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

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. George E Hammond Registered 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



     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,122
    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,718
    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?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,933
    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. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,933
    You've said a dozen times that you've explained it a dozen times. But none of your "explanations" answer the question.
     
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,933
    That's what I'm trying to do.

    So how do you get from vectors to gods?
     
  10. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,122
    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. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,718
    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. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,122
    Since correlation is not causation, at best you can conclude a correlation (although what correlation?).

    Correlation is certainly not proof.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,718
    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 Hammond Registered 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 Hammond Registered 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. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,718
    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. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,718
    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. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,351
    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 Hammond Registered 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 Hammond Registered 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. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,607
    That is bat feces crazy talk. Back on ignore you go...
     
  22. George E Hammond Registered 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 Hammond Registered Senior Member

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

    George
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page