Vince Calhoun wrote:
>
> > ear and said he thought it was a giant featherless bird. But when they all
> > got together, they figured out it was an elephant. OK, this is what
> > FACTOR ANALYSIS does.. it takes many small random measurements on an
> > unknown mysterious object, and tells you what it is. In the case of
>
> Actually, factor analysis does not interpret the result ("tell you what it
> is").
[Hammond]
Yes this is a truism of the lore and legend of
Factor Analysis.
This is why Hammond's 1994 peer reviewed paper is
of such seminal importance... it IDENTIFIES the actual
physical causation of E,N,P,g in Psychometric F.A.
as being caused by the 3-Geometry axes of the brain.
> It simply attempts to reduce data comprised of many variables, to fewer
> variables, which then must be interpreted based upon the investigators
> knowledge of the problem. There is also another step (beyond reducing the
> data) which is called "rotation".
[Hammond]
Being an expert in Factor Analysis of course I know
all about this. It is in fact this Simple Structure
maximum hyperplane count rotation that measures the
"curvature" that causes God in Psychometry.
It used to be pretty "subjective" in the old days,
but today these rotations are done purely mathematically
by large computers (untouched by human hands) so
they are no longer "subjective". Varimax, Promax,
Oblimon, and many other hyperplane count algorithms are
now used to rotate to Simple Structure (maximum pattern
density).
Today commercial computer packages such as SPXX will
iterate the communalities, Factor the matrix, rotate
the eigenvectors to Simple Structure even for a 100x100
matrix, on a desktop computer. This has put tens of
thousands of Psychology researchers in business worldwide,
and has helped to generate the data that has been used
to find the scientific proof of God, by the way.
In this step the eigenvectors are rotated
> to change the way they project upon the original variables so that the results
> are<more>interpretable. The rotation and interpretation can be quite
> subjective and thus must be very carefully examined. Many statisticians have
> problems with rotation. I think it can be useful, but only if done very
> carefully. I haven't seen enough details in the work being presented to judge
> it(for the devil is in the details). For example, the selection of the number
> of factors in often based upon variance (only extract up until a certain
> percent of variance is explained). This number can make a big difference in
> certain cases...my point is that the analysis is not so cut and dry as it is
> being portrayed. I'm seeing none of the details
> necessary for a replication (even in the peer reviewed article), only bold
> claims about the implications of the results. An association does not
> necessarily imply causation, but this is not even mentioned.
{Hammond]
My proof of God, naturally, uses all of the data in the
history of the subject, 100 years of it, including 200,000
published papers.
The sum total result of ALL OF IT, is that GOD is in
fact the single 4th order factor.
> BUT THE BOTTOM LINE (IMHO) IS:
>
> Finally, it seems to me that this work is completely naturalistic. The
> Bible is reduced (a priori) to complete metaphor...including any
> of the miracles in scripture. His definition of God is not consistent with
> the God of Christianity.
[Hammond]
LOL. Hammond's result completely and exactly and unequivocally,
and AXIOMATICALLY confirms the existence of the "God of Christianity".
Period.
> He simply claims to have found a way to
> explain all the miracles of the Bible in a scientific, naturalistic way. The
> way He discusses the Bible is not consistent, IMHO, with Christianity in any
> way, shape, or form and reveals a naturalistic approach to God.
[Hammond]
LOL. Hammond's discovery of a "scientific" proof of God explains
scientifically the Biblical description of God. It is not only
"consistent" with the Christianity, IT AXIOMATICALLY PROVES CHRISTIANITY,
for Pete's sake.
These
> findings could perhaps be used as another example of Romans 1 (God's general
> revelation through creation).
>
> To Hammond: If you are on this list then you agree with a statement saying
> you confess the Triune God affirmed in the Nicene and Apostle's creeds. Based
> only upon those creeds, the God of Christianity is distinct from the God of
> any other world religion.
[Hammond]
Chief, slow down, you don't know what you are talking about.
there is a difference between the "Trinity" and the "Quadrature"
in Religion. (the "Cross" represents the quadrature BTW).
The "quadrature" is the STRUCTURAL BASIS of God, the "Trinity"
is the functional (dynamic) description of God.
The Trinity theory is unnecessary to prove the EXISTENCE of
God, but my discovery clearly identifies the scientific basis
of the Trinity. At the risk of confusing the issues, I will
note here that the "Trinity" is (scientifically) merely the
"cybernetic loop" that describes the action of God. Most of
you are familiar with this as "input, output, and feedback".
This describes, mathematically the dynamic action of God.
INPUT------->--------------X----------> OUTPUT
^ |
| |
| |
-------------
FEEDBACK
Classic Cybernetic Loop
FATHER------>--------------X----------> SON
^ |
| |
| |
-------------
HOLY GHOST
Trinity of God
As a well known example of the actual SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
manifestation of this, we have the so called "Three Branches
of Government" which is universal and exists in all 250
of the World's governments:
EXECUTIVE------>--------------X----------> LEGISLATIVE
^ |
| |
| |
-------------
JUDICIARY
In other words, the "Three Branches of Government" are
a DIRECT REPRESENTATION of the Trinity of God.
On the other hand, the BICAMERAL/TWO-PARTY system, is a
direct representation of the "quadrature" of the Structural
Model:
Senate | Senate
Republicans| Democrats
|
|
------------|-------------
House | House
Republicans| Democrats
|
|
The Bicameral/Two-Party System
|
LUKE | JOHN
|
|
-----------|----------
|
MATT | MARK
|
|
Four gospel Canon
(Cross structure)
The above two diagrams show how the "quadrature" structure
of religion (which comes right from the quadrature structure
of the human brain, BTW), causes both the 4-Gospel Canon,
and the Bicameral/Two-Party Sytem.
As you can see, since the "Three Branches" are a (social)
representation of the TRINITY, and the BI/2P system is a
(social) representation of the 4-GOSPEL CANON, we see that
the ENTIRE THEORY OF GOVERNMENT is taken right out of
CHRISTIANITY verbatim.
None of this is essential to the scientific proof of God
that i have discovered BTW, I merely point it out for your
edification.
Not only that, but His Son, Jesus, provides the
> only possible reconciliation to this God (based upon Christ's statements).
> He, in His great love, provides all of humanity with acceptance through
> Christ if they but accept what is made available to them. I do the science
> that I do as a Christian who loves God because He first loved me. What do the
> findings you present tell us about the God of Christianity?
[Hammond]
May God bless you.
> Just my two cents...(sorry to keep the discussion going...I'll stop now)
>
> For His Glory,
>
> VDC
SHALOM AND GOD BLESS YOU, George Hammond
-- BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW: ----------------------------------------------------------- George Hammond, M.S. Physics Email: ghammond@mediaone.net Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html -----------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 20 2001 - 13:18:14 EDT