dass Sie begehen einen Sprechhandlung, ist nicht Logiken! So jetzt, endlich, uns, die zu der Gruppe, die für "System Vollständigkeit" suchen angehören, sind wir für eine erfolgreiche Tage in den Monaten und Jahren, möglicherweise sogar Gödel, von der "anderen" Seite, ist eine christliche (bei seines "Ontologische Gott"). Tarski ist auch eine kontinuierliche Faktor hier durch seine Arbeit. Wiedersehn.
Anmerkung: Leid für fälschlicherweise "spitze" schreiben wenn "Sinn" ist die richtige. Einge andere Veränderungen aber nicht besonders. Gut?
Anmerkung2: Dies ist eine Version eines beachten Sie, dass gibt es auch anderswo im Internet. Url: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:G%C3%B6delscher_Unvollst%C3%A4ndigkeitssatz#Hinweis_und_f.C3.BCr_P.C3.A4dagogik_der_Artikel.
Note: Dies ist der normativen Text, was auch immer es heißt auf Wikipedia. Verstehen Sie, bitte schön?
Note2: As you may see from the above time-stamp, this text above has first been added to Wikipedia and then made a note of on Facebook. It is the Facebook time-stamp you see there.
First:
Scientology (L. Ron Hubbard)
Aims of Scientology
Bitte, vergessen Sie nicht die "Aims of Scientology" für dieser Artikel. (Schlecht Deutsch aber Notwendigkeiten...) Url: http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part12/Chp37/pg0684.html, for the Aims of Scientology.
Auch, S. 34 of "A New Slant on Life", "There is a way to answer these questions to his [Meaning us!] own satisfaction: find them himself [us again]. These are fundamentals and every student should undertake to discover them himself [us again], thus raising Scientology above an authoritarian category." und S. 33.: "He should make up his mind about each thing that is taught - the procedure, techniques, mechanics and theory. He should ask himself these questions: Does this piece of data exist [Also sceptical of "Scientology data"]? Is it true? Does it work? Will it produce the best possible results in the shortest time?"
Antidemokratische oder nicht, GUT or was?
Sie können nicht akzeptieren, ein non-"David Irving" historische Darstellung? Keine Logiken über Tatsachen gibt es [when one lives in denial by wanton]?
Second:
Telepathie
Note on Telepathy and Its Standing in the World, the Reality
I suggest you add: "Note on scientific standing insofar as obtaining status as real. Given a plain university result by use of Zener cards or other and then aquiring a mean result of 33% score, by 4 of these, rather than mathematical 25%, definitely describes Telepathy for being real. To this, there can be no doubt because telepathy has been fringe and people are different and usually more unaware and closed and that scores therefore "on the average", never hit really high. Therefore, these 8% means quite much and that therefore, the definite standing on telepathy has now been cleared and that telepathy now exists in the World for real[1]." I leave it here to for discussion. Cheers! I'm sorry for writing to you in English, but mr. Humpty-Dumpty from USA thinks he can shut down translation services from Google into the face of 23 languages EU and control the word "importance"! I think this is important and that we do it when they insist on stupidity! Any good?
I also note that this is a small article and that you may want to enter a number of university cases out of the Ganzfeld concept. I recommend you start with Daryl Bem (Cornell University) and skip the idiocy of the English article.
I think not because the information provided (over the 8%) tells us something significant here. The most important thing then is to inform people over the significance they need to look for with these telepathy experiments (preferably the Ganzfeld experiments) so that people can relate better to the phenomenon that may deeply want to know more about! (Entschuldigen Sie mich, bitte, für diesen Englisch Text.)
In dem Artikel, angesichts der Bedeutung über die telepathische Forschung ein sonst bestimmt eine unverhältnismäßig hohe alpha-Ebene, um die 8% unterzubringen, aber es gibt einfach keine Rechtfertigung dafür! Außerdem sind diese Literatur / Bibliothek-Studien als "Meta-Studien" oder "überqueren-Umfrage-Studien" bekannt. Verschiedene wissenschaftliche Arbeit geben die Leitlinien für diese, wie "Research Design und Methoden - A Process approach" von Bordens und Abbott (McGraw-Hill Higher Education). Alles in Ordnung?
Spekulationen und Fakten
Für andere Gegenstände, insbesondere der Wissenschaft, es geht um den Zeitschriften und Bücher, sondern auch für Scientology Sie scheinen zu "genießen" die Zeitungsartikel mehr und so der Verleumdung Art. Z.B. ein Thetan ist die Einheit von Körper und Geist, sagen sie in klaren Worten. Xenu? Wo? Welche Bücher? Stille... Dann fängt es wieder... Und so weiter für die Ethik ("Aims of Scient." und "The Way to Happiness") auch... Sind sie, Scientologen, um Bedeutung und Sinn ins Leben zu bringen? "Ganz klar nicht, bei Definition hier." Nein, Leute, es gibt nur ein Wort, um auf diesem Tisch Dokumentation gemäß Geschichtsschreibung und ordnungsgemäße Journalismus bringen!!! Ach... Viel Glück für Sie weiter!
Spekulationen, ganz sicher, "Ein zentrales Problem der irdischen Thetane wird hierbei durch den Xenu-Mythos erklärt, der von einem das „Böse" verkörpernden intergalaktischen Herrscher handelt, der Thetane von weit entfernten Planeten auf die Erde verschleppt hatte und dort durch gewaltsame Verfahren so schwer traumatisierte, dass sie nun als körperlose Cluster (Körper-Thetanen genannt) anderen Menschen anhängen und sie in ihren Möglichkeiten beeinträchtigen.[41]" wenn es SAGT ganz, ganz klar dass Thetan ist "Einheit für Leib und Seele zusammen". Wo ist Xenu noch in dies??? Und was? Dass "ein zentrales Problem..." Nein! Es sagt, mindstens nicht in die "Basics" und ebengenau dass Sie bringen "die Behörde" von "J. Gordon Melton: A Contemporary Ordered Religious Community: The Sea Organization. In: Derek Davis, Barry Hankins (Hrsg.): New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. Baylor University Press, Waco, S. 43–62, S. 44." was braucht es für sie lügen, wenn sie ihre eigene Kirche zu finanzieren haben und mit ihm zu "gewinnen hearts and minds"? Der entscheidende Punkt für mich über Scientology ist die Ethik von ihnen ("Aims" und "The Way to Happiness"), dass Sie wahrscheinlich nicht bleiben Ihre Fußspitze zu sagen oder wollen für andere Menschen! Dass, wenn Sie die Wahl bekommen, abwertend, können Sie die Satanist über jede andere religiöse Person zu wählen, weil Sie die Satanist "ist böse genug" kennen! Das ist nicht nett! Diese fringe Fragen über Reinkarnation und Xenu und verschiedene andere absurde kleine Dinge, sie gar nichts und ich sagen, dass sie nichts zu bedeuten! Sie immer noch nicht die Mühe, die Bücher zu lesen, so dass Sie sie auf das einzige religiöse Gesellschaft auf Autonomie, seine Anhänger zu gewähren, die von den Seiten 33 bis 36 in "Eine neue Sicht des Lebens" ("A New Slant on Life") sein zu finden! Nein, und Ich weiß es: NEGATIV! Ich gebe zu, ich Plaz die Rhetorik Trick hier, und ich bin nicht dogmatisch über Scientology diesem oder jenem. Sie können tun, was Sie wollen, löschen Sie diese oder nicht. Dann noch, die besten Wünsche für Sie auch! Das ist genug für mich. Der Rest der Diskussion wird wahrscheinlich mit diesen anderen Teilnehmern und dass mein einziges Ziel war es, frei zu "brain power", so dass diese Verschwendung von Zeit gegen den besseren Teil der religiösen Menschen zu stoppen! Auf Wiedersehen!
Third:
Gödel und die Unvollständigkeitssätze
Hinweis und für Pädagogik der Artikel - Gödel und die Unvollständigkeitssätze
by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea on Thursday, 27 September 2012 at 07:56 CEST.
Hinweis und für Pädagogik der Artikel
Die stumpfe Sinn der Gödel daher für diese beiden Unvollständigkeitssätze, dass Primzahlen ("höchstwahrscheinlich") sind unendlich, aber dass es keine mathematische Formel für sie zu identifizieren, und dass, als sie ganz sind, von einem Punkt "da oben" unbekannt vornherein, Primzahlen sich genommen, zumindest teilweise und als Phänomen, diese beiden Unvollständigkeitssätze und dass, natürlich, damit Gödel behauptet, dass die Sätze endgültig sind, wahrheitsgemäß erhalten, wie durch seine Arbeit, das ist, seine Verwendung von "Beweis" braucht.
Deshalb ist die erste Zeile der "Angriff" auf Gödel ist zu behaupten und unter der Prämisse arbeiten, dass der Lügner-Paradox bedeutungslos ("meaningless") ist.
Nächste Überlegung ist dass für die Leute, die das machen ein Titel "Das ist nicht ein Titel" auf einem Buch (Raymond Smullyan, fx.) Angelegenheiten denken, müssen Sie nicht viel tun, außer Setzung eines Austin Aussage, dass Sie begehen einen Sprechhandlung, ist nicht Logiken! So jetzt, endlich, uns, die zu der Gruppe, die für "System Vollständigkeit" suchen angehören, sind wir für eine erfolgreiche Tage in den Monaten und Jahren, möglicherweise sogar Gödel, von der "anderen" Seite, ist eine christliche (bei seines "Ontologische Gott"). Tarski ist auch eine kontinuierliche Faktor hier durch seine Arbeit. Wiedersehn.
Anmerkung: Leid für fälschlicherweise "spitze" schreiben wenn "Sinn" ist die richtige. Einge andere Veränderungen aber nicht besonders. Gut?
Anmerkung2: Dies ist eine Version eines beachten Sie, dass gibt es auch anderswo im Internet. Url: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:G%C3%B6delscher_Unvollst%C3%A4ndigkeitssatz#Hinweis_und_f.C3.BCr_P.C3.A4dagogik_der_Artikel.
Note: Dies ist der normativen Text, was auch immer es heißt auf Wikipedia. Verstehen Sie, bitte schön?
Note2: As you may see from the above time-stamp, this text above has first been added to Wikipedia and then made a note of on Facebook. It is the Facebook time-stamp you see there.
Tuesday, 25 September 2012
Pro and Con Arguments of (Assisted) Suicide - The Argument has Now Grown into a Whole Full Bodied Power
Examination! Time for "inquisition"! I've made this topic because I think there are some (really) disgusting or stupid arguments against (Assisted) Suicide.
First of all, those who seriously argue for the right to (Assisted) Suicide (A)S seems to have the greatest integrity of the subject they're speaking of. Necessarily, those who oppose it, are on the outside of the situation, but may very well have been considering (Assisted) Suicide in the past.
Now, one person, Simone, argues in favour:
1. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are in great pain and are bound to die (terminally ill).
2. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are losing their mind (fx. Alzheimer's).
3. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are in great mental pain/distress to which there's no hope and there's no-one willing to significantly change the situation.
4. Combination of two or more of 1., 2. and 3.
5. People should have the possibility to (A)S so that people can't be kept as virtual slaves anymore or forced to compromise on themselves to that extent.
