Tuesday 26 June 2012

The Implausible Slippery Slope Argument - Applied Ethics

The implausible slippery slope argument from the opposition is this,

- the "Slippery Slope" defeats itself (by fake ethics) by protecting hugely crazy people who have absolutely no problems accepting the devastation brought by it on human dignity and human worth/decency and how torture inflicts terror and deep fears, even sublimely, on the rest of the population.

- secondly, and more directly, the Slippery Slope never accounts for formal qualification, while citing this Nazi program "so seriously", "as if their whole bodies would be immersed", such as obtaining 3-year therapy after the age of 18 before getting the approval for suicide!

- "The Slippery Slope", in addition, has no concept or credible prediction for how many people Slippery Slope will affect outside those already, virtually, queued in! When 36 000 people die from guns (or gun deaths) in USA every year, would the rest of USA therefore get killed by guns next year? NO! Why is this? Because troubles need to obtain in certain ways first! This has a direct analogy to legislated suicides in that this counters the very Slippery Slope argument and the way these disgusting people (complex, as with traits of psychopathy and mis-a/-ophiles) remain active in society, "defending humanity" still! There is no doubt where I want: (Assisted) Suicides need legal defence/legislation and practice urgently so that people can achieve greater respect and have the possibility to escape the great horrors of the World today, thus moving the World up one step in terms of dignity and worth.


Note1: As people enter the academic discussion, they inherently commit to honesty!

Note2: They can call themselves doctors or whatever! They have been defeated! (That is, they're not "born" with credibility.)

Note3: (here) by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 at 02:45 CEST as note to Facebook.


End note: The opposition is getting ripe for utter defeat and I hope you bother to make it clear by making the defeat more firm the next few months and years to come!

Monday 25 June 2012

Legal Dispute over the Song, "Christian Woman", is Hereby Declared

Finally - Christian Woman Proper - A Song Made Righteous Again After Illegal Circumstances


by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 at 10:31


Music - Christian Woman


A segment by complexity)
Voice: Forgive her for her pointy ends because life is hard... ("ends" as of sentences, sharp remarks of discipline toward seriousness of reality incl. danger)
A cross upon her bedroom wall
From grace she will rise
An image burning in her mind
And between her /wise/ (of wisdom, you f*cking retards!!!) Voice: IN the scope, fire at will!!!
(voice: or highs)
A dying God-man full of pain (in vain/ sane?)
When will you appear again? (Voice: my beloved father? As in the spiritual world and being "with" me as Obi Wan-Kenobi to Luke Skywalker)
To serve or please (Voice: Servo or volley?)
SET YOUR SPIRIT FREE (and perhaps not the below)
(Only alt.: Before you ask me to serve or please)
On your back or knees (voice: by all your cheers/wise)
There's no forgiveness for his sins
Prefers pleasure? (Probing question?) (Voice: Man to punishment?)
Would you suffer eternally
Or internally? (Voice: Of mental pain...(Yes... for standing up for something, i.e., character and for Heaven/God)
For her vast... or want...
For his sins
He'll burn in hell
Her soul done medium, well... (Voice: and his roasting in hell!!!)
All through mass! (Subtle voice: Man... (actually being the priest) Adoration!
(Alt. or on 2nd: All through mass! (Subtle voice: Man... (actually being the priest, but...(smile)) Stimulation! (voice: ...at 100 kgs to your taste?) (And careful approach because of Stimulation and Salvation, but solved by Man (as Priest) in transition to...))


Salvation


(Interlude:)
Body of Christ
She needs
The body of Christ
Corpus Christi
Body of Christ


B segment)
To Love God
She'd like to know God
Ooh love God
(She can... (as non-objectified, Christian woman)) Feel her God
Inside of her
Deep inside of her


C segment)
Jesus Christ Looks Like Me
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ looks like me
(Voice: Christian woman)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Terje Lea, 1988/2012! Now, LFO-L! Also ARRANGEMENT!!! Location: (to my knowledge), various places in Norway!!!


Newest: time: 05:02, date: 2012/06/20 CEST.


Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea Now looking almost perfect or directly perfect, I think, according to original design!!!
19 June at 10:48 · Like.

Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea Because of suspicions that somebody has changed this text, I paste it here, now:
20 June at 05:03

Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea And now, finally, with "appear" this should now be perfect...!
20 June at 05:04

Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea Voice: Forgive her for her pointy ends because life is hard... ("ends" as of sentences) as a matter for seriousness toward reality or discipline toward safer life or whatever... Text has been changed by Facebook management?
20 June at 05:05

Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea No, not perfect until: All through mass! (Subtle voice: Man... (actually being the priest, but...(smile)) Stimulation! (voice: ...at 100 kgs to your taste?) (And careful approach because of Stimulation and Salvation, but solved by Man (as Priest) in transition to...)
21 June at 01:06

Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea Now, it is an honour for me to present... Christian Woman by ... (not me, I'm not a singer)!!!
21 June at 01:07

Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea A change more: SET YOUR SPIRIT FREE (and perhaps not the below)
(Only alt.: Before you ask me to serve or please)
21 June at 13:30 · Like.

Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea By priest Finn Marthinsen, now http://www.stortinget.no/​no/​Representanter-og-komiteer/​Representantene/​Representantfordeling/​Representant/​?perid=FKM&tab=Biography !

Biografi: Marthinsen, Finn Kristian
www.stortinget.no..
21 June at 14:17 · Like · .

Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea Yrke
Feltprest Heistadmoen 1974-1975
Sjømannsprest London 1975-1976
_Sokneprest Lista 1976-1988_!
21 June at 14:18 · Like.

Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea No, he can't be the one... Let's see...
21 June at 14:18 · Like.

Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea But still "taking part" with "Informasjonskurs ved Forsvarets Høgskole 1998" in hand...
21 June at 14:18 · Like.

Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea ‎"Trener Guttelaget i fotball, Farsund Idrettslag 1987
Medlem Styret i Nordisk Blåbands og Blåkorsråd 1988-1991, sekretær/kasserer 1991-1997
Generalsekretær Blå Kors i Norge 1988-1997"
21 June at 14:20 · Like.

Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea Well, well, despite all, I believe the prist in question is Finn Kristian Marthinsen...
...stepping in or something...
Doing sermons with Inge Joa, the psychiatrist, in the room behind the alter, "listening"...
21 June at 14:35 · Like.

Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea
For Christian Woman (now with Voice: Christian Woman at the bottom): I am/we are wondering about doing a light vocals and a dark vocals version of Christian Woman (even though only a dark voice/dark version has been requested formerly by th...​See more
Friday at 05:50 · Like.

Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea
I'll now adjust the year of production to 1991 as opposed to the year of publishing. It's also a fact that I think it's reasonable to assume that for the original text, their text, the dividends stand at 70 for me, 30 for them, artistry, 50...See more
Friday at 20:53 · Like.

Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea I'm sorry for being a bit quick on the other religions, just in case they are unwilling to accept "some metaphor of Jesus". So, I have these suggestion as amends: Corpus Christi - > Corpus Dei, and Jesus -> Sanctity. At first some of these may not look theologically good, but I mean respect and they only come on a "strongly wanted"-basis! Alright? I hope you can enjoy this still! Cheers!
Saturday at 02:52 · Like.

Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea I've checked on the word adoration and I find nothing wrong with it. So, it is better in relating to the next word "Salvation", thus only "adoration" or a combination of "adoration" and "stimulation" as before. Good? (Changes have been made above on the note.)
Saturday at 19:21

Note: First written to Facebook as note above by Note!

Sunday 24 June 2012

On Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems - A Distinction toward Complete Systems

The Attacks against Gödel's Incompleteness

1. Attack


The issue under "Limitations of Gödel's theorems" isn't whether "Gödel could use logics too", but whether


1. y is the Gödel number of a formula and x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y
2. y is the Gödel number of a formula THEN
3. Bew(y) = ∃x (x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y)


AND therefore DEFEATS


Gödel's two theorems because the above completely describes the disposition of the field given, i.e., the disposition of logics, the UoD, by Everything (in Mathematics), entities and so on, all the way up to "the whole of mathematics and so on", best seen by


"Bew(y) = ∃ x ( y is the Gödel number of a formula and x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y)",


being the defeated part, under "Construction of a statement about "provability". So the war is on between Gödel/Gödel followers and Gödel critics, whereof I am one. This is the reason that Gödel stands against Tarski in the intellectual World today! But criticism has to be met and we'll see.


