GOD = RAP

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

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:03:06 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist

reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> 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
=====================================

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:03:06 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> 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.

panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:b9ee3335-f6b6-4396-b5e3-168750857a4d@t63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

http://www.insolitology.com/topten/georgehammond.htmhttp://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2004-10/65...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.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:36:21 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.org> writes:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:14:08 -0700, Uncle Al
UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> 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.


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.

The SPOG fully proves the (rational) part of his
statmment (30 demigods) is correct (and they all have names
and faces)....

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:50:51 -0400, Mani Deli
nothing@inter.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:14:36 GMT, George Hammond
Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:28:30 GMT, George Hammond
Nowhere1@notspam.org> 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
=====================================

George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:50:51 -0400, Mani Deli
noth...@inter.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:14:36 GMT, George Hammond
Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:28:30 GMT, George Hammond
Nowhe...@notspam.org> 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?

Good point in that hundreds of religions have discovered their
gods although it looks like all of them existed before and
after that "discovery". You should be more specific when you
are specifying which god it is you believe in. Greek, Roman,
Zoroastrian, Norse etc. There are so many to choose from.



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 certainly feel important. The world does not care about
humans any more than it does about fleas.

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.

The fleas would still notice so the world would continue just
fine.

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]

George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.org> writes:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:14:08 -0700, Uncle Al
UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> 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]

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

[Hammond]

[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)

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:28:30 GMT, George Hammond
Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:

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

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.

On Apr 20, 4:55 pm, "ShivverMeTimbers" <nom...@everever.invalid
wrote:



You cant see the forest for the trees.
You are looking at humanity through an electron microscope.

The only goal of any religion is to control all humanity
on the Earth and if possible the Entire Universe.

Science is an evolutionary step above Religion
but has been dominated by religion for religious ends.

Maybe one day Raw Science will recognize the HUMAN as
being a sacred animal then we can eliminate religion
all together and together we can understand
the universe in a nice and comfortable way.

Religion is ancient forms of Government that originated
prior to the Scientific Methodology.
We alive today are doomed to suffer because it will not die easily.
It seeks control by overpopulation as well as force and deception.

It ( the religious ) used to use poison to murder non-religious persons
until the 1800s when forensic science came along
and could hold such people accountable.
The crime of poisioning was punished in Roman times
by feeding the offender to the wild beast.

Religion is a sort of weapon of mass destruction
invented by ancient philosophers.
There have been einsteins all through history.
But no weapon guilty of taking so many lives prematurely as Religion.
This weapon was detonated maybe 2000 years ago and
its echos are still here today and quite some
time into the future.
Religion is little more than a Computer Like virus
infecting the human mind and transferred to the
humans with child like minds from one generation to the next.
At the time only some persons without religious contact during
the first stage of their lives are immune to being infected.

Whether you call it Christian, Moslum or Jew or Witch
or Hari Khrishna or Scientology or Mental Health.
it is all the same thing to me.

Dark Star 1970s [ Bomb # 21 ]

In China and India no clear distinction is made between literature,
science, philosophy and literature. They are all ways of
representing and understanding reality. The emphasis might differ a
bit -- more introspection in one, perhaps, more observation in another
-- but, essentially, they are using similar methods to achieve similar
goals.

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".

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:14:36 GMT, George Hammond
Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:28:30 GMT, George Hammond
Nowhere1@notspam.org> 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]

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]

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

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

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:50:51 -0400, Mani Deli
nothing@inter.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:14:36 GMT, George Hammond
Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:28:30 GMT, George Hammond
Nowhere1@notspam.org> 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 certainly feel important. The world does not care about

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