Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %

From: bv_schornak (nowhere_at_schornak.de)
Date: 08/08/04 

Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 22:48:04 +0100

  George Hammond wrote:

>bv_schornak wrote:
>
>> George Hammond wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The EVIDENCE for these discoveries (facts-results)
>>>are given in the updated version:
>>>
>>> 1. The Cross of Christianity ( =the Cartesian Coordinate System)
>>> 2. Why God is an invisible man and how he rules the world.
>>> (the Growth Deficit is the invisible portion of Man, hence an
>>> invisible man; Deficit controls reality or God rules the world)
>>> 3. Why Heaven is an invisible world and where it is.
>>> (the ungrown latent portion of the brain creates a "Heaven")
>>> 4. Exactly what "event horizon" separates Heaven and Earth.
>>> (there is a "speed horizon" beyond which you cannot see,
>>> due to (your own) brain growth deficit; the invisible is Heaven)
>>> 5. How God causes "miracles" and what they are. (the lifting of
>>> Repression unleashes pent up braingrowth thus creating new
>>>
>>>
>reality)
>
>
>>> 6. How the entire historical chronology of Religion is explained.
>>> (It is the chronology of the discovery of successively higher
>>>
>>>
>levels
>
>
>>> in the Psychometric Factor heirarchy of psychometry)
>>> 7. What "kingdom come" is and when it will arrive.
>>> (Kingdom Come is simply the end of the Secular Trend in human
>>>
>>>
>growth,
>
>
>>> it is still thousands of years away)
>>> 8. Why there is a 4-Gospel Canon. (there are axiomatically 4 metric
>>> variables in Psychometry because there are axiomatically 4 metric
>>> variables in Physics causing them)
>>> 9. Why there is a BI/2P System. (same reason as 8)
>>> 10. The explanation of both Monotheism and Polytheism.
>>> (the demigods are the lower order factors, God is the Top Factor)
>>> 11. Why there is Eternal Life and what it is. (A conditioon of zero
>>> Secular Trend growth deficit is a condition of Eternal Life).
>>> 12. How the Genesis Creation (40,000 years ago) created the
>>> Big Bang of 15 billion years ago.. i.e. why both Creationism
>>> and Evolution are scientifically correct; that as St. Augustine
>>> put it: "the world was created "with time" and not "in time".
>>> (Biblical Creation was caused by the advent of the Homo Sapiens
>>> sapiens brain (our brain) 40,000 years ago. The first two HSs's
>>> are traditionally called "Adam and Eve".
>>>
>>>
>>Ok, these are twelve statements. Re-reading the origi-
>>nal posting, D = 1 means a 50/50 chance to be true (or
>>not). Is it proper to add "D = 1" 12 times to get that
>>final "D = 12"? I think you would have to evaluate the
>>single claims one after each other, leaving an overall
>>evidence of 50/50 (because _each_ of the single claims
>>also has a 50/50 chance).
>>
>
>[Hammond]
>No.... the estimation procedure is of course more sophisticated
>than is indicated in "internet one liner discussion".
>The evidence considered must be "exhaustive and mutually
>exclusive". Exhaustive means you can't leave out any
>relevant evidence. Exclusive means the evidences can't
>be correlated.
> The statments above.. the "evidence" statements are
>EXPERIMENTALLY PROVEN pieces of evidence... they are not
>"guesses", therefore their "D" is greater than 1 in all
>cases, and in fact ranges from 2 to 10.
>

Do you have a link for the experimental proof, e.g. your
equipment, a description of your experiments, evaluation
results and statistics?

>>>>What about [0 < D < 1] - how could this be negative?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>0 < D < 1 is called "negative" because it refers to
>>>evidence which is AGAINST the proposal.
>>> Evidence which SUPPORTS the existence of God is
>>>called "positive evidence" and has D > 1
>>>Evidence which argues AGAINST the existence of God
>>>is called "negative evidence" and has D < 1
>>>There is NO SUCH THING as a D < 0
>>>
>>>
>>Ok. The set is limited to positive complex numbers.
>>
>
>[Hammond]
>No... positive REAL numbers.
>

Ok.

