Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2018
Reality cannot be explained by mathematics
DRAFT
Lesson 2.9: Reality cannot be explained by mathematics.
Because: It is the opinion of Max Tegmark, a well-known physicist and cosmologist, that all mathematical structures are real.
But let's take a look at the concept of mathematical structure. For example, a circle is a simply defined mathematical structure: It is the totality of all points with the same distance to the centre. Now let's assume that one of these points changes its distance. Then there is no more a circle. The famous Greek philosopher Plato would perhaps say that there is no more a "perfect" circle.
But how can one say what a perfect structure is!?
Certainly, the result with the changed point is a mathematical structure too. One could even say that it is more interesting than and not as boring as a simple circle. So now: which one is more perfect?
I would simply name the second structure "one-point-circle". There could also be "two-points-circles" (which differ with two points from a circle), "3-points-circles" and so on. I would not dare to claim that these structures are less perfect than a circle.
Let us now transfer these insights to the example of mathematical structures, which have the same past as our universe. Let's do again a simple experiment like dropping a stone. Then there is an infinite number of mathematical structures, in which the experiment results (outcomes) in a different manner than expected, for any mathematical structure, in which the experiment outcomes (results) as expected. Therefore it is most unlikely to experience the expected falling of the dropped stone.
But I did the experiment - and the stone fell as expected!
Therefore: Although an extremely little risk remains that the following conclusion is wrong, it is reasonable to assume that the (totality of) reality doesn't include all mathematical structures (in equal numbers).
So the famous question of the famous Stephen Hawking remains open: "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" But only for the moment, for I think that I have a good principal answer to this question.
It is not only, that another set of rules and equations could have become and be real. From a strictly logical perspective (point of view), EVERY logically possible reality could be the master plan, pattern or model of the actual reality.
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
Lesson 2.9: Reality cannot be explained by mathematics.
Because: It is the opinion of Max Tegmark, a well-known physicist and cosmologist, that all mathematical structures are real.
But let's take a look at the concept of mathematical structure. For example, a circle is a simply defined mathematical structure: It is the totality of all points with the same distance to the centre. Now let's assume that one of these points changes its distance. Then there is no more a circle. The famous Greek philosopher Plato would perhaps say that there is no more a "perfect" circle.
But how can one say what a perfect structure is!?
Certainly, the result with the changed point is a mathematical structure too. One could even say that it is more interesting than and not as boring as a simple circle. So now: which one is more perfect?
I would simply name the second structure "one-point-circle". There could also be "two-points-circles" (which differ with two points from a circle), "3-points-circles" and so on. I would not dare to claim that these structures are less perfect than a circle.
Let us now transfer these insights to the example of mathematical structures, which have the same past as our universe. Let's do again a simple experiment like dropping a stone. Then there is an infinite number of mathematical structures, in which the experiment results (outcomes) in a different manner than expected, for any mathematical structure, in which the experiment outcomes (results) as expected. Therefore it is most unlikely to experience the expected falling of the dropped stone.
But I did the experiment - and the stone fell as expected!
Therefore: Although an extremely little risk remains that the following conclusion is wrong, it is reasonable to assume that the (totality of) reality doesn't include all mathematical structures (in equal numbers).
So the famous question of the famous Stephen Hawking remains open: "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" But only for the moment, for I think that I have a good principal answer to this question.
It is not only, that another set of rules and equations could have become and be real. From a strictly logical perspective (point of view), EVERY logically possible reality could be the master plan, pattern or model of the actual reality.
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
#philosophy #science #religion #worldview
Reality cannot be explained by the measure of simplicity or complexity
DRAFT
Reality cannot be explained by the measure of simplicity/complexity.
Because: Processing energy and/or processing information do not matter for "making" a possible reality existent, do not matter for bringing a logically possible reality to existence. (Proof 1)
Proof 2: If it would be more difficult to bring a more complex logically possible reality to existence, then simpler realities would be in favor. ... Then finite realities would be in favor; but modern science claims that our world probably is infinite. ... Then realities with 10 things or events would be in favour to realities with more things or events. But realities with 9 things or events would be even more in favour. Even more with 8 things for events. ... Even more with only one thing or event. That is certainly not true. (Proof 2)
Reality cannot be explained by the measure of simplicity/complexity.
