CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Speed of Time
Next: "The Einstein Hoax"
From: George Hammond on 28 Dec 2009 14:05 On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:07:52 +1300, "Geopelia" <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > >"George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message >news:vqvgj5du2nk0l80np9sn36ca2ih5gjbkt9(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:49:44 +1300, "Geopelia" >> <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>(Geopelia) >>>>>How can you have 13 symmetry axes in a cube? Everything in a cube seems >>>>>to >>>>>go in even numbers, six sides etc. >>>>>But the proof would be way above my head anyway. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> [Hammond] >>>> You don't need any proof, you can draw it with paper and >>>> pencil. There are 13 of them all right. You can see a >>>> picture of them here taken right out of the Encyclopedia >>>> Britannica: >>>> >>>> http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/35500/35520/axes_35520.htm >>>> >>>> If you count them, you'll find that there are exactly 13. >>> >>>I make it 6 of a, 8 of p, 12 of d >>>Do you count the point in the middle with d to get the 13? >>> >>> >> [Hammond] >> Congratulations, you got the right answer, 6+8+12=26. >> Only problem is you're counting both ends of each axis. >> You need to divide by two, 26/2 = 13. >> These are called the "rotational" symmetry axes of the >> cube. If you rotate the cube, 90� or 120� are 180� around >> these various axes the cube rotates back into itself again, >> which is why they are called "symmetry axes". > >G: Thank you, that explains it. I should have counted the lines, not the ends. > > [Hammond] Now you're cookin! I can't tell you how many great men in history would have given their eye teeth to know where the Egypto-Greco-Roman Dodekatheon (pantheon) came from. Cicero wrote a famous treatise called De Natura Rerum (On the Nature of the Gods) while Julius Caesar had him temporarily out of office. In this famous tract he admits to not knowing what the gods were, where they lived, how many of them there were or what they did. He apparently was totally unaware that the "gods" so-called are simply "personality types", nor did he have any idea of course why there would be 12 of them (13 actually)... i.e. that they come from the cubic cleavage geometry of the human brain. If I ever meet up with Cicero in the great beyond, I am sure that he will be utterly fascinated to hear the story of how modern science discovered what the gods are, exactly how many of them there are, and what the correlational (geometric) relationship between them actually is. Alas poor Cicero sick and aging was set upon by some of Pompey's henchmen while being carried in a litter in a last-minute halfhearted attempt to escape, and a Roman soldier unceremoniously lopped off his head. What a loss to literary posterity for he was such a great writer. >>> >>> >> >>>> >>>> Believe it or not, if you take 200 adjectives out of a >>>> dictionary that are used to describe human personality, and >>>> give them as a checklist to use to describe a given person's >>>> personality; rating them on each word from 1 to 10, and then >>>> compute a 200 x 200 correlation matrix of the words it turns >>>> out that a computer will find that there are ore EXACTLY 13 >>>> EIGENVECTORS in that 200 x 200 correlation matrix. >>>> Amazingly, the reason for this is that the brain is >>>> actually CUBIC which you can see in this diagram here, which >>>> was drawn by me: >>>> >>>> http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/5X7C01I.jpg >>>> >>>> >>>> This is exactly where the 12 OLYMPIAN GODS (13 actually) >>>> come from! >>>> And anyone who does not believe that that is a stunning >>>> scientific discovery must have a hole in his head! >> ======================================== >> GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE >> Primary site >> http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond >> Mirror site >> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com >> HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto >> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 >> ======================================= > ======================================== GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE Primary site http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond Mirror site http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 =======================================
From: George Hammond on 28 Dec 2009 14:55 On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:17:44 +1300, "Geopelia" <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: >> Amazingly, the reason for this is that the brain is >> actually CUBIC which you can see in this diagram here, which >> was drawn by me: >> >> http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/5X7C01I.jpg >> >> >> This is exactly where the 12 OLYMPIAN GODS (13 actually) >> come from! >> And anyone who does not believe that that is a stunning >> scientific discovery must have a hole in his head! > > >(Geopelia) >But would the ancient Greeks have seen an intact human brain at the time >when they first thought of the Olympian Gods? > > [Hammond] According to Herodotus the Greeks didn't dream up the Dodekatheon, they simply inherited it from the Egyptians and relabled the Egyptian gods with Greek names. later on the romans did the same thing and renamed the Greek Dodekatheon with Latin names. Point is, it all starts with the Egyptians! > >The Egyptian embalmers used to remove the brain through the nostrils, didn't >they? It wasn't preserved intact in a Canopic jar like other organs. A very >undervalued organ! > [Hammond] Well, the