Page Title


	George Hammond December 5, 2004 The COUNTERBALANCE FOUNDATION FORUM c/o Professor Chris Isham Professor William Dembski http://www.counterbalance.org/bio/index-frame.html By email to: Chris Isham William Dembski Stephen Unwin Sandra Faber Owen Gingerich Richard Arnowitt Alan Guth John F. Haught Edward Kolb David Latham Joel Primack Bob Russell Seth Shostak Trinh Xuan Thuan Neil Turok Steven Weinberg John Polkinhorne John Barrow George Coyne Bruno Guiderdoni Wm. Stoeger Richard Amoroso Phil Hefner Lee Smolin also posted to: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics, alt.sci.physics, alt.sci.physics.new-theories alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated alt.philosophy, alt.atheism, talk.origins alt.talk.creationism, alt.religion.christian ________________________________________________________ God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin Professors Chris Isham and William Dembski are COUNTERBALANCE members. Physicist Dr. Stephen Unwin is author of _The Probability of God_ (see SCIAM July 2004, p. 46 for a review by Michael Shermer). All three have written opinions on my discovery that God=G_uv and I wish to rebut their remarks in this letter to the Counterbalance Forum. Physicists are not experts in Theology nor are Theologians expert in Physics. It is just as doubtful that Isaac Newton knew what God is as it is doubtful that Mary Baker Eddy understood the Principle of Least Action. HENCE: If a scientific proof of God is discovered we can be certain that FEW will understand it! Such is the case with God=G_uv BECAUSE OF THIS FACT, I have received very pejorative commentaries from Drs. Isham and Dembski. They have even suggested God=G_uv is incompetent. Therefore I feel obliged to inform the Sci-Rel community of the error of their opinions and of the high handed carelessness with which they have received this remarkable discovery. The Commentaries: In an email letter from Prof. William Dembski, he says: [Wm. Dembski, 11-29-04] "To identify God with a curvature tensor (God=G_uv) seems provocative without being precise. At best it seems to me that G_uv might serve as a locus for divine action in the world. But even then, why should we think that it is the sole locus?" He got the first part right, it is provocative. But the rest is wrong: It is "precise", and it is in fact the central locus of World Religion. Prof. Isham found it not only provocative, but apparently somewhat annoying. In an email letter to me he says: [Chris Isham, 12-15-2003] "If I understand you correctly, you are invoking quantum gravity as a way of producing large gravitational fields inside the brain." He does not "understand me correctly", and Dr. Isham has little or no comprehension of what the theory says or even in what space the curvature G_uv exists! Apparently BOTH Professors Isham and Dembski have carelessly glossed the theory and believe that God=G_uv refers to a curvature of real space or is even a curvature in the brain! Such preposterousness is of course startling... but they are both "too busy" to discuss the matter further! STEPHEN UNWIN however, was a little more patient. He made the same mistake. In an email to me he said: [Stephen Unwin, 7-11-2004] "If God=G_uv, then... God doesn't exist in flat spacetime where G_uv=0. In fact, most of spacetime is approximately flat, with the exception of singularities (black holes). Does this mean God is nonexistent, or at least marginal, everywhere but near black holes?" At least Stephen Unwin was patient enough to listen to further explanation... whereas Profs. Isham or Dembski quickly made themselves unavailable for further discussion. I wrote back to Dr. Unwin and explained to him about this all too common scientific gaffe: [Hammond, 7-11-04] "You have only glossed the paper. God is a curvature of PERCEPTUAL SPACE not real space. People see a "curved version" of real space, and this curvature is caused by a "G_uv" in Psychometry space. For instance ungrown children 4, 8 and 12 years old, see an ENORMOUSLY CURVED WORLD. That doesn't mean the world is actually enormously curved!.. it just means that is what they see because their brains are not yet fully grown. A 9 year old (half grown) child sees a world that is twice as BIG and twice as FAST as it is to an 18 year old adult. This is equivalent to a 50% time dilation and a 50% space contraction... it is exactly "as if" he were sitting next to a black hole and looking back at the Earth... he would see it spinning twice as FAST and appearing twice as LARGE! This effect exists to a lesser extent in all adults simply because no one ever reaches their full growth (according