Seriously? You don’t think both are horny guys that need to force the other out of the way, in order to experience the same biology fueled activity, for the same hormone driven reasons?
How was that figured out?
Sorry, the diagram didn’t help at all.
Fascinating but how does any of that relate to a flesh and blood human?
What about the circumstances surrounding any particular person, do those have anything to do with their personality, or behavior?
How is that teased out of, or woven into, this “4th order psychometric eigenvector”
Where do the 2nd and 3rd orders come into anything?
How does any of this relate to actual humans living their dynamic lives, all I see is games with math, modeling and getting lost in one’s own genius and forgetting about the real world that’s unfolding before us.
[write4u, post:343, topic:7725]
Why a GODLY UNIVERSE?
WHY NOT A MATHEMATICAL UNIVERSE?
[Hammond… Kurvature 66]
… A godly universe is a mathematical universe. At the top of the mathematical list Is General Relativity. Because, it turns out that “God is a large Einsteinian curvature of subjective space-time”
… Okay, I didn’t identify the location of the mysterious “GFP” in my drawing of the “Psychometry Pyramid” so here’s the souped-up nitrous oxide injected version of the engine:
George, I am impressed with the concept and the obvious time you have invested in this hypothesis.
But why confuse the issue with infusing it with theism.
I tried to “reconcile” theism with science at one time, but it is a hopeless endeavor.
You cannot change the theistic mindset and the common definition of God.
The Vatican has it’s own Pontifical Academy of Sciences. And whereas they have finally come around to the concept of evolution, the church still does adhere to complex creationism.
Don’t minimize the importance of your work by asking for approval of the Holy See.
More than likely they will declare you a heretic.
You can only replace it with science. Which you have done. Stick with scientific nomenclature and keep it in the confines of the scientific community.
[write4u, post:345]
[Hammond… Kurvature 66]
… A godly universe is a mathematical universe . At the top of the mathematical list Is General Relativity. Because, it turns out that “ God is a large Einsteinian curvature of subjective space-time ”
[W4u]
But why confuse the issue with infusing it with theism.
[Hammond … Kurvature 66]
… I’m not “infusing” I’m “refusing” to entertain any kind of attitude or any kind of opinion, I’m only stating facts, just facts!
[W4u]
I tried to “reconcile” theism with science at one time, but it is a hopeless endeavor.
[Hammond … Kurvature 66]
… You failed I succeeded. My condolences!
[W4u]]
You cannot change the theistic mindset and the common definition of God.
[Hammond … Kurvature 66]
… I don’t find anything erroneous with the theistic mindset or the common definition of God, it happens to agree precisely with my
historically discovered “world’s first completely scientific proof of God”
[W4u]
The Vatican has it’s own Pontifical Academy of Sciences. And whereas they have finally come around to the concept of evolution, the church still does adhere to complex creationism.
Don’t minimize the importance of your work by asking for approval of the Holy See.
More than likely they will declare you a heretic.
[Hammond … Kurvature 66]
… Sorry to dash your hopes. In 2015 I published an open letter to Marcel Sarot, PhD permanent Deacon of Utrecht and witnessed by 16 members of the Vatican, informing him that my discovery confirms every single statement in the King James Bible, so I’m sure the Pope will be overjoyed to know that modern science has confirmed everything that the Holy See has been saying for the past 2000 years. See:
I haven’t heard back from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences yet, but I think the day is rapidly approaching when I might !
[W4u]
You can only replace it with science. Which you have done. Stick with scientific nomenclature and keep it in the confines of the scientific community.
[Hammond … Kurvature 66]]
… I’m sorry that I’m unable to oblige you, and I’m sorry the discovery of the world’s first rigorous SPOG (scientific proof of God) has apparently completely ripped to tatters your so firmly held philosophical system !
… By the way, mind citing your CV? My CV is publicly posted here:
… Are you a philosophy major by any chance ? One of the most powerful and supporting reviews of my theory was once sent to me by a philosophy major! It can probably be still seen on
alt.philosophy or alt.philosophy.debate to this day!
GH
[Mriana]
Where in the world did you get that? Those charts aren’t even used in college Psychology classes.