cubic cleavage of the brain is not immediately apparent to the untrained eye. For the same reason that the orthogonal cleavage geometry of an ordinary tree, or any plant, is not immediately apparent to the untrained eye. see: http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/SEED.jpg Or even the fact that a common Oakleaf is actually "square" is not apparent to the untrained eye. see: http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/MAPLE.jpg And yes the Egyptian embalmers did remove the brain through the nose using a giant crochet hook. Interestingly they also had small rolled up linen "tampons" which they use to insert back into the nose of the mummy after the brain was removed. An entire case of these was discovered in an ancient mortuary tomb in Egypt not long-ago. ======================================== GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE Primary site http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond Mirror site http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 =======================================
From: Geopelia on 28 Dec 2009 16:14 "George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message news:sfvhj59l91bd174f7elq6pcvtod1ldhhhn(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:07:52 +1300, "Geopelia" > <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > >> >>"George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message >>news:vqvgj5du2nk0l80np9sn36ca2ih5gjbkt9(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:49:44 +1300, "Geopelia" >>> <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>(Geopelia) >>>>>>How can you have 13 symmetry axes in a cube? Everything in a cube >>>>>>seems >>>>>>to >>>>>>go in even numbers, six sides etc. >>>>>>But the proof would be way above my head anyway. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> [Hammond] >>>>> You don't need any proof, you can draw it with paper and >>>>> pencil. There are 13 of them all right. You can see a >>>>> picture of them here taken right out of the Encyclopedia >>>>> Britannica: >>>>> >>>>> http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/35500/35520/axes_35520.htm >>>>> >>>>> If you count them, you'll find that there are exactly 13. >>>> >>>>I make it 6 of a, 8 of p, 12 of d >>>>Do you count the point in the middle with d to get the 13? >>>> >>>> >>> [Hammond] >>> Congratulations, you got the right answer, 6+8+12=26. >>> Only problem is you're counting both ends of each axis. >>> You need to divide by two, 26/2 = 13. >>> These are called the "rotational" symmetry axes of the >>> cube. If you rotate the cube, 90� or 120� are 180� around >>> these various axes the cube rotates back into itself again, >>> which is why they are called "symmetry axes". >> >>G: Thank you, that explains it. I should have counted the lines, not the >>ends. >> >> > [Hammond] > Now you're cookin! I can't tell you how many great men in > history would have given their eye teeth to know where the > Egypto-Greco-Roman Dodekatheon (pantheon) came from. > Cicero wrote a famous treatise called De Natura Rerum (On > the Nature of the Gods) while Julius Caesar had him > temporarily out of office. In this famous tract he admits > to not knowing what the gods were, where they lived, how > many of them there were or what they did. He apparently was > totally unaware that the "gods" so-called are simply > "personality types", nor did he have any idea of course why > there would be 12 of them (13 actually)... i.e. that they > come from the cubic cleavage geometry of the human brain. > If I ever meet up with Cicero in the great beyond, I am > sure that he will be utterly fascinated to hear the story of > how modern science discovered what the gods are, exactly how > many of them there are, and what the correlational > (geometric) relationship between them actually is. > Alas poor Cicero sick and aging was set upon by some of > Pompey's henchmen while being carried in a litter in a > last-minute halfhearted attempt to escape, and a Roman > soldier unceremoniously lopped off his head. What a loss to > literary posterity for he was such a great writer. (Geopelia) I like the version of his death in the TV series "Rome". They took a few liberties with history, but it made a great series. Cicero could talk to you (assuming you had a common language) and you would be able to understand what he was talking about. But how could he possibly understand the sort of thing you talk about in this thread? I grew up with the gods of Greece and Rome. They were as real to me as the Old Testament characters. My generation (in England) usually started off with a child's version of the Odyssey. I still talk to Poseidon sometimes at the beach. I like to think of him just offshore, smelling the drifting smoke from the barbecues and thinking of the hecatombs of long ago. >>>>> Believe it or not, if you take 200 adjectives out of a >>>>> dictionary that are used to describe human personality, and >>>>> give them as a checklist to use to describe a given person's >>>>> personality; rating them on each word from 1 to 10, and then >>>>> compute a 200 x 200 correlation matrix of the words it turns >>>>> out that a computer will find that there are ore EXACTLY 13 >>>>> EIGENVECTORS in that 200 x 200 correlation matrix. >>>>> Amazingly, the reason for this is that the brain is >>>>> actually CUBIC which you can see in this diagram here, which >>>>> was drawn by me: >>>>> >>>>> http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/5X7C01I.jpg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is exactly where the 12 OLYMPIAN GODS (13 actually) >>>>> come from! >>>>> And anyone who does not believe that that is a stunning >>>>> scientific discovery must have a hole in his head!