6. People should have the possibility to (A)S so that people aren't forced to compromise on themselves to any extent (by 1., 2., 3. and 4.), calling the situation for what it is, making the possibility to (A)S possibly less restrictive.
7. There's more dignity in dying reasonably healthy and able (by/implied by X. in post #4 on the PF forum).
8. If I have no constructive role in society, being an adult, and I have the urge to commit suicide. It should be my right to commit this suicide or else I might get involved with illegal guns and homicide(s). Being an adult involves knowing what's best for yourself as you are closest to yourself and clearly then, I'm ethically/lawfully entitled to choose my destiny of suicide in my own opinion. Therefore, also, I demand it!
9. We should allow people to die by 1. and 2., possibly also by 3., 5. and 6. because it's the decent approach to the matters (by Apathy Kills in post #18 on the PF forum). There's a certain power in using the word, "decent", here and I'd like you to contemplate this.
10. The fact that people are driven down to basic instincts, into corners of despair, forced to compromise on themselves is necessarily leading to unnecessary friction and unhealthy tendencies in society. (A)S should therefore be allowed! (I think this is slightly different than 4. and 5.)
11. Acknowledging point 5. of the opposition, I do still think the defacto performance of society in telling people to "get out of the way" in a possibly hidden and cruel manner (if nothing else then implicitly by use of threats and fear) is true whether this is unexpressed or not (because I can think of such thought as having existence, plausibly).
(It should be noted that assisted suicides if they become legal, always are qualified (by whatever requirements), assisted suicides. This is implicit, but now it's explicit!)
One person, Peter, argues against:
1. People should not have the possibility to die, (A)S, because of (my) (presumably) view of the sanctity of life.
2. People should not have the possibility to die, (A)S, because (unfounded) "it's the wrong signal to give".
3. In the case of older people, they may (mis-) perceive their burden on family and friends in an unproportionate way and thus wrongly requesting, wanting or actually committing suicide.
4. There simply is no unbearable/painful situation and therefore all suicides are wrong.
5. By allowing people suicide, one may give a (possibly subtle) signal that people should "get out of the way" and consequently devalue the human life. Therefore, suicide should not be legal. (This may likely be the real argument of 2. while 2. is just a "social" signal of ambiguity.)
6. By denying people (assisted) suicide, one (unfounded) prevents possibly a number of suicides. Therefore, suicide should not be legal. (By atightropewalker in post #47.)
It seems to me to be common to somehow discredit the person who wants to commit suicide by being in doubt of the person's intelligence, sanity or cognition of circumstances.
I'd like you to add arguments to either of these two people. I'd also like you to list possible hidden motives with either of these two persons.
Like this:
Hidden, Peter, "I like the fact that people die in severe pain and I also like the melancholy of thinking so."
Hidden, Peter, "I like the fact that people go through great pains before getting finally getting it done in all sorts of funny ways. Heck, it's a jungle out there and I'm an explorer!"
Hidden, Peter, "If we give people the possibility to (A)S, people can't be kept as virtual slaves anymore or forced to compromise on themselves to that extent."
Consequently, I also like you to note the possibilities of Simone having hidden motives and the very nature of them.
I also like to point out the usual ordeal of suicides. You know, people sobbing and complaining about losing someone beloved, but where are the f**king stories of these (deprived) people who commit suicides? Am I supposed to think they killed themselves because of some illusion? Hah, no way! If I'm supposed to think about suicide, it's the freaking last thing, I think about! I think it's so bloody clear, but people just shut up out of politeness or something. Psychiatry should have rife possibilities on telling people what kind of conditions that drive people into suicide, but do they? F**king never!
Objectively, every possible argument in the discussion of (A)S will take effect and thus be effectuated or denied.
You may find this interesting: "Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind
Edwin S. Shneidman, Ph.D., 2004, Oxford University Press.
Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind is a uniquely intensive psychological analysis of a suicidal mind. In this poignant scientific study, the author assembles an extraordinary cast of eight renowned experts to analyze the suicidal materials, including a ten-page suicide note, given to him by a distraught mother looking for insights into her son's tragic death. Each of the eight experts offers a unique perspective and the sum of their conclusions constitutes an extraordinary psychological autopsy. This book is the first of its kind and a remarkable contribution to the study of suicide." I note that this is from 2004 (why not 1985?).
Important:
People may say that they don't subscribe to all or some of the points or that they certainly not subscribe to the hidden motives (of some people). Their very subscription may very well be so, but this doesn't undercut the fact that their position may support it, objectively! Undeniably then, every possible argument in the discussion of (A)S will take part and thus be effectuated or denied. It should on the other hand, incline them to take part in the debate of preventing this kind of vicious thinking or act in different ways to prevent suicide altogether. Clearly, they will fail to prevent the possibility of such attitudes and I think the massive problem of suicide and its origins are too great to make any solid impact on the matter by practical action. Surely then, this impels a certain kind of dissemination of information. Has Simone won?
By examining the reasons for suicide, it can become a right to commit suicide. Open discussions will decide the laws in the various legislative domains/states and nations. This right can be qualified by fulfilling a set of requirements. I also think if people have a real chance to commit suicide legally, they will embark on a different procedure in relation to family and friends. There's also a chance that family and friends will care more and be more alert to factors leading to suicidal tendencies and the whole debate may also take on better characteristics.
Following the pattern of abortion that must be said to be very successful if you look closely on the statistics (leading to more: well being of kids, quality time, time for attention and love and so on), excluding, of course, the Christian conservatives (for them, we go the Hell all the same), I think this can turn out well for legalised (assisted) suicides too, that it gets accepted among the greater parts of the population, that for some, suicide by medicines is a good solution to sickness and other. There's nothing in the way for the possibility that near, dear people can take part in one's departure from life. The very (A)S can represent dignity in many ways, not to say fill many empty spaces (to make society "complete").
I think legalising suicide has the capacity to slash the "doctors'" vile, perverse, gruesome "games" quite heavily to put it bluntly (despite their, the medical doctors, Hippocratic oath)!
The final death to the Con-side of legalising (assisted) suicide:
The Hippocratic Oath poses in NO way any more charity toward anti-suicide than the charity of those who are in favour because both sides may equally say that they support the best humanity and the best dignity of it.
Thus, the mere uttering of a certain "devotion" to dignity is no point as such! Therefore, "I claim to follow the Hippocratic Oath" is just a blow in the air in this sense/relation!
Thus, in line with the argument started with as "Pro and Con Arguments of (Assisted) Suicide", I have this to add:
"The Intellectual Defence"
It can also be read as "Background for the Intellectual Defence", given the applied ethics. The intellectual defence for the pro-assisted suicide side is to be serious toward people who want the possibility to die because they suffer the most grievous pains. Now, after paying empathy to these people in pain, there are some common points like what possible hidden motives can the pro-side possibly have? Are we not supposed to be real about pain and therefore people in pain? Isn't a very painful life awful? And the arguments continue for the pro-side on this note, all very plausible and direct. So, who is the opposition? Who are they? The point here is that people who commit suicides always pay the highest price and that the opposition stands back confounded and at loss of words. That they are overrun! There is a logical chain of thoughts here that goes through several arguments of entailment to make this happen<ref>Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York</ref><ref>http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime. FBI. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13877314. BBC News. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/4/42/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police%2C_1998-2008_%281_000%29.png. Eurostat. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>Ref.:
http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/382.pdf. WHO. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref>. And that when these are counted there are 5 references all in all, only under the "Intellectual Defence".
The references then under "The Intellectual Defence" are explained as:
Here are the relevant facts FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ACQUIRED THE BOOKS(!!! A hard academic demand). This is also to be known as "The Explanation of the References (for The Int. Def.):
1. Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York
The Problem of Evil. "...of the widespread practice of torture." and "...all examples of moral evil or cruelty: human beings inflicting suffering on other human beings..."
2. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime
FBI crime statistics. These are most relevant in order to explain that there is a good deal of crime in the World, this time in USA, specifically, and that many people are likely to suffer under it, also those who get to escape more atrocities, more pains, i.e., those who suicide.
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13877314
A news story that details the backlog of the ECtHR by "There is currently a backlog of 150,000 cases at the ECtHR in Strasbourg, and costs of taking a case there are high." and additionally, but only secondarily, "According to SCHR, that means: "The ECtHR is not and should not be seen as a substitute for the individual's right of access to a remedy from domestic courts in Scotland and the UK.""
4. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/4/42/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police%2C_1998-2008_%281_000%29.png
Eurostat crime statistics. These are most relevant in order to explain that there is a good deal of crime in the World, this time in Europe, specifically, and that many people are likely to suffer under it, also those who get to escape more atrocities, more pains, i.e., those who suicide.
5. http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/382.pdf
A WHO document mentioning a totalling number of "1 million people" who are gone, who have committed suicide. And this is back in 1999. I've added this one instead of using the (invalid) reference on Wikipedia by its "suicide numbers", although they are also based on numbers from WHO.
Everybody knows there is a damn hard requirement of reading up FIRST!!! I bet this low "thing" hasn't even checked with Amazon for TOC (of anything). As much as a car can get totalled then also now the opposition that we are to seek out and highlight... (We have a clear conscience...)
Then the logical formal set-up, first we have the sentences (UoD, the entities, the whole disposition will have to wait for now):
1. There is a lot of crime in the World to such extent that even the (principal) ECtHR gets a huge backlog.
The references: Crime takes FBI and Eurostat. ECtHR takes BBC News.
2. And given that torture is part of crime then people may be in a World of hurt "here and there".
The reference: Torture takes Warburton's book. (But AI is also reporting a good deal, although they are very formal. So instead of saying torture they point to "abuse" and "domestic violence" and that children died under "unfortunate" curcumstances. They do avoid the word "torture" because they are part of some kind of political game or something. Annual report from them, although not formally in.)
3. When people are in a World of hurt "here and there", they want to suicide.
The reference: Suicide takes the WHO numbers, both for current (Wikipedia, but link isn't here because...) and this million.
4. People suicide, i.e., the suicide numbers, by hearsay, more than one million deaths every year.
The conclusion here is that people are unquestionably! I don't want to hear the slightest (lying) denial of this! And that this suffering, much because of corruption with the police, lawyers and doctors, cause suicides on the scale mentioned, 1 million in 1999, more than in all wars on Earth combined! I say, LET'S TAKE THEM ON. WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THESE RODENTS NOW AND THAT WE ARE TO PLAY THE WHOLE BOOK OF TRICKS AND MISBEHAVE IN ORDER TO LAND GREATER DIGNITY OUT OF ETHICS AND COSTING THESE RETARDS IN THE PROCESS! Good? Understand?