Because: Processing energy and/or processing information do not matter for "making" a possible reality existent, do not matter for bringing a logically possible reality to existence. (Proof 1)
Proof 2: If it would be more difficult to bring a more complex logically possible reality to existence, then simpler realities would be in favor. ... Then finite realities would be in favor; but modern science claims that our world probably is infinite. ... Then realities with 10 things or events would be in favour to realities with more things or events. But realities with 9 things or events would be even more in favour. Even more with 8 things for events. ... Even more with only one thing or event. That is certainly not true. (Proof 2)
Donnerstag, 19. April 2018
Lesson 2.8: Reality cannot be explained by the All-Worlds-Hypothesis
Lesson 2.8: Reality cannot be explained by the All-Worlds-Hypothesis.
Because: According to the All-Worlds-Hypothesis, the (totality of) reality includes all logically possible worlds; they all are real.
But if it were so, then the probability of the outcome (result) of any future experiment would be the same as I said about the case of a random reality. Most likely, no experiment would result as expected. Because there are much more logically possible worlds in which the experiment - despite the same past as our - has another result (than expected)
than
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
#philosophy #science #religion #worldview
Because: According to the All-Worlds-Hypothesis, the (totality of) reality includes all logically possible worlds; they all are real.
But if it were so, then the probability of the outcome (result) of any future experiment would be the same as I said about the case of a random reality. Most likely, no experiment would result as expected. Because there are much more logically possible worlds in which the experiment - despite the same past as our - has another result (than expected)
than
logically possible worlds in which the experiment has the expected result. If any experiment - for example, dropping a stone - would result as expected, you could therefore conclude with overwhelming certainty that not all logically possible worlds would be real (in equal numbers). It would be reasonable to think that the All-Worlds-Hypothesis is wrong.
I did the experiment and it resulted as expected!
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
#philosophy #science #religion #worldview
Mittwoch, 18. April 2018
Lesson 2.7: Reality cannot be explained by an Information Processing System or Process
Lesson 2.7: Reality cannot be explained by an information processing system or an information processing process.
Because: 1. All information processing systems or processes would belong to reality.
And:
2. Reality cannot be explained by reality.
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
#philosophy #science #religion #worldview
Because: 1. All information processing systems or processes would belong to reality.
And:
2. Reality cannot be explained by reality.
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
#philosophy #science #religion #worldview
Dienstag, 17. April 2018
Lesson 7: Reality cannot be explained by Chance or Probability
Lesson 7: Reality cannot be explained by chance or probability.
Because: 1. Chance and probability would require a random generator.
And:
2. All random generators would belong to reality.
And:
3. Reality cannot be explained by reality. (Proof 1)
Proof 2: If the totality of reality would be random (chance), then all events would be random. Then nearly no future experiment would result as expected. Most likely, even released stones would fly in all directions with all conceivable speeds instead of falling down as expected according to our past experiences which themselves could have been random, even if they, for some while, looked as laws (of nature).
And:
2. All random generators would belong to reality.
And:
3. Reality cannot be explained by reality. (Proof 1)
Proof 2: If the totality of reality would be random (chance), then all events would be random. Then nearly no future experiment would result as expected. Most likely, even released stones would fly in all directions with all conceivable speeds instead of falling down as expected according to our past experiences which themselves could have been random, even if they, for some while, looked as laws (of nature).
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
#philosophy #science #religion #worldview
#philosophy #science #religion #worldview
Montag, 16. April 2018
Lesson 6: Reality cannot be explained by Metaphysical Illusion, Indian Maya or a Matrix Scenario
Lesson 6: Reality cannot be explained by metaphysical illusion, Indian maya or a Matrix (movie) scenario.
Because: 1. Those things - illusion, maja, matrix - would belong to reality. Also the misled self would belong to reality.