[Hammond… Kurvature 66]
I’ve never taken a class in Psychology. I’m a physicist. The chart is a diagrammatic representation of 50 years of peer published psychometry research large enough to fill a major library – now condensed by my discovery into a simple diagram!
[Hammond… Kurvature 66]
In humans these 13 personality types have been known for 2500 years
[Mriana]
Oh please! 2500 they were drilling holes in people’s skulls to get rid of demons.
[Hammond… Kurvature 66]
They still are in parts of the world. In 500 BC Greeks built the Antikythera Orrery which was the world’s first computer. They also discovered the complete mathematical description of the Conic Sections! They also measured the diameter of the earth!
[Hammond… Kurvature 66]
The 50 yr worldwide, peer-published Psychometry literature HAS
[Mriana]
Sounds to me like they are still in the dark ages of Psychiatry.
[Hammond… Kurvature 66]
You might say that again! The only psychologist who would even so much as talk to me was Hans Eysenck. That’s me standing next to Hans in Montréal in 1996 where we were both invited speakers:
[write4u, post:337]
I get a lot of scientific news, but have never heard of the GFP (General Factor of Psychology), when we don’t even know how the psyche (conscious thought) becomes manifest.
[Hammond… Kurvature 66]
… A Google search of “GFP in Psychology” yields 645,000 hits !
[Mriana]
Probably because it’s pseudoscience or more like wacked science. It’s not scientific. It’s not even modern psychology! It’s religious BS.
[Hammond… Kurvature 66]
No, it’s because not one psychology researcher in the world has a degree in physics. Fact is, I’m the first physicist who ever bothered to master psychometry and took a look at it and it was immediately obvious to me that they had scientifically discovered the God of the Bible, and didn’t even realize it !!
[Hammond… Kurvature 66]
This diagram currently shows that the GFP (God) is the top eigenvector In Psychometry.
[Mriana]
This proves my point.
[Hammond… Kurvature 66]
No, it explains 5000 years of human history
It proves that people can believe in a “invisible man in the sky” who observes everything you do and has a list of 10 things he doesn’t want you to do, and if you do any of those things he has a place where you can suffer and scream and be miserable till the end of time.
BUT HE LOVES YOU! (George Carlin)
Now you are going to convince me this God lives in the world of Gravity? I don’t think so…
And that’s why you can’t see what you’re posting isn’t actual modern psychology.
That’s a bad thing, because many people die from doing that.
He’s in the dark ages, that’s why he talked with you about it.
Even scientists can fall for BS.
No, it’s religious BS. God is not necessary to survive. The idea of God is a means to brainwash people and control them, keeping them in a childlike state of mind. Pure authoritarian ideology.
Psychometric theories focus on measurement, and as such they inform all other creativity theories. Emphasizing products over the other P’s, they range from little-c to Big-C creativity and are concerned, among other things, with the reliability (agreement or consistency of measurement) and validity (accuracy) of assessment, which are issues in all creativity research. Besides establishing basic principles of the measurement of aspects of creativity, psychometric theories have also addressed issues like how creativity differs from intelligence, the relation between performance on convergent thinking (one right answer) tasks and divergent thinking (many correct answers) tasks, and the extent to which creativity is rooted in particular domains of activity (like music, mathematics, or writing) versus being a domain-general ability.
I did the Briggs Myer test once and it was interesting but it seemed more like astrology, with typical weirdness of multiple choice questions and answers that never seem to really fit, so you toss dice and pick one that’s kinda, sorta close - but would well be one of the other choices on a different day and in a different mood.
≠
What Is Psychometry?
A Phenomenon Where a Person Can Sense the Past With Touch
Which makes even less sense!
=
Now we got Hammond telling us Psychometry is the key to defining God - although after all these endless posts, still haven’t a clue what this God is supposed to be but someone’s personal brain child.
Talk about dogs chasing tails within our mindscapes, this one is stellar.
Oh and reducing mental function to geometry factors, like where the heck is the justification for that? Yeah, yeah, yeah, lots of geniuses pump out lots of formulas, but never is the actual physical reality of biology interacting and evolving on this planet discussed, as though that were totally irrelevant.
