On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:25:37 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
wrote:

On Apr 20, 9:53*pm, George Hammond wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:03:06 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist



wrote:

[Hammond]
* *Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
"observables exist because observers exist". *After all, it
doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if there was
no such thing as an observer, then there would be no such
thing as observables; since the testimony of observers is
the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist.

[Immortalist]
If a system observable is a property of the system state that can be
determined by some sequence of physical operations and if there was no
such thing as an observer, then it is not determined that there would
or would not be such things as observables even if the testimony of
observers is the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist since
whether there is or is not someone existing doesn't determine
determinability and the possibility of abstract thought processes
whether they exist or not.

[Hammond]
* *Immortalist, thanks for your refreshing post. *Out of 11
posts to this target article so far, you are the ONLY ONE
who has attempted to say something on topic. *However, you
have COIMPLETELY missed the point!
* *You have FAILED to distinguish between two fundamentally
DIFFERENT cases:

CASE 1: *
* *If I turn my back and look the other way,
* *does the Moon still exist?
* * * * * (correct answer, YES)

CASE 2:
* *If the human race never existed or became
* *totally EXTINCT, would the Moon "exist".
* * * *(correct answer, NO)


[Immortalist]
Case two depends upon how you are defining "exist"


[Hammond]
NO KIDDING, Sherlock! Can't you get it through your head
that "exist" is, and ONLY is, absolutely defined as: "A
human opinion based on sensory perception". There is no
OTHER definition of the word "exists". Ergo, if there are
no humans, then there is no "existence" of anything.
Physics cannot "define" mass, length and time. What is
done is that someone holds up a brass cylinder, a platinum
rod and a cesium clock and says to the assembled human race:
"Do you all agree that these 3 objects are specimens of what
we commonly called mass, length and time", and when the
majority yells back enthusiastically, "Yea", then it becomes
established official convention that those 3 objects are the
"official standards of mass, length and time" upon which the
entire edifice of Science, Physics, technology, economics
and indeed civilization itself is then erected.
Obviously then, the existence of reality itself
(spacetime) is nothing more than a "Human sense perception",
and equally obviously, if Man did not exist, then reality
itself would not exist. That's hardly rocket science!



[Immortalist]
since if humans
never existed there may or may not have been satellites orbiting stars
in various ways and electromagnetic radiation propagating through
space, but human abstraction about such objects probably wouldn't take
place but would still be possible if bodies and brains can emulate
human consciousness and reasoning abilities even if they didn't exist
or hadn't existed yet.


[Hammond]
The conjecture that it is possible to artificially
construct a human being, or human intelligence, is just
that, a conjecture. Furthermore, it would not impact the
present discussion, since, once again, you would have a
"human" observer, whether it was created in a test tube or
the womb, makes no difference.
By this time, I would think that you have realized that
Man is in fact "God", and that conclusion incidentally is
entirely in line with majority religious belief, where "God"
is generally believed to be "an invisible man".
The SPOG, in fact proves that this historic belief is
scientifically true, and dramatically explains why this
perfect man is "invisible".


[Immortalist]
In logic though any hypothetical/conditional (if/then) statement is
open to questioning. Usually the actual evidence is not in the
conditional statement.

[Hammond]
Ok.

[Immortalist]
If humans didn't exist then X would either be
or not be the case, why? Some evidence is usually presented that helps
determine it one way or the other. I mean what reason is there for
determining it one way or the other? Again this hinges upon how you
are using the phrase "existence of the moon".


[Hammond]
OF COURSE; the entire argument rests on the "operational
definition of existence".
The ENTIRE THEORY OF RELIGION RESTS ON THE operational
definition of "existence".
Science simply PRESUMES A PRIORI the existence of Man
(i.e. presumes the existence of the "observer").
Religion does not, and in fact pointedly exerts, that the
existence of Man is what "causes" the existence of physical
reality.


[Immortalist]
Does the existence of humans who can determine, determine or create
the possibility of determinability in the first place?

[Hammond]
YES, a thousand times, YES!

[Immortalist]
Of course
humans couldn't determine in the first place if determinability were
not possible prior to their existence, right?

[Hammond]
Apparently WRONG. Religion holds that human
"consciousness/perception/mind" just suddenly appeared i.e.
created itself out of nothing 200,000 years ago when our
species appeared. This is referred to as the Biblical
"Creation" since as explained above, reality itself came
into being concommitently with the appearance of Man.
The Bible figures this to be 6,000 years ago, but
anthropology didn't exist when the Bible was written, and we
now know that Man (our species) appeared approximately
200,000 years ago although actually not in large numbers
until 100,000 years ago. This is scientifically the
explanation of the Genesis "Creation", and is absolutely
scientifically CORRECT.


[Hammond]
* *I am talking about CASE 2, not CASE 1 for Christ's sake.
The Biblical Creation, and "God", are explained by
CASE 2 and not by CASE 1. *And the Anthropic Principle
applies to CASE 2, not CASE 1, for Heaven's sake!
* *Please get up to speed... do a little thinking before you
try and argue with me.... the best minds in Science are
convinced of the truth of the *Anthropic Principle, ya know,
including Stephen Hawking and the late great John Wheeler as
well as the entire scientific community.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================