And:
2. Reality cannot be explained by reality.
And:
2. Reality cannot be explained by reality.
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
#philosophy #science #religion #worldview
#philosophy #science #religion #worldview
Freitag, 13. April 2018
Lesson 2.4: Reality cannot be explained by a God
Lesson 2.4: Reality cannot be explained by a god.
Because: 1. A god would be a being, an entity, a consciousness - and maybe an energy (power, force). Both consciousness and energy (power, force) would belong to reality.
And:
2. Reality cannot be explained by reality.
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
Because: 1. A god would be a being, an entity, a consciousness - and maybe an energy (power, force). Both consciousness and energy (power, force) would belong to reality.
And:
2. Reality cannot be explained by reality.
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
Donnerstag, 12. April 2018
Lesson XX: The Laws of Nature cannot be Chance
DRAFT
The laws of nature cannot be chance.
Because:
There is no Zufallsgenerator out of the reality.
Therefore: the laws of nature cannot be willkürlich. They must be special - logically special and special in regard to existence.
Therefore: the actual reality must be special.
Therefore: The events of the actual reality must be special.
But how can they be special although a possible reality could be buildt with any events you want?
The Events of a possible reality would be special if they would be symmetrical in their number. This means: if they all would happen 1 time, 2 times, 3 times ... n times in the possible totality of reality.
The laws of nature cannot be chance.
Because:
There is no Zufallsgenerator out of the reality.
Therefore: the laws of nature cannot be willkürlich. They must be special - logically special and special in regard to existence.
Therefore: the actual reality must be special.
Therefore: The events of the actual reality must be special.
But how can they be special although a possible reality could be buildt with any events you want?
The Events of a possible reality would be special if they would be symmetrical in their number. This means: if they all would happen 1 time, 2 times, 3 times ... n times in the possible totality of reality.
Lesson XX: Reality cannot be Explained by Chance or Probability
DRAFT
Lesson xx: reality cannot be explained by Chance or probability.
Because:
Proof 1: chance and probability wood needs Zufallsgenerator. Bat out of reality, there ist no Zufallsgenerator.
Proof 2: if chance would elect the actual totality of reality among or out of the set of all logically possible totalities of reality, then nearly no experience would happen as expected ...
Lesson xx: reality cannot be explained by Chance or probability.
Because:
Proof 1: chance and probability wood needs Zufallsgenerator. Bat out of reality, there ist no Zufallsgenerator.
Proof 2: if chance would elect the actual totality of reality among or out of the set of all logically possible totalities of reality, then nearly no experience would happen as expected ...
Lesson 2.3: Reality cannot be explained by Spirituality or Idealism
Lesson 2.3: Reality cannot be explained by spiritual and/or psychological things like consciousness, subject, spirit, mind, thoughts, will, needs, desire, feelings, love, fantasy, imagination, perceptions, experiences ... and therefore not by spirituality or idealism.
Because: 1. Those things would belong to reality.
And:
2. Reality cannot be explained by reality.
Because: 1. Those things would belong to reality.
And:
2. Reality cannot be explained by reality.
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
Samstag, 7. April 2018
Lesson 0: NOW IS THE TIME FOR NEW RELIGIONS
Lesson 0: NOW IS THE TIME FOR NEW RELIGIONS!
Because: From old Egypt ... to Christianity ... to Theosophy, Anthroposophy, esoterics and transpersonal psychology of the last decades, all well-known religions have been refuted or strongly discredited by modern science.
Therefore it is time for us all to let go (of) every fanaticism and to create new religions! - This is my attempt.
*
Because my attempt is logical, it is universally binding, isn't it? - Not thinking logically is a bad thing and a bad sin! (Few brains/minds may be different.)
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
#philosophy #science #religion #worldview
Because: From old Egypt ... to Christianity ... to Theosophy, Anthroposophy, esoterics and transpersonal psychology of the last decades, all well-known religions have been refuted or strongly discredited by modern science.
Therefore it is time for us all to let go (of) every fanaticism and to create new religions! - This is my attempt.
*
Because my attempt is logical, it is universally binding, isn't it? - Not thinking logically is a bad thing and a bad sin! (Few brains/minds may be different.)