Of course then, as you can read yourself, enter crime -> ECtHR -> Nigel Warburton -> Suicides! Entailment! Even if these "angel" researchers (clinical/police/sociologists/psychologists/psychiatrists) tell you that they try to help people who are suffering from suicide-issues, i.e., that they consider to kill themselves, what guarantee do you get from them by that? Do they ever so much as (bl*ody) mention a time-scope? Do you see them somewhere in the legal system standing up for anything at all? Do they write sympathically in the newspapers about these issues so as to earn your trust? I can't see them lifting a g*d-d*mn finger for these people who are suffering. And that they do very little in terms of organisation or legal work, even by Amnesty International, domestically (they have duties by AI to care for all), even though, they have gained authority by achieving their degrees. What I figure is that they sit there and do the ordinary and bumble about with little differences to notice whatsoever. So the "entailment" chain of logics above describe these problems, that people are suffering from criminal circumstances so that painful conditions obtain in them (because police, lawyers, and doctors are corrupt, to start with some groups). This argument, along with my description of a possible (class-action) lawsuit are here to alleviate all this awfulness so that at least the theory and the formal deficiencies are described! And this is important beyond words to have this in place. Therefore, this whole argument you see unfolding here may provide for lots of people to either die with dignity or to (consciously) live with dignity. This is the feat of this text on my blog, that we've disclosed these freaked people and that we will fight in order to see increased levels of dignity worldwide!
PS1: I also note that the President of the Norwegian Doctor's Association is against (A)S and that other doctors (tossing in the "authority" and "status") also are usually in favour, citing Hippocratic Oath. This is in no way anything objectional and one is entitled the view, but still... (and silent waters run deep).
PS2: If I, by this, get to inform people and also get to sway opinion into being in favour of (A)S, taking the correct (ethical) view on the issue according to myself, I'll be a very happy person!
Note1: If one allows one suicide, it doesn't necessarily mean that you allow one more suicide. It can be that one "palliative" assisted suicide is prevented or that one actual suicide is prevented. Either way, assisted suicides can't be said to necessarily have a bearing on the total number of suicides, actual or possible.
Note2: stamps from the Philosophy Now forum,
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:58 pm; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:26 pm; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:14 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:24 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:28 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org.
First of all, those who seriously argue for the right to (Assisted) Suicide (A)S seems to have the greatest integrity of the subject they're speaking of. Necessarily, those who oppose it, are on the outside of the situation, but may very well have been considering (Assisted) Suicide in the past.
Now, one person, Simone, argues in favour:
1. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are in great pain and are bound to die (terminally ill).
2. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are losing their mind (fx. Alzheimer's).
3. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are in great mental pain/distress to which there's no hope and there's no-one willing to significantly change the situation.
4. Combination of two or more of 1., 2. and 3.
5. People should have the possibility to (A)S so that people can't be kept as virtual slaves anymore or forced to compromise on themselves to that extent.
6. People should have the possibility to (A)S so that people aren't forced to compromise on themselves to any extent (by 1., 2., 3. and 4.), calling the situation for what it is, making the possibility to (A)S possibly less restrictive.
7. There's more dignity in dying reasonably healthy and able (by/implied by X. in post #4 on the PF forum).
8. If I have no constructive role in society, being an adult, and I have the urge to commit suicide. It should be my right to commit this suicide or else I might get involved with illegal guns and homicide(s). Being an adult involves knowing what's best for yourself as you are closest to yourself and clearly then, I'm ethically/lawfully entitled to choose my destiny of suicide in my own opinion. Therefore, also, I demand it!
9. We should allow people to die by 1. and 2., possibly also by 3., 5. and 6. because it's the decent approach to the matters (by Apathy Kills in post #18 on the PF forum). There's a certain power in using the word, "decent", here and I'd like you to contemplate this.
10. The fact that people are driven down to basic instincts, into corners of despair, forced to compromise on themselves is necessarily leading to unnecessary friction and unhealthy tendencies in society. (A)S should therefore be allowed! (I think this is slightly different than 4. and 5.)
11. Acknowledging point 5. of the opposition, I do still think the defacto performance of society in telling people to "get out of the way" in a possibly hidden and cruel manner (if nothing else then implicitly by use of threats and fear) is true whether this is unexpressed or not (because I can think of such thought as having existence, plausibly).
(It should be noted that assisted suicides if they become legal, always are qualified (by whatever requirements), assisted suicides. This is implicit, but now it's explicit!)
One person, Peter, argues against:
1. People should not have the possibility to die, (A)S, because of (my) (presumably) view of the sanctity of life.
2. People should not have the possibility to die, (A)S, because (unfounded) "it's the wrong signal to give".
3. In the case of older people, they may (mis-) perceive their burden on family and friends in an unproportionate way and thus wrongly requesting, wanting or actually committing suicide.
4. There simply is no unbearable/painful situation and therefore all suicides are wrong.
5. By allowing people suicide, one may give a (possibly subtle) signal that people should "get out of the way" and consequently devalue the human life. Therefore, suicide should not be legal. (This may likely be the real argument of 2. while 2. is just a "social" signal of ambiguity.)
6. By denying people (assisted) suicide, one (unfounded) prevents possibly a number of suicides. Therefore, suicide should not be legal. (By atightropewalker in post #47.)
It seems to me to be common to somehow discredit the person who wants to commit suicide by being in doubt of the person's intelligence, sanity or cognition of circumstances.
I'd like you to add arguments to either of these two people. I'd also like you to list possible hidden motives with either of these two persons.
Like this:
Hidden, Peter, "I like the fact that people die in severe pain and I also like the melancholy of thinking so."
Hidden, Peter, "I like the fact that people go through great pains before getting finally getting it done in all sorts of funny ways. Heck, it's a jungle out there and I'm an explorer!"
Hidden, Peter, "If we give people the possibility to (A)S, people can't be kept as virtual slaves anymore or forced to compromise on themselves to that extent."
Consequently, I also like you to note the possibilities of Simone having hidden motives and the very nature of them.
I also like to point out the usual ordeal of suicides. You know, people sobbing and complaining about losing someone beloved, but where are the f**king stories of these (deprived) people who commit suicides? Am I supposed to think they killed themselves because of some illusion? Hah, no way! If I'm supposed to think about suicide, it's the freaking last thing, I think about! I think it's so bloody clear, but people just shut up out of politeness or something. Psychiatry should have rife possibilities on telling people what kind of conditions that drive people into suicide, but do they? F**king never!
Objectively, every possible argument in the discussion of (A)S will take effect and thus be effectuated or denied.
You may find this interesting: "Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind
Edwin S. Shneidman, Ph.D., 2004, Oxford University Press.
Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind is a uniquely intensive psychological analysis of a suicidal mind. In this poignant scientific study, the author assembles an extraordinary cast of eight renowned experts to analyze the suicidal materials, including a ten-page suicide note, given to him by a distraught mother looking for insights into her son's tragic death. Each of the eight experts offers a unique perspective and the sum of their conclusions constitutes an extraordinary psychological autopsy. This book is the first of its kind and a remarkable contribution to the study of suicide." I note that this is from 2004 (why not 1985?).
Important:
People may say that they don't subscribe to all or some of the points or that they certainly not subscribe to the hidden motives (of some people). Their very subscription may very well be so, but this doesn't undercut the fact that their position may support it, objectively! Undeniably then, every possible argument in the discussion of (A)S will take part and thus be effectuated or denied. It should on the other hand, incline them to take part in the debate of preventing this kind of vicious thinking or act in different ways to prevent suicide altogether. Clearly, they will fail to prevent the possibility of such attitudes and I think the massive problem of suicide and its origins are too great to make any solid impact on the matter by practical action. Surely then, this impels a certain kind of dissemination of information. Has Simone won?
By examining the reasons for suicide, it can become a right to commit suicide. Open discussions will decide the laws in the various legislative domains/states and nations. This right can be qualified by fulfilling a set of requirements. I also think if people have a real chance to commit suicide legally, they will embark on a different procedure in relation to family and friends. There's also a chance that family and friends will care more and be more alert to factors leading to suicidal tendencies and the whole debate may also take on better characteristics.
Following the pattern of abortion that must be said to be very successful if you look closely on the statistics (leading to more: well being of kids, quality time, time for attention and love and so on), excluding, of course, the Christian conservatives (for them, we go the Hell all the same), I think this can turn out well for legalised (assisted) suicides too, that it gets accepted among the greater parts of the population, that for some, suicide by medicines is a good solution to sickness and other. There's nothing in the way for the possibility that near, dear people can take part in one's departure from life. The very (A)S can represent dignity in many ways, not to say fill many empty spaces (to make society "complete").
I think legalising suicide has the capacity to slash the "doctors'" vile, perverse, gruesome "games" quite heavily to put it bluntly (despite their, the medical doctors, Hippocratic oath)!
The final death to the Con-side of legalising (assisted) suicide:
The Hippocratic Oath poses in NO way any more charity toward anti-suicide than the charity of those who are in favour because both sides may equally say that they support the best humanity and the best dignity of it.
Thus, the mere uttering of a certain "devotion" to dignity is no point as such! Therefore, "I claim to follow the Hippocratic Oath" is just a blow in the air in this sense/relation!
Thus, in line with the argument started with as "Pro and Con Arguments of (Assisted) Suicide", I have this to add:
"The Intellectual Defence"
It can also be read as "Background for the Intellectual Defence", given the applied ethics. The intellectual defence for the pro-assisted suicide side is to be serious toward people who want the possibility to die because they suffer the most grievous pains. Now, after paying empathy to these people in pain, there are some common points like what possible hidden motives can the pro-side possibly have? Are we not supposed to be real about pain and therefore people in pain? Isn't a very painful life awful? And the arguments continue for the pro-side on this note, all very plausible and direct. So, who is the opposition? Who are they? The point here is that people who commit suicides always pay the highest price and that the opposition stands back confounded and at loss of words. That they are overrun! There is a logical chain of thoughts here that goes through several arguments of entailment to make this happen<ref>Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York</ref><ref>http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime. FBI. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13877314. BBC News. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/4/42/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police%2C_1998-2008_%281_000%29.png. Eurostat. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>Ref.:
http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/382.pdf. WHO. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref>. And that when these are counted there are 5 references all in all, only under the "Intellectual Defence".
The references then under "The Intellectual Defence" are explained as:
Here are the relevant facts FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ACQUIRED THE BOOKS(!!! A hard academic demand). This is also to be known as "The Explanation of the References (for The Int. Def.):
1. Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York
The Problem of Evil. "...of the widespread practice of torture." and "...all examples of moral evil or cruelty: human beings inflicting suffering on other human beings..."
2. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime
FBI crime statistics. These are most relevant in order to explain that there is a good deal of crime in the World, this time in USA, specifically, and that many people are likely to suffer under it, also those who get to escape more atrocities, more pains, i.e., those who suicide.
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13877314
A news story that details the backlog of the ECtHR by "There is currently a backlog of 150,000 cases at the ECtHR in Strasbourg, and costs of taking a case there are high." and additionally, but only secondarily, "According to SCHR, that means: "The ECtHR is not and should not be seen as a substitute for the individual's right of access to a remedy from domestic courts in Scotland and the UK.""
4. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/4/42/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police%2C_1998-2008_%281_000%29.png
Eurostat crime statistics. These are most relevant in order to explain that there is a good deal of crime in the World, this time in Europe, specifically, and that many people are likely to suffer under it, also those who get to escape more atrocities, more pains, i.e., those who suicide.