to the Secular Trend in human growth)... and it is this universal "curvature of reality" which explains "God". That the "perceptual curvature" is given by Einstein's G_uv is of course no coincidence. It is demonstrated that Psychometry space is caused by real space vis a vis the cleavage geometry of the brain. Thus it is that Psychometric curvature is caused by spacetime curvature, sui generis- via brain growth. Psychometry and Relativity have PROVED this, thus proving the existence of God beyond ANY reasonable scientific question! Dr. Unwin wrote back to me and said: [Stephen Unwin, 7-11-2004] "Oh, I thought G_uv was in literal spacetime. I guess then that in perceptual space, a new born baby would be the analogy of a singularity (big bang rather than a black hole). Very Interesting." Well... not only was I amazed at Dr. Unwin being such a "fast study" as to "which space is curved by G_uv"... it turns out his intuitive remark about babies being related to a "big bang" was a further piece of profundity: I hesitate to digress, but I simply must point out the contrast between Dr. Unwin's constructive attitude in comparison to the presumptious skepticism and negativity exhibited by Profs. Isham and Dembski. The equation God=G_uv when written out in full is: God = G_uv = BGD (= Brain Growth Deficit) This curvature is in "subjectively seen" spacetime. Note this is entirely similar to Einstein's equation Gravity = G_uv = MD (= Mass Density) In other words, the "brain growth deficit" takes the place of the source term, "mass density", when describing the curvature of perceptual ("subjectively seen") spacetime. Now there is a DILEMMA which had been bothering me for several years before I received Steve Unwin's email. Namely, what would be the mass distribution analogy to natural childhood growth? Now.. there perhaps doesn't actually have to be one.. but for theoretical reasons I would be a lot more comfortable is there was! The problem is, that "growth" represents the reduction of the BGD towards zero. In real space, this would be the analog of "disappearing mass density"? I simply could not conceive of any mass distribution which would tend towards zero as a function of time- everywhere? Then Steve Unwin suggested that birth/growth might be a "Big Bang"... I nearly fell off my chair. The Hubble expansion associated with the Big Bang model causes the mass density in the universe to continually decrease from a very high initial value towards zero as time increases. This means that "childhood growth" must be the subjective perceptual-space analog of a Big Bang expansion of subjective reality! The problem was solved.. there IS a real spacetime analog to growth in Psychometric space. No doubt this discovery will lead us into further discoveries of a most profound nature concerning the physical phenomena of God! It appears that Stephen Unwin has not only made his mark as a Theologian with his new book... but now he has dusted off his physics Ph.D. and made his mark as a physicist! Now, I would like to return to professor Dembski's question of: "Why should G_uv be the sole locus of divine action in the world"? Well, obviously Bill has fallen victim to the same erroneous presumption as Chris Isham and, initially, Steve Unwin... namely that God=G_uv refers to a curvature in real space rather than a curvature in "subjective seen space". Once the distinction is recognized, the answer to prof. Dembski's question is obvious. The discovery that we see a "curved version" of actual physical reality, due to a human growth deficit, immediately explains what Unwin identifies as: "The person-God of the major faiths ...[wch.] .. refers to the God of Christians, the Jehovah of Jews, the Allah of Muslims, the Wise Lord of Zoroastrians, et cetera. Although there is some disagreement between and within religions about the specific characteristics of the person-God, the similarities in beliefs outnumber the differences." (Unwin, _Probability of God_, p.19) Since the average person has a growth deficit, that is, part of every man is "invisible"; becomes immediately a compelling scientific explanation of the "invisible person-God" of world religion- the invisible God painted on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Since the BGD is the actual "percentage" of a human being that is invisible (i.e. latent/ungrown), and this number is set equal to G_uv; we see clearly and unequivocally that "G_uv" physically describes the "invisible person-god" of the major faiths... that is, G_uv mathematically describes the curvature of reality effected by God the invisible man. Certainly G_uv then, which describes this invisible