Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
From: stew dean (stewart_at_webslave.dircon.co.uk)
Date: 09/05/04
- Next message: Eugene: "Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv explains Anti-Relativism"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 01:39:50 +0000 (UTC)
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<7dwZc.18235$_g7.6060@attbi_s52>...
> "stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2b68957a.0409011541.77629ad7@posting.google.com...
> > "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<1GoZc.352265$%_6.140404@attbi_s01>...
> > > "R.Schenck" <nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8fcb1069.0409010943.55adc472@posting.google.com...
> > > > "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<q9bZc.215668$8_6.91811@attbi_s04>...
> > > > > "Alan Jeffery" <observa_no_spam@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > > news:2pknj1Fm87o2U1@uni-berlin.de...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:78e3ae70.0408311720.7cd5ad55@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<%t3Zc.213728$8_6.141480@attbi_s04>...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <...>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
>
> > > > > I would like to ally myself with the Creationists on the following
> > > > > grounds:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. They would get for their part the law overturned banning
> > > > > the teaching of God in public schools. Creationism would
> > > > > be proven to be scientifically correct and would also have
> > > > > to be taught in the Public School Science curriculem.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok, lets pretend that your 'idea' is in fact correct and true, and
> > > > that you have been able to prove that a god of some sort exists
> > > > (which, remeber, we're just pretending, and you actually haven't done
> > > > this in, you know, reality). How does the existence of god make
> > > > 'creationism' true? Perhaps you are just unfamiliar with creationism
> > > > or something and don't know what it says is 'true'.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Lets not waste time with excessive verbiage.
> > > Let me try to summarize the scientific discovery
> > > and it's theological result. If you are not already familiar
> > > with this discovery, this will not be adequate, but it will
> > > give you a thumbnail sketch of the science and some
> > > understanding of the theological result:
> > >
> > >
> > > 1.
> > > The experimental/theoretical discovery that has been
> > > made and published in the peer reviewed literature
> > > is that human perceptual reality (what we see) is a
> > > "Curved version" of absolute physical reality (the
> > > reality measured by Physics). This Curvature causes
> > > a noticeable "supernatural" difference between the
> > > two and explains (and proves) the phenomena we
> > > call "God". There is a real God.
> >
> > It is not experimental and not a theory
>
> [Hammond]
> Please do not waste time posting unsupported
> assertions.
Exactly what I was thinking about your post. I think your using what
is known as 'projection' - that is you attempt to put onto you
audience the things you know you are weak at.
What you should have done is support your assumptions by explaining
what experiments can be done in order to test your theory, in other
words how would you disprove your theory?
> > as our perception is not a
> > curved verseion of physical reality
>
> [Hammond]
> It sure is... and I'm slated for a Nobel Prize for
> discovering that FACT.
No you're not. Incidently FACT(tm) is not part of the scientific
method as you should now. FACT is part of religion and politics, not
science.
> >, it is a finite subset of in
> > infinite set, that is our knowledge is finite, reality is infinite.
> > But as somethings are represented evenly through that infinite space
> > we can understand many things even if we only have a finite amount of
> > knowledge and experience.
>
> [Hammond]
> Your statment is amateurish undefined illogical gibberish.
As opposed to...
> God=G_uv is an experimentally confirmed axiomatic
> physics result. With all due respect, sorry.
No it's not. You don't have an experiment, you don't have a theory.
By all means try to disprove me, but you won't disprove me by using
name calling. I am not a scientist but I appear to know more about the
scientific method than you.
> > So in no way shape or form is out percepion a 'curved version' of what
> > really is.
>
> [Hammond]
> You've just said it. I've proved it.
Proved what?
> It is expressed by the equation:
> God=G_uv
> and now it is seared into your
> memory banks for all of eternity.
But it's meaningless. It doesnt actualy mean anything. I can put
together an arbitary equation and repeat it many times over if I want.
You are using a very simple and well know argument called 'god of the
gaps', you've attempted to nail an aspect of quantum physics onto your
belief system.
> > Traditional sequential physics cannot cover the workings of the mind
> > or sum up it's processes because the brain is not a sequential device,
> > it relies upon massively parallel processes that are largely
> > decentralised and are blured through time.
>
> [Hammond]
> that's like saying there are a gazillion grains of sand on
> the beach so F cannot be equal to ma.
The laws of physics applies to the workings of the biology and it is
possible to model the individual elements of the mind, nuerons, quite
simply as a sequential bit of computation. That is the individual
neuron.
So how do you work out the sum of all the individual neurons? You can
only do this via modeling every individual neuron. You cannot turn the
interaction of, say, 10,000 neurons into a sequential algorithm.
For a better understanding of this looking into Cellular Automata. The
most famous example being Conway's Life. If you have a good grasp of
maths then it might want to look at Stephen Wolfram's work.
> > To better undestand the workings of the mind requires a good
> > understanding of 'complex systems' amongst other things.
>
> [Hammond]
> Oh yeah.... everything is soooo complicated we'll never understand
> it. We need "chaos theory", "fuzzy logic", "fractals", "complexity
> theory" plus a large measure of utter bullshit to understand what
> God is.
Chaos Theory and Complexity theory (very closely linked) you do need
to understand the universe. They explain life, financial markets,
weather systems and other non important things that A=B+C can't.
Fractals are just a particular maths party trick and is about how long
you can feedback a simple equation into it's self before it goes off
to infinity. Not much use by themselves but they show how a simple
equation treated in an interative way can produce complex but non
random results.
Fuzzy logic, well that's a 'top down' solution to dealing with dirty
and vauge problems. It's applicable to solving engineering problems
not explaining the universe.
> Got news for you Stew. there is a "classical God" which is an
> "invisible man" whose picture is painted on the Sistine Chapel
> ceiling... and His existence is explained and proven by
> Classical Gravity (Einsteinian Gravity) and does NOT require
> "chaos theory", "fuzzy logic", "fractals", "complexity
> theory" plus a large measure of utter bullshit to understand
I'm not debating if there is or is not a god. You could also have
found a way to prove god exists. But if you have you apppear not to
actualy explain what it is. Meanwhile if you want to explain why
something I write or existing ideas are bullshit please go ahead. At
the moment you have made unsupported statements.
Stew Dean
- Next message: Eugene: "Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv explains Anti-Relativism"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