From: Geopelia on 28 Dec 2009 16:22 "George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message news:2sthj5lbnjpf09cfgjco83je6a7hfjjh9o(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 02:44:04 +1300, "Geopelia" > <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > >> >>"George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message >>news:7asgj5do09o939v2jp54o9j7g5i9e3n4rg(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:48:38 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." >>> <paul(a)hovnanian.com> wrote: >>> >>>>George Hammond wrote: >>>>> >>>>> CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE >>>>> >>>>> Copyright: George Hammond 2009 >>>>> >>>>> As I've said many times before my best estimate of the >>>>> probability of life after death is only about 30%. >>>> >>>>What sort of measurement or analysis do you base that 30% on? >>>> >>>>Why not 3%? Or 3ppm? >>>> >>>> >>> [Hammond] >>> Excellent question. Naturally I will immediately answer >>> any on topic serious and competent inquiry. >>> Unfortunately, I have to spend most of my time beating >>> back a horde of nonprofessional and anti-intellectual >>> hecklers, not to mention not a few atheistic and outraged >>> scientists. >>> The answer to your question is that the actual numerical >>> probability that I have assigned is based upon a balanced >>> weighing of the various lines of evidence involved. >>> Bear in mind that I have been studying the matter for >>> nearly 30 years, full time, and have in fact published a >>> major discovery in Psychology (the discovery of the >>> long-sought for Structural Model of Personality) and have >>> also discovered and published the world's first bona fide >>> scientific proof of God. >>> I only mention all that in order to establish my >>> credentials in the fields of Psychology and Theology. As >>> far as Physics goes my credentials are established by the >>> normal Curriculum Vitae which shows that I have a Masters >>> degree in Physics. >>> >>> Okay, having established my credentials in the various >>> fields which bear on the determining of this probability I >>> can sum up the situation briefly as this: >>> >>> 1. Historically, the theory of life after death is at >>> least as old as the Pyramids upon whose walls details >>> of it remain engraved in miles of carefully chiseled >>> hieroglyphics where they can be seen to this day. >>> Furthermore, a psychological and theological >>> investigation of this long history shows unequivocally >>> that the root origin of the idea is intimately connected >>> with the universal human experience of the ordinary >>> nocturnal dream. >>> In short, the only reason why the theory appears >>> plausible enough to have survivedfor 5000 years is that >>> people are strongly persuaded that the phenomenon of >>> nocturnal dreaming is significant evidence of something >>> as yet not fully explained. >>> This latter fact then tells me as an experienced >>> physicist and now accomplished psychologist and >>> theologian that the odds-on probability of their >>> actually being such a thing MUST lie somewhere in the >>> low double digits percentagewise. And I would finally >>> note, that this low double digits opinion appears to be >>> well inline with average public opinion worldwide. >>> >>> 2. From that assessment of 5000 years of recorded >>> history on the subject we then move forward into the >>> scientific argument. And here I am referring >>> specifically to the cytoskeleton-microtubule-computer >>> hypothesis. Let's call it the cytoskeleton-brain >>> hypothesis (CB). >>> 2000 years ago the New Testament writers (St. Paul) >>> using the scientific language of his day advanced a >>> rather specific description of how life after death >>> actually works in I Corinthians chapter 15 vs >>> 35-55. And in what can only be classified now as a >>> colossal coincidence, it turns out that according to >>> my investigations (and confirmed by Stuart Hameroff >>> himself), the CB could very "possibly" resurrect the >>> body to a "living-virtual-reality" inside the CB, just >>> exactly as St. Paul described it. St. Paul referred >>> to it as a "Spiritual body" in the New Testament. >>> >>> 3. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the historical >>> probability, which I assume to be no more than say >>> 15% judging from historical, public and professional >>> opinion, is now raised by virtue of this >>> cytoskeleton-computer possibility to something more >>> like a 30% probability. Simply because the >>> historical belief which obtained at least a 15% >>> credibility with world opinion, now has a plausible and >>> indeed even remarkable scientific explanation. In >>> short, The probability has just been DOUBLED by virtue >>> of the discovery of a plausible scientific explanation. >>> As you can see, it's really a scientific guessing >>> game at this point, a sort of "you bet your life" kind >>> of guessing game. And my guess is that the probability >>> of a real life after death is somewhere around 30%. >>> Now 30% is a long long ways