>>>>Which mathematical system are you using here?
>>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>Here it is again:
>>>
>>> A 1 page review of this book by Michael Shermer appears
>>> in the current (July) issue of Scientific American on
>>> page 46.
>>>
>>>
>>No chance to get it here, there is much water between
>>us...
>>
>
>[Hammond]
>In more ways than one perhaps.
>

Painting black in black? ;)

>>>>>http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Matches my thoughts. It shows that God is caused by some
>>>>unused parts of our brain. I would guess these parts are
>>>>producing random data which is passed to some functional
>>>>parts of our brain, causing the erratical thoughts about
>>>>higher beings. The lower the IQ is, the less functioning
>>>>parts are available. This surplus amount of unused parts
>>>>is causing more erroneous data, so the "faith" is higher
>>>>with decreasing IQ. Maybe you could develop a formula to
>>>>show the relation between IQ and spirituality? Should be
>>>>a decreasing graph.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>good AMATEUR analysis.... however, this is NOT
>>>an amateur discussion... hence my blue streak
>>>frustration at posters.
>>>The "actual theory" which exists in the "real world"
>>>is FAR MORE SIMPLE AND SOPHISTICATED than your
>>>"elaborate amateur superficialities".
>>>
>>>
>>No, no - I just "interpreted" your analysis, not more
>>and not less. Why are you frustrated? Everyone's free
>>to develop theories and such. It depends on your work
>>if people buy it or not.
>>
>
>[Hammond]
>Unqualified adversaries acting only upon thier political
>agendas are never going to buy it... I'm not interested
>in them of course.
>

You have been working a long time to develop your ideas.
In other words: You are specialised. If I write some new
functions for a library, then I don't expect everyone is
familiar with them. So I have to write a good documenta-
tion to show how these functions work - the same applies
to your work. If people can't follow your thoughts, it's
up to you to write a better "documentation", so everyone
is able to follow your thoughts. If you ignore those who
obviously can't follow your thoughts, then (sorry to say
so) your thesis never will be accepted by anyone.

>>A theory doesn't "exist" in the real world, it's only
>>a more or less accurate _model_ of reality. Your term
>>"superficialities" doesn't apply here, I always drill
>>some holes down to the core of an idea before I start
>>to talk about it. My intellect is sufficient to grasp
>>what other people say (actually I would qualify to be
>>a MENSA member), so if your theory is that simple, it
>>shouldn't be a problem to explain it. I do understand
>>what Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking have to say -
>>e.g. <http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html>
>>doesn't support the theory from point 12 in your list
>>of evidence.
>>
>
>[Hammond]
>Nothing Hawking has ever said relates to
>point 12 above.
>

He says a lot about the Big Bang in the mentioned essay.
It's contrary to your theory which says the Big Bang was
"caused" by an "event" happening 40,000 years ago.

>>There might be a problem for
>>you to prove that his theories are false because your
>>theories are true.
>>
>
>[Hammond]
>there is no problem to explain... the only
>PROBLEM is your misunderstanding of the theory.
>Which is quite understandable.
>Your making exaggerated and precipitious assumptions
>based on that misunderstanding IS a "problem to
>explain."
>

I only respond to what I've seen until now. Reading most
of your website today, I think I got the clue about your
thesis. The EPNg stuff would need a further explanation,
I did not find any scientific material about it. Looking
at the diagrams and graphics, it is contrary to the data
I could find about the human brain (neurosciences), e.g.

<http://defiant.ssc.uwo.ca/Jody_web/fMRI4Dummies/functional_brain_areas.htm>,
<http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/courses/mb427/2000/projects/0008/normbrain.html>,
<http://www.brainscience.brown.edu/research/>,
<http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/652.html>.