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
#philosophy #science #religion #worldview
Freitag, 6. April 2018
Lesson 2.2: Reality cannot be explained by Physics or Materialism
Lesson 2.2: Reality cannot be explained by physical things like space, time, matter, energy, power, forces, fields, particles, waves ... and therefore not by physics or materialism.
Because: 1. Those things would belong to reality.
And:
2. Reality cannot be explained by reality.
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
Because: 1. Those things would belong to reality.
And:
2. Reality cannot be explained by reality.
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
Mittwoch, 4. April 2018
Lesson 2: Reality cannot be explained by Reality
Lesson 2: Reality cannot be explained by reality.
Because: Nothing can be explained by itself.
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
Because: Nothing can be explained by itself.
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
Dienstag, 3. April 2018
Lesson 1: Nothing can be explained by Itself
Lesson 1: Nothing can be explained by itself.
Because: If something would be a mystery - and everything is a mystery! -, then an "explanation" by itself would not solve the mystery. Therefore the "explanation" wouldn't be an (real) explanation.
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
Because: If something would be a mystery - and everything is a mystery! -, then an "explanation" by itself would not solve the mystery. Therefore the "explanation" wouldn't be an (real) explanation.
Copyright 2018 michael KLINNETER
#philosophy #science #religion #worldview
Donnerstag, 1. Februar 2018
Without Readers, writing is not fun
You can contact me with a commentary, if you want.
Tell me your spiritual, philosophical or religious question. But not longer than a tweet.
Give me your email address or another contact address.
Motivate me with a fine gift before. (At least minimum wage, but the gift doesn't need to be money.)
And thank me with a second fine gift afterwards - according to the quality my answer has in your eyes. (Between zero and Infinity.)
Tell me your spiritual, philosophical or religious question. But not longer than a tweet.
Give me your email address or another contact address.
Motivate me with a fine gift before. (At least minimum wage, but the gift doesn't need to be money.)
And thank me with a second fine gift afterwards - according to the quality my answer has in your eyes. (Between zero and Infinity.)
Donnerstag, 25. Januar 2018
What my BEST Theory of REALLY Everything (Best TOE) provides
What my BEST Theory of REALLY Everything (Best TOE) provides
by michael KLINNETER
The Grandestmaster says:
My BEST Theory of REALLY Everything (Best TOE) provides crucial information on the following important topics:
- The existence as a whole.
- The reality as a whole and its meaning.
- Why is not nothing?
- The meaning of life.
- The existence or non-existence of gods.
- The mystery of death: Is there a life after death?
- Why does consciousness exist?
- Why do laws of nature exist? Why is our world mathematical and predictable (to a certain degree)?
- Why both Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr are right in respect to the question if "God" plays dice.
- Why are some laws of nature that simple that you can understand them?
- Why does Occam's razor work?
- The fine tuning of the natural laws of our universe.
- The role of ethics in the reality and in the existence.
- Is your life free, by chance or determined?
And other.
by michael KLINNETER
The Grandestmaster says:
My BEST Theory of REALLY Everything (Best TOE) provides crucial information on the following important topics:
- The existence as a whole.
- The reality as a whole and its meaning.
- Why is not nothing?
- The meaning of life.
- The existence or non-existence of gods.
- The mystery of death: Is there a life after death?
- Why does consciousness exist?
- Why do laws of nature exist? Why is our world mathematical and predictable (to a certain degree)?
- Why both Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr are right in respect to the question if "God" plays dice.
- Why are some laws of nature that simple that you can understand them?
- Why does Occam's razor work?
- The fine tuning of the natural laws of our universe.
- The role of ethics in the reality and in the existence.
- Is your life free, by chance or determined?
And other.
Literature
Books and eBooks of Michael Klinneter
Mittwoch, 24. Januar 2018
The Ethics of Reality
The Ethics of Reality
by michael KLINNETER
The Grandestmaster says:
According to my BEST Theory of REALLY Everything (Best TOE), the actual system of the worlds, the totality of reality, the existence as a whole are ethically best possible.
