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

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
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.

Stop trying to pretend that you are actually a valid, sane and rational
scientist!

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:37:14 -0700 (PDT), darwinist
wrote:

On Apr 21, 8:08 am, Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Apr 20, 4:55 pm, "ShivverMeTimbers"
wrote:


[Jerry Kraus]
In the West, they are often intimately related as well -- the modern
scientific method is derived from the activities of analytical
theologians such as Saint Thomas Aquinas and the medaeval scholastics,
who sought to find a higher unity in nature through the concept of
"theory" -- from "Theos", or "God".


[Darwinist]
"Theory" doesn't come from "Theos", it comes from "Theoria" meaning "A
viewing", or "contemplating", from "Theor" (view).


[Hammond]
Darwin is right about the Greek etymology of the word
"theory" as any dictionary will confirm.
However, I am rather persuaded by Kraus's suspicion that
there is in fact a (much more ancient) connection between
the definition "to look at" and the word "God". My bet is
the world "theos" is actually anciently derived from the
word "thoria" (to view, or look at). My hunch is based on
the fact that the phenomenon of "God" is essentially, and
mainly, a (seemingly supernatural" or transcendental)
"visual phenomenon". IOW the word "God" may have originally
referred to the seemingly supernatural and transcendental
nature of human perception, especially the perception of
other peoples' identities.



Many scientists have been religious, true, and many others have been
denounced or persecuted by religious organisations/authories (e.g.
galileo, darwin).


[Hammond]
According to my knowlege there has never been a scientist
of any note who had the slightest clue as to what God is,
perhaps with the exception of DesCartes. Both Newton, and
Einstein had very elementary understandings of what the
phenomenon of "God" actually is.
Newton for the most part merely quoted the religious
opinions of others. Einstein wasn't even aware that there
is an anthropomorphic God and believed in Spinoza's quite
ignorant Stoic pantheism.

It annoys me when religion tries to take credit for science. Science
and religion are two separate means of gaining knowledge. Science is
better. Some people practice both.


[Hammond]
Horse****... Science by definition is capable of
explaining any "physical phenomenon" including "God". What
most people don't realized is that the "phenomenon of God"
is a Relativistic perceptual phenomenon. Religion is
Relativistic Psychology you might call it.

What you don't realize, or recognize when it is shown to you, is that the
vast majority of people, including scientists and theologists, completely
trash YOUR crap!

"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!

"Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ex·ist Audio Help /?g'z?st/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[ig-zist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-verb (used without object) 1. to have actual being; be: The world exists,
whether you like it or not.
2. to have life or animation; live.
3. to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be
found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's
not living, he's merely existing.


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

[Origin: 1595-1605; L ex(s)istere to exist, appear, emerge, equiv. to ex-
ex-1 + sistere to stand] "

YOUR mentally corrupt definition isn't even close!

"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 writes:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:41:52 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond wrote:

13-2nd order factors = 13 Olympian gods of the
Greco-Roman Pantheon

Which god crashed the Dodekatheon?


Modern Science (HAMMOND, 2003) has discovered the origin
of the ancient Greek DODEKATHEON (The 12 Olympian gods).

You can't very well claim that the number 13 is somehow
special to religions because the Greeks had 12 gods in
their dodekatheon, now can you? The membership varied
but the membership was always limited to 12. Look at the
word itself - DODEKAtheon!

And if I was looking for numeric patterns in classical
religions, I may notice that two of the largest, Christianity
and Hinduism, both have a concept of a Trinity.

So let's summarize:

30 Hindu deities - bzzzt. Plenty more, by the millions.
13 gods in the Olympic Dodekatheon - bzzzt. Too bad you don't know
enough Greek to know what "Dodekatheon" meant. Personally, if I
were to cook up an idea as stupid as yours, I may have seen 12
in the Dodekatheon and 12 Apostles and claim the number 12 is
significant in religions somehow.
3 parts of a Trinity: bzzzt. You latched onto something rather weak, 4
Gospel apostles instead.
1 God in Monotheism? Dingdingding! You finally got a number right!

[snip gibberish]

Did you write that program that takes scientific sounding words
and generates syntactically correct but meaningless sentences from
them, or did you get someone to modify the gibberish generator in
the "Hipcrime" program that someone used to flood usenet recently?

"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.