>>(As I would have a problem to show
>>that the Universe is an endless process of big bangs,
>>expansions and contractions > therefore time does not
>>have a beginning nor an end > therefore the "external
>>intervention" to trigger big bangs is not neccessary,
>>it's a natural event independent from entities or the
>>existence of intelligent life on a planet.)
>>
>
>[Hammond]
>that isn't what the theory (i.e. discovery) says...
>you're simply letting your imagination run away with
>itself.
> There are TWO REALITIES:
>
>1. Absolute Physical Reality
>2. Human Perceptual Reality
>
>Traditionally, we have always assumed that 1=2
>However, the discovery of the Secular Trend in
>human growth (brain grwoth deficit) PROVES that
>isn't true. In fact, 2=(.85)*1 is actually
>more accurate.
> Furthermore, 2 came into existence only 40,000
>years ago, while 1 came into existence 15-billion years ago.
>HOWEVER, you can't know about 1 until 2 happens, which
>is WHY THE Big Bang was "Created" 40,000 years ago
>with an "age" of 15-Billionh years.
>

My thesis above is shared by some scientists. Here are a
few facts which speak against your thesis. You've surely
heared of Homo neandertalensis and Homo heidelbergensis.
You should know they existed before the Homo sapiens. As
a matter of fact, they had tools and were able to create
cave paintings (a kind of worshipping the natural forces
they assumed to be deities).

Homo heidelbergensis: 400,000 - 100,000 BC
Homo neandertalensis: 150,000 - 30,000 BC

Your thesis doesn't include these links between the Homo
erectus and the Homo sapiens. Where are these _thinking_
species in your thesis? They lived before "Adam and Eve"
appeared and had about the same intelligence than a Homo
sapiens living in those times. It is plausible that Homo
sapiens learned how to use and build tools from them.

<http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Hheidelbergensis.html>

There's only one reality: The Universe (or Nature). Your
"absolute physical" and "human perceptual" reality isn't
reality _itself_, it's an interpretation of reality. The
Universe is there, it doesn't need properties like abso-
lute, objective, subjective. All of these properties are
human _interpretations_ of the existing Universe. Nature
doesn't care about our interpretations - it continues to
exist with or without them. Nature doesn't depend on one
species living on one small planet in an infinite amount
of solar systems. We humans depend on Nature, that's the
only "absolute" truth.

>>>>Nevertheless, you should be aware that most pious Chris-
>>>>tians, Jews and Moslems might call your work blasphemous
>>>>because it treats their God as an "object" we can calcu-
>>>>late like the values of some capacitors and resistors in
>>>>a low-pass filter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>I don't think you're in any position to be
>>>conducting "wannabee executive analysis" considering you
>>>can't even comprehend the theory.
>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>Greetings from Hyannis MA
>>>don't let my candor put you off, I'm under
>>>heavy fire from zillions of anti-religious
>>>scientific hecklers.
>>>
>>>
>>Hm, I didn't want to attack you personally - hope you
>>didn't get it in the wrong throat. I definitely don't
>>believe in God,
>>
>
>[Hammond]
>Any man who would say "I don't believe in God"
>is either a fool or a liar. I don't think you're a
>liar.
>

There are no fools - only people who think different... ;)

> 30 years ago I would have told YOU that "I don't believe
>in God". Turns out I was a fool. i simply didn't know
>WHAT they were talking about when they said "God".
>Turns out "God" is a "fundamental perceptual defect in
>man"... in fact a "fundamental growth deficit in
>every living thing". It is however a NATURAL DEFECT
>caused by a "lead time" in Evolution. Growth lags behind
>genetics... however it is "catching up"... and when it does
>catch up, this is called "kingdom come".
> A guy of your intelligence and influence really SHOULD
>know what God is.
>

40 years ago I would have told you I do believe in God -
I even wanted to become a bishop... ;)

Meanwhile I reached the adult age and - as you put it in
correctly - my IQ grew a little bit (4 points; I'd guess
it's caused by life experience, improving the efficiency
of the neuronal network). Sorry to disappoint you here -
but this "increase" in intelligence caused a decrease in
believing in God. I can imagine a Multiverse with an in-
finite amount of Universes like ours. But, because I can
think that far, the thought of "Creation" became absurd.
Creation is a crutch for those who reached the limits of
imagination, the explanation of things beyond our perso-
nal abilities to grasp reality. God is a safe haven, the
denial of a reality which causes fear in many of us. The
denial to accept that no human ever will know everything
with certainty. The denial to accept that Nature's based
on the principles of Chaos, not Order. God's our attempt
to deny the truth, the evocation of Order where there is
Chaos in reality.