In principle, it is true that
1. every wanting has a right to be realised (fulfilled).
2. every (equally strong or intensive) wanting is equally entitled to be realised (fulfilled).
You could say: Reality is based on the principles of GOODWILL and JUSTNESS (EQUITY, FAIRNESS) towards every wanting.
Or if you prefer a single word for goodwill and justness, then you could say:
Reality is based on the principle of RESPECT (or LOVE) for EVERY wanting.
Therefore: In an ethically best system of the worlds, no one is free to live (think, feel, act) against these principles for a long time! Because that would change the ethical number one position of the reality.
Therefore, learn to respect every wanting! Or it will be learned by you the hard way - sooner or later, but certainly.
Realise wanting as much as possible as fair as possible! - May the wanting be of you or of another being; may the wanting be of the present, of the future or of the past. (Of course, wanting of the past cannot be fulfilled in reality. But it can be regarded in respect to the principle of fairness.)
Wanting can be fulfilled in reality - but also in art, in play/game, in communication, in fantasy, in body impulses...
(Another name by me for "fulfilling in reality" is "fulfilling in the Universal" or "Universal Realisation". Another name by me for "fulfilling in art, play, game, communication, fantasy, body impulses..." is "Individual Realisation". Of course, philosophically, it all belongs to reality.)
Evil wanting may be fulfilled in the Individual but not in the Universal. The same with detrimental wanting, if it doesn't result in the best possibility of reality.
by michael KLINNETER
The Grandestmaster says:
According to my BEST Theory of REALLY Everything (Best TOE), the actual system of the worlds, the totality of reality, the existence as a whole are ethically best possible.
In principle, it is true that
1. every wanting has a right to be realised (fulfilled).
2. every (equally strong or intensive) wanting is equally entitled to be realised (fulfilled).
You could say: Reality is based on the principles of GOODWILL and JUSTNESS (EQUITY, FAIRNESS) towards every wanting.
Or if you prefer a single word for goodwill and justness, then you could say:
Reality is based on the principle of RESPECT (or LOVE) for EVERY wanting.
Therefore: In an ethically best system of the worlds, no one is free to live (think, feel, act) against these principles for a long time! Because that would change the ethical number one position of the reality.
Therefore, learn to respect every wanting! Or it will be learned by you the hard way - sooner or later, but certainly.
Realise wanting as much as possible as fair as possible! - May the wanting be of you or of another being; may the wanting be of the present, of the future or of the past. (Of course, wanting of the past cannot be fulfilled in reality. But it can be regarded in respect to the principle of fairness.)
Wanting can be fulfilled in reality - but also in art, in play/game, in communication, in fantasy, in body impulses...
(Another name by me for "fulfilling in reality" is "fulfilling in the Universal" or "Universal Realisation". Another name by me for "fulfilling in art, play, game, communication, fantasy, body impulses..." is "Individual Realisation". Of course, philosophically, it all belongs to reality.)
Evil wanting may be fulfilled in the Individual but not in the Universal. The same with detrimental wanting, if it doesn't result in the best possibility of reality.
Donnerstag, 11. Januar 2018
What is greater and more fundamental than any God? - The Grandestmaster says: REALITY!
What is greater and more fundamental than any God? - Reality!
by michael KLINNETER
The Grandestmaster says:
Reality exists. That is certain.
If gods exist, is not certain. But if they exist, then they are consciousnesses and entities. Consciousnesses and entities that are real belong to reality!
Therefore the concept (Begriff) Reality is greater and more fundamental than the concept God.
A lot of people made the mistake to want to prove the existence of God at first and then to understand reality. But it is just the opposite (umgekehrt): At first you have to understand reality - and then you are able to answer the question of gods.
My BEST theory of REALLY everything (best TOE) provides such an amazing understanding of reality.
At first let us understand that gods - as part of the reality - CANNOT be the CREATORS of the WHOLE reality. Because causa sui - cause of himself (Ursache seiner selbst) - is logically impossible!
In the best case, Gods can be the creators of the REST of the reality (worlds-system). - (Rest of the reality is defined as reality without god.)