2. Attack


The Probable Solution to All Set Theory


'What is it to know? I have absolutely no idea! To "know" has been assigned to me!'
I think the set theory that breaks the Principia Mathematica can be solved by S = Ø (set of solution is empty)


The description:
One should remember that one object/member lower down the hypothetical chain of sets (by categories) triggers necessary objects/members all the way up to the "first natural level where one would otherwise see an empty set right below it". "The first natural level" can also be seen as "the deepest level" before, if any at all, the empty set can occur." "You can add all the (meaningless) categories/set containers you want under a natural set/one set that contains members, but where do you get when the bottom container is empty?
Clearly, it's just rubbish and thus it's not a serious argument against the project that Principia Mathematica represents."


That is, by this explanation, that the maximal number of empty sets under the natural chain of sets, can only be 1, one, but usually is 0, zero, by the usual descriptions of commoners and non-mathematicians. This, thus, represents the final solution to set-theory for all time to come. Good?


(Corroborative for knowledge: Out of 'I know nothing and my set is empty! Can you call illusions knowledge? I don't think so!')


3. Attack


One "unexplainable" smacker for Gödel


One last smacker for Godel: All axioms are needed to establish a (logical) system - Premise
All axioms - Premise


-----------------------


Logical System - Cond. Elim. - Conclusion by Modus Ponens


You can add the extra reiteration for classical premises, deduction and conclusion to obtain yourself.


------
Former Text

The former text follows below:

On the Liar Paradox and more

Generally the liar paradox is shown to be meanin
gless (now). Next, Tarski and others hold powerful arguments against Gödel's incompleteness theorems. And there is a set theory that you may want to note, http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/08/philosophical-notes-of-intellectual.html (a bit down on the page), that has this text: "For the time being, I have this to write. Out of 'I know nothing and my set is empty! Can you call illusions knowledge? I don't think so! What is it to know? I have absolutely no idea! To "know" has been assigned to me! I think the set theory that breaks the Principia Mathematica can be solved by S = ∅ (set of solution is empty). In case of protest, one should remember that one object/member lower down the hypothetical chain of sets (by categories) triggers necessary objects/members all the way up to the "first natural level where one would otherwise see an empty set right below it". "The first natural level" can also be seen as "the deepest level" before, if any at all, the empty set can occur."

"You can add all the (meaningless) categories/set containers you want under a natural set/one set that contains members, but where do you get when the bottom container is empty? Clearly, it's just rubbish and thus it's not a serious argument against the project that Principia Mathematica represents." That is, by this explanation, that the maximal number of empty sets under the natural chain of sets, can only be 1, one, but usually is 0, zero, by the usual descriptions of commoners and non-mathematicians. This, thus, represents the final solution to set-theory for all time to come. Good?

Relationship with computability

Given the below, it must be clear that the halting problem occurs when non-meaningful input has been programmed or that the computer is running an inifinite set, one issue that should be calculated by the machine itself before running/processing of the input happens!

Remember that most testing of these things happen on "scientific" computer, the big mainframes, Tevafloppies and more, i.e., the supercomputers, and as such, qualifying the input by looking for inifinite input should be no problem!
Because there is a significant difference in running input directly vs. checking for infinity input before running the input, i.e., the programming in the loose sense.

From under the "Construction of a statement about "provability"

From 3 sentences,

1. y is the Gödel number of a formula and x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y

2. y is the Gödel number of a formula THEN

3. Bew(y) = ∃x (x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y)

Under "Discussion and implications" by the header of this note, I get:"The incompleteness results affect the philosophy of mathematics, particularly versions of formalism, which use a single system formal logic to define their principles. One can paraphrase the first theorem as saying the following: An all-encompassing axiomatic system can never be found that is able to prove all mathematical truths, but no falsehoods.""On the other hand, from a strict formalist perspective this paraphrase would be considered meaningless because it presupposes that mathematical "truth" and "falsehood" are well-defined in an absolute sense, rather than relative to each formal system.""The following rephrasing of the second theorem is even more unsettling to the foundations of mathematics: If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent from within itself, then it is inconsistent. Therefore, to establish the consistency of a system S, one needs to use some other system T, but a proof in T is not completely convincing unless T's consistency has already been established without using S.""Theories such as Peano arithmetic, for which any computably enumerable consistent extension is incomplete, are called essentially undecidable or essentially incomplete."

