On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:46:36 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
wrote:


"Mani Deli" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:51:51 GMT, George Hammond wrote:

Horse's ass; who do you think discovered God?


God is the stupid answer to any question.

Nobody 'discovered' God because there is no
God to discover. God is a human construct,
created by humans to enslave other humans.

[Hammond]
Psychotic sinners enslave people using armies and guns.
Societies first defense against them is the political power
of Religion, that's why the discovery of the world's first
scientific proof of God is important.
Real men have always known there is a God, and what it
is, now a scientific proof has been found which will empower
and unify religion and make it accessible to the average
man.
The age of the Jewish Bible is drawing to a close,
superseded by Modern Science which has discovered the
scientific explanation and proof of God. World religion,
including Judaism, Christianity and Islam as well as Hindi
and the Oriental religions are about to move into the
scientific age.
Universal scientifically based religion has arrived with
the discovery of the world's first bona fide scientific
proof of God.
We can only regret that Anne Frank didn't live to see
it.
=====================================
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 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:37:07 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:26:14 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

[Hammond]
Nobody's laughing except wimps like you who are forced to go
cutsie.

Given that everyone else has shown how silly your assumptions
and conclusions are the only thing left is to laugh.


[Hammond]
Nobody's laughing except wimps like you who went cutsie on
me

.
If you
do not like it, learn some physics


[Hammond]
I've got 2.5 degrees in Physics asshole.

VITA FOR GEORGE HAMMOND

B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U. and who is presently Distinguished
Professor of Physics at TAMU

Peer reviewed publications:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html

Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...ammond5s1.html

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

Sers George et all

George Hammond schrieb:

I've got 2.5 degrees in Physics asshole.

What the heck are "Physics asshole"? Isn't it physic assholes?

And what is half a degree? Didn't you pass the examination?

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

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:51:26 +0200, Richard Anacker
wrote:

Sers George et all

George Hammond schrieb:

I've got 2.5 degrees in Physics asshole.

What the heck are "Physics asshole"?
Isn't it physic assholes?

[Hammond]
"Physics asshole" is the singular of "Physics assholes".

Take some more English courses.

And what is half a degree? Didn't you pass the examination?

[Hammond]
Screw, I don't feed stalkers; Ape****.
=====================================
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:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:37:07 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:26:14 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:
[Hammond]
Nobody's laughing except wimps like you who are forced to go
cutsie.
Given that everyone else has shown how silly your assumptions
and conclusions are the only thing left is to laugh.


[Hammond]
Nobody's laughing except wimps like you who went cutsie on
me
.
If you
do not like it, learn some physics


[Hammond]
I've got 2.5 degrees in Physics asshole.
That is 2.0 as there are no 0.5 degrees given.
You are outranked as I have 3.0. I finished graduate
school in physics.

But none of that matters since none of what you are
posting has anything to do with physics. You are
attempting to pervert logic and religion and somehow
make silly assumptions like the Greeks not knowing the
difference between 12 and 13 (that one brought howls of
laughter from everyone) and rewriting the number of
gods (all of which are man made creations anyway). Trying
to prove that nonexistant gods are a result of your theory
is pretty bizarre, even you must admit.

By the way, insults and swearing are not the way to win
arguments. Those who made it through school prefer logic,
reasoning and facts.


VITA FOR GEORGE HAMMOND

B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U. and who is presently Distinguished
Professor of Physics at TAMU

Peer reviewed publications:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html

Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...ammond5s1.html
=====================================
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
=====================================

Sers George et all

George Hammond schrieb:


"Physics asshole" is the singular of "Physics assholes".

Ok, so you have 2.5 degrees in "physik asshole". Is this good to be a
degreed physics asshole? And why didn't you pass your examination, it seems
as you are quite a good asshole. So the problem must have been the
physics-part, right?

And what is half a degree? Didn't you pass the examination?


Screw, I don't feed stalkers; .