>>but I do (or at least - I try to) re-
>>spect the feelings of believers of any credo.
>>There's
>>no reason to attack people for their beliefs.
>>
>
>[Hammond]
>Unfortunately, now that a scientific proof of God
>has occurred... i fear it will not be long before
>people will be attacked for their DISBELIEF.
>You wanna watch out for that one.
>

Oh, I don't think 6.5++ billion people will be convinced
of your theory during my remaining lifetime - so I don't
have to fear for my life in the near future.

>>This is
>>something we should stop - too many people had to die
>>for that. I really had the feelings of true believers
>>in mind as I wrote the last paragraph. As an ex Roman
>>Catholic I know that many RCC followers will damn you
>>for your ideas - you probably are sitting between the
>>chairs.
>>
>
>[Hammond]
>Catholics are going to come out of this smelling like
>a rose. The Jews of course will experience a complete
>moral triumph. It's the Protestants I'm worried about..
>since they have all the money and power... I sure hope
>the hell they are not the LAST to recognize this
>discovery.
>

I do not think the Protestants have as much money as the
Roman Catholics - they only had 1/4 of the time to abuse
their "sheep".

>>Your theory about the brain is interesting. Of course
>>I only can contemplate on what you write down. What's
>>in your mind or in books I haven't seen yet is out of
>>my frame...
>>
>
>[Hammond]
>Most of it is posted on my website which is
>EASILY ACCESSABLE.
>

Yes, I spent some time with it. ;)

>>Greetings from Augsburg
>>
>>Bernhard Schornak
>>
>
>[Hammond]
>Thanks Bernie. As a native German I can appreciate
>your sober interest in this development. I am hoping
>that the German scientific community will take a
>serious view of the Protestant footdragging which
>is taking place in America and England concerning
>the recognition (and suppression) of this discovery.
>The main body of the German population I'm sure
>can see the overwhelming social significance of
>such a "scientific religious miracle" on the world.
>
>
>============================================
>SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
>http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_godhttp://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
>mirror site:
>
>============================================
>

The abilities of our brain are improved by experience, that's
the "growth" you mention. As a matter of fact the brain isn't
growing - the efficiency of our neuronal network is improved.
Intelligence has nothing to do with the size of our brain, e.
g. Einstein's brain had 1230 g while today the average "size"
of a male brain is 1400 g (the relation between mass and size
is given by the specific weight -> the material properties of
the "gray mass"). There is no evidence that a current average
male is 13.8% more intelligent than Einstein - which would be
an average IQ of ~165 - actually, the average IQ is something
around 100, see <http://www.sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm>...

Greetings from Augsburg

Bernhard Schornak 

-- 
<http://schornak.de>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CD Sales Down
    ... Maybe Truth is an ideal, ... In my theology that's backwards - people don't exist without God. ... Faith is what people use when they want to believe something, but can't find any evidence to back it up. ... The lie could be checked against reality, but if the liar controls the media and holds all the guns, it might be difficult. ...
    (alt.guitar)
  • Re: Ancient Texts
    ... It means knowing the difference between contingent truth and absolute ... it means recognizing the spectrum of "as certain as reality can ... contrast to common sense and evidence both. ... If the creator god is a ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Genius of Charles Darwin
    ... even the theists on this newsgroup - AAQ, ... given up their belief in god? ... evidence for my assertion is that empirical evidence, or lack thereof, ... reality and being anti-science are NOT different - they coincide ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: CD Sales Down
    ... so you look at evidence. ... God is, though. ... Only for 'reality is whatever I believe it is' people. ... You said evidence doesn't exist if no one perceives it. ...
    (alt.guitar)
  • Re: I give up!!
    ... God created Homo sapiens, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus. ... Got any evidence these gods existed or exist? ...
    (talk.origins)