person-god, is the central, if not the sole, "locus of divine action in the world"- as professor Dembski put it. I would like to now address some further remarks made by Prof. Isham. Between December 2003 and March 2004 I exchanged half a dozen emails with Professor Chris Isham about God=G_uv. Reviewing this entire series, it is apparent that Chris Isham NEVER was able to get over his basic error of failing to realize the difference between "physical reality" and "subjective seen reality"... despite the fact that I pointed out to him repeatedly the commonly recognized fact that "reality" appears to be MUCH LARGER and MUCH FASTER to an (ungrown) child than it does to an adult. His "perceptual reality" is MAGNIFIED and SPEEDED UP drastically in comparison to the reality seen by an adult. This effect is known universally as a "CURVATURE OF SPACETIME" in relativity theory. As a result of this fundamental GAFFE, none of his comments make any sense, and his conclusions are absolutely without any validity or relevance whatsoever. For instance, on Dec. 15, 2003 he writes: [Chris Isham, 12-15-2003] 2. I would also remark that, as I think you realize yourself, the gravitational field in the brain due to classical gravity is extremely weak: so weak in fact that it is essentially just the Newtonian force, and the contributions from general relativity are completely negligible. But even if that were not the case, why should be G_\mu\nu be the quantity to use in your theory, since there are many other tensor quantities that relate to the curvature of space? It is true that G_\mu\nu is one of the simplest ones (and it is the one that Einstein, finally, used) but it is not the most simplest (arguably that is R_\mu\nu). In the case of general relativity, it is a matter of empirical verification that G_\mu\nu is the correct thing to use in Einstein's field equations (rather than, say, R_\mu\nu) but could you, even in principle, do anything analogous? [Hammond] This statement is extraordinary in that it is not only based on his fundamental faux pas of mistaking "real" space for "seen" space, but in addition Chris seems to be venting his annoyance at the equation God=G_uv in that he is annoyed that Einstein selected that symbol "G" to denote the curvature tensor of Gravity and that appears to be uncannily fortuitous in my equation for God: God=G_uv. I'm afraid we cannot shed tears over the fact that both Gravity and God begin with a Gee. Before commenting on his arguments over "which curvature tensor" should be "God".. I will introduce a related statement of his from a letter of Dec. 23, 2003: [Chris Isham, 12-23-2003] Separate from this are his [Sir Roger Penrose's] beliefs that it is general relativity that is in some way responsible for the 'collapse of the wave function'. Although this is more plausible a priori, once again it is important to emphasize that there is no actual theory that describes this effect. At the moment, it is at best a hand-waving suggestion and plays no role in any of the current quantum gravity or foundation of quantum theory research programmes. But even if there was some quantum gravity effect of this type, and even if it could be related to brain growth in some way, why should the latter involve the equations of classical general relativity? (which you use in your equation God=T_{uv} The equations of the (as yet unknown) quantum theory of gravity will surely be totally different. So it seems to me that there is no proven scientific link between general relativity, quantum theory and brain structure. So even if your conjecture is true that there is a relation between brain growth and the experience of 'God', I think it is scientifically quite wrong to say that there is a proof that this is connected with general relativity. Of course, any one is entitled to make conjectures, but that is far from being the same thing as a proof! Sorry to be so negative again, but I presume you do want my honest views on your ideas rather than just a polite put-off:-) [Hammond] Well... adding the above two different letters together, it is plain that Chris Isham has a totally misconceived, and in addition, even backwards upside down understanding of the theory: 1. Again it is painfully apparent that Chris has yet to discover his gaffe of confusing "real" space with "seen" space. He is not aware that "God" is a mental/perceptual phenomena whereby the less than fully grown brain produces a "curved image" of reality. 