Aha, failed your examination. Obviously, after having a good laugh about
your theories.

Ape****

strange name. But okay, if your parents thought it fits...

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

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:46:41 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:




[Hammond]
I've got 2.5 degrees in Physics asshole.


[Doug]
You are outranked as I have 3.0. I finished graduate
school in physics.

[Hammond]
That doesn't mean you're not an ineffectual and helpless
moron when it comes to forensically investigating a
scientific proof of God, and don't ever forget it!


[Doug]
But none of that matters since none of what you are
posting has anything to do with physics.

[Hammond]
That statement is either a monumental faux pas, or you're
a pathological liar.
Fact is Hammond has discovered that the Linear Algebra of
Psychometry Factor Analysis is CAUSALLY IDENTICAL to the
structure of linearized Gravity in Relativity thus proving
that "God" is in fact a "relativistic curvature of
subjective spacetime". QED; God exists.
Therefore the scientific Proof of God (SPOG) is DE FACTO
an "applied physics theory", and you don't know what you're
talking about.


[Doug]
You are
attempting to pervert logic and religion and somehow
make silly assumptions like the Greeks not knowing the
difference between 12 and 13 (that one brought howls of
laughter from everyone) and rewriting the number of
gods (all of which are man made creations anyway). Trying
to prove that nonexistent gods are a result of your theory
is pretty bizarre, even you must admit.


[Hammond]
Listen you over privileged PhD asshole, this amateur
philosophy crap I'm engaging in with these high school
graduate amateurs is because that's all they are capable of
discussing. They don't know what an eigenvector is, or a
2nd rank tensor. They don't even know polar from Cartesian
coordinates.... so I have to talk "philosophy" with them...
such as the "Anthropic Principle" which is a hermaphrodite
amalgam of Philosophy and Physics as you well know. But the
fact that a thousand amateurs or Liberal Arts PhD's want to
talk to me about "God" DOES NOT MEAN that the SPOG isn't a
"Physics Theory". It certainly is a Physics theory!


[Doug]
By the way, insults and swearing are not the way to win
arguments. Those who made it through school prefer logic,
reasoning and facts.


[Hammond]
I'm the one who prefers logic, reasoning and facts, not
you! There are worse transgressions of Science than
swearing; for instance the transgression YOU are guilty of
which is the high handed, overpriviliged presumptive disdain
you have for anyone claiming to have discovered a physics
proof of God.... or your blatant presumption that "Physics
cannot prove God"
Get with it kid, not only does Physics have to tackle
dirty jobs like building an Atomic Bomb (and you can bet
there was plenty of swearing while that was going on).....
Physics ALSO has to deal with the issue of finding out if
there really is a God, and if so what it is.... and that is
just what I've proved.... that "God" is a real physical
(relativistic perceptual) effect. And that's history, Mr.
You don't know what you're talking about, and excuse me
if I'm not impressed with you're PhD in Physics... I've
talked to several PhD physicists, and frankly I'm not too
impressed. Professor Chris Isham for instance showed
nothing but amateur ignorance and presumption when I talked
to him about the SPOG.... or J. Baugh, one of Finklestein's
PhD's, who showed nothing but aggravated juvenile ignorance
when it came to the phenomena of Religion... someone who
should at least know enough to be polite and cautious for
heaven's sake!
So I'm not that impressed with you're PhD in physics,
not until I find out if you can stand on one foot with your
eyes closed and point to true North all at the same time.



VITA FOR GEORGE HAMMOND

B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U. and who is presently Distinguished
Professor of Physics at TAMU

Peer reviewed publications:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html

Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...ammond5s1.html
=====================================
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:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:46:41 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



[Hammond]
I've got 2.5 degrees in Physics asshole.

[Doug]
You are outranked as I have 3.0. I finished graduate
school in physics.

[Hammond]
That doesn't mean you're not an ineffectual and helpless
moron when it comes to forensically investigating a
scientific proof of God, and don't ever forget it!

