The Newest Writings from Facebook

The Newest Writings from Facebook

"Blut und Ehre" is another contemporary "Nazi" motto that I'd like to address people with as well as it eclipses with the urge to courage very nicely! I've written, earlier, to Amnesty International (AI) about the necessity of courage for achieving decency and honour and this is worth much more than what "these other people" can ever understand. They just "fly on" whatever (whether it's heroin or something else). This is an important decision for You to make! I just tell you... (Blut und Ehre as Courage has the Blood _to_ Honour in it, yet the writing says Courage to Honour (placed with AI)! This may be found contradictory ...
11 Minutes ago.

‎... , but it isn't because "Blut und Ehre" is just the mantra/motto _leading_ to decency and honour, not necessarily being this, Honour (Ehre) -> Honour (impl.), which is of course to write something strange! (What would Honour to Honour mean other than a version of Tarski's meaning theory or Honour from one person to another person (of Honour)?) Not that I'm against one person of Honour to another person of Honour, but this is a very common notion of friendship or of the Philo love to close connections and the love within the family.
4 Minutes ago.

Somewhere in my blog writings I've pointed to "viral game of sickness". This is to change to "viral, venereal, exotica games of sickness"! Just a notice.
30 Minutes ago.

So on top the the "Love to USA War", I make a version over Hitler's speech to the "Reichstag" in 1939, right before the war on Poland, 1. Sept. 1939: Rund 6,5 (komma) Milliarden Bürger und Bürgerinnen standen damals hinter mir! (And now I get a famous poster where I can get money with my "Brazilien" greeting, stolen from a dead Nazi.)
32 Minutes ago.

Some time ago, I've "invented" a new "cold war", i.e., that I propose for a new "cold war" to start against USA for becomming symmetrical to them, in terms of being able, the rest of the World, to deliver so much damage to them that the mere thought about going to nuclear war or abusing its military power against the World in large parts would immediately prove far too costly! Thus the thought would be banished or ridiculed immediately. This "cold war" is given the name "LoveToUSAWar".
37 Minutes ago.

My references to the point under "Schrödinger's theory and Schrödinger's cat" under "Opinions on Physics" are these among others, George Couvalis in Philosophy of Science, Sci. and Obj., 1997 on "indirect observation", p. ...
8. Sept., time, 22:49.

I've been thinking the book has held a point on "indirect observation" for separating "scientific realism" from other types of "realism", one of which is "realism", rather old fashioned now. But as the story goes, I think my books are being tampered with because the index listing of "indirect observation" is gone as well as the instance of "Casui Studies", 1 page, in Research Designs and Methods. Sorry. I'm being sabotaged!
8. september kl. 22:59.

The other is my further work on "indirect observation", being indirect observations that are there by laws of nature, i.e., if you see only half the planet, the other half of the planet has to be there because... and this is found with "The Power of a Single Span of Time - an Instance - Contrary to Hume on Induction - The Refutation of the Problem of Induction" and a smaller writing with the Scribblings file where this proceeds as a shorter writing.
8. september kl. 23:10.

It says on the SAGE publications website that the book should be 224 pp. Mine (now) is 195 before Ref. and Index and 206 and last paged page. (Leaving only 4 pages for the binding.)
8. Sept., time, 23:19.

There are some pages in addition, as some count the preface pages, viii, that is, 8 pages more to this book. But all in all, the book still falls short 2 pages compared to the 224 pp.
10. Sept., time, 18:50.

Indirect observation usually relates to viewing something through a magnifying scope/using a magnifier and using a telescope. One has through the times questioned everything that hasn't been seen with the naked eye. Even then, scientific realism or other versions of it, probably has 99.9 % following, even 100 % if one counts only the serious. In opposition, the philosopher gamers, the rogues, they who are in it for the hair splitting and making idiotic points. Just so you have it.
10. Sept., time, 18:55.

You can compare "indirect observation" with "instrumentalisation" where the data are gathered by the output of the instrument in use by itself and where no direct human sense can perceive. I guess examples of instrumentalisation can be measuring of mass and acidity. You can check it out yourself.
10. Sept., time, 18:57.

The magnifier is also the microscope. I'm not sure to what extent the magnifying _glass_ has been or is questioned, but realism, as above, has usually related to the naked eye as a starting point for human scientific investigation (and doubting everything else...)!
Thursday, time, 21:11.

The above writing is intended to point to other references for my opinions on this matter. This is poorly communicated above. The writing on Schrödinger's theory should otherwise be clear. It's _defeated_ by its cat (now a rat)! Something has to be done and I suggest Physics to be redefined in light of it! (Wave Collapse has already been moved to the subject of Psychology and String Theory is set for destruction, i.e., made implausible and untenable! Good?
17 hours ago.

I've watched an interview today on BBC World where Mrs. Kay of BBC America interviews the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice. It irritates me slightly how USA keeps demanding this fruitless meeting at the negotiation table, but let's meet them! I have this to say. Sure, let them make their demands to one another at a negotiation table at the UN, in New York, in Israel or in Jerusalem, at least somewhere. So they put the demands on the table and begin to "read Donald Duck or whatever" (because they have met so many times before). Thus we meet with the demand/requirement of USA for making a Palestine state. While these people of Israel and Palestine keep meeting one another, here or there, the Palestinians make a bid to the UN Security Council for an own state, The State of Palestine! This state can very well have limited sovereignty to avoid rapid hostility actions to build. This limited sovereignty is to be described under "a transition to normalcy between the two states" as a normalcy between two developed nations, fx. France and Germany. So there we begin... 1. The negotiation table, 2. The bid to the security council, 3. signing the agreement of limited sovereignty "for a peaceful transition to occur", and by this I think we're set to solve this conflict! [If USA keeps being "subversive" they need to be "reminded" of this/hammered by World presure and independent declaration from the other states at the UN, fx. Security Council and so on. Let's hope this doesn't get necessary. Just a formal point though.]
Yesterday, time, 13:37.