As I said, Gods cannot be the Creator of the whole reality. But Gods could be the VOLLENDER (3) of the whole reality. This means that it could be possible that the gods make the whole reality (= actual system of the worlds) best possible.
Literature
Books and eBooks of Michael Klinneter
Remarks
(1) I take the English word concept for the German word Begriff.
(2) I use the German word umgekehrt because I don't know the English word.
(3) I use the German word VOLLENDER because I don't know the English word.
(3) I use the German word VOLLENDER because I don't know the English word.
Last important update:
11.1.2018 14:50 Uhr MEZ
11.1.2018 14:50 Uhr MEZ
Donnerstag, 4. Januar 2018
The BEST theory of REALLY everything (Best TOE)
The BEST theory of REALLY everything (Best TOE)
by Michael Klinneter
The Grandestmaster says:
Three exact formulations of my BEST theory of REALLY everything (Best TOE):
1. The actual totality of reality is the ethically best of all logically possible totalities of reality.
2. The real existence (as a whole) is the ethically best of all logically possible existences (as a whole/as wholes).
3. We don't live in the best of all possible worlds - we live in the ethically best of all logically possible systems of the worlds (worlds-systems). (2)
Explanations and definitions
Ethical (ethically good and/or right) is
1. to fulfill a wanting, to realise something wanted,
2. to equally fulfill two (equally strong) wantings, to equally realise two (equally strong) wantings, to equally realise two things equally strongly wanted.
As umbrella term (Oberbegriff) for
something wanted, wished, desired, needed, willed, liked, loved, found good, regarded as good, spoken for (1) (3)
I take:
something wanted.
Anti-wanting is wanting too. - Let me explain the term "anti-wanting" with an example: hating liver = anti-wanting liver = WANTING (to eat) SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
As umbrella term (Oberbegriff) for
something wanted, wished, desired, needed, willed, liked, loved, found good, regarded as good, spoken for (1) (3)
I take:
something wanted.
Anti-wanting is wanting too. - Let me explain the term "anti-wanting" with an example: hating liver = anti-wanting liver = WANTING (to eat) SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
Reality: includes all that is real: possibly things, matter, particles, fields, waves, spaces, times, present, past, future, universes, dimensions, spheres, planes, levels, realms, hereafter (beyond), events, experiences, feelings, thoughts, consciousnesses, gods...
Maybe all parts of reality can be regarded as events. Or can alternatively be called things.
System of the worlds (or worlds-system): is reality divided into worlds.
World: is a totality of events or things (or perhaps other parts of reality) connected by a way of access.
World: is a totality of events or things (or perhaps other parts of reality) connected by a way of access.
Existence: includes reality and all facts/truths.
Literature
Books and eBooks of Michael Klinneter
Remarks
(1) Alternative formulation: 1. to realise a wanting - if the wanting doesn't want to damage another wanting intentionally (no realisation of an evil wanting),
The "if..." condition could be unnecessary. It could be the result of the worlds-system being the best (possible).
(2) You see: I am not Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.
(3) I am looking for a word that includes all of those words (wanting, wish, desire, need, will, something liked, something loved, something found good, something regarded as good, something spoken for). I take "wanting". But I am not an English man, and it would be better to take another word? I mean the "speaking for something" in the broadest sense.
Oberbegriff: translation needed: umbrella term?
Last important update:
18.1.2018 9.41 Uhr MEZ
Remarks
(1) Alternative formulation: 1. to realise a wanting - if the wanting doesn't want to damage another wanting intentionally (no realisation of an evil wanting),
The "if..." condition could be unnecessary. It could be the result of the worlds-system being the best (possible).
(2) You see: I am not Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.
(3) I am looking for a word that includes all of those words (wanting, wish, desire, need, will, something liked, something loved, something found good, something regarded as good, something spoken for). I take "wanting". But I am not an English man, and it would be better to take another word? I mean the "speaking for something" in the broadest sense.
Oberbegriff: translation needed: umbrella term?
Last important update:
18.1.2018 9.41 Uhr MEZ
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)