5. http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/382.pdf
A WHO document mentioning a totalling number of "1 million people" who are gone, who have committed suicide. And this is back in 1999. I've added this one instead of using the (invalid) reference on Wikipedia by its "suicide numbers", although they are also based on numbers from WHO.
Everybody knows there is a damn hard requirement of reading up FIRST!!! I bet this low "thing" hasn't even checked with Amazon for TOC (of anything). As much as a car can get totalled then also now the opposition that we are to seek out and highlight... (We have a clear conscience...)
Then the logical formal set-up, first we have the sentences (UoD, the entities, the whole disposition will have to wait for now):
1. There is a lot of crime in the World to such extent that even the (principal) ECtHR gets a huge backlog.
The references: Crime takes FBI and Eurostat. ECtHR takes BBC News.
2. And given that torture is part of crime then people may be in a World of hurt "here and there".
The reference: Torture takes Warburton's book. (But AI is also reporting a good deal, although they are very formal. So instead of saying torture they point to "abuse" and "domestic violence" and that children died under "unfortunate" curcumstances. They do avoid the word "torture" because they are part of some kind of political game or something. Annual report from them, although not formally in.)
3. When people are in a World of hurt "here and there", they want to suicide.
The reference: Suicide takes the WHO numbers, both for current (Wikipedia, but link isn't here because...) and this million.
4. People suicide, i.e., the suicide numbers, by hearsay, more than one million deaths every year.
The conclusion here is that people are unquestionably! I don't want to hear the slightest (lying) denial of this! And that this suffering, much because of corruption with the police, lawyers and doctors, cause suicides on the scale mentioned, 1 million in 1999, more than in all wars on Earth combined! I say, LET'S TAKE THEM ON. WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THESE RODENTS NOW AND THAT WE ARE TO PLAY THE WHOLE BOOK OF TRICKS AND MISBEHAVE IN ORDER TO LAND GREATER DIGNITY OUT OF ETHICS AND COSTING THESE RETARDS IN THE PROCESS! Good? Understand?
Of course then, as you can read yourself, enter crime -> ECtHR -> Nigel Warburton -> Suicides! Entailment! Even if these "angel" researchers (clinical/police/sociologists/psychologists/psychiatrists) tell you that they try to help people who are suffering from suicide-issues, i.e., that they consider to kill themselves, what guarantee do you get from them by that? Do they ever so much as (bl*ody) mention a time-scope? Do you see them somewhere in the legal system standing up for anything at all? Do they write sympathically in the newspapers about these issues so as to earn your trust? I can't see them lifting a g*d-d*mn finger for these people who are suffering. And that they do very little in terms of organisation or legal work, even by Amnesty International, domestically (they have duties by AI to care for all), even though, they have gained authority by achieving their degrees. What I figure is that they sit there and do the ordinary and bumble about with little differences to notice whatsoever. So the "entailment" chain of logics above describe these problems, that people are suffering from criminal circumstances so that painful conditions obtain in them (because police, lawyers, and doctors are corrupt, to start with some groups). This argument, along with my description of a possible (class-action) lawsuit are here to alleviate all this awfulness so that at least the theory and the formal deficiencies are described! And this is important beyond words to have this in place. Therefore, this whole argument you see unfolding here may provide for lots of people to either die with dignity or to (consciously) live with dignity. This is the feat of this text on my blog, that we've disclosed these freaked people and that we will fight in order to see increased levels of dignity worldwide!
PS1: I also note that the President of the Norwegian Doctor's Association is against (A)S and that other doctors (tossing in the "authority" and "status") also are usually in favour, citing Hippocratic Oath. This is in no way anything objectional and one is entitled the view, but still... (and silent waters run deep).
PS2: If I, by this, get to inform people and also get to sway opinion into being in favour of (A)S, taking the correct (ethical) view on the issue according to myself, I'll be a very happy person!
Note1: If one allows one suicide, it doesn't necessarily mean that you allow one more suicide. It can be that one "palliative" assisted suicide is prevented or that one actual suicide is prevented. Either way, assisted suicides can't be said to necessarily have a bearing on the total number of suicides, actual or possible.
Note2: stamps from the Philosophy Now forum,
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:58 pm; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:26 pm; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:14 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:24 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:28 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org.
A More Steady World - This is for Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, and Thailand
Dear Excellencies and Dignitaries of Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, and Thailand
This is a slight political recommendation now, that is, to be acted upon shortly "for opening up the World" (NATO 2 or not) for You to join NATO as soon as You like. Therefore, I hope You bother to consider this suggestion, in common or not, in joining NATO, that is, practically speaking, sending in the application "readily" together with or not, either or all of Your 4 countries of Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, and Thailand. These countries are nominated carefully, not that I am from King's College of War in London.
Still, I hope You like my suggestion and that this, of course, entirely up to You, all 4 or not. There should be, in this, very fine consequences and that Earth society actually gains two steps or more in decency by it. As we, together, now know, the promises should be clear, diplomatically put!
Good luck with Your further affairs!
Sincerely Yours,
Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea
PS: I have lately seen new signals from Japan in terms of military equipment and that the new type of agreement under UN Security Council, usually, has redefined World security considerably. Not only for the nuclear weapons powers, but also the UN Security Council members, NATO itself, and the other (more general) members of the UN in total as they have very little military engagement to speak of, even potentially.
This is a slight political recommendation now, that is, to be acted upon shortly "for opening up the World" (NATO 2 or not) for You to join NATO as soon as You like. Therefore, I hope You bother to consider this suggestion, in common or not, in joining NATO, that is, practically speaking, sending in the application "readily" together with or not, either or all of Your 4 countries of Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, and Thailand. These countries are nominated carefully, not that I am from King's College of War in London.
Still, I hope You like my suggestion and that this, of course, entirely up to You, all 4 or not. There should be, in this, very fine consequences and that Earth society actually gains two steps or more in decency by it. As we, together, now know, the promises should be clear, diplomatically put!
Good luck with Your further affairs!
Sincerely Yours,
Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea
PS: I have lately seen new signals from Japan in terms of military equipment and that the new type of agreement under UN Security Council, usually, has redefined World security considerably. Not only for the nuclear weapons powers, but also the UN Security Council members, NATO itself, and the other (more general) members of the UN in total as they have very little military engagement to speak of, even potentially.
Monday, 24 September 2012
The Breivik Paradox of Legal Systems - On the Use of Torture
The Breivik Paradox of Legal Systems - On the Use of Torture
by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 at 20:02 CEST.
With Breivik, it may have proven to be a trick for the police to charge him with terror, so as to provide themselves an excuse to torture. Because we don't know if they have tortured, do we? And that he isn't this terrorist of convention, as they are so fixated to think, isn't this so? Sorry for this Socrates-chain of words. So here we have a legal paradox "from a strange and deficient legal system, that of Norway", that has actualised or blurred when torture on people is supposed to take place, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T USED THE LIST OF EU AND THEY HAVEN'T ALLOWED THE TERRORIST ORGANISATION TO FORM EVEN, BEFORE THEY STRIKE AND CATCH "ONE DAMN EVIL MAN", (muted) one, perhaps, more Christian than them... "Ohh, is there a chance for that...?"
Note: First written to Facebook under my Facebook profile (by public setting, Sunday, 24 June 2012. Note2: Today, I've tried to inform the ECtHR of serious problems in Norway relating to the formulation of the Breivik Pradox. I've tried to phone them by official number: 00 33388412018 and getting "this number is not in use" by NetCom mob.ph.-services. Note3: The message to ECtHR has been (upon sending):
Note3: I'd like You to know about the Breivik Paradox and the very serious problems it offers in terms of legal practice with a police force already marked by corruption and now is looking for individuals, "whether they remember it or not", traumatic experiences can /easily/ disappear from memory! Here:
The Breivik Paradox of Legal Systems - On the Use of Torture
by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 at 20:02 CEST.
With Breivik, it may have proven to be a trick for the police to charge him with terror, so as to provide themselves an excuse to torture. Because we don't know if they have tortured, do we? And that he isn't this terrorist of convention, as they are so fixated to think, isn't this so? Sorry for this Socrates-chain of words. So here we have a legal paradox "from a strange and deficient legal system, that of Norway", that has actualised or blurred when torture on people is supposed to take place, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T USED THE LIST OF EU AND THEY HAVEN'T ALLOWED THE TERRORIST ORGANISATION TO FORM EVEN, BEFORE THEY STRIKE AND CATCH "ONE DAMN EVIL MAN", (muted) one, perhaps, more Christian than them... "Ohh, is there a chance for that...?"
(Note: under the message to ECtHR) First written to Facebook under my Facebook profile (by public setting, Sunday, 24 June 2012.
So this should be it.
by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 at 20:02 CEST.
With Breivik, it may have proven to be a trick for the police to charge him with terror, so as to provide themselves an excuse to torture. Because we don't know if they have tortured, do we? And that he isn't this terrorist of convention, as they are so fixated to think, isn't this so? Sorry for this Socrates-chain of words. So here we have a legal paradox "from a strange and deficient legal system, that of Norway", that has actualised or blurred when torture on people is supposed to take place, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T USED THE LIST OF EU AND THEY HAVEN'T ALLOWED THE TERRORIST ORGANISATION TO FORM EVEN, BEFORE THEY STRIKE AND CATCH "ONE DAMN EVIL MAN", (muted) one, perhaps, more Christian than them... "Ohh, is there a chance for that...?"
Note: First written to Facebook under my Facebook profile (by public setting, Sunday, 24 June 2012. Note2: Today, I've tried to inform the ECtHR of serious problems in Norway relating to the formulation of the Breivik Pradox. I've tried to phone them by official number: 00 33388412018 and getting "this number is not in use" by NetCom mob.ph.-services. Note3: The message to ECtHR has been (upon sending):
Note3: I'd like You to know about the Breivik Paradox and the very serious problems it offers in terms of legal practice with a police force already marked by corruption and now is looking for individuals, "whether they remember it or not", traumatic experiences can /easily/ disappear from memory! Here:
The Breivik Paradox of Legal Systems - On the Use of Torture
by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 at 20:02 CEST.
With Breivik, it may have proven to be a trick for the police to charge him with terror, so as to provide themselves an excuse to torture. Because we don't know if they have tortured, do we? And that he isn't this terrorist of convention, as they are so fixated to think, isn't this so? Sorry for this Socrates-chain of words. So here we have a legal paradox "from a strange and deficient legal system, that of Norway", that has actualised or blurred when torture on people is supposed to take place, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T USED THE LIST OF EU AND THEY HAVEN'T ALLOWED THE TERRORIST ORGANISATION TO FORM EVEN, BEFORE THEY STRIKE AND CATCH "ONE DAMN EVIL MAN", (muted) one, perhaps, more Christian than them... "Ohh, is there a chance for that...?"
(Note: under the message to ECtHR) First written to Facebook under my Facebook profile (by public setting, Sunday, 24 June 2012.
So this should be it.
Being on Top of the Genetic Strength Rating...
Concerning anti-biotics/antibiotics: I'd also like to make the notification that I've (by my genes) have contributed to another step on top of the antibiotics ladder, that is now at a certain level, where mine lies ON TOP, actually!!! For relating directly to the title, please, note that rating also goes for "ladder" and "rating". Alright?
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotics - Antibacterial - Wikipedia.