2. Roger Penrose's Quantum Brain gravity is NOT assumed as a HYPOTHESIS of my theory, it is deduced as a RESULT of my theory. My discovery confirms Penrose's theory, not vice versa! Isham greatly errs here. 3. Not only has he confused the 2 spaces of "reality", he has conceived of the theory backwards. He supposes that I start with Penrose's conjecture of Quantum Brain Gravity, assume that controls braingrowth, and results in a "classical Einsteinian curvature" in the brain. This is TOTALLY WRONG! the facts of the matter are actually these: A. It is experimentally known that there are 4 dimensions in Psychology (experimental, 2-decimal, Psychometry). B. Hammond discovered the REASON for this in that the brain is Cartesionally cleaved due to the (Euclidean) metric of real space (Hammond, 1994). Hence it is XYZt that is the physical cause of ENPg of Psychometry space. C. Hammond discovered that Psychometry space is "curved" and since XYZt causes the ENPg dimensions of Psychometry space... the cause of this curvature is identified, sui generis, as a curvature of XYZt spacetime.. e.g. Gravity. D. The direct biological cause of the curvature is easily proven to be the Secular Trend in braingrowth. E. From these discoveries, Sir Roger Pensrose's Brain Gravity (Penrose-Hameroff Microtubule theory) is identified as "most likely" the physical source of the "gravity" in that this mechanism would control "brain growth" and thus could cause the classical gravitational curvature in perceptual (subjective) space. F. Finally, we note that the discovery is a compelling if not overwhelming explanation of God, without even mentioning Quantum Gravity... although obviously the involvement of Penrose's/Hameroff's thesis is now of compelling interest in this regard. So, from these facts, we see that there is NO QUESTION that the curvature tensor involved has to be G_uv and not R_uv or some other tensor, since it is apparent that "a gravitational curvature of spacetime" (XYZt) is the cause of the curvature of ENPg, and Einstein has already shown that no other tensor than G_uv will qualify as a description of this curvature. Now, finally, in view of Isham's total failure to comprehend the theory, we have insult added to injury with his precipitous summary remarks such as: December 15, 2003 So, to be honest, I do not personally think that you have any sort of "Scientific proof of God" December 23, 2003 So even if your conjecture is true that there is a relation between brain growth and the experience of 'God', I think it is scientifically quite wrong to say that there is a proof that this is connected with general relativity. March 8, 2004 it seems to me that at best you could say is that you have demonstrated an analogy between certain ideas in psychology and ideas in general relativity. [Hammond] Because of Isham's careless failure to recognize even the first and most basic fact of the theory- that G_uv is a curvature of "subjectively seen spacetime" and not "real physical spacetime", all of these remarks represent nothing but a careless scientific faux pas and a scientific gaffe. Hence these remarks are precipitous, preemptive, and reflect nothing but the writers hard bitten and forlorn presumptions about God rather than any real or objective fact. They must be rejected out of hand as preposterous. SUMMARY In view of this failure of our leading authorities in Sci-Rel to be able to diligently pursue the truth in such an extremely important matter... I think it not unreasonable to ask the COUNTERBALANCE FOUNDATION to do something to ameliorate the situation. There is little doubt in my mind that Chris Isham is capable of evaluating this theory... if he but had the time to discover that it actually is a theory (not to say a proven discovery). Unfortunately he is too busy studying Quantum Gravity and William Dembski is too busy studying Intelligent Design (ironically my discovery confirms Intelligent Design!). Isn't there SOMETHING the COUNTERBALANCE FOUNDATION can do to help evaluate this discovery... a committee... a hearing... a discussion... something? I have already published the discovery in the peer reviewed literature (Noetic Journal 2003) and a copy of that paper is posted on my website at: http://oocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html but I would strongly suggest you read the first 4 Large print pages of my website before attempting to read the paper: ==================================== SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE http://oocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god mirror site: http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com ==================================== please ask you news server to add: alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated =================================== Sincerely, George Hammond, M.S. Physics (1967)