Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin

From: Steve Ralph (steve_at_steveralph.f9.co.uk)
Date: 12/06/04 

Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:18:08 -0000

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:GNSsd.7805$714.4800@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> George Hammond
> December 5, 2004
>
> The COUNTERBALANCE FOUNDATION FORUM
> c/o Professor Chris Isham
> Professor William Dembski
>
> http://www.counterbalance.org/bio/index-frame.html
>
> By email to:
>
> Chris Isham William Dembski Stephen Unwin
> Sandra Faber Owen Gingerich Richard Arnowitt
> Alan Guth John F. Haught Edward Kolb
> David Latham Joel Primack Bob Russell
> Seth Shostak Trinh Xuan Thuan Neil Turok
> Steven Weinberg John Polkinhorne John Barrow
> George Coyne Bruno Guiderdoni Wm. Stoeger
> Richard Amoroso Phil Hefner Lee Smolin
>
> also posted to: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics,
> alt.sci.physics, alt.sci.physics.new-theories
> alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
> alt.philosophy, alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin
>
>
> Professors Chris Isham and William Dembski are
> COUNTERBALANCE members. Physicist Dr. Stephen Unwin is
> author of _The Probability of God_ (see SCIAM July 2004,
> p. 46 for a review by Michael Shermer).
>
> All three have written opinions on my discovery that
> God=G_uv and I wish to rebut their remarks in this
> letter to the Counterbalance Forum.
>

So why post it here?

sr

> Physicists are not experts in Theology nor are
> Theologians expert in Physics.
> It is just as doubtful that Isaac Newton understood
> God is as it is doubtful that Mary Baker Eddy understood
> the Principle of Least Action.
>
> HENCE: If a scientific proof
> of God is discovered we can be
> certain that FEW will understand it!
>
> Such is the case with God=G_uv
>
>
> BECAUSE OF THIS FACT, I have received very pejorative
> commentaries from Drs. Isham and Dembski. They have
> even suggested God=G_uv is incompetent. Therefore I
> feel obliged to inform the Sci-Rel community of the error
> of their opinions and of the high handed carelessness
> with which they have received this remarkable discovery.
>
> The Commentaries:
>
> In an email letter from Prof. William Dembski, he
> says:
>
>
> [Wm. Dembski, 11-29-04]
>
> "To identify God with a curvature
> tensor (God=G_uv) seems provocative
> without being precise. At best it
> seems to me that G_uv might serve
> as a locus for divine action in the
> world. But even then, why should we
> think that it is the sole locus?"
>
>
> He got the first part right, it is provocative.
> But the rest is wrong: It is "precise", and it is
> in fact the central locus of World Religion.
>
> Prof. Isham found it not only provocative, but
> apparently somewhat annoying.
> In an email letter to me he says:
>
> [Chris Isham, 12-15-2003]
>
> "If I understand you correctly, you
> are invoking quantum gravity as a
> way of producing large gravitational
> fields inside the brain."
>
>
> He certainly does not "understand me correctly", and Dr. Isham
> has little or no comprehension of what the theory says or even
> in what space the curvature G_uv exists!
> Apparently BOTH Professors Isham and Dembski have carelessly
> glossed the theory and believe that God=G_uv refers to a
> curvature of real space or is even a curvature in the brain!
> Such preposterousness is of course startling... but they are
> both "too busy" to discuss the matter further!
>
> STEPHEN UNWIN however, was a little more patient. He made
> the same mistake. In an email to me he said:
>
>
> [Stephen Unwin, 7-11-2004]
>
> "If God=G_uv, then... God doesn't exist
> in flat spacetime where G_uv=0. In fact,
> most of spacetime is approximately flat,
> with the exception of singularities (black
> holes). Does this mean God is nonexistent,
> or at least marginal, everywhere but near
> black holes?"
>
>
> At least Stephen Unwin was patient enough to listen to
> further explanation... whereas Profs. Isham or Dembski
> quickly made themselves unavailable for further discussion.
>
> I wrote back to Dr. Unwin and explained to him about this
> all too common scientific *gaffe*:
>
>
> [Hammond, 7-11-04]
>
> "You have only glossed the paper. God is
> a curvature of PERCEPTUAL SPACE not real space.
> People see a "curved version" of real space, and
> this curvature is caused by a "G_uv" in
> Psychometry space.
> For instance ungrown children 4, 8 and 12
> years old, see an ENORMOUSLY CURVED WORLD.
> That doesn't mean the world is actually
> enormously curved!.. it just means that is
> what they see because their brains are not yet
> fully grown. A 9 year old (half grown) child
> sees a world that is twice as BIG and twice as
> FAST as it is to an 18 year old adult. This is
> equivalent to a 50% time dilation and a 50% space
> contraction... it is exactly "as if" he were
> sitting next to a black hole and looking back
> at the Earth... he would see it spinning twice
> as FAST and appearing twice as LARGE!