If you're a non-expert, don't bother with it! This is an explicit warning!
This should also go for the decisions on antibacterial detergents in removing them from the market and various issues connected to MRSA and other.
Friday, 21 September 2012
Over Animal Ethics and to PETA Too - This time it is the pigs...
Over PETA again and domestic animals, being a part of the
animal ethics and applied ethics
This time it is over the pigs. The suggestion is one of multi-modal-approach, that the covers/shelters to wind and rain out on the grass fields must be in place, or at least is in place normatively as by recommendation and that one arranges for the animals to have special birth-bins with half-concrete (but enough still) and half-grass mat as with the cows and oxes formerly explained. Ordinary bins as with the cows and oxes (although they are called "stalls") should also be arranged for, but pigs are less complicated because they are not milked! Then the rest is up to you. Some even play music for the animals. This also concerns food and so on. Cleanliness level should be as high as vet standards demand and general animal standards outside this is also (largely/sufficiently) described by vet standards! Good luck to you, the farmers, the agronomists!
Note: For whatever the shelters, the bins, the stalls, animals do not walk about sharp edges very well and get easily cut up! This is also a notice, but probably already well into the vet's recommendations!
Note2: Just published to Facebook as message under profile and note also. Today, 2012-09-21 CEST.
This time it is over the pigs. The suggestion is one of multi-modal-approach, that the covers/shelters to wind and rain out on the grass fields must be in place, or at least is in place normatively as by recommendation and that one arranges for the animals to have special birth-bins with half-concrete (but enough still) and half-grass mat as with the cows and oxes formerly explained. Ordinary bins as with the cows and oxes (although they are called "stalls") should also be arranged for, but pigs are less complicated because they are not milked! Then the rest is up to you. Some even play music for the animals. This also concerns food and so on. Cleanliness level should be as high as vet standards demand and general animal standards outside this is also (largely/sufficiently) described by vet standards! Good luck to you, the farmers, the agronomists!
Note: For whatever the shelters, the bins, the stalls, animals do not walk about sharp edges very well and get easily cut up! This is also a notice, but probably already well into the vet's recommendations!
Note2: Just published to Facebook as message under profile and note also. Today, 2012-09-21 CEST.
Wednesday, 19 September 2012
Water-Gold or WaterBubbleGold - The New Gold?
Bubble Gold (now we are two over it): Also known as "WaterGold" or "WaterBubbleGold":
Here is how we (2?) do it:
1. Water is poured onto a plate!
2. (Semi-)fluid gold flows in under the plate, a kind of "ground floor".
3. Pull plate quickly out (protective clothing req.).
4. Gold stiffens /after/ the water has made it's bubbling on it (due to heat) and according then to the physical laws of water to hot metal, gold.
5. /The RESULT/: a special "quant" impression from the water of life to the gold. Remember that the gold can very well be a plate with a name on it!
Any good?
(And the usual: very impressed?) :-D
Lenny the Layman - also with Layman Points of Views (damn AFTER W. V. O. Quine).
Note: First to Facebook as note and plain note to profile, by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 at 16:51 CEST.
Here is how we (2?) do it:
1. Water is poured onto a plate!
2. (Semi-)fluid gold flows in under the plate, a kind of "ground floor".
3. Pull plate quickly out (protective clothing req.).
4. Gold stiffens /after/ the water has made it's bubbling on it (due to heat) and according then to the physical laws of water to hot metal, gold.
5. /The RESULT/: a special "quant" impression from the water of life to the gold. Remember that the gold can very well be a plate with a name on it!
Any good?
(And the usual: very impressed?) :-D
Lenny the Layman - also with Layman Points of Views (damn AFTER W. V. O. Quine).
Note: First to Facebook as note and plain note to profile, by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 at 16:51 CEST.
Sunday, 16 September 2012
Two Very Important Historical Notions to Consider - UN and USA/WW2
It must now be noted in the books out of the US American (strict) context that
it is likely that USA has drawn the Satanic Cross over Japan with its two
nuclear bombs on the southern cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki! I insist here on
religious context in comparison to objective history writing given that some may
insist that religious terms are to be kept out of history writing.
Nr. 2: It must now be clear also that USA may have had other intelligence than Trygve Bratteli when the Norwegian Secretary General of the UN played the (undemocratic/Hitlerish) trick on the Russians as he erred (in terms of democracy) in granting the US Americans the rights by the UN because the assembly needs all parties gathered in order to obtain validity! This means then, that fundamentally, the decision on giving the go-ahead to the US Americans by UN must be seen as wrong, no matter how "hindsight (idiot) wise" I (and others) may appear by this!
Cheers!
Nr. 2: It must now be clear also that USA may have had other intelligence than Trygve Bratteli when the Norwegian Secretary General of the UN played the (undemocratic/Hitlerish) trick on the Russians as he erred (in terms of democracy) in granting the US Americans the rights by the UN because the assembly needs all parties gathered in order to obtain validity! This means then, that fundamentally, the decision on giving the go-ahead to the US Americans by UN must be seen as wrong, no matter how "hindsight (idiot) wise" I (and others) may appear by this!
Cheers!
Saturday, 15 September 2012
A Possible Public Statement for Norway by WHO
There is (now) a possibility for WHO to give this public statement:
It is now known that Norway has been leading a seriously mistaken health policy and that this policy has injured its own population greatly as well as abroad (consider also "intuitions").
This is troubling us very much and we feel hostage to your failure toward good scientific medical practices and general enforcement of law and order! We are therefore logically forced to give you a warning! We're sorry!
(Concl.:) Norway, you are hereby given a WARNING!!!
It is now known that Norway has been leading a seriously mistaken health policy and that this policy has injured its own population greatly as well as abroad (consider also "intuitions").
This is troubling us very much and we feel hostage to your failure toward good scientific medical practices and general enforcement of law and order! We are therefore logically forced to give you a warning! We're sorry!
(Concl.:) Norway, you are hereby given a WARNING!!!
The New Possibilities for Minute Views Down to the Nano Levels and Further (if...)
There is now, this as mere public information, the possibilities for setting up several microscopes up to the size of (large) factory buildings, all of them hooked up with a digital camera into the lens by communications services and the gathered results (multiplied to many or not, pre-filmed or not) as a continuous imaging of whatever (petridish or other) from the array of combined "microscopes" set up together! Cool or what? Highly recommended to every top university in the World, in my opinion! Cheers!
Note: First written moments ago "elsewhere"...
Note: First written moments ago "elsewhere"...
Friday, 14 September 2012
One Question for UN Secretary General and Everyone Else, Whole World, Whomever...
What is the moral negative value on each and every instance, starting with the mildest level, the water-boarding (gosh, that is so evil!) equivalents, including hanging a person slowly, until unconscious, again and again, until death, this also concerns the sex-games of lunatics ending in the murder of unkowing, innocent people and ALL in reality count!!!?
They say there is no torture, but for real, torture and fear is everywhere!!!
Go ahead and see if you can ignore it?
Can we have the "quants" in too so as to present a credible number?! In order to quantify the negative moral value of torture toward the larger picture of World morality...
They say there is no torture, but for real, torture and fear is everywhere!!!
Go ahead and see if you can ignore it?
Can we have the "quants" in too so as to present a credible number?! In order to quantify the negative moral value of torture toward the larger picture of World morality...
The joy of Lambretta's Creep and other music...
Over Gnarls Barkley and his Crazy, here are a few "codes" for Lambretta's Creep under Ricoeur:
Singling gold: 3 possible meanings including The Man with a Golden Gun
Boy: infantile
Dove: 2 - dovegirl of innocence/"innocence" and a girl with the rising dove (well) above the head with a slight reference to a religious image/painting? of the (well known) kind of a younger man (the Angel Gabriel?) with a dove over the head.
Creep: "positively crazy" and a bit angry.
Time for girl: preserving/protecting her girl child back inside one's home/sanctuary, possibly also a slight sexual reference to her (in the song) boy/man!
Breaking up: Making havoc to infantiles' heads! Havoc - also the helicopter and the computer game.
Youtube:
Enjoy yours!
Singling gold: 3 possible meanings including The Man with a Golden Gun
Boy: infantile
Dove: 2 - dovegirl of innocence/"innocence" and a girl with the rising dove (well) above the head with a slight reference to a religious image/painting? of the (well known) kind of a younger man (the Angel Gabriel?) with a dove over the head.
Creep: "positively crazy" and a bit angry.
Time for girl: preserving/protecting her girl child back inside one's home/sanctuary, possibly also a slight sexual reference to her (in the song) boy/man!
Breaking up: Making havoc to infantiles' heads! Havoc - also the helicopter and the computer game.
Youtube:
Enjoy yours!
Tuesday, 11 September 2012
A Part of Gödel's Paper on the Two Incompleteness Theorems
First, here you have some in German, as I aim for Section 3 and 4 to complement
the work by M. Hirzel given freely elsewhere on the Internet. So German now and
English later:
(German: Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme, I.)
[Section] 3. [bei Seite 191]
Wir ziehen nun aus Satz VI weitere Folgerungen und geben zu diesem Zweck folgende Definition:
Eine Relation (Klasse) heißt arithmetisch, wenn sie sich allein mittels der Begriffe +, . [Addition und Multiplikation, bezogen auf natürliche Zahlen, (x), = definieren l
Zahlen beziehen dürfen Entsprechend wird der Begriff "arithmetischer Satz"
definiert. Insbesondere sind z.B. Die Relationen "größer" und "kongruent nach
einem Modul" arithmetisch, denn as gilt:
["Code" needs rechecking/correction.]
x > y ~(Ez) [y = x + z]
rekursive Relation ist arithmetisch.
Wir beweisen den Satz in der Gestalt: Jede Relation der Form x0 = j (x1 ...
n) wo j
rekursiv ist, ist arithmetisch, und wenden vollständige Induktion nach der
Stufe von j an. j habe die s-te Stufe (s > 1). Dann gilt entweder:
[Seite 192]
x0 = j (x1 … xn) ~(E f) {S (f0 = (x2
… xn) & (k) [k < x1 Þ T (fk+1, k, fk, x2
… xn)] & x0 = fx1}
was möglich ist, da je zwei der Zahlen 1 + (i + 1) l! (i = 0, 1, ... k – 1) relativ prim sind. Denn eine in
zwei von diesen Zahlen enthaltene Primzahl müßte auch in der Differenz (i1 – i2) l! und daher
wegen |i1 - i2| < l in l! enthalten sein, was unmöglich ist. Das Zahlenpaar n, l! leistet dann das Verlangte.
