"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.

On Apr 20, 11:53 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)

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

Here's your scientific proof of God, Hammond: God and the Universe
are identical.

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

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:28:30 GMT, George Hammond
wrote:

What Science DOESN'T KNOW is that the Anthropic Principle
was actually discovered thousands of years ago by Religion.

Religion never discovered anything.

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

Wrong, ie. if a new species is discovered it doesn't mean that it
didn't exist before that.

; since the testimony of observers is
the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist.

The rest wrong conclusions snipped.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:50:51 -0400, Mani Deli
wrote:

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

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:28:30 GMT, George Hammond
wrote:

What Science DOESN'T KNOW is that the Anthropic Principle
was actually discovered thousands of years ago by Religion.

Religion never discovered anything.

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


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

Wrong, ie. if a new species is discovered it doesn't mean that it
didn't exist before that.

[Hammond]
Horse's ass; NOTHING EXISTED before Man arrived, because
"EXISTENCE" is a HUMAN PERCEPTION.... no people, no
existence.
YOU THINK the Universe would still exist if the human race
became extinct, such a belief is sheer STUPIDITY.
If there were NO PEOPLE; how would anyone know the
Universe existed? Stupid.

=====================================
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:

If there were NO PEOPLE; how would anyone know the
Universe existed? Stupid.

Your gawd, wouldn't it know, stupid horsearse (btw, strange nick, you
have)?

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

On Apr 21, 7:28*am, "marc" wrote:
wrote in message

...

http://www.insolitology.com/topten/g...y/hammond.html

Also check out:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/George_Hammond

ROFL! That's fanstastic. Thanks for the link!

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

The first time I saw it, I thought it *was* parody. I think it was
George, along with the Heaven's Gate cult that showed me that the
online world might have become *too* accessible.

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

GOD = COMPLETE RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPOCENTRIC PRINCIPLE.

Heh, heh. I'm no physicist, but even *I* get that one. g

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!