Sorry, it's UNISPAL...
Yesterday, time, 13:38.

Alright, posted!
Yesterday, time, 13:39.

The reporters name is Katty Kay! [Finally right!]
Yesterday, time, 13:43.

Also posted to BBC Have Your Say and CNN IReport.
Yesterday, time, 14:12.

In addition to this input, I've gotten the report of CNN by Richard Roth! Peace! [Add. to the above posted to BBC and CNN.]
Yesterday, time, 14:12.

Salem, Shalom... (Love labours on...)
Yesterday, time, 14:39.

I think I've gotten some laughs from this: I'm going to put String Theory so firmly on a cloud (by power of description, -> plausibility) that not even the cloudheads, i.e., the string theorists, can get their heads to it...!!! :-)
Yesterday, time, 14:17.

I've uttered a few others as well and I hope to greet my new country -men and -women with more in the time to come! Cheers!
Yesterday, time, 14:19.

I have 2 further notifications on Scientology this evening. One is about the question over authority. By this, the two pages of "A New Slant on Life", p. 34 and p. 40, make the cult requirement of authority go away forever. There's no doubt! The other is about how the basics relate to the further levels above clear. The so-called secret material. I think I've read somewhere that "all of Scientology lies in the scope of this/the basics". If this is true and I think it is, then the teachings of Scientology can't lie outside of this scope and should therefore be _uncontroversial_! A corroborative to this is that a symbol of Scientology is a green pyramid on the side of and on the back of "The Evolution of a Science". I think it's a fair assertion to say that with time, all the expert stuff of doctorates' dissertations are included in the fundamentals. The word "fundamentals" are found at least two places in this book, "A New Slant...", p. 37 and p. 40! Good? (I think it's reasonable to expect further attacks to spurious and tendentious allegations of critics with dubious motivations by followers of Scientology and I will of course in the future look a the better phrase, fx. the unfounded one above that I've yet to locate in _my_ basics, not tampered with!
Wednesday time, 21:48

Besides, using the volcano on Dianetics to prove the connection to the Xenu story is leading nowhere. As much as the nuke blast in a desert and not on Tokyo is used for something magnificent so can the volcano in general terms!
Wednesday, time, 22:15.

A final word for now on Scientology is that while Scientologists believe in sentences like "do not harm a person of good will" and other good ethics that they share readily with others, the critics are not known for much ethics AT ALL. I suspect to _them_ to be of all sorts of nasty characters and they don't commit to any investigative honesty standard at all, to my knowledge, thus they risk NOTHING in hammering Scientology!
Wednesday time, 22:20.

Facebook, appx. time: 17:18, date: 17.09.2011. All CEST.

Formerly written by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea at 9/17/2011 05:35:00 PM with 1 comment!

Labels: Facebook, writings

Friday, 16 September 2011

Schrödinger's theory and Schrödinger's cat

"Opinions on Physics" are these among others, George Couvalis in Philosophy of Science, Sci. and Obj., 1997 on "indirect observation", p. ... Well, since my living is in this state, I can recommend you to look up indirect observation in every introductory book to Philosophy of Science, especially those from the 90s and further back in time.

I've been thinking the book has held a point on "indirect observation" for separating "scientific realism" from other types of "realism", one of which is "realism", rather old fashioned now. But as the story goes, I think my books are being tampered with because the index listing of "indirect observation" is gone as well as the instance of "Casui Studies", 1 page, in Research Designs and Methods. Sorry. I'm being sabotaged!

The other is my further work on "indirect observation", being indirect observations that are there by laws of nature, i.e., if you see only half the planet, the other half of the planet has to be there because... and this is found with "The Power of a Single Span of Time - an Instance - Contrary to Hume on Induction - The Refutation of the Problem of Induction" and a smaller writing with the Scribblings file where this proceeds as a shorter writing.

It says on the SAGE publications website that the book should be 224 pp. Mine (now) is 195 before Ref. and Index and 206 and last paged page. (Leaving only 4 pages for the binding.)

There are some pages in addition, as some count the preface pages, viii, that is, 8 pages more to this book. But all in all, the book still falls short 2 pages compared to the 224 pp.

Indirect observation usually relates to viewing something through a magnifying scope/using a magnifier and using a telescope. One has through the times questioned everything that hasn't been seen with the naked eye. Even then, scientific realism or other versions of it, probably has 99.9 % following, even 100 % if one counts only the serious. In opposition, the philosopher gamers, the rogues, they who are in it for the hair splitting and making idiotic points. Just so you have it.

You can compare "indirect observation" with "instrumentalisation" where the data are gathered by the output of the instrument in use by itself and where no direct human sense can perceive. I guess examples of instrumentalisation can be measuring of mass and acidity. You can check it out yourself.

The magnifier is also the microscope. I'm not sure to what extent the magnifying _glass_ has been or is questioned, but realism, as above, has usually related to the naked eye as a starting point for human scientific investigation (and doubting everything else...)!

From Facebook where it has been originally posted!

Posted by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea at 9/16/2011 10:57:00 PM 2 comments

Labels: Schrödinger's theory and Schrödinger's cat

Wednesday, 14 September 2011