> This effect exists to a lesser extent in all
> adults simply because no one ever reaches their
> full growth (according to the Secular Trend in
> human growth)... and it is this universal
> "curvature of reality" which explains "God".
> That the "perceptual curvature" is given by
> Einstein's G_uv is of course no coincidence. It
> is demonstrated that Psychometry space is caused
> by real space vis a vis the cleavage geometry
> of the brain. Thus it is that Psychometric
> curvature is caused by spacetime curvature, sui
> generous- via brain growth.
> Psychometry and Relativity have PROVED this,
> thus proving the existence of God beyond ANY
> reasonable scientific question!
>
> Dr. Unwin wrote back to me and said:
>
>
> [Stephen Unwin, 7-11-2004]
>
> "Oh, I thought G_uv was in literal spacetime.
> I guess then that in perceptual space, a new
> born baby would be the analogy of a singularity
> (big bang rather than a black hole). Very
> Interesting."
>
> Well... not only was I amazed at Dr. Unwin being such a
> "fast study" as to "which space is curved by G_uv"... it turns
> out his intuitive remark about babies being related to a
> "big bang" was a further piece of profundity:
>
>
> I hesitate to digress, but I simply must point out the
> contrast between Dr. Unwin's constructive attitude in
> comparison to the presumptious skepticism and negativity
> exhibited by Profs. Isham and Dembski.
>
> The equation God=G_uv when written out in full is:
>
> God = G_uv = BGD (= Brain Growth Deficit)
>
> This curvature is in subjective ("seen") spacetime.
>
>
> Note this is entirely similar to Einstein's equation
>
> Gravity = G_uv = MD (= Mass Density)
>
> In other words, the "brain growth deficit" takes the place
> of the source term, "mass density", when describing the
> curvature of perceptual ("subjectively seen") spacetime.
>
> Now there is a DILEMMA which had been bothering me for
> several years before I received Steve Unwin's email. Namely,
> what would be the mass distribution analogy to natural
> childhood growth? Now.. there perhaps doesn't actually
> have to be one.. but for theoretical reasons I would be a
> lot more comfortable is there was!
> The problem is, that "growth" represents the reduction of
> the BGD towards zero. In real space, this would be the
> analog of "disappearing mass density"? I simply could not
> conceive of any mass distribution which would tend towards
> zero as a function of time- everywhere?
> Then Steve Unwin suggested that birth/growth might be a "Big
> Bang"... I nearly fell off my chair. The Hubble expansion
> associated with the Big Bang model causes the mass density
> in the universe to continually decrease from a very high
> initial value towards zero as time increases. This means
> that "childhood growth" must be the subjective perceptual-space
> analog of a Big Bang expansion of subjective reality!
> The problem was solved.. there IS a real spacetime analog
> to growth in Psychometric space. No doubt this discovery will
> lead us into further discoveries of a most profound nature
> concerning the physical phenomena of God!
> It appears that Stephen Unwin has not only made his mark
> as a Theologian with his new book... but now he has dusted off
> his physics Ph.D. and made his mark as a physicist!
>
>
>
> Now, I would like to return to professor Dembski's question
> of: "Why should G_uv be the sole locus of divine action in the
> world"?
> Well, obviously Bill has fallen victim to the same erroneous
> presumption as Chris Isham and, initially, Steve Unwin...
> namely that God=G_uv refers to a curvature in real space rather
> than a curvature in "subjective seen space". Once the
> distinction is recognized, the answer to prof. Dembski's
> question is obvious. The discovery that we see a "curved
> version" of actual physical reality, due to a human growth
> deficit, immediately explains what Unwin identifies as:
>
> "The person-God of the major faiths
> ...[wch.] .. refers to the God of
> Christians, the Jehovah of Jews, the
> Allah of Muslims, the Wise Lord of
> Zoroastrians, et cetera.
> Although there is some disagreement
> between and within religions about
> the specific characteristics of the
> person-God, the similarities in
> beliefs outnumber the differences."
>
> (Unwin, _Probability of God_, p.19)
>
>
> Since the average person has a growth deficit, that is, part
> of every man is "invisible"; becomes immediately a compelling
> scientific explanation of the "invisible person-God" of
> world religion- the invisible God painted on the Sistine Chapel
> ceiling.
> Since the BGD is the actual "percentage" of a human being
> that is invisible (i.e. latent/ungrown), and this number is set
> equal to G_uv; we see clearly and unequivocally that "G_uv"
> physically describes the "invisible person-god" of the
> major faiths... that is, G_uv mathematically describes the
> curvature of reality effected by God the invisible man.