To this I now answer and generally hold:I question "An all-encompassing axiomatic system can never be found that is able to prove all mathematical truths, but no falsehoods." on grounds of making an axiomatic system that covers all disciplines of mathematics, yet in several parts and "adjacent-"/"contegious-sectors" if you will!There is NO chance that the two incompleteness theorems will survive into the next decade, starting immediately 2020! Call it sci-fi for now, if you want!

For people who think that to make a title "This is not a title" on a book (Raymond Smullyan, fx.) matters, you do not do much other than positing a Austin statement, that is, you commit a speech act, NOT logics!

To say that the total of field isn't provable, isn't good enough, because the field always remain contestable (until one can begin to look on the results consider what "in the World" that can possibly remain in the field to discover!

So criticism toward Gödel still starts with "Everything"!!!

That said, nobody has ever said that any system could be proven by setting up axioms for it!!! Given the axioms themselves, one still doesn't know whether they as a group are enough to cover the field they are designed as seen in geometry with Riemann geometry, under the assumption that the Euclidean geometric planes have been intended to be straight/flat all along!

Some people may think that I've been "after" Gödel, but this is wrong! I've just been saying that I've wanted complete systems and that looking for something /else/ than Gödel's claim over the axioms is, looking at an undeveloped system with very few results, almost impossible, but I don't want to go into this just yet. It may turn out to be a ghost that haunts us, given that advances in logics can very well occur more than "expected", or beyond one's negative taste in case I would give a verdict on it! Let's see what happens!

That is, the current standing on the Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems isn't UP TO DATE!!!

(18 June at 21:41 CEST)

I am of the opinion that criticism should be presented on the same page under the header "Criticism of the Gödel's incompleteness theorems" because this is about presenting the truth. That is, you can't leave out the fact that his incompleteness theorems may be untrue!

(18 June at 22:40 CEST)

One last smacker for Godel: All axioms are needed to establish a (logical) system (P)

All axioms (P)

-----------------------

Logical System (Cond. Elim. and Concl.)

(19 June at 15:07 CEST)

y is the Gödel number of a formula and x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y

y is the Gödel number of a formula -> (conditionally) (x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y) ∃ x = Bew(y), but Gödel forgets about the premise and gets it WRONG! Good?

(20 June at 18:46 CEST)

Conventionally, the other then: Bew(y) = ∃x (x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y) from under the /premise/: y is the Gödel number of a formula /then/ the former sentence to this premise.

(20 June at 18:46 CEST)

See above in the main body, the very note, for the premise set /before/ the Bew(y)!

(20 June at 18:47 CEST)

Neatly made by this, for time-stamp: From under the "Construction of a statement about "provability"

From 3 sentences,

1. y is the Gödel number of a formula and x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y

2. y is the Gödel number of a formula THEN

3. Bew(y) = ∃x (x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y)

(20 June at 18:53 CEST)

Under "Discussion and implications" by the header of this note, I get:"The incompleteness results affect the philosophy of mathematics, particularly versions of formalism, which use a single system formal logic to define their principles. (more...)

(Friday at 16:11 CEST)

Funny stuff from the Wikip. article: The section of "Limitations of Gödel's theorems" used to be an idiot place even though they've corrected it now to what it should be, I've had a comment to it earlier: "Lastly, for inducing some discipline here: Under "Limitations of Gödel's theorems", I assume ''the theorems still need to hold a point''! Don't they?"

(18 hours ago CEST)

The issue under "Limitations of Gödel's theorems" isn't whether "Gödel could use logics too", but whether

1. y is the Gödel number of a formula and x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula encoded by y

2. y is the Gödel number of a (more...)

(15 hours ago CEST)

Last from me: For people who think that to make a title "This is not a title" on a book (Raymond Smullyan, fx.) matters, you do not do much other than positing a Austin statement, that is, you commit a speech act, NOT logics!

(8 hours ago CEST)

To say that the total of field isn't provable, isn't good enough, because the field always remain contestable (until one can begin to look on the results consider what "in the World" that can possibly remain in the field to discover!