[Doug]
But none of that matters since none of what you are
posting has anything to do with physics.

[Hammond]
That statement is either a monumental faux pas, or you're
a pathological liar.
Fact is Hammond has discovered that the Linear Algebra of
Psychometry Factor Analysis is CAUSALLY IDENTICAL to the
structure of linearized Gravity in Relativity thus proving
that "God" is in fact a "relativistic curvature of
subjective spacetime". QED; God exists.
Therefore the scientific Proof of God (SPOG) is DE FACTO
an "applied physics theory", and you don't know what you're
talking about.

[Doug]
You are
attempting to pervert logic and religion and somehow
make silly assumptions like the Greeks not knowing the
difference between 12 and 13 (that one brought howls of
laughter from everyone) and rewriting the number of
gods (all of which are man made creations anyway). Trying
to prove that nonexistent gods are a result of your theory
is pretty bizarre, even you must admit.


[Hammond]
Listen you over privileged PhD asshole, this amateur
philosophy crap I'm engaging in with these high school
graduate amateurs is because that's all they are capable of
discussing.

This is pretty humorous. First you flaunt your education,
then, upon finding out you are outranked, you insult the
education. Again, you are trying to have it both ways.


They don't know what an eigenvector is, or a
2nd rank tensor. They don't even know polar from Cartesian
coordinates.... so I have to talk "philosophy" with them...
such as the "Anthropic Principle" which is a hermaphrodite
amalgam of Philosophy and Physics as you well know. But the
fact that a thousand amateurs or Liberal Arts PhD's want to
talk to me about "God" DOES NOT MEAN that the SPOG isn't a
"Physics Theory". It certainly is a Physics theory!

It is a physics theory in the same sense that Seto and
noeinstein and Henri Wilson and rbwinn and others have
what they call physics theories. You have strung together
a set of meaningless phrases and attempted to call it
science.

How many people have ever agreed with you?

By the way, where is the physics in it?

[Doug]
By the way, insults and swearing are not the way to win
arguments. Those who made it through school prefer logic,
reasoning and facts.


[Hammond]
I'm the one who prefers logic, reasoning and facts, not
you! There are worse transgressions of Science than
swearing; for instance the transgression YOU are guilty of
which is the high handed, overpriviliged presumptive disdain
you have for anyone claiming to have discovered a physics
proof of God.... or your blatant presumption that "Physics
cannot prove God"
You are the one swearing at those who disagree with you. I am
not swearing at you, only laughing. That is different.

There is no scientific proof of god since any of the thousands
of gods men have invented are only subject to belief, not
physics. They are not real. I would be more than happy to
see either scientific proof of any god or even a shred of
evidence for any god. I have spent a lot of time studying
the world's religion and have seen nothing of the sort.

Get with it kid, not only does Physics have to tackle
dirty jobs like building an Atomic Bomb (and you can bet
there was plenty of swearing while that was going on).....
Physics ALSO has to deal with the issue of finding out if
there really is a God,
There is none so you can relax now.

and if so what it is.... and that is
just what I've proved.... that "God" is a real physical
(relativistic perceptual) effect.

There has been no proof. There is unsubstantiated babble.
Nothing you have said has anything to do with proof. I have
read it over many times as I have shown it to people for a
laugh.

And that's history, Mr.
You don't know what you're talking about, and excuse me
if I'm not impressed with you're PhD in Physics... I've
talked to several PhD physicists, and frankly I'm not too
impressed.
So you wanted us to be impressed with your 2.5 degrees but
you are not impressed with 3.0 degrees. I am not surprised.

Professor Chris Isham for instance showed
nothing but amateur ignorance and presumption when I talked
to him about the SPOG.... or J. Baugh, one of Finklestein's
PhD's, who showed nothing but aggravated juvenile ignorance
when it came to the phenomena of Religion... someone who
should at least know enough to be polite and cautious for
heaven's sake!
They looked at your babble and saw it for what it was. You
can laugh at it or feel pity. There is nothing there to
believe since it has no relation to either science or a
proof.

