Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin
From: George Hammond (nowhere_at_nomailspam.net)
Date: 12/07/04
- Next message: Maleki: "A case of violation of causality? :-)"
- Previous message: Cyde Weys: "Re: The physics of a space elevator"
- In reply to: Steve Ralph: "Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin"
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 02:47:32 GMT
"Steve Ralph" <steve@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41b45bff$0$29757$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>
> "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?
[Hammond]
None of your business.
>
> 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)
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
- Next message: Maleki: "A case of violation of causality? :-)"
- Previous message: Cyde Weys: "Re: The physics of a space elevator"
- In reply to: Steve Ralph: "Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin"
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