[mriana, post 352]
[citizenschallengev4, post:351]
Now we got Hammond telling us Psychometry is the key to defining God
]Mriana]
I guess if you can sense the past, then you can sense god with psychometry.
Hammond… Kurvature 66]
… Hey, let me inform you of a long-standing “inside joke” in professional academia .
… If you look in a dictionary you will find 2 Definitions of “Psychometry”:
1 – PSY·CHO·MET·RICS
The professional academic science of measuring mental capacities and processes.
2 – PSY·CHOM·E·TRY
The supposed superstitious ability to discover facts about an event or person by touching inanimate objects associated with them.
… For Pete’s sake, definition 2 refers to an archaic long debunked superstitious Middle Ages practice engaged in by the Druids.
… Definition 1 refers to the academic psychology department’s use of modern IQ tests, personality tests, etc.
… The 2 uses of the word have absolutely NOTHING in common, and it is only complete amateurs who would mistake the two for having any relation whatsoever.
Sheesh ! This faux pas is something I would expect to hear on USENET !!!
Such tests are not a reliable test of intelligence, not to mention personality. That said, they cannot measure whether or not a deity exists and the test have nothing to do with believing in god for survival. In fact, the belief in god may suppress one’s intelligence.
[Kurvature66, post #353]
Definition 1 refers to the academic psychology department’s use of modern IQ tests, personality tests, etc.
[Mriana]
Such tests are not a reliable test of intelligence, not to mention personality. That said, they cannot measure whether or not a deity exists and the test have nothing to do with believing in god for survival. In fact, the belief in god may suppress one’s intelligence.
[Hammond… Curvature 66] Mriana
… Tik-Tok won’t cut it here Mriana! You actually have to know some science! As far as physics is concerned “intelligence” is “mental speed” in bits /sec. Thomas Edison discovered that the “perceptual speed” of the average person is 16 bits/sec when he discovered that the minimum film speed for a movie projector was 16 frames per/sec He also discovered it increases directly with intelligence, and also increases linearly with age under 18 (in growing children). Therefore physics doesn’t need an IQ test to measure intelligence! Neither does the Psychology department.
… So you’re wrong on the first count and don’t know what you talking about on the 2nd. To wit: “50,000 psychometry researchers using desktop computers in 20 languages worldwide for 50 years in a peer published literature large enough to fill a major library”, cannot be wrong either. They’re the ones that discovered the “psychometry pyramid” and the all-important “GFP” which is clearly, in the opinion of physics: THE GOD OF THE BIBLE.
… Sorry, but you can’t simply boo and heckle this discovery out of existence, without any scientific expertise, and everyone knows it !!
, This discovery proves, after 5000 years of prediction, that there ACTUALLY IS A REAL GOD, and that the metaphorical and allegorical and psychological descriptions of this REAL GOD in the Bible are entirely accurate! QED
GH
[quote=“kurvature66, post:353, topic:7725”]
1 – PSY·CHO·MET·RICS
The professional academic science of measuring mental capacities and processes.
And what about the science of measuring mathematical capacities and processes?
2 – PSY·CHOM·E·TRY
The supposed superstitious ability to discover facts about an event or person by touching inanimate objects associated with them.
OTOH, a mathematician has the ability to discover the LOGIC about natural events or inanimate objects associated with them.
So God is an inanimate object? And where is that defined in Scripture?
The God in Scripture is extremely animated. " (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.
You are merely anthropomorphizing natural mathematical processes.
In this illustration by Milo Winter of Aesop’s fable, “The North Wind and the Sun”, a personified North Wind tries to strip the cloak off of a traveler.
I don’t do Tik-Tok and I never posted any Tik-Tok videos.
You don’t know how much science I know.
Science cannot prove any god exists, so there’s no need to throw a childish fit about your Casper the Holy Ghost because I or anyone here said it doesn’t exist. Then again, I’m not surprised. Many people who believe in their invisible friend they call “God” are childish in that department. As Bishop Spong said, “The Church doesn’t want people to group, because you can’t control grown ups.” You’re acting like I said Santa Claus doesn’t exist. The Bible is no better than Aesop’s Fables, but I can’t help it that some people cling to the book as though it talks about Never-Never Land.