from 51% and even 51% >>> is a long ways from a sure thing. On the other hand >>> given the import of the matter, a quite credible >>> probability of 30% is something that simply cannot be >>> ignored! >>> >>> Hope that goes some ways towards answering your question. >> >>(Geopelia) >>Isn't it just wishful thinking? >> >> > [Hammond] > No, and that is precisely the point about the theory of > life after death and why it won't go away. > There is an undeniable 5000-year-old observational > history of a well-defined scientific possibility that it > could be real. > It is easy to dismiss wishful thinking, it is impossible > to dismiss observational facts, and that is why the theory > won't go away. > These observational facts are as follows: > > 1. There is an invisible world ( a.k.a. part of reality is > invisible. This can now be actually scientifically > measured to three significant figures. > > 2. This invisible reality is caused by a deficit in human > growth, specifically in the brain. And this deficit > is intimately connected with a well known > hallucinatory reality known as the nocturnal dream. > > 3. It is now known that there is an enormous > "cytoskeleton-brain" which is optically interconnected > and could easily read out a lifetime of "real-life > virtual reality" in a split second at the moment of > death. And that this would precisely fit the > Christian theory of the resurrection of the body at > death as outlined in the New Testament in I Corinthians > chapter 15, vs 35-55. > > 4. Any competent scientist can see that the last futile hope > of an ignoramus to try and classify this as "wishful > thinking" must be ruled out of court. > > . > . >>When humans realised that we all die in the end, wouldn't the idea have >>arisen that there must be something afterwards? How can all the learning >>and >>experience of a lifetime just be snuffed out? How can those who love never >>meet again? >> >> >> > [Hammond] > Without the existence of a plausible scientific > explanation such arguments are nothing but idle > "philawswphy" conjectures. >> >> >>Just about every culture has some theory about life after death. In the >>old >>days, people prayed and sacrificed to the gods. Today we try to find some >>scientific proof. >> >> > [Hammond] > as I said, that is a historical fact, and I have pointed > out the observational rationale for why that historical fact > exists. >> >> >>We can only die in hopes of something surviving. My guess is the >>probability >>is nil. >> >> > [Hammond} > Quite frankly Mdm., your "guesswork" is of very little > relevance to the issue. (Geopelia) Very likely. What would I know? But eschatological speculations can be interesting.
From: BruceS on 28 Dec 2009 17:37
On Dec 28, 11:49 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:58:14 -0800 (PST), BruceS > > > > <bruce...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >On Dec 28, 6:44 am, "Geopelia" <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > >> "George Hammond" <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote in message > > >>news:7asgj5do09o939v2jp54o9j7g5i9e3n4rg(a)4ax.com... > > >> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:48:38 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." > >> > <p...(a)hovnanian.com> wrote: > > >> >>George Hammond wrote: > > >> >>> CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE > > >> >>> Copyright: George Hammond 2009 > > >> >>> As I've said many times before my best estimate of the > >> >>> probability of life after death is only about 30%. > > >> >>What sort of measurement or analysis do you base that 30% on? > > >> >>Why not 3%? Or 3ppm? > > >> > [Hammond] > >> > Excellent question. Naturally I will immediately answer > >> > any on topic serious and competent inquiry. > >> > Unfortunately, I have to spend most of my time beating > >> > back a horde of nonprofessional and anti-intellectual > >> > hecklers, not to mention not a few atheistic and outraged > >> > scientists. > >> > The answer to your question is that the actual numerical > >> > probability that I have assigned is based upon a balanced > >> > weighing of the various lines of evidence involved. > >> > Bear in mind that I have been studying the matter for > >> > nearly 30 years, full time, and have in fact published a > >> > major discovery in Psychology (the discovery of the > >> > long-sought for Structural Model of Personality) and have > >> > also discovered and published the world's first bona fide > >> > scientific proof of God. > >> > I only mention all that in order to establish my > >> > credentials in the fields of Psychology and Theology. As > >> > far as Physics goes my credentials are established by the > >> > normal Curriculum Vitae which shows that I have a Masters > >> > degree in Physics. > > >> > Okay, having established my credentials in the various > >> > fields which bear on the determining of this probability I > >> > can sum up the situation briefly as this: > > >> > 1. Historically, the theory of life after death is at > >> > least as old as the Pyramids upon