So I'm not that impressed with you're PhD in physics,
not until I find out if you can stand on one foot with your
eyes closed and point to true North all at the same time.

Impressed no, jealous yes.
Has anyone ever agreed with your "theory"?


VITA FOR GEORGE HAMMOND

B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U. and who is presently Distinguished
Professor of Physics at TAMU

Peer reviewed publications:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html

Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...ammond5s1.html
=====================================
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 Apr 22, 5:17*am, George Hammond wrote:
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.

...the world we see in conscious experience is not the real world
itself, but merely a miniature virtual-reality replica of that world
in an internal representation. Representationalism is also known (in
psychology) as Indirect Perception, and (in philosophy) as Indirect
Realism, or Epistemological Dualism.

Why Representationalism?

As incredible as it might seem intuitively, representationalism is the
only alternative that is consistent with the facts of perception.

The Epistemological Fact (strongest theory): It is impossible to have
experience beyond the sensory surface.

Dreams, Hallucinations, and Visual Illusions clearly indicate that the
world of experience is not the same thing as the world itself.

The observed Properties of Phenomenal Perspective clearly indicate
that the world of experience is not the same as the external world
that it represents.

http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/Rep...tionalism.html

Representationalism (or indirect realism) with respect to perception
is the view that "we are never aware of physical objects, [but rather]
we are only indirectly aware of them, in virtue of a direct awareness
of an intermediary [mental] object. (Dancy, 145) Because there are
both direct and indirect objects of awareness in representationalism,
a correspondence relation arises between the mental entities directly
perceived and external objects which those mental entities represent.
And thus perceptual error occurs when the two objects of awareness do
not correspond sufficiently well. In opposition to
representationalism, both (direct) realism and idealism agree that
perception is direct and unmediated, despite their disagreements about
what the object of perception is. (Dancy, 145) In any form of direct
perception, no correspondence relationship is possible, since there is
only one object of perception. Thus only representationalism will give
rise to the view that perceptual errors exist and must be part of a
theory of perception. Nevertheless, both idealism and realism must
still account for the facts that are referred to as "perceptual
errors" by the representationalist.

http://www.dianahsieh.com/undergrad/rape.html

...representation is central to psychology as well, for the mind too
is a system that represents the world and possible worlds in various
ways. Our hopes, fears, beliefs, memories, perceptions, intentions,
and desires all involve our ideas about (our mental models of) the
world and other worlds. This is what humanist philosophers and
psychologists have always said, of course, but until recently they had
no support from science...

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.../art0162.html?


[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!


I suppose if the created the world outside the boundries of the world
represented in their head, maybe in five minutes, but I doubt it;

"…how can we know that the universe wasn't created a few minutes ago?
"
--Bertrand Russell

...suppose the universe were suddenly created five minutes ago,
complete with memories, historical and geological records, and so
forth. That is, at the moment of creation, the universe would have all
the evidence that it was billions of years old already "packed in."
How could it ever be known that the creation of the universe did not
occur five minutes ago?

The hypothesis initially seems implausible, yet how can we know that
the universe wasn't created a few minutes ago? Certainly the Five-
Minute World hypothesis is inconsistent with many of our other
beliefs. If it were true, we would have to give up these other beliefs
if we were to hold it, but how could we prove beyond any shadow of
doubt what is the case? From a purely empirical point of view, no
evidence is available which could prove that God isn't constantly
creating the universe moment by moment. In fact, as we will see in
Part III of this text, some persons who believe in predestination
eschew the notion of causality and believe God actually does create
the universe moment by moment.

Main Divisions of Philosophy
http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/i...k2.1/x924.html

----------------------------------

It seems you can think of Russell as giving the following argument: I
can prove that the world wasn't created five minutes ago only if my
evidence that it wasn't created five minutes ago establishes, beyond
any possible doubt, that the world wasn't created only five minutes
ago.