Wir leiten schließlich noch folgendes Resultat hier:
Zum engeren Funktionenkalkül (e. F.) rechnen wir diejenigen Formeln, welche sich aus den Grundzeichen: ~, Ú, (x), =; x, y ... (Individuenvariable) F (x), G (x, y), H (x, y, z)... (Eigenschafts-
und Relationsvariable) aufbauen56, wobei (x) und = sich nur auf Individuen beziehen dürfen. Wir fügen zu diesen Zeichen noch eine dritte Art von Variablen j (x), w (x, y), c (x, y, z) etc.
hinzu, die Gegenstandsfunktionen vertreten (d. h. j (x), w (x, y) etc.) bezeichnen eindeutige Funktionen, deren Argumente und Werte Individuen sind57. Eine Formel, die außer den zuerst
angeführten Zeichen des e. F. noch Variable dritter Art j ( (x), w (x, y) ... etc.)
enthält, soll eine Formel im weiteren Sinne (i. w. S.) heißen58. Die Begriffe "erfüllbar",
"allgemeingültig" übertragen sich ohneweiters auf Formeln i. w. S. und es gilt der Satz, daß man zu jeder Formel i. w. S. A eine gewöhnliche Formel des e. F. B angeben kann, so daß
die Erfüllbarkeit von A mit der von B äquivalent ist. B erhält man aus A, indem man die in A vorkommenden Variablen dritter Art j (x), w (x, y) ... durch Ausdrücke der Form: (i, z) F (z, x), (i, z) G (z, x, y) ... ersetzt, die "beschreibenden" Funktionen im Sinne der PM. I * 14 auflöst und die so
erhaltene Formel mit einem Ausdruck logisch multipliziert59, der besagt, daß sämtliche an Stelle der j, w .. gesetzte F, G .. hinsichtlich der ersten Leerstelle genau eindeutig sind.
Wir zeigen nun, daß es zu jedem Problem der Form (x)F(x) (F rekursiv) ein äquivalentes betreffend die Erfüllbarkeit einer Formel i.w.S. Gibt, woraus nach der eben gemachten Bemerkung Satz X folgt.
Da F rekursiv ist, gibt es eine rekursive Funktion F (x), so daß F(x) ~[F (x) = 0], und für F gibt es eine Reihe von Funktionen F1, F2 ... Fn, so daß: Fn = F, F1 (x) = x + 1 und für jedes Fk (1 < k ≦ n)
entweder:
[Seite 195]
oder:
2. (x1 ... xm) [Fk (x1 ... xm) = Fr (Fi1 (Á1) ... Fis (Án))][60] (19)
Ferner bilden wir die Sätze:
(x) [Fn (x) = 0] (22)
1. Wenn (x) [ (x) = 0] gilt, ist (E x0) C erfüllbar, denn die Funktionen F1, F2 ... Fn ergeben dann offenbar in (E x0) C für 1, 2 ... n eingesetzt einen richtigen Satz.
2. Wenn (E x0) C erfüllbar ist, gilt (x) [F (x) = 0].
Da man die Überlegungen, welche zu Satz X führen, (für jedes spezielle F)
auch innerhalb des Systems P durchführen kann, so ist die Äquivalenz zwischen
einem Satz der Form (x) F (x) (F rekursiv) und der Erfüllbarkeit der entsprechenden
Formel des e. F. in P beweisbar und daher folgt aus der Unentscheidbarkeit des
einen die des anderen, womit Satz IX bewiesen ist.[61]
[Seite 197]
[Seite 198]
die Voraussetzung der v-Widerspruchsfreiheit ersetzen durch die folgende: Die Aussage "x ist
widerspruchsvoll" ist nicht x-beweisbar. (Man beachte, daß es widerspruchsfreie x gibt, für die diese Aussage x-beweisbar ist.)
Notes:
49 Die Null wird hier und im folgenden immer mit
zu den natarlichen Zahlen gerechnet.
50 Das Definiens eines solchen Begriffes muß sich also allein mittels der angeführten Zeichen, Variablen für
natürliche Zahlen x, y, . . . und den Zeiehen 0, 1 aufbauen (Funktions- und Mengenvariable dürfen nicht vorkommen). (In den Präfixen darf statt x natürlich auch jede andere Zahlvariable stehen.)
51 Es brauchen natürlich nicht alle x1 . . . xn in den ci tatsächlich vorzukommen [vgl. das Beispiel in Fußnote 27].
52 f bedeutet hier eine Variable, deren Wertbereich die Folgen natürl. Zahlen sind. Mit fk wird das k + 1-te Glied einer Folge f bezeichnet (mit f0 das erste).
53 Das sind diejenigen v-widerspruchsfreien Systeme, welche aus P durch Hinzufügung einer rekursiv definierbaren Klasse von Axiomen entstehen.
54 Vgl. Hilbert-Ackermann, Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik. Im System P sind unter Formeln des engeren Funktionenkalküls diejenigen zu verstehen, welche aus den Formeln des engeren Funktionenkalküls der PM durch die auf S.176 angedeutete Ersetzung der Relationen durch Klassen höheren Typs entstehen.
55 In meiner Arbeit: Die Vollständigkeit der Axiome des logischen Funktionenkalküls, Monatsh. f. Math. u. Phys. XXXVII, 2, habe ich gezeigt, daß jede Formel des engeren Funktionenkalküls entweder als allgemeingültig nachweisbar ist oder ein Gegenbeispiel existiert; die Existenz dieses Gegenbeispiels ist aber nach Satz IX nicht immer nachweisbar (in den angeführten formalen Systemen).
56 D. Hilbert and W. Ackermann rechnen in dem eben zitierten Buch das Zeichen = nicht zum engeren Funktionenkalkül. Es gibt aber zu jeder Formel, in der das Zeichen = vorkommt, eine solche ohne
dieses Zeichen, die mit der ursprünglichen gleichzeitig erfüllbar ist (vgl. die in Fußnote 55) zitierte Arbeit).
57 Und zwar soll der Definitionsbereich immer der ganze Individuenbereich sein.
58 Variable dritter Art dürfen dabei an allen Leerstellen für Individuenvariable stehen, z.B.: y = (x), F(x, (y)), G [(x, (y)), x] : usw.
59 D.h. die Konjunktion bildet.
60 Ái (i = l .. s) vertreten irgend welche Komplexe der Variablen x1, x2 ... xm, z. B.: x1 x3 x2.
61 Aus Satz X folgt z. B., daß das Fermatsche und das Goldbachsche Problem 1ösbar wären, wenn man das Entscheidungsproblem des e. F. gelöst hätte.
62 Satz IX gilt natürlich auch für das Axiomensystem der Mengenlehre und dessen Erweiterungen durch rekursiv
definierbare w-widerspruchsfreie Klassen von Axiomen, da es ja auch in diesen Systemen unentscheidbare Sätze der Form (x) F (x) (F rekursiv) gibt.
63 x ist widerspruchsfrei (abgekürzt als Wid (x)) wird folgendermaßen definiert: Wid (x) ≡ (E x) [Form (x) & Bewx (x)].
the work by M. Hirzel given freely elsewhere on the Internet. So German now and
English later:
On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems I.
(German: Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme, I.)
Kurt Gödel, Wien
[Section] 3. [bei Seite 191]
Wir ziehen nun aus Satz VI weitere Folgerungen und geben zu diesem Zweck folgende Definition:
Eine Relation (Klasse) heißt arithmetisch, wenn sie sich allein mittels der Begriffe +, . [Addition und Multiplikation, bezogen auf natürliche Zahlen, (x), = definieren l
Zahlen beziehen dürfen Entsprechend wird der Begriff "arithmetischer Satz"
definiert. Insbesondere sind z.B. Die Relationen "größer" und "kongruent nach
einem Modul" arithmetisch, denn as gilt:
["Code" needs rechecking/correction.]
x > y ~(Ez) [y = x + z]
x º y (mod n) ~(Ez) [(x
= y + z & n) Ú (y = x + z & n)] Es gilt der
Satz VII: Jede= y + z & n) Ú (y = x + z & n)] Es gilt der
rekursive Relation ist arithmetisch.
Wir beweisen den Satz in der Gestalt: Jede Relation der Form x0 = j (x1 ...
n) wo j
rekursiv ist, ist arithmetisch, und wenden vollständige Induktion nach der
Stufe von j an. j habe die s-te Stufe (s > 1). Dann gilt entweder:
[Seite 192]
1. j (x1 ...
xn) = r [c1 (x1 … xn), c2 (x1 … xn),
… cm (x1 … xn)]5
(wo r und sämtliche ci kleinere Stufe haben als s) oder:
… cm (x1 … xn)]5
(wo r und sämtliche ci kleinere Stufe haben als s) oder:
2. j (0, x2
... xn) = y (x2 … xn)
... xn) = y (x2 … xn)
j (k + 1, x2 ... xn) = m [k, j (k, x2 … xn),
x2 … xn]
x2 … xn]
(wo y, m niedrigere Stufe
als s haben).
Im ersten Falle
gilt:
x0 =
j (x1 … xn) ~(E y1 … ym) [R (x0,
x1 … xn) & S1(y1, x1
xn) & ... & Sm(ym x1 … xn)]
wo R bzw. Si die nach induktiver Annahme existierenden mit x0 = r (y1 … ym) bzw. y = ci(x1 ... xn)
äquivalenten arithmetischen Relationen sind. Daher ist x0 = j (x1 … xn) in diesem Fall arithmetisch.
Im zweiten Fall wenden wir folgendes Verfahren an: Man kann die Relation x0 = (x1 …
xn) mit Hilfe des Begriffes „Folge von Zahlen“ (f)52 folgendermaßen ausdrücken:
xn) & ... & Sm(ym x1 … xn)]
wo R bzw. Si die nach induktiver Annahme existierenden mit x0 = r (y1 … ym) bzw. y = ci(x1 ... xn)
äquivalenten arithmetischen Relationen sind. Daher ist x0 = j (x1 … xn) in diesem Fall arithmetisch.
Im zweiten Fall wenden wir folgendes Verfahren an: Man kann die Relation x0 = (x1 …
xn) mit Hilfe des Begriffes „Folge von Zahlen“ (f)52 folgendermaßen ausdrücken:
x0 = j (x1 … xn)
~(E f) {f0 = y (x2 … xn) & (k) [k <
x1 Þ fk+1 = (k, fk,
x2 … xn)] & x0 = fx1}
~(E f) {f0 = y (x2 … xn) & (k) [k <
x1 Þ fk+1 = (k, fk,
x2 … xn)] & x0 = fx1}
Wenn S (y, x2 … xn) bzw. T (z, x1
… xn + 1) die nach induktiver Annahme existierenden mit y = (x2 … xn)
bzw. z = (x1 … xn + 1) äquivalenten arithmetische Relationen sind, gilt daher:
… xn + 1) die nach induktiver Annahme existierenden mit y = (x2 … xn)
bzw. z = (x1 … xn + 1) äquivalenten arithmetische Relationen sind, gilt daher:
x0 = j (x1 … xn) ~(E f) {S (f0 = (x2
… xn) & (k) [k < x1 Þ T (fk+1, k, fk, x2
… xn)] & x0 = fx1}
Nun ersetzen wir den Begriff “Folge von Zahlen” durch
“Paar von Zahlen”, indem wir dem
Zahlenpaar n, d die Zahlenfolge f(n, d) (fk(n, d) = [n]1 + (k + 1) d) zuordnen, wobei [n]p den
kleinsten nicht negativen Rest von n modulo p bedeutet.
Zahlenpaar n, d die Zahlenfolge f(n, d) (fk(n, d) = [n]1 + (k + 1) d) zuordnen, wobei [n]p den
kleinsten nicht negativen Rest von n modulo p bedeutet.
