# The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by George E Hammond, Jan 16, 2022.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### George E HammondRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
434
[GE Hammond MS physics]

Put the following question in a Google
search: –

"Why is a correlation coefficient
the cosine of an angle?"

You will get 1.2 million hits – and here's what the first page says:

Correlation Coefficient as Cosine - Mathematics Stack Exchange
https://math.stackexchange.com › questions › correlatio...

Cosines and correlation - John D. Cook
https://www.johndcook.com › blog › 2010/06/17 › cov...

Why are correlation and cosine so closely related? - Quora
https://www.quora.com › Why-are-correlation-and-cosi...

Cosine similarity, Pearson correlation, and OLS coefficients
https://brenocon.com › blog › 2012/03 › cosine-similar...

Should correlation coefficients be expressed as angles?
https://www.lesswrong.com › posts › should-correlation...

Geometric Interpretation of the Correlation between Two ...
https://medium.com › geometric-interpretation-of-the-c...

Lecture 12: Correlation - Harvard Math
https://people.math.harvard.edu › ~knill › handouts

PDF
Feb 23, 2011 — length of X. The correlation is the cosine of the angle between the two vectors.

(PDF) Geometric interpretation of a correlation - ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net › publication › 256374947_...

The correlation coefficient is the cosine of the angle θ between two observed vectors in N-dimensional space

There are over 1 million articles
explaining why a correlation
coefficient is the cosine of an
angle !

Get over it –
let's get on with the task of
explaining the scientific proof
of God

George

3. ### BaldeeeValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,123
Yes.
It's a model.
It enables one to visualise correlations graphically rather than just look at numbers.
Well, if the underlying correlations are real (i.e. relate to reality) then the graphical representation also relates to reality.
But so does any model in that sense.
But it has no independent existence, so in that sense is not itself "real".
Also, it can only be linked (other than metaphorically) to something else that uses the same dimensions.
Not the same number of dimensions, but the actual dimensions.

A cube that uses the dimensions of height, length, width, has no real link to something that might look like a cube when drawn but is based on the dimensions of, say, red, yellow, and blue.
One can use a metaphorical link, but it would be fallacious to equate the two beyond that, at least without some explanation and support for the nature of the real link between the various dimensions used.
To clarify: the correlations, and the graphical representation of them, do "relate to reality" in as much as they are derived from reality (testing results etc).
To any other reality beyond one that also uses the same dimensions?
No, he can't explain it.
Because it doesn't.

He is trying to link something with the dimensions of "personality types" with other dimensions, such as height, width, etc.
He seems to think that if one thing is modelled in 3-dimensions, it obviously links to something else modelled in 3-dimensions, irrespective of what the dimensions of each actually are.

C'est la vie.

5. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,777
Seems to me that if the mathematics are correct, the best it can do is prove God is a construct of the human psyche. no?

7. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
7,004
From what I see, they're talking about the correlation between two existing vectors. What you seem to be doing is the opposite, deriving the vectors from the correlation coefficients.

8. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
7,004
You've said a dozen times that you've explained it a dozen times. But none of your "explanations" answer the question.

9. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
7,004
That's what I'm trying to do.

So how do you get from vectors to gods?

10. ### BaldeeeValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,123
Even that is an unsupported leap, at least from the maths behind the correlation coefficients.
The mathematics can simply show that there are correlations between personality traits as shown by the data, and even that, at higher orders of correlation, there is one overriding factor.
That's it.
Linking that to "God", to gods, to the "cubic structure of the brain", and pretty much everything else Mr. Hammond is vomitting forth, is based on... well... nothing at all (other than fallacious reasoning pointed out to him repeatedly).

11. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,777
Can it be proved that God is a construct of the brain by any correlation?
I am not suggesting that God exists, just that he is a product of brain function.

12. ### BaldeeeValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,123
Since correlation is not causation, at best you can conclude a correlation (although what correlation?).

Correlation is certainly not proof.

13. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,777
Correlation is function of the brain, no.

I am only concentrating on the invented correlations by the brain.

I am not trying to prove the "2 decimal God". I am trying to prove "human imagination" and the ability to find correlations in many unrelated areas.

Last edited: Apr 22, 2022
14. ### George E HammondRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
434
[GE Hammond MS physics]
That is ALMOST scientifically correct !

God is more than a product of "brain function"
God is a product of "the brain's physical condition"
SPECIFICALLY –

God is a function of the
"brain's percentage of full growth".

