On Apr 21, 7:03*am, Immortalist wrote:
* *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.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable

Humans must exist for determinability to be possible.

Therefore All possibilities of determinability require humans to be
possible?

Isn't that like saying that humans were not possible before they
exsisted and if so how is it possible that they could exist if they
are not possible?

Immortalist,
correct, the universe, life and god are not possible to exist yet
there is evidence of the existence of the first two. A paradox.
Peter Riedt

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)

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
=====================================

wrote in message
...


http://www.insolitology.com/topten/georgehammond.htm
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/...4-10/6530.html
http://www.pacifier.com/~dkossy/hammond.html


Also check out:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/George_Hammond

The drivel that Hammond writes is so laughably absurd that it is virtually
impossible to distinguish between it and parody of it.

Acronym aficionados will appreciate that Hammond's assertion would be more
accurately represented by:

GOD = COMPLETE RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPOCENTRIC PRINCIPLE.

Marc

Sers marc et all

marc schrieb:

The drivel that Hammond writes is so laughably absurd that it is virtually
impossible to distinguish between it and parody of it.

Oh, wait till he reads that - bad boy!

richie :-))
--
Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:14:36 +0000, George Hammond wrote:

GOD = RAP

As a theologian, you need to have more of an understand what you are
reading and less blinded by your own wit and self-wonder.

Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
"observables exist because observers exist"

Fact is, it does not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

St. Augustine, who bowed to science and reason before scripture, and all
early intellectuals of the church drew heavily off of what came before
them and used science and reason (Bacon), not scripture, to break away
from the greek past into what is termed the 'scientific revolution' not
the 'scriptural regurgitation'.

god = Faith

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
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)


Now wait a minute!
ALL of your posts, and years of actions, have shown just the opposite!
You think, act and post exactly like someone who has turned his back on
REALITY - and then pretended it doesn't exist.



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.

As usual, your crap says nothing.

George Hammond writes:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:14:08 -0700, Uncle Al
wrote:

Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. How is India
doing, Georgie boy?

Idiot.

[Hammond]
The SPOG explains and PROVES why there are 30 demigods in
Hindii; because there are 30 first order eigenvectors in
Psychometric correlation matricess, worldwide .

Can't you read? Uncle Al wrote that Hinduism has 360 million deities,
not just 30. A "proof" that "proves" a wrong answer is pretty worthless,
don't you think? If I came up with a "proof" that "proved" why 2+2=12345
it would instantly be recognized as absurd.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:16:24 +0000, ZerkonX wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:14:36 +0000, George Hammond wrote:

[Hammond]
Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
"observables exist because observers exist"

[Zerkoff]
Fact is, it does not.


[Hammond]
Fact is, it does. Stephen Hawking says:

" The Anthropioc Principle can be paraphrased as:
We see the Universe the way it is because we exist"
(S. Hawking, Brief History of Time, p. 128)

Go explain it to him, Jackass.
=====================================
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
=====================================

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:36:21 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:14:08 -0700, Uncle Al
wrote:

Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. How is India
doing, Georgie boy?

Idiot.

[Hammond]
The SPOG explains and PROVES why there are 30 demigods in
Hindii; because there are 30 first order eigenvectors in
Psychometric correlation matricess, worldwide .

Can't you read? Uncle Al wrote that Hinduism has 360 million deities,
not just 30.


[Hammond]
His statement is manifestly absurd, there aren't 360
million names in the Human Language.
On the other hand there ARE 30 eigenvectors in every
comprehensive Psychometric correlation matrix, so there
CERTAINLY ARE 30 "DEMIGODS" in Religion; scientifically
speaking. Stop trying to pretend you're not an aggravated
halfwit heckler.


A "proof" that "proves" a wrong answer is pretty
worthless,

[Hammond]
The SPOG fully proves the (rational) part of his
statmment (30 demigods) is correct (and they all have names
and faces).... the quip about 360 million gods is obviously
aggravated spute.
=====================================
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:

[Hammond]
Fact is, it does. Stephen Hawking says:

" The Anthropioc Principle can be paraphrased as:
We see the Universe the way it is because we exist"
(S. Hawking, Brief History of Time, p. 128)

Do you think that quote means the same as:

"The Universe is the way it is because we exist"?

or perhaps,

"The Universe exists because we see it"?

because you seem to think Hawking's statement means one, or both, of the
above.