GOD = RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:32:50 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
. ..
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".


Wrong again, **** for brains!


[****head Heckler]
"Dictionary.com Unabridged: exist

-verb (used without object) 1. to have actual being

[GH]: Only a human can confirm the existence of anything.

Wrong again, **** for brains!
Humans can ONLY confirm to the standards and mores of other humans. That is
NOT the same as confirming actual existance!




2. to have life or animation; live.

[GH]: Only a human can confirm that life exists

Wrong again, **** for brains!
Humans can ONLY confirm to the standards and mores of other humans. That is
NOT the same as confirming actual existance!



3. to continue to be or live

[GH]: Only a human can confirm that life exists

Wrong again, **** for brains!
Humans can ONLY confirm to the standards and mores of other humans. That is
NOT the same as confirming actual existance!



4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions;
be
found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.

[GH]: Only a human can confirm that hunger or anything else
in the world, including the world, exists


Wrong again, **** for brains!
Humans can ONLY confirm to the standards and mores of other humans. That is
NOT the same as confirming actual existance!



5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter:
He's
not living, he's merely existing.

[GH]: Only a human observer can confirm that anything is
" existing".

Wrong again, **** for brains!
Humans can ONLY confirm to the standards and mores of other humans. That is
NOT the same as confirming actual existance!




You're a numb ****head.

Since you call your own mental/psychological/social corruption, reality
...... I'll take that as praise.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:38:51 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:32:50 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
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".


Wrong again, **** for brains!


[****head Heckler]
"Dictionary.com Unabridged: exist

-verb (used without object) 1. to have actual being

[GH]: Only a human can confirm the existence of anything.

Wrong again, **** for brains!
Humans can ONLY confirm to the standards and mores of other humans. That is
NOT the same as confirming actual existance!


[Hammond]
We're discussing the case of NO PEOPLE, we're talking
about the case when there are NO PEOPLE AT ALL. Then you
tell me; if there are NO PEOPLE AT ALL; how would you
confirm that anything "existed"? ****head!
=====================================
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
=====================================

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:38:51 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

[Hammond]
We're discussing the case of NO PEOPLE, we're talking
about the case when there are NO PEOPLE AT ALL. Then you
tell me; if there are NO PEOPLE AT ALL; how would you
confirm that anything "existed"? ****head!


But NOT falling into a trap of arrogant ignorance - that mankind is needed
for everything.

How can YOU claim that NOTHING exists - under those same circumstances -
****head?

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:45:57 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:38:51 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

[Hammond]
We're discussing the case of NO PEOPLE, we're talking
about the case when there are NO PEOPLE AT ALL. Then you
tell me; if there are NO PEOPLE AT ALL; how would you
confirm that anything "existed"? ****head!


But NOT falling into a trap of arrogant ignorance - that mankind is needed
for everything.

[Hammond]
Mankind IS EVERYTHING.....if you lose part of your brain
because you fail to reach your full height and weight, YOU
LOSE AN EQUAL PERCENTAGE OF REALITY!
In fact, if the whole human race disappears, Reality
itself disappears along with us.


How can YOU claim that NOTHING exists - under those same circumstances -
****head?


[Hammond]
I can't even make sense out ot that statement.
You're starting to get incoherent.... don't go hysterical
on us just because you're getting your ass kicked.
=====================================
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
=====================================

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
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's a human opinion based on sensory perception that the universe has
been around for billions of years.This means the universe existed before
humans did. So it's not possible for humans to have created the universe.


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!


Since we know that Man does exist, any statement beginning "if Man did not
exist" is meaningless.

It's like saying that if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:45:57 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:38:51 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

[Hammond]
We're discussing the case of NO PEOPLE, we're talking
about the case when there are NO PEOPLE AT ALL. Then you
tell me; if there are NO PEOPLE AT ALL; how would you
confirm that anything "existed"? ****head!


But NOT falling into a trap of arrogant ignorance - that mankind is needed
for everything.

[Hammond]
Mankind IS EVERYTHING.....


That's only YOUR mentally corrupt and insane delusion!

if you lose part of your brain
because you fail to reach your full height and weight, YOU
LOSE AN EQUAL PERCENTAGE OF REALITY!
In fact, if the whole human race disappears, Reality
itself disappears along with us.

Just the same toilet crap you've always bellowed .. nothing more!





How can YOU claim that NOTHING exists - under those same circumstances -
****head?


[Hammond]
I can't even make sense out ot that statement.

Of course not - it's based on your own insane, psychotic delusions.



You're starting to get incoherent.... don't go hysterical
on us just because you're getting your ass kicked.