> Certainly G_uv then, which describes this invisible person-god,
> is the central, if not the sole, "locus of divine action in
> the world"- as professor Dembski put it.
>
>
> I would like to now address some further remarks made by
> Prof. Isham.
>
> Between December 2003 and March 2004 I exchanged half a dozen
> emails with Professor Chris Isham about God=G_uv.
> Reviewing this entire series, it is apparent that Chris
> Isham NEVER was able to get over his basic error of failing to
> realize the difference between "physical reality" and
> "subjective seen reality"... despite the fact that I pointed
> out to him repeatedly the commonly recognized fact that "reality"
> appears to be MUCH LARGER and MUCH FASTER to an (ungrown)
> child than it does to an adult. His "perceptual reality" is
> MAGNIFIED and SPEEDED UP drastically in comparison to the
> reality seen by an adult. This effect is know universally
> as a "CURVATURE OF SPACETIME" in relativity theory.
> As a result of this fundamental GAFFE, none of his comments
> make any sense, and his conclusions are absolutely without
> any validity or relevance whatsoever.
> For instance, on Dec. 15, 2003 he writes:
>
>
> [Chris Isham, 12-15-2003]
>
> 2. I would also remark that, as I think you realize yourself,
> the gravitational field in the brain due to classical gravity is
> extremely weak: so weak in fact that it is essentially just the
> Newtonian force, and the contributions from general relativity
> are completely negligible. But even if that were not the case,
> why should be G_\mu\nu be the quantity to use in your theory,
> since there are many other tensor quantities that relate to the
> curvature of space? It is true that G_\mu\nu is one of the
> simplest ones (and it is the one that Einstein, finally, used)
> but it is not the most simplest (arguably that is R_\mu\nu). In
> the case of general relativity, it is a matter of *empirical
> verification* that G_\mu\nu is the correct thing to use in
> Einstein's field equations (rather than, say, R_\mu\nu) but
> could you, even in principle, do anything analogous?
>
>
> [Hammond]
> This statement is extraordinary in that it is not only based on
> his fundamental faux paux of mistaking "real" space for "seen"
> space, but in addition Chris seems to be venting his annoyance
> at the equation God=G_uv in that he is annoyed that Einstein
> selected that symbol "G" to denote the curvature tensor of
> Gravity and that appears to be uncannily fortuitous in my
> equation for God: God=G_uv. I'm afraid we cannot shed tears
> over the fact that both Gravity and God begin with a Gee.
>
> Before commenting on his arguments over "which curvature tensor"
> should be "God".. I will introduce a related statement of his
> from a letter of Dec. 23, 2003:
>
>
> [Chris Isham, 12-23-2003]
>
> Separate from this are his [Sir Roger Penrose's] beliefs that it is
> general relativity that is in some way responsible for the
> 'collapse of the wave function'. Although this is more plausible
> a priori, once again it is important to emphasize that there is
> *no* actual theory that describes this effect. At the moment, it
> is at best a hand-waving suggestion and plays no role in any of
> the current quantum gravity or foundation of quantum theory
> research programmes.
>
> But even if there was some quantum gravity effect of this type,
> and even if it could be related to brain growth in some way, why
> should the latter involve the equations of *classical* general
> relativity? (which you use in your equation God=T_{uv} The
> equations of the (as yet unknown) quantum theory of gravity will
> surely be totally different.
>
> So it seems to me that there is no proven scientific link
> between general relativity, quantum theory and brain structure.
> So even if your conjecture is true that there is a relation
> between brain growth and the experience of 'God', I think it is
> scientifically quite wrong to say that there is a *proof* that
> this is connected with general relativity. Of course, any one
> is entitled to make conjectures, but that is far from being the
> same thing as a proof!
>
> Sorry to be so negative again, but I presume you do want my
> honest views on your ideas rather than just a polite put-off:-)
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Well... adding the above two different letters together, it
> is plain that Chris Isham has a totally misconceived, and in
> addition, even backwards upside down understanding of the theory:
>
>
> 1. Again it is painfully apparent that Chris has yet to
> discover his gaffe of confusing "real" space with
> "seen" space. He is not aware that "God" is a
> mental/perceptual phenomena whereby the less than
> fully grown brain produces a "curved image" of reality.
>
> 2. Roger Penrose's Quantum Brain gravity is NOT assumed as
> a HYPOTHESIS of my theory, it is deduced as a RESULT
> of my theory. My discovery confirms Penrose's theory,
> not vice versa! Isham greatly errs here.
>
> 3. Not only has he confused the 2 spaces of "reality", he
> has conceived of the theory backwards. He supposes that
> I start with Penrose's conjecture of Quantum Brain Gravity,
> assume that controls braingrowth, and results in a
> "classical Einsteinian curvature" in the brain.