What did you expect on this forum? Keep in mind you dropped into a forum in which most members are Humanist- secular, atheists, non-theists, agnostics… Meaning the majority here do not believe in your invisible friend or your story book. So stop screaming like a child when one of us says something like “God isn’t real” or anything meaning that.
[kurvature66, post:353, topic:7725]
1 – PSY·CHO·MET·RICS
The professional academic science of measuring mental capacities and processes. [W4u]
And what about the science of measuring mathematical capacities and processes? [Hammond …Kurvature66]
… Measurement of “Abilities” is all part of measuring “intelligence” in Psychology. They measure mathematical ability, verbal ability, etc. etc. What about it?? [kurvature66, post:353, topic:7725]
2 – PSY·CHOM·E·TRY
The supposed superstitious ability to discover facts about an event or person by touching inanimate objects associated with them. [W4u]
OTOH, a mathematician has the ability to discover the LOGIC about natural events or inanimate objects associated with them. [Hammond …Kurvature66]
So what? What’s your point? [W4u]
So God is an inanimate object? And where is that defined in Scripture? [Hammond …Kurvature66] WRONG. God is NOTin inanimate object! My scientific proof of God (a.k.a. The SPOG) proves absolutely scientifically that “God” is an "invisible anthropomorphic man !!! How many times do I have to say it? [W4u]
The God in Scripture is extremely animated. " (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth. [Hammond …Kurvature66]
… Yep… He’s an invisible man, just like a said. The biblical writers could only “deduce, predict, and guess, that there was a God”. But now HAMMOND has scientifically proven that they were absolutely CORRECT. [W4u]
You are merely anthropomorphizing natural mathematical processes. [Hammond …Kurvature66]
… Since God is an “invisible man”, all you’re saying is that “Man himself is an anthropomorphicization of mathematical processes”, which seems like kind of an “over-the-top” scientific statement if I ever heard one!!
…Sort of a redundant explanation of the sort: “Man is an anthropic version of mathematics” , redundant because the word “anthropic” actually means “Man”!
GH
Not only are you still shouting, you confirmed my “invisible friend” statement and none of what you’re saying is scientific, except for human behaviour that confirms what I said above.
Again, you just showed the invisible friend I mention. How do you expect us to believe anything you say with an invisible friend living in Never-Never Land. Everything you stated deals more with human behaviour concerning religious indoctrination, but it’s only scientific in that religious ideology keeps people in a childlike state mentally. I don’t think it’s RTS, but then again, it maybe yet another form of RTS and you don’t realize now or may never realize you maybe have Religious Trauma Syndrome. If it’s not another form of RTS, then you live in a delusional world that not only demands beliefs, but distorts real science with pseudoscience.
[Mriana said to Hammond in post #356]
"What did you expect on this forum? Keep in mind you dropped into a forum in which most members are Humanist- secular, atheists, non-theists, agnostics… Meaning the majority here do not believe in your invisible friend " [Hammond… Kurvature 66]
… I’ve posted my research on practically every relevant USENET and LISTSERV discussion group, including physics, relativity, psychology, religion, personality, philosophy, biology and finally atheism (alt.atheism). And you know what? It’s a fact that the ONLY people who ever responded to me or showed any interest or expertise in the subject were the people on alt.atheism !! That’s a fact, the only coherent logical scientific discussion about “God” that can be found is from the “atheist” discussion groups. And incidentally, I was an atheist and did not believe that there was a God until I accidentally discovered the SPOG in 1994 at the age of 55!
… I’m aware that “Secular Humanism” is not merely “atheism” it is more extensive than that. So yes, I did know what I was getting into when I posted it here, but I presumed that CFI members would have to be more upper-middle-class, educated and enlightened than the hoi polloi of USENET subscribers.
… Despite objections, I still believe that there are people on CFI who are able to penetrate the physics and psychometry foundation of this now widely known claim of physicist Hammond, that he has discovered the world’s first scientific proof of God.
… As for "screaming like a child ", I don’t think so, I’m 80 years old, and I can’t even remember crying over anything!
GH
Where in the world did you get that? Those charts aren’t even used in college Psychology classes.
Not only are you still shouting, you confirmed my “invisible friend” statement and none of what you’re saying is scientific, except for human behaviour that confirms what I said above.