Es gilt
dann der
Hilfssatz 1: Ist f eine beliebige Folge natürlicher Zahlen und k eine
beliebige natiirliche Zahl, so gibt es ein Paar von natürlichen Zahlen n, d, so daß f(n, d) und f in
den ersten k Gliedern übereinstimmen.
Hilfssatz 1: Ist f eine beliebige Folge natürlicher Zahlen und k eine
beliebige natiirliche Zahl, so gibt es ein Paar von natürlichen Zahlen n, d, so daß f(n, d) und f in
den ersten k Gliedern übereinstimmen.
Beweis:
Sei l die größte der Zahlen k, f0, f1, … fk
- 1. Man bestimme n so, daß:
n º fi [mod (1 + (i + 1) l!)] für i = 0, 1, ... k - 1
[Seite 193]
[Seite 193]
was möglich ist, da je zwei der Zahlen 1 + (i + 1) l! (i = 0, 1, ... k – 1) relativ prim sind. Denn eine in
zwei von diesen Zahlen enthaltene Primzahl müßte auch in der Differenz (i1 – i2) l! und daher
wegen |i1 - i2| < l in l! enthalten sein, was unmöglich ist. Das Zahlenpaar n, l! leistet dann das Verlangte.
Da die
Relation x = [n]p durch:
x º n (mod p) & x < p
definiert
und daher arithmetisch ist, so ist auch die folgendermaßen definierte Relation
P (x0, xl … xn):
P (x0
... xn) º
(E n,
d) {S[([n]d + 1, x2 ... xn)
& (k) [k < x1 Þ T ([n]1 + d (k + 2),
k, [n]1 + d (k + 1), (x2 … xn)] & x0 = [n]1
+ d (x1 + 1)}
arithmetisch,
welche nach (17) und Hilfssatz 1 mit: x0 = j (x1 … xn) äquivalent ist (es kommt bei der Folge f in (17) nur auf ihren
Verlauf bis zum x1 + 1-ten Glied an). Damit ist Satz VII bewiesen.
Gemäß Satz VII gibt es zu jedem Problem der Form (x)F(x) (F rekursiv) ein äquivalentes ärithmetisches Problem und da der ganze Beweis von Satz VII sich (für jedes spezielle F) innerhalb
Gemäß Satz VII gibt es zu jedem Problem der Form (x)F(x) (F rekursiv) ein äquivalentes ärithmetisches Problem und da der ganze Beweis von Satz VII sich (für jedes spezielle F) innerhalb
des
Systems P formalisieren läßt, ist diese Äquivalenz in P beweisbar. Daher gilt:
Satz
VIII: In jedem der in Satz VI genannten formalen Systeme53 gibt es unentscheidbare arithmetische Sätze.
Dasselbe gilt (nach der Bemerkung auf Seite 190) für das Axiomensystem der Mengenlehre
und dessen Erweiterungen durch v-widerspruchsfreie rekursive Klassen von Axiomen.
Dasselbe gilt (nach der Bemerkung auf Seite 190) für das Axiomensystem der Mengenlehre
und dessen Erweiterungen durch v-widerspruchsfreie rekursive Klassen von Axiomen.
Wir leiten schließlich noch folgendes Resultat hier:
Satz
IX: In allen in Satz VI genannten formalen Systemen (53) gibt es
unentscheidbare Probleme des engeren
Funktionenkalküls54 (d. h. Formeln des
engeren Funktionenkalküls, für die weder
Allgemeingültigkeit noch Existenz eines Gegenbeispiels beweisbar ist)55.
[Seite 194]
Allgemeingültigkeit noch Existenz eines Gegenbeispiels beweisbar ist)55.
Dies
beruht auf:
Satz X:
Jedes Problem der Form (x)F(x) (F rekursiv) läßt sich zurückführen auf die
Frage nach der Erfüllbarkeit einer
Formel des engeren Funktionenkalküls (d.h. zu jedem rekursiven F kann man eine Formel des engeren Funktionenkalküls
angeben deren Erfüllbarkeit mit der Richtigkeit von (x)F(x) äquivalent ist).Zum engeren Funktionenkalkül (e. F.) rechnen wir diejenigen Formeln, welche sich aus den Grundzeichen: ~, Ú, (x), =; x, y ... (Individuenvariable) F (x), G (x, y), H (x, y, z)... (Eigenschafts-
und Relationsvariable) aufbauen56, wobei (x) und = sich nur auf Individuen beziehen dürfen. Wir fügen zu diesen Zeichen noch eine dritte Art von Variablen j (x), w (x, y), c (x, y, z) etc.
hinzu, die Gegenstandsfunktionen vertreten (d. h. j (x), w (x, y) etc.) bezeichnen eindeutige Funktionen, deren Argumente und Werte Individuen sind57. Eine Formel, die außer den zuerst
angeführten Zeichen des e. F. noch Variable dritter Art j ( (x), w (x, y) ... etc.)
enthält, soll eine Formel im weiteren Sinne (i. w. S.) heißen58. Die Begriffe "erfüllbar",
"allgemeingültig" übertragen sich ohneweiters auf Formeln i. w. S. und es gilt der Satz, daß man zu jeder Formel i. w. S. A eine gewöhnliche Formel des e. F. B angeben kann, so daß
die Erfüllbarkeit von A mit der von B äquivalent ist. B erhält man aus A, indem man die in A vorkommenden Variablen dritter Art j (x), w (x, y) ... durch Ausdrücke der Form: (i, z) F (z, x), (i, z) G (z, x, y) ... ersetzt, die "beschreibenden" Funktionen im Sinne der PM. I * 14 auflöst und die so
erhaltene Formel mit einem Ausdruck logisch multipliziert59, der besagt, daß sämtliche an Stelle der j, w .. gesetzte F, G .. hinsichtlich der ersten Leerstelle genau eindeutig sind.
Wir zeigen nun, daß es zu jedem Problem der Form (x)F(x) (F rekursiv) ein äquivalentes betreffend die Erfüllbarkeit einer Formel i.w.S. Gibt, woraus nach der eben gemachten Bemerkung Satz X folgt.
Da F rekursiv ist, gibt es eine rekursive Funktion F (x), so daß F(x) ~[F (x) = 0], und für F gibt es eine Reihe von Funktionen F1, F2 ... Fn, so daß: Fn = F, F1 (x) = x + 1 und für jedes Fk (1 < k ≦ n)
entweder:
1. (x2,
... xm) [Fk (0, x2 ... xm) = Fp (x2 ... xm)]
(18)
(x, x2
... xm) {Fk [F1 (x), x2
... xm] = Fq [x, Fk (x, x2 ... xm), x2
... xm]}
p, q < k
[Seite 195]
oder:
2. (x1 ... xm) [Fk (x1 ... xm) = Fr (Fi1 (Á1) ... Fis (Án))][60] (19)
r < k, iʋ < k (für ʋ = l, 2 ... s)
oder:
3. (x1 ... xm)
[Fk (x1 ... xm)] = F1 (F1 ... F1 (0))] (20)
Ferner bilden wir die Sätze:
(x) F1 (x) = 0 & (x, y)
[F1 (x) = F1 (y) Þ x = y] (21)
(x) [Fn (x) = 0] (22)
Wir
ersetzen nun in allen Formeln (18), (19), (20) (für k = 2, 3 . . . n) und in
(21) (22) die Funktionen i durch Funktionsvariable i, die Zahl 0 durch eine sonst nicht vorkommende
Individuenvariable 0 und bilden die Konjunktion C sämtlicher so erhaltener Formeln.
(21) (22) die Funktionen i durch Funktionsvariable i, die Zahl 0 durch eine sonst nicht vorkommende
Individuenvariable 0 und bilden die Konjunktion C sämtlicher so erhaltener Formeln.
Die
Formel (E x0) C hat dann die verlangte Eigenschaft, d. h.
1. Wenn (x) [ (x) = 0] gilt, ist (E x0) C erfüllbar, denn die Funktionen F1, F2 ... Fn ergeben dann offenbar in (E x0) C für 1, 2 ... n eingesetzt einen richtigen Satz.
2. Wenn (E x0) C erfüllbar ist, gilt (x) [F (x) = 0].
Beweis: Seien Ψ1,
Ψ2 ... Ψn die
nach Voraussetzung existierenden Funktionen, welche in (E x0) C für φ1, φ2 ... φn eingesetzt einen richtigen Satz liefern. Ihr
Individuenbereich sei Á. Wegen der Richtigkeit von (E x0)
C für die Funktionen Ψi
gibt es ein Individuum a (aus Á), so daß sämtliche Formeln (18) bis
(22) bei Ersetzung der Fi durch Ψi und von 0 durch a in richtige Sätze (18') bis (22') übergehen. Wir bilden nun die kleinste
Teilklasse von Á, welche a enthält und gegen die Operation Ψ1
(x) abgeschlossen ist. Diese Teilklasse
(Á) hat die Eigenschaft, daß jede der Funktionen Ψi, auf Elemente
aus Á angewendet wieder Elemente aus Á ergibt. Denn für Ψ1 gilt dies
nach Definition von Á und wegen (18'), (19'), (20') überträgt sich diese Eigenschaft von Ψi mit niedrigerem Index auf solche mit höherem. Die Funktionen, welche aus Ψi durch Beschränkung
auf den Individuenbereich Á entstehen, nennen wir Ψi'. Auch für diese Funktion gelten sämtliche Formeln (18) bis (22) (bei der Ersetzung von 0 durch a und Fi durch Ψi').
nach Definition von Á und wegen (18'), (19'), (20') überträgt sich diese Eigenschaft von Ψi mit niedrigerem Index auf solche mit höherem. Die Funktionen, welche aus Ψi durch Beschränkung
auf den Individuenbereich Á entstehen, nennen wir Ψi'. Auch für diese Funktion gelten sämtliche Formeln (18) bis (22) (bei der Ersetzung von 0 durch a und Fi durch Ψi').
Wegen der Richtigkeit
von (21) für Ψ1' und a
kann man die Individuen aus Á eineindeutig auf die natürlichen Zahlen
abbilden u. zw. so, daß a in 0 und
die Funktion Ψ1' in die Nachfolgerfunktion F1 übergeht.
Durch diese Abbildung gehen aber sämtliche Funktionen Ψi' in die Funktionen Fi über und wegen der Richtigkeit von (22)
[Seite 196]
für Ψnʹ und a gilt (x) [Fn (x) = 0], oder (x) [F (x) = 0], was
zu beweisen war61.[Seite 196]
Da man die Überlegungen, welche zu Satz X führen, (für jedes spezielle F)
auch innerhalb des Systems P durchführen kann, so ist die Äquivalenz zwischen
einem Satz der Form (x) F (x) (F rekursiv) und der Erfüllbarkeit der entsprechenden
Formel des e. F. in P beweisbar und daher folgt aus der Unentscheidbarkeit des
einen die des anderen, womit Satz IX bewiesen ist.[61]
[Section] 4.