> This is TOTALLY WRONG! the facts of the matter are
> actually these:
>
> A. It is experimentally known that there are 4 dimensions
> in Psychology (experimental, 2-decimal, Psychometry).
>
> B. Hammond discovered the REASON for this in that the brain
> is Cartesionally cleaved due to the (Euclidean) metric
> of real space (Hammond, 1994). Hence it is XYZt that
> is the physical cause of ENPg of Psychometry space.
>
> C. Hammond discovered that Psychometry space is "curved"
> and since XYZt causes the ENPg dimensions of Psychometry
> space... the cause of this curvature is identified, sui
> generous, as a curvature of XYZt spacetime.. e.g. Gravity.
>
> D. The direct biological cause of the curvature is easily
> proven to be the Secular Trend in braingrowth.
>
> E. From these discoveries, Sir Roger Pensrose's Brain Gravity
> (Penrose-Hameroff Microtubule theory) is identified as
> "most likely" the physical source of the "gravity" in
> that this mechanism would control "brain growth" and
> thus could cause the classical gravitational curvature
> in perceptual (subjective) space.
>
> F. Finally, we note that the discovery is a compelling
> if not overwhelming explanation of God, without even
> mentioning Quantum Gravity... although obviously the
> involvement of Penrose's/Hameroff's thesis is now of
> compelling interest in this regard.
>
> So, from these facts, we see that there is NO QUESTION that
> the curvature tensor involved has to be G_uv and not R_uv or some
> other tensor, since it is apparent that "a gravitational curvature
> of spacetime" (XYZt) is the cause of the curvature of ENPg, and
> Einstein has already shown that no other tensor than G_uv will
> qualify as a description of this curvature.
>
> Now, finally, in view of Isham's total failure to comprehend the
> theory, we have insult added to injury with his precipitous summary
> remarks such as:
>
> December 15, 2003
> So, to be honest, I do not personally
> think that you have any sort of
> "Scientific proof of God"
>
> December 23, 2003
> So even if your conjecture is true that
> there is a relation between brain growth
> and the experience of 'God', I think it
> is scientifically quite wrong to say that
> there is a *proof* that this is connected
> with general relativity.
>
>
> March 8, 2004
> it seems to me that at best you could say
> is that you have demonstrated an *analogy*
> between certain ideas in psychology and
> ideas in general relativity.
>
>
> None of these remarks can be supported by (a correct) factual
> argument. All of them are precipitous, preemptive, and reflect
> the writers hard bitten presumptions rather than any objective facts.
>
>
> SUMMARY
>
> In view of this failure of our leading authorities in Sci-Rel
> to be able to diligently pursue the truth in such an extremely
> important matter... I think it not unreasonable to ask the
> COUNTERBALANCE FOUNDATION to do something to ameliorate the
> situation.
> There is little doubt in my mind that Chris Isham is capable
> of evaluating this theory... if he but had the time to discover
> that it actually is a theory (not to say a proven discovery).
> Unfortunately he is too busy studying Quantum Gravity and
> William Dembski is too busy studying Intelligent Design
> (ironically my discovery confirms Intelligent Design!).
>
> Isn't there SOMETHING the COUNTERBALANCE FOUNDATION can do
> to help evaluate this discovery... a committee... a hearing...
> a discussion... something?
> I have already published the discovery in the peer reviewed
> literature (Noetic Journal 2003) and a copy of that paper is posted
> on my website at:
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
>
> but I would strongly suggest you read the first 4 Large print
> pages of my website before attempting to read the paper:
>
> ====================================
> SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
>
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> mirror site:
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> ====================================
> please ask you news server to add:
> alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
> ===================================
>
> Sincerely, George Hammond, M.S. Physics (1967)
>
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin
    ... > with which they have received this remarkable discovery. ... > in what space the curvature G_uv exists! ... > curvature of real space or is even a curvature in the brain! ... > the gravitational field in the brain due to classical gravity is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin
    ... > commentaries from Drs. Isham and Dembski. ... > with which they have received this remarkable discovery. ... > curvature of real space or is even a curvature in the brain! ... > the gravitational field in the brain due to classical gravity is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin
    ... >> commentaries from Drs. Isham and Dembski. ... >> with which they have received this remarkable discovery. ... >> of the brain. ... >> the gravitational field in the brain due to classical gravity is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin
    ... >> commentaries from Drs. Isham and Dembski. ... >> with which they have received this remarkable discovery. ... >> of the brain. ... >> the gravitational field in the brain due to classical gravity is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin
    ... commentaries from Drs. Isham and Dembski. ... with which they have received this remarkable discovery. ... curvature of real space or is even a curvature in the brain! ... Gravity and that appears to be uncannily fortuitous in my ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)