whose walls details > >> > of it remain engraved in miles of carefully chiseled > >> > hieroglyphics where they can be seen to this day. > >> > Furthermore, a psychological and theological > >> > investigation of this long history shows unequivocally > >> > that the root origin of the idea is intimately connected > >> > with the universal human experience of the ordinary > >> > nocturnal dream. > >> > In short, the only reason why the theory appears > >> > plausible enough to have survivedfor 5000 years is that > >> > people are strongly persuaded that the phenomenon of > >> > nocturnal dreaming is significant evidence of something > >> > as yet not fully explained. > >> > This latter fact then tells me as an experienced > >> > physicist and now accomplished psychologist and > >> > theologian that the odds-on probability of their > >> > actually being such a thing MUST lie somewhere in the > >> > low double digits percentagewise. And I would finally > >> > note, that this low double digits opinion appears to be > >> > well inline with average public opinion worldwide. > > >> > 2. From that assessment of 5000 years of recorded > >> > history on the subject we then move forward into the > >> > scientific argument. And here I am referring > >> > specifically to the cytoskeleton-microtubule-computer > >> > hypothesis. Let's call it the cytoskeleton-brain > >> > hypothesis (CB). > >> > 2000 years ago the New Testament writers (St. Paul) > >> > using the scientific language of his day advanced a > >> > rather specific description of how life after death > >> > actually works in I Corinthians chapter 15 vs > >> > 35-55. And in what can only be classified now as a > >> > colossal coincidence, it turns out that according to > >> > my investigations (and confirmed by Stuart Hameroff > >> > himself), the CB could very "possibly" resurrect the > >> > body to a "living-virtual-reality" inside the CB, just > >> > exactly as St. Paul described it. St. Paul referred > >> > to it as a "Spiritual body" in the New Testament. > > >> > 3. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the historical > >> > probability, which I assume to be no more than say > >> > 15% judging from historical, public and professional > >> > opinion, is now raised by virtue of this > >> > cytoskeleton-computer possibility to something more > >> > like a 30% probability. Simply because the > >> > historical belief which obtained at least a 15% > >> > credibility with world opinion, now has a plausible and > >> > indeed even remarkable scientific explanation. In > >> > short, The probability has just been DOUBLED by virtue > >> > of the discovery of a plausible scientific explanation. > >> > As you can see, it's really a scientific guessing > >> > game at this point, a sort of "you bet your life" kind > >> > of guessing game. And my guess is that the probability > >> > of a real life after death is somewhere around 30%. > >> > Now 30% is a long long ways from 51% and even 51% > >> > is a long ways from a sure thing. On the other hand > >> > given the import of the matter, a quite credible > >> > probability of 30% is something that simply cannot be > >> > ignored! > > >> > Hope that goes some ways towards answering your question. > > >> (Geopelia) > >> Isn't it just wishful thinking? > > >> When humans realised that we all die in the end, wouldn't the idea have > >> arisen that there must be something afterwards? How can all the learning and > >> experience of a lifetime just be snuffed out? How can those who love never > >> meet again? > > >> Just about every culture has some theory about life after death. In the old > >> days, people prayed and sacrificed to the gods. Today we try to find some > >> scientific proof. > > >> We can only die in hopes of something surviving. My guess is the probability > >> is nil. > > >(BruceS) > >Right; dying is the only way to get the answer. > > [Hammond] > Who told you that? What makes you think so? modern > science proves the existence of things that they can't see > almost every day. There is no reason to think that life > after death is any different. As Dara Obrian would say to you, "Get in the f* sack!" > > I say, live as if > >you'll be held accountable for your actions after you die, but don't > >count on it, and don't rush the process. > > [Hammond] > Yeah yeah yeah, that's known to history as "Pascal's > Wager" and were all familiar with it. No, it isn't, and you wouldn't say that if you were. > > I fully expect death to be > >the end of me, but am willing to be surprised. Anyway, who needs life > >after death when statistics show us that we have a good chance of > >immortality? > > [Hammond] > We have no chance of immortality in this life. All of > history proves that. The only known possibility of > immortality is described in the New Testament, and has now > become a scientific possibility. Which is what we are > talking about. Your sense of humor appears to be as deficient as your understanding of science. Shame, that; it would be good if you had *something* going for you. <snip ridiculous sig> |