Re: GOD IN THE BOX (what is a Factor Analytic proof of God?)

From: George Hammond (ghammond@mediaone.net)
Date: Thu May 24 2001 - 13:06:49 EDT

  • Next message: Kamilla ludwig: "George Hammond"

    ==========================================================
    Note: The original target post to which this thread refers
          may be seen at:

    http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/godinthebox.html
    ==========================================================

    Roger Coppock wrote:
    >
    > Dear Adam:
    >
    > I've worked with factor analysis for three decades now,

    [Hammond]
      Worked with Factor Analysis for three decades"? Jimminy, if that's
    the truth you sure are a rare bird.
      Just to show you how rare, I've been discussing my theory on Usenet
    for a year, and I have talked to hundreds of people.. maybe a
    thousand.. and only 3 of them had ever had any experience with
    Factor Analysis. 3 out of a 1000..!!
      Of course, there are people on some of the Psychology NG's
    who know what it is, but Psychologists won't even talk to anyone
    who uses the world "God" you know. Amazingly Physicists know
    almost nothing about it because Physics as you know is not generally
    a Statistical science. Interestingly, of course Quantum Mechanics
    is entirely a Statistical science, and it turns out that Quantum
    Mechanics is nothing but Factor Analysis in an infinite dimensional
    Factor Space (called a Hilbert space). All their "correlation
    matrices" are in fact infinite, and the eigenvalues are generally
    the energy of the system, and the eigenvectors are called
    "Wavefunctions". At any rate, Factor analysis involves FINITE
    VECTOR SPACES, and because of that, even Quantum Mechanics buffs
    are unfamiliar with it.
      Interestingly, there is also a connection to General Relativity,
    because TENSORS are somewhat related to MATRICES. In fact, you find
    a lot of similarities, such as:

       GENERAL RELATIVITY PSYCHOMETRY (F.A.)

    Contravarient components = Factor Structure Loadings
    Covarient components = Factor pattern Loadings
    "curvature" of the metric = Obliquness of the corr. matrix

    It is obvious from this that a physicist can easily understand
    Factor Analysis if he has to, and I certainly found it to be
    a cakewalk.
      Nevertheless, most physicists know nothing about Psychology
    and therefore nothing about Psychometry (IQ and Personality tests),
    and they know next to nothing about "God".
      In fact, it is a very unusual individual who would be an
    expert in Physics, an expert in Psychometry and Factor Analysis,
    and an expert in Divinity all at the same time. That's of
    course what I am, how I discovered the scientific proof
    of God, and why no one can talk to me.
      Of the 3 criteria necessary to comprehend the scientific proof
    of God:

    1. General Physics, including Relativity
    2. Psychometry including Factor Analysis
    3. Divinity

    It is hard to say just exactly which one is the most necessary.
      There is the argument that Physics would be the most necessary,
    because a Physicist could learn Factor Analysis in a few hours
    and perhaps grasp Psychometry in a few days (if he wanted to),
    and.... that he could "learn divinity backwards" from the fact that
    he could use Physics and Psychometry to figure out what God was,
    and then he would ipso facto know what Divinity was all about.
    So far I have failed to find any physicist who was interested in
    doing so.
      At any rate, mostly what I run into is someone who might be
    a PhD in Physics, but is uninterested in either Psychometry or
    God. Then there are hoards of PhD's in biology and psychology
    and a million other things who neither have any idea what God
    is, and certainly no ability in Physics. These are the incompetents
    who climb on the newsgroups and start calling me names like
    "Troll, crank, moron, blah, blah, blah..). point is, they are
    simply not strong enough scientifically to handle anything as
    big as a scientific proof of God, they'd probably faint of an
    acoplectic fit if they ever figured it out.
      Consequently, me, a physicist, is presently the only one in
    the world who actually KNOWS that a scientific proof of God
    has been discovered.
      Finally, you come to the political element... say the Creationists
    or Fundamentalists, even the 700 Club and people like that.
    UNLIKE SCIENTISTS these people have enough worldly experience and
    social ability, to the point where they ARE NOT AFRAID OF A
    SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD, even if they can't understand it, whereas
    the SCIENTIST may be able to understand it but he is so afraid
    of the public he refuses to even look at it, much less face it.
      In the end then, as I see it, it is probably going to be the
    RELIGIOUS ACTIVISTS who are going to first recognize the discovery
    of the scientific proof of God, simply because they have the nerve
    to stand up to the weak kneed scientific establishment, and
    the volatile public, and be unafraid of it.
      There is for instance, VERY LITTLE POSSIBILITY that your expertise
    in Factor Analysis is worth a hill of beans when it comes to
    evaluating or delivering the scientific proof of God. It takes
    either GENIUS (physicist) or FAITH (religionist) and apparently
    you don't qualify in either department.

    > Adam Marczyk wrote:
    > >
    > > I don't know factor analysis, but I do know linear algebra. So God is what,
    > > exactly -- a psychological factor of the human brain?

    [Hammond]
    The mind is like a telescope mad with clear-rubber lenses. If
    someone squeezed the telescope while you were looking through
    it and you didn't know it, the world would mysteriously get bigger
    and smaller and you might call it an "act of God". A scientist
    would measure the diameter of the lens, compute the CURVATURE of
    the lens, and explain this "God" as variable magnification.
      In the case of the brain, the "clear-rubber" lens is the human brain,
    and the "squeezing" is the variable growth of the brain called
    the Secular Trend. Variable brain growth makes the world look bigger
    and smaller, and makes it go slower or faster. In this case the
    scientist measures IQ, and Personality (E,N,P) of the individual,
    (which is a measure of how fast and how big the world looks to you)
    and from that he computes the CURVATURE of Psychometric Space, which
    this time, REALLY DOES TURN OUT TO BE WHAT WE CALL "GOD".

    > Wouldn't that make
    > > "God" a mass delusion of humanity?

    [Hammond]
    No it's worse than that, "God" is MASS REALITY, not
    mass delusion.

    -- 
    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 : Thu May 24 2001 - 12:59:50 EDT