But my evidence for the claim that the world wasn't created five
minutes ago is based on my memories of previous events, and those
memories do not establish, beyond any possible doubt, that the world
wasn't created five minutes ago. Why not? Because it seems possible
that all my memories could have been placed in my mind when the world,
along with everything else, was created five minutes ago. If that had
happened, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that world
and one in which my memories of things are really memories of things
that happened more than five minutes ago. So there is some, admittedly
slight, ground for doubt about my memory evidence that the world
wasn't created five minutes ago. And since there is some ground for
doubt about my evidence, I can't prove the world wasn't created five
minutes ago.

Another way to think of it would be this. If I can prove the world
existed more than five minutes ago, there would have to be no
alternate explanation for the memories I seem to have of things that
happened more than five minutes ago. For the memories are the
evidence, and they'd only allow me to prove the world wasn't created
five minutes ago if the only possible way I would have those memories
is by actually experiencing the world more than five minutes ago. But
that's just not the only possible way I could have got those memories.
For instance, God could have created me five minutes ago and given me
what seem to be memories of things that happened long before. This
seems unlikely, but it's a possible explanation for my having these
memories. And so there is an alternate explanation for the memories
that constitute my evidence that things were going on more than five
minutes ago, and so I can't prove the world existed more than five
minutes ago.

Jacob Miller
http://www.pathways.plus.com/questions/answers_1.html

--------------------------------

Ludwig Wittgenstein - Lectures on Philosophy (1932-33)

22 Let us turn to the view, which is connected with "All that is real
is my experience", namely, solipsism of the present moment: "All that
is real is the experience of the present moment". (Cf. Wm. James'
remark "The present thought is the only thinker", which makes the
subject of thinking equivalent to the experience.) We may be inclined
to make our language such that we will call only the present
experience "experience". This will be a solipsistic language, but of
course we must not make a solipsistic language without saying exactly
what we mean by the word which in our old language meant "present".
Russell said that remembering cannot prove that what is remembered
actually occurred, because the world might have sprung into existence
five minutes ago, with acts of remembering intact. We could go on to
say that it might have been created one minute ago, and finally, that
it might have been created in the present moment. Were this latter the
situation we should have the equivalent of "All that is real is the
present moment". Now if it is possible to say the world was created
five minutes ago, could it be said that the world perished five
minutes ago? This would amount to saying that the only reality was
five minutes ago.

Why does one feel tempted to say "The only reality is the present"?
The temptation to say this is as strong as that of saying that only my
experience is real. The person who says only the present is real
because past and future are not here has before his mind the image of
something moving. past present future .This image is mispast
present future leading, just as the blurred image we would draw of our
visual field is misleading inasmuch as the field has no boundary. That
the statement "Only the present experience is real" seems to mean
something is due to familiar images we associate with it, images of
things passing us in space. When in philosophy we talk of the present,
we seem to be referring to a sort of Euclidean point. Yet when we talk
of present experience it is impossible to identify the present with
such a point. The difficulty is with the word "present". There is a
grammatical confusion here. A person who says the present experience
alone is real is not stating an empirical fact, comparable to the fact
that Mr. S. always wears a brown suit. And the person who objects to
the assertion that the present alone is real with "Surely the past and
future are just as real" somehow does not meet the point. Both
statements mean nothing.

By examining Russell's hypothesis that the world was created five
minutes ago I shall try to explain what I mean in saying that it is
meaningless. Russell's hypothesis was so arranged that nothing could
bear it out or refute it. Whatever our experience might be, it would
be in agreement with it. The point of saying that something has
happened derives from there being a criterion for its truth. To lay
down the evidence for what happened five minutes ago is like laying
down rules for making measurements. The question as to what evidence
there can be is a grammatical one. It concerns the sorts of actions
and propositions which would verify the statement. It is a simple
matter to make up a statement which will agree with experience because
it is such that no proposition can refute it, e.g., "There is a white
rabbit between two chairs whenever no observations or verifications
are being carried out." Some people would say that this statement says
more than "There is no white rabbit between the chairs", just as some
would say it means something to say the world was created five minutes
ago. When such statements are made they are somehow connected with a
picture, say, a picture of creation. Hence it is that such sentences
seem to mean something. But they are otiose, like wheels in a watch
which have no function although they do not look to be useless.