Aus den Ergebnissen von Abschnitt 2 folgt Bin merkwürdiges Resultat, bezüglich
eines Widerspruchslosigkeitsbeweises des Systems P (und seiner Erweiterungen),
das durch folgenden Satz ausgesprochen wird:
eines Widerspruchslosigkeitsbeweises des Systems P (und seiner Erweiterungen),
das durch folgenden Satz ausgesprochen wird:
Satz XI: Sei x eine beliebige
rekursive widerspruchsfreie[62] Klasse von
Formeln, dann gilt: Die Satzformel,
welche besagt, daß x widerspruchsfrei
ist, ist nicht x-beweisbar;
insbesondere ist die Widerspruchsfreiheit von P in P unbeweisbar[63],
vorausgesetzt, daß P widerspruchsfrei ist (im entgegengesetzten Fall ist natürlich
jede Aussage beweisbar).
Der Beweis ist
(in Umrissen skizziert) der folgende: Sei x
eine beliebige für die folgenden Betrachtungen ein für allemal gewählte
rekursive Klasse von Formeln (im
einfachsten Falle die leere Klasse). Zum
Beweise der Tatsache, daß 17 Gen r nicht
x-beweisbar ist[64], wurde,
wie aus 1. Seite 189 hervorgeht, nur die Widerspruchsfreiheit von x benutzt, d, h. es gilt:
wie aus 1. Seite 189 hervorgeht, nur die Widerspruchsfreiheit von x benutzt, d, h. es gilt:
Wid (x) Þ Bewx (17 Gen r) (23)
d. h. nach (6·1):
Wid (x) Þ (x) x
Bx (17 Gen r)
Nach (13) ist
17 Gen r = S b (p (19 / Z(p))) und daher:
[Seite 197]
Wid (x) Þ (x) x Bx S b (p
(19 / p Z(p))) [Ed.: Special marking apply.]
d. h. nach (8·1):
Wid (x) Þ (x) Q (x, p) (24)
Wir stellen nun folgendes fest: Sämtliche
in Abschnitt 266 und Abschnitt 4 bisher
definierte Begriffe (bzw. bewiesene Behauptungen) sind auch in P ausdrückbar (bzw. beweisbar). Denn es wurden überall nur die gewöhnlichen Definitions- und Beweismethoden der klassischen Mathematik verwendet, wie sie im System P formalisiert sind. Insbesondere ist z (wie jede rekursive Klasse) in P definierbar. Seit w die Satzformel, durch welche in P Wid (x) ausgedrückt wird. Die Relation Q (x, y) wird gemäß (8·1), (9), (10) durch das Relationszeichen q ausgedrückt, folglich Q (x, p) durch r [ da nach (12) r = S b (q (19 / Z(p))] und der Satz (x) Q (x, p) durch 17 Gen r.
definierte Begriffe (bzw. bewiesene Behauptungen) sind auch in P ausdrückbar (bzw. beweisbar). Denn es wurden überall nur die gewöhnlichen Definitions- und Beweismethoden der klassischen Mathematik verwendet, wie sie im System P formalisiert sind. Insbesondere ist z (wie jede rekursive Klasse) in P definierbar. Seit w die Satzformel, durch welche in P Wid (x) ausgedrückt wird. Die Relation Q (x, y) wird gemäß (8·1), (9), (10) durch das Relationszeichen q ausgedrückt, folglich Q (x, p) durch r [ da nach (12) r = S b (q (19 / Z(p))] und der Satz (x) Q (x, p) durch 17 Gen r.
Wegen (24) ist
also w Imp (17 Gen r) in P beweisbar67 (um so mehr x-beweisbar). Wäre
nun v x-beweisbar, so wäre auch 17 Gen r x-beweisbar und daraus würde nach (23) folgen, daß x nicht widerspruchsfrei ist.
nun v x-beweisbar, so wäre auch 17 Gen r x-beweisbar und daraus würde nach (23) folgen, daß x nicht widerspruchsfrei ist.
Es sei bemerkt,
daß auch dieser Beweis konstruktiv ist, d. h. er gestattet, falls ein Beweis aus x für w vorgelegt ist, einen Widerspruch aus x effektiv herzuleiten. Der ganze Beweis
für Satz XI läßt sich wörtlieh auch auf
das Axiomensystem der Mengenlehre M und der klassischen Mathematik68 A übertragen und liefert auch hier das
Resultat: Es gibt keinen Widerspruehslosigkeitsbeweis für M bzw. A, der
innerhalb von M bzw. A formalisiert werden könnte, vorausgesetzt daß M bzw. A
widerspruchsfrei ist. Es sei ausdrücklich bemerkt, daß Satz XI (und die entsprechenden
Resultate über M, A) in keinem Widerspruch zum Hilbertschen formalistischen Standpunkt stehen. Denn dieser setzt nur die Existenz eines mit finiten Mitteln geführten Widerspruchsfreiheitsbeweises
voraus und es wäre denkbar, daß es finite Beweise gibt, die sich in P (bzw. M, A) nicht darstellen lassen.
widerspruchsfrei ist. Es sei ausdrücklich bemerkt, daß Satz XI (und die entsprechenden
Resultate über M, A) in keinem Widerspruch zum Hilbertschen formalistischen Standpunkt stehen. Denn dieser setzt nur die Existenz eines mit finiten Mitteln geführten Widerspruchsfreiheitsbeweises
voraus und es wäre denkbar, daß es finite Beweise gibt, die sich in P (bzw. M, A) nicht darstellen lassen.
Da für jede
widerspruchsfreie Klasse x, v nicht x-beweisbar ist, so gibt es
schon immer dann (aus x) unentscheidbare Sätze (nämlich w), wenn Neg (w) nicht x-beweisbar ist; m. a. W. man kann in Satz VI
[Seite 198]
die Voraussetzung der v-Widerspruchsfreiheit ersetzen durch die folgende: Die Aussage "x ist
widerspruchsvoll" ist nicht x-beweisbar. (Man beachte, daß es widerspruchsfreie x gibt, für die diese Aussage x-beweisbar ist.)
Wir haben uns in
dieser Arbeit im wesentlichen auf das System P beschränkt und die
Anwendungen auf andere Systeme nur
angedeutet. In voller Allgemeinheit werden die Resultate in einer demnächst erscheinenden Fortsetzung
ausgesprochen und bewiesen werden. In dieser Arbeit wird auch der nur skizzenhaft geführte Beweis von
Satz XI ausführlich dargestellt werden.
(Eingelangt: 17. XI.
1930.)
1930.)
___________
Temporary
note: The szmbol, Á, has been used incorrectly in the above text
and I am to replace it with something like ʒ´, Ҙ´, or
Ӡ´, whereof the last is probably the best. - Olsnes-Lea, the provider for this!
note: The szmbol, Á, has been used incorrectly in the above text
and I am to replace it with something like ʒ´, Ҙ´, or
Ӡ´, whereof the last is probably the best. - Olsnes-Lea, the provider for this!
zu den natarlichen Zahlen gerechnet.
50 Das Definiens eines solchen Begriffes muß sich also allein mittels der angeführten Zeichen, Variablen für
natürliche Zahlen x, y, . . . und den Zeiehen 0, 1 aufbauen (Funktions- und Mengenvariable dürfen nicht vorkommen). (In den Präfixen darf statt x natürlich auch jede andere Zahlvariable stehen.)
51 Es brauchen natürlich nicht alle x1 . . . xn in den ci tatsächlich vorzukommen [vgl. das Beispiel in Fußnote 27].
52 f bedeutet hier eine Variable, deren Wertbereich die Folgen natürl. Zahlen sind. Mit fk wird das k + 1-te Glied einer Folge f bezeichnet (mit f0 das erste).
53 Das sind diejenigen v-widerspruchsfreien Systeme, welche aus P durch Hinzufügung einer rekursiv definierbaren Klasse von Axiomen entstehen.
54 Vgl. Hilbert-Ackermann, Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik. Im System P sind unter Formeln des engeren Funktionenkalküls diejenigen zu verstehen, welche aus den Formeln des engeren Funktionenkalküls der PM durch die auf S.176 angedeutete Ersetzung der Relationen durch Klassen höheren Typs entstehen.
55 In meiner Arbeit: Die Vollständigkeit der Axiome des logischen Funktionenkalküls, Monatsh. f. Math. u. Phys. XXXVII, 2, habe ich gezeigt, daß jede Formel des engeren Funktionenkalküls entweder als allgemeingültig nachweisbar ist oder ein Gegenbeispiel existiert; die Existenz dieses Gegenbeispiels ist aber nach Satz IX nicht immer nachweisbar (in den angeführten formalen Systemen).
56 D. Hilbert and W. Ackermann rechnen in dem eben zitierten Buch das Zeichen = nicht zum engeren Funktionenkalkül. Es gibt aber zu jeder Formel, in der das Zeichen = vorkommt, eine solche ohne
dieses Zeichen, die mit der ursprünglichen gleichzeitig erfüllbar ist (vgl. die in Fußnote 55) zitierte Arbeit).
57 Und zwar soll der Definitionsbereich immer der ganze Individuenbereich sein.
58 Variable dritter Art dürfen dabei an allen Leerstellen für Individuenvariable stehen, z.B.: y = (x), F(x, (y)), G [(x, (y)), x] : usw.
59 D.h. die Konjunktion bildet.
60 Ái (i = l .. s) vertreten irgend welche Komplexe der Variablen x1, x2 ... xm, z. B.: x1 x3 x2.
61 Aus Satz X folgt z. B., daß das Fermatsche und das Goldbachsche Problem 1ösbar wären, wenn man das Entscheidungsproblem des e. F. gelöst hätte.
62 Satz IX gilt natürlich auch für das Axiomensystem der Mengenlehre und dessen Erweiterungen durch rekursiv
definierbare w-widerspruchsfreie Klassen von Axiomen, da es ja auch in diesen Systemen unentscheidbare Sätze der Form (x) F (x) (F rekursiv) gibt.
63 x ist widerspruchsfrei (abgekürzt als Wid (x)) wird folgendermaßen definiert: Wid (x) ≡ (E x) [Form (x) & Bewx (x)].
64 Dies folgt, wenn man
für x die leere Klasse von Formeln einsetzt.
65 r hängt natürlich (ebenso wie p) von x ab. 66 Von der Definition für "rekursiv" auf Seite 179 bis zum
Beweis von Satz VI inkl.
Beweis von Satz VI inkl.
67 Daß aus (23) auf die Riehtigkeit von v Imp (17 Gen r)
geschlossen werden kann, beruht einfach darauf, daß der unentscheidbare Satz 17
Gen r, wie gleich zu Anfang bemerkt, seine eigene Unbeweisbarkeit
behauptet.
68 Vgl. J. v. Neumann, Zur Hilbertschen Beweistheorie, Math. Zeitschr.
26, 1927.
The rest is coming (section 3 and 4), wholly translated! Notes are now in.
The rest is coming (section 3 and 4), wholly translated! Notes are now in.
Hirzel's paper: Hirzel, Martin, 2000, On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems I., successful, I think.
I am no novice and I hold credits, respects, as achievements, the Fitch presentation of Gödel's Ontological Argument, now damn clear, and for resetting the above mentioned paper totally new and toward completeness myself, countering this paper and envisioning a new angle toward investigations to completeness instead, introducing the two levels of axioms and logical results as basis for this! Cheers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)