For instance since we reach full growth
at age 18 – a 9-year-old's brain is only
50% fully grown!

This means that "God" is twice as big
to a 9-year-old than God is to an 18-year-old

IOW a 9-year-old sees a world that is
1. – Twice as big
2. – Twice as fast
as the world appears to an 18-year-old!

THIS IS THE "PHENOMENON OF GOD"

Therefore "God" is a mental phenomenon,
but God IS NOT AN IDEA IN THE BRAIN –

GOD IS AN INVOLUNTAARY PHYSICAL
PROPERTY OF THE BRAIN

George

15. ### George E HammondRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
434
[GE Hammond MS physics]
POSTSCRIPT –
And – of SUPREME IMPORTANCE is this fact –

NO ONE ever reaches full 100% growth,
no matter how long they live!

On average, the entire world adult population is only
about 85% fully grown – and some individuals
in the Third World – a lot less than that!

SO THEREFORE –
EVERYBODY EXPERIENCES GOD

George

16. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,777
In humans, don't they call all this "Intelligence Quota" ?

It seems that you have given the term "God" human properties that are totally different from any description of a biblical God, an all-powerful, intelligently motivated, universal creator Agency.

Just because humans are able to see a sliver of reality, I don't see how you can even make a comparison in IQ. Many animals can outperform humans in many sensory (intelligent) areas.

Where is the correlation between your God and animals, like say, an Octopus? It has 9 brains

Last edited: Apr 23, 2022
17. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,777
Not if the 18 yr old suffers from dwarfism. I would consult Peter Dinklage before I made that declaration.
And with all due respect, he is certainly the intellectual equal of any "normal" sized adult human.

18. ### KristofferGiant HyraxValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,355
Isn't it about time you take the hint, George?
You're the only one who thinks you're on to something. For 40 years no less.
Guess you really need to feel special.

19. ### George E HammondRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
434
post: 3696165, member: 280884"]Isn't it about time you take the hint, George?
You're the only one who thinks you're on to something. For 40 years no less.
Guess you really need to feel special.[/QUOTE]

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Cut the ad hominem remarks Kris –
it bores people

If You Can't Talk on Topic Science
take a hike

George

20. ### George E HammondRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
434
[GE Hammond MS physics]
Cut the comedy W4u !

Were only concerned with "normal" people
here – for instance the 5 billion "normal"
people who subscribe to Christianity, Islam,
Hinduism, Judaism, and Buddhism

We've had enough comedy around here –
I only entertain serious Science.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that the
world average normal adult population is around 15%
growth stunted

Which means we NORMAL adults see a world that
appears 15% LARGER and 15% FASTER than it
actually is – and if you don't think that strikes
anxiety, fear, and even terror into the average person
then you're not paying attention! It accounts for the
notorious "SOUND AND THE FURY" of the
world as the average person knows it !

Cut the comedy !

George

21. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,639
That is bat feces crazy talk. Back on ignore you go...

22. ### George E HammondRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
434
George E Hammond said:
Therefore "God" is a mental phenomenon,
but God IS NOT AN IDEA IN THE BRAIN –

GOD IS AN INVOLUNTAARY PHYSICAL
PROPERTY
OF THE BRAIN

[GE Hammond MS physics]
NO – they don't call it "IQ"
They call it GOD !
IQ is not God

The "universal human growth deficit" impacts
mental speed and therefore impacts IQ – but
it also impacts many other things besides IQ.
George

George E Hammond said:
Therefore "God" is a mental phenomenon,
but God IS NOT AN IDEA IN THE BRAIN –

GOD IS AN INVOLUNTAARY PHYSICAL
PROPERTY OF THE BRAIN

[GE Hammond MS physics]
NO – that's just wishful thinking on your part.

Hammond's theory shows that God is simply
"a fully grown person" (which has never existed)
– and that is exactly
what the anthropomorphic God of the Bible is!

George

[GE Hammond MS physics]
The God of Man is a fully grown Man
The God of a frog is a fully grown frog
the God of a horse is a fully grown horse
the God of an Octopus is a fully grown Octopus

As Xenophanes famously noted that
if horses could draw, they would
draw their gods as horses. (500 BC)

George

23. ### George E HammondRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
434
[GE Hammond MS physics]
And STAY on Ignore – you're not contributing anything
of scientific interest to this conversation

George