Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %
From: Rick Cvejic (hybridgex_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/29/04
- Next message: stan: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Previous message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: GOD=G_uv UNWIN EXPLAINS BIRTH"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Jul 2004 21:26:42 -0700
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:52:23 +0000, George Hammond wrote:
<snip unimportant crap>
> At any rate, I give below six "liklihood ratios" for the six pieces
> of evidence I feel summarize the argument for GOD=G_uv, they
> turn out to be D= 2, 10, 2, 2, 10, 2
> If you punch these six numbers into the program you get:
>
> P=99.9 % that GOD=G_uv is TRUE
Oh. My. God.
You are so stupid, it feels like a slap in the face.
All your values are above 1. So OF COURSE your probability will
converge
on 100%. Okay, so you have a Masters in Physics... great. Now I
suggest
you go to your local high school and sit in on a basic
statistics class.
> In other words, it is an
>
> ABSOLUTE DEAD CERTAINTY
>
> that GOD=G_uv is correct
Even if 99% is valid (which it isn't), 99% is not a certainty. Hell,
if
99% was a certainty, no-one would ever win the lottery, or get four
aces
in a poker game.
> These are the six pieces of evidence used:
>
> 1. (D=2) The existence of Cartesian Structure in Physics as the most
> prevalent structure (and most prevelent coordinate system) for
> the solution of most maThematical physics problems. And the fact
> that a simple "curvature" of Cartesian Structure is the basis
> of the most famous physics result in history (Einsteinian Gravity).
If anything, this is God-neutral. One might argue that the Cartesian
system is the only way that life as we know it could exist. This
example is like saying that the use of ASCII is evidence of God.
> It turns out that the theory of God is based on EXACTLY THE SAME
> structural rationale in Psychometry space.
You cant use your own theory as evidence for your own theory, fool.
> 2. (D=10) The discovery that the Structural Model of Personality
> is a 3D-Cube due to Cartesian Body Geometry, with Principle
> axes E,N,P, i.e. the discovery that the 3-space dimensions of
> spacetime cause the 3-dimensions of Personality in Psychometry
> space. This is confirmed experimentally to two decimal points
> by 100 years of published Psychometry research.
D=10 is assigned because of your innate bias. If anything, this is
God-neutral.
> 3. (D=2) The discovery that "psychometric-g" (mental speed/IQ) is a
> 4th dimension added to ENP (e.g. a time dimension) forming a complete
> 4D Lorentz metric in Psychometry Space corresponding to (caused by)
> the Lorentze metric of spacetime.
ditto.
> 4. (D=2) The discovery that there exists a 4D "curvature" of ENPg
> caused by the 4D curvature of XYZt of real spacetime. Hence, GOD=G_uv.
ditto.
> 5. (D=10) The resulting equation from 1,2,3 & 4, GOD=G_uv which
> scientifically explains the major historically recorded claims of
> religion, namely:
>
> 1. The Cross of Christianity
> 2. Why God is an invisible man and how he rules the world.
> 3. Why Heaven is an invisible world and where it is.
> 4. Exactly what "event horizon" separates Heaven and Earth.
> 5. How God causes "miracles" and what they are.
> 6. How the entire historical chronology of Religion is explained.
> 7. What "kingdom come" is and when it will arrive.
> 8. Why there is a 4-Gospel Canon.
> 9. Why there is a BI/2P System.
> 10. The explanation of both Monotheism and Polytheism.
ditto. You idiot. You have the same data item in here twice,
paraphrased.
> 6. (D=2) How and why "birth and childhood growth" is a "Big Bang" in
> Psychometry Space caused by a "Big Bang" in classical gravity
> space.
ditto.
BTW the formula does not require 6 data items. You also can use any
number in the range 0-10. In fact, to prove God, you would need an
infinite number of data items in that range. If I showed you 6 smokers
who didn't have cancer, does that prove that smoking doesn't cause
cancer? If I showed you 6 smokers who did, does that prove it does?
No. Why? Because its a biased and undersized sample space. Thats what
you have given us.
And even if we accept the validity of your data item descriptions, the
values assigned to those items are arbitrary - which makes the values
themselves invalid.
> NOTE: That there is NO "negative" (D<1) or "neutral" (D=1) evidence.
> All of the existing evidence is "positive" (D<1). This is because
> there is in fact not one iota of "contradictory evidence" to be found
> which challenges the scientific proof that GOD=G_uv. This is remarkable
> testimony in itself to the truth of the equation GOD=G_uv!
This is so ridiculous, only a fundamentalist would agree with it.
Surely the existance of fundamentalist terrorists themselves is
contrary evidence.
> ALSO to be noted is that the "starting a priori probability" is
> taken to be 50% (i.e. 50-50). Some may disagree with this. However,
> it should be noted that the evidence is so strong, that even if you
> take the initial probability to be only 1% ... the final probability
> still comes out greater than 94%!! So no matter how you slice it,
> the result is a DEAD CERTAINTY that GOD=G_uv is correct.
You use your theory to bias your input to the function, and then spout
that the function output supports your theory. Duh. You use your
theory to prove your theory. Maybe you were a scientist in the 70's
and 80's, but you sure as hell aren't one now.
Maybe its time to pay the institution a visit, huh George?
- Next message: stan: "Re: "The map is not the Territory"..."
- Previous message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: GOD=G_uv UNWIN EXPLAINS BIRTH"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv BAYESIAN P=99.9 %"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