(8 hours ago CEST)

So criticism toward Gödel still starts with "Everything"!!!

(8 hours ago CEST)

So even if the system isn't provable from the axioms as such, the system can very well become complete in all other senses, and given special considerations of a given field, you begin to consider the field complete from the results you (more...)
(8 hours ago CEST)

That said, nobody has ever said that any system could be proven by setting up axioms for it!!!
(8 hours ago CEST)

However, Gödel still defeats these other lunatics who say that they have these axioms and that this system therefore has to generate these and other results, so Gödel is a winner in these other respects!
(8 hours ago CEST)

Seconds after, time stamp for the above incomplete group of axioms...
(8 hours ago CEST)

Some people may think that I've been "after" Gödel, but this is wrong! I've just been saying that I've wanted complete systems and that looking for something /else/ than Gödel's claim over the axioms is, looking at an undeveloped system (more...)
(8 hours ago CEST)


"Straight" in the Euclidean sense is to be interpreted as "flat", only!!!
(8 hours ago CEST)

For now, I just want to note that I look to the group of axioms and the group of results from the system on two levels and that future investigations in logics to "notions of completeness" start here!
(8 hours ago CEST)

(Note on time: 18 June, 2012.)

(Note on time: 20 June, 2012.)

(Note on time: 22 June, 2012.)

(Note on time: 24 June, 2012.)

Note5: Some of the time-stamps are only "minutes-accurate"! Good?

Note6: The rather coarse and "strange" part from above has been left out and placed here instead, "Thanks, Russell, for pointing out the danger of having a single proposition of knowledge!' TL (I think this quote has been made around 20.11.2009 or a little bit later, but at least in 2009. 23rd Nov. 2009 is by record of Twitter.)"

Friday 22 June 2012

The Launch of Air as Shoe-Brand for Carrying the Air-Sole Patent

This is the proposal (also under copyright) that one establish the Air shoe brand and that loosely, this picture as brand is to be used for it, in order to use the Air patent sole in case Adidas and Reebok don't get in gear for making them (Nike subversion or not, 500 police-people in New York or not)! Anybody is hereby granted the possibility for setting up the brand as long as credibility and financial start package "come into place"! Good?

At the time, the Police have been from Norway!

Picture:

Saturday 9 June 2012

Corroboration of Support to Tarski on Defeating the Two Incompleteness Theorems

On Finitism: To suggest that Finitism defeats my notion of completeness contrary to Godel and his Incompleteness Theorems is implausible because to merely take the cardinal numbers and say that they are infinite and therefore incomplete logically, becomes untenable because a line has infinite points (by Zeno, half of half of half) or the same with the circle or the sphere within a circle where I do indeed put all the cardinal numbers (Cantor numbers) all the way to infinite, the symbol is ∞. This makes my support to Tarski and the defeat of Godel and the two theorems COMPLETE! Godel is by this utterly defeated in this, with respect of course, myself standing on the shoulders of giants! Cheers!

Skolem distrusted the completed infinite and was one of the founders of finitism in mathematics. Skolem (1923) - http://en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​Thoralf_Skolem#Completeness !
Url, http://en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del !
Url, http://en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/Finitism !

Note: This relates in particular to "Logics [subject matter], Opinions on Gödel's Theorems of Incompleteness and Possibly Tarski" under "Philosophical Notes".

Friday 8 June 2012

Comment on PM Merkel's Words

Considering PM Merkel's words on EU, I think it's clear that there are deep limitations toward how much competences (or political power, effectively, by political decisions) that can be moved up to the EU supernational level! In comparing with USA and its federation, we have a long way to go on several issues, such as dealing with a diversity of languages, getting all nations into the Eurozone, getting the universities into a composed European network and getting the European business network working more coherently and concerted while avoiding the fallacies of USA that (we in the) EU now are approaching more wisely, I think! Cheers!

Note: You can object to the above "several issues" all you want, but I want you to update on US American financial radicalism first and dump the Gandhism (because it's effete) in doing so. Also, we need to start looking good as a group!

Note2: Please, also note that several of these issues may require 50 to 200 years and that we may never see a USA-federation-style political organisation come into being (in our life-time)!