I shall try to explain further what I mean by these sentences being
meaningless by describing figures on two planes, one on plane I, which
is to be projected, and the other, on plane II, the projection:

Now suppose the mode of projecting a circle on plane I was not
orthogonal. In consequence, to say "There is a circle in plane II"
would not be quite the same as saying that there is a circle in plane
I. For a range of angles through which the circle is projected, the
figures on plane II are all more or less circular. But now suppose the
rays of light effecting the projection were allowed to vary through
any range of angles. Then what meaning has it to say there are circles
in plane II? When we give the method of projection such freedom,
assertions about the projection become meaningless, though we still
keep the picture of a circle in mind.

Russell's assertion about the creation of the world is like this. The
fact that there is a picture on plane I does not make a verifiable
projection on plane II. We are accustomed to certain pictures being
projected in a given way. But as soon as we leave this mode of
projection, statements do not have their usual significance. When I
say "That means nothing" I mean that you have altered your mode of
projection. That it seems to mean something is due to an image of well-
known things.

Ludwig Wittgenstein - Lectures on Philosophy (1932-33)
http://www.forum-global.de/soc/bibli...nslectures.htm

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:43:13 -0700 (PDT), Errol
wrote:

On Apr 23, 1:46 pm, "Andy F." wrote:


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.


Ouch! waiting in anticipation for GH to respond to that.

[Hammond]
Already responded to it..... he's too mentally chalenged to
even understand the point of the discussion.

He's mentally challenged?
He's not the one everyone's lauging at!



The universe around us is created by human perception. I agree with
this in the sense that humans "conjure" the universe out of a chaotic
background of overlapping interference patterns and through the act of
observation, give form and solidity to this reality, but why do we
create a history that according to GH does not exist.


[Hammond]
It all comes down to the perational meaning of the world
"existence" as any fool can see.

any fool can see that there is no such word as perational ...... you
mis-spelled word ....
and totally ignored the dictionary meaning of existence that I already
posted (contradicting your crap).


there IS NO operational
meaning to the world "existence" except via a human
observer.

Repeating psychotically insane bull **** only makes it smell worse!


THEREFORE, not only did Man "create the universe"
by the mere fact of his appearance 200,000 years ago, he
ALSO "created time and space, and all of history" at the
same time.

Go back to the "ward", psycho! It's time for your meds.




This is a bit
like the preacher who, when confronted by evidence of dinosaur bones,
claims that god put them there, already pre-aged at several hundred
millions of years old.

[Hammond]
the preacher is correct when you analyze the operational
meaning of "existence".

No.
When you analyze the operational meaning of "existence" - you use the
dictionary references and definitions I gave.
You DON'T use George Hammonds unscientific, arrogant, deranged delusions!




[Hammond]
Start learning Errol,
this Philawsephy bull**** is only the FOOTHILLS of the
scientific proof of God that has been discovered.... this is
just "playing with pedants and amateurs".... because they
know no Relativity.... the REAL DISCOVERY which makes all
this Philawsepy crap academic, is the fact that Hammond has
discovered that human perception is CURVED, and this PROVES
that there is an "invisible world" (called heaven" and that
there is an "invisible man" called "God" who lives there.
You're probably not even qualified to discuss Linear
Algebra and Relativity.... you're only qualified to play in
the sandbox of Philawsephy with the rest of these clowns...
whom I only talk to for publicity purposes.

Just bellowing the same old, same old, ignorant ****!