Certainly not by you ............ **** for brains.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:13:31 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


[John Ratsmith]
That's only YOUR mentally corrupt and insane delusion!

Just the same toilet crap you've always bellowed .. nothing more!

Of course not - it's based on your own insane, psychotic delusions.

Certainly not by you ............ **** for brains.


[Hammond]
Screw jackass; you had your chance, you have nothing to say.
I'm not replying you any further.
=====================================
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
=====================================

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:13:31 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


[John Ratsmith]
That's only YOUR mentally corrupt and insane delusion!

Just the same toilet crap you've always bellowed .. nothing more!

Of course not - it's based on your own insane, psychotic delusions.

Certainly not by you ............ **** for brains.


[Hammond]
Screw jackass; you had your chance, you have nothing to say.
I'm not replying you any further.

Heard THAT crap lie before too!.
Have you EVER said anything that wasn't eityher insane, or a lie - or both?

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:09:01 +0100, "Andy F."
wrote:


[Andy F.]
There's a human opinion based on sensory perception that the universe has
been around for billions of years.

[Hammond]
There is overwhelming evidence based on scientific
deduction that *IF* a person existed a billion years ago,
then he would have indeed observed the Universe to exist. I
throughly agree with that and anybody who doesn't is
certifiably either crazy or incompetent.

[Andy F.]
This means the universe existed before
humans did.


[Hammond]
WRONG, DEAD WRONG ANDY.

1) The "existence", of anything, depends entirely on the
sensory perception of Man. There IS NO definition
of the word "existence" that is independent of the
action of a HUMAN observer.
Proof: If all men died tomorrow at 9am, there
would no longer be any way to ascertain at 9:01am
if ANYTHING whatsoever "existed". The word
"existence" has no meaning whatsoever
without the existence of human beings.

2) But what your statement above says, is that
circumstantial evidence indicates (indeed
conclusively) that *IF* a human observer existed
a billion years ago, then he "would have" observed
that the Universe "existed". And I thoroughly
agree with that statement.

3) However, in point of fact, no such human observer
did exist a billion years ago, therefore, by paragraph
1 above, the Universe actually did *NOT* "exist"
a billion years ago.... even though it "would have"
if anybody was around to see it.

[Andy F.]
So it's not possible for humans to have created the universe.


[Hammond]
Wrong again.
The above proof demonstrates conclusively that Man
"caused" the Universe to come into "existence" since ONLY A
HUMAN can confirm that anything "exists".
In short, "existence" is a PROPERTY of the human mind. No
people, no existence, of anything!
=====================================
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
=====================================

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:09:01 +0100, "Andy F."
wrote:


[Andy F.]
There's a human opinion based on sensory perception that the universe has
been around for billions of years.

[Hammond]
There is overwhelming evidence based on scientific
deduction that *IF* a person existed a billion years ago,
then he would have indeed observed the Universe to exist. I
throughly agree with that and anybody who doesn't is
certifiably either crazy or incompetent.

[Andy F.]
This means the universe existed before
humans did.


[Hammond]
WRONG, DEAD WRONG ANDY.

1) The "existence", of anything, depends entirely on the
sensory perception of Man. There IS NO definition
of the word "existence" that is independent of the
action of a HUMAN observer.
Proof: If all men died tomorrow at 9am, there
would no longer be any way to ascertain at 9:01am
if ANYTHING whatsoever "existed". The word
"existence" has no meaning whatsoever
without the existence of human beings.

2) But what your statement above says, is that
circumstantial evidence indicates (indeed
conclusively) that *IF* a human observer existed
a billion years ago, then he "would have" observed
that the Universe "existed". And I thoroughly
agree with that statement.

An event has to happen BEFORE it can be observed.The light from an object
has to travel to your eyes before you can see it.
If the object is close by, this takes a few billionths of a second.When you
look at the sun, you're seeing what was there 8 minutes ago.And if you look
through a powerful telescope, you can observe events which hapened millions
of years ago.

3) However, in point of fact, no such human observer
did exist a billion years ago, therefore, by paragraph
1 above, the Universe actually did *NOT* "exist"
a billion years ago.... even though it "would have"
if anybody was around to see it.

[Andy F.]
So it's not possible for humans to have created the universe.


[Hammond]
Wrong again.
The above proof demonstrates conclusively that Man
"caused" the Universe to come into "existence" since ONLY A
HUMAN can confirm that anything "exists".
In short, "existence" is a PROPERTY of the human mind. No
people, no existence, of anything!

But a human can't confirm that something exists until after it exists.Which
would make it logically impossible for anything to come into existence.