Scientific Probability of Life After Death

Scientific Probability of Life After Death

copyright: George Hammond June 2009

I recently read this on an atheist website:

==block quote===Derrick Miller=========
After Christians get to Heaven, then what? How are they
going to spend eternity? What are they going to do to occupy
their time? Will they have jobs? Hobbies? What about
pets? Eternity is a long, long, long time. Just what the
hell are you going to do when you get there?
==========end quote============

Miller doesn’t know that Science has made considerable
headway on this age old question in recent years and is
obviously still under the sway of ideas that are centuries
and even millenniums old!

In the first place, it is now known that the phenomenon
of “God” is a Relativistic effect. No human being can see
“true reality”. In fact we all see a “curved version” of
true reality. This is caused by the well known Secular
Trend in human growth and is the most fundamental phenomenon
known to human existence. It was discovered by human
observation thousands of years ago, has recently been
scientifically proved, and is known as the phenomenon of
“God” to the common man. See:

Discovery of a Scientific Proof of God by George Hammond
in Essays and Theses on ILP

While all of this is now cut and dried science, the
question of Life After Death still remains a mystery.
However, the discovery of the world’s first scientific proof
of God (s.p.o.g. for short) has cleared up a few details
concerning Heaven and the theory of Life After Death,
namely:

  1. It is now known that “eternal life” does NOT mean living
    for an infinite length of time. Eternal life means
    living in “uncurved” (e.g. flat) spacetime. Simply
    put, we are all suffering from a “time dilation”
    caused by the Secular Trend growth deficit, and if
    this time dilation could be reduced to zero, we would
    be in a CONDITION of “Eternal Life”.

  2. This simple fact answers the questions posed by the
    atheist quoted above. We DON’T spend “millions of
    years” in Heaven, don’t be absurd! If indeed there is
    life after death it is only a relatively short
    experience, a few hours, days, weeks or years at the
    most. The reason it is called “eternal” is because
    the clocks in Heaven run at a TRUE RATE… the
    entire world is slower and smaller than it is in this
    world. We get to see TRUE TIME AND TRUE SPACE… and
    as a result of this, we get to see the TRUE IDENTITY
    of all people. THIS LATTER FACT is the real miracle
    of “Eternal Life”

  3. What is it like?.. well, this is my guess… it is
    similar to a nocturnal dream, only it involves ALL 5
    senses. In this dream you can feel, touch, and hear
    things as well as see them. This is because in an
    ordinary nocturnal dream only the sense of vision is
    shut down, but after death all 5 senses are shut down,
    therefore the death dream will be a “5 sense dream”
    which of course is FAR MORE REAL than just an ordinary
    night time dream which is ONLY visual.

  4. The object of life after death is to make a slow
    progression from “curved spacetime” to “flat
    spacetime” and this probably happens over a period of
    days, weeks or months… possibly years. Like an
    ordinary dream, you will probably flit about from
    scene to scene, even flit from previous childhood
    years to adult years… one “scenario” after
    another… just like a dream or a movie or t.v. show.
    But the POINT of all this flitting around is that you
    will see the effect of “undilating time” in each
    scenario. This will have the effect of “explaining
    mysteries”, “righting wrongs” and “enlightening” the
    person about his whole life here on earth.

  5. At the end of this movie, as your stay in Heaven draws
    to and end, you finally achieve permanent “true vision”
    (called Beatific Vision by the theologians) in which
    you see the world for what it really is, and see and
    FEEL the magnificence of your own life and body, and
    see the similar success of all of your friends and loved
    ones. And yes, once you achieve this CONDITION of
    eternal life, you do actually die… the lights simply
    go out… but because you were in a condition of
    Eternal Life before you ceased to live, there IS NO
    SUCH THING as “death” so called… unlike the situation
    here on Earth, where we do NOT die in a condition of
    Eternal Life and death is a great tragedy calling for
    much grief, weeping and gnashing of teeth.

  6. Well, that’s it, the LATEST scientific theory of Life
    After Death. Do we have any evidence that this is true.
    No, we don’t. But we do have evidence that it is
    SCIENTIFICALLY POSSIBLE!
    It turns out that the past few decades have
    discovered that there is a vast microtubule computing
    and memory system inside each neuron of the brain, that
    in fact the capacity of the brain is 15 ORDERS OF
    MAGNITUDE greater than we previously thought. On top of
    that, this microtubule system operates at microwave and
    infrared frequencies which is 12 orders of magnitude
    FASTER than neuronal firing frequencies. This means
    that a lifetime of ordinary nocturnal dreams could be
    read out in a few MICROSECONDS by this microtubule
    memory system. This means that the “death dream” (aka
    AFTERLIFE) could be read out in the last split second
    of your life and then “time dilated” and viewed by the
    dearly departed over a period of months or years… thus
    making it APPEAR that this dream happens “after death”
    when actually it occurs a split second BEFORE death.
    Now, all of this is hypothetical, but I point out to
    you that is based on existing scientific fact,
    meaning that it IS POSSIBLE.
    In summary, there MAY BE such a thing as a literal
    LIFE AFTER DEATH.
    ========================================
    GEORGE HAMMOND’S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
    Primary site
    webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
    1st mirror site
    geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
    2nd mirror site
    proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
    =======================================
    THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
    interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
    =======================================

Exceptionally slim (no probability is 100%, but this comes oh so very close) to none!
Your ‘science’ has been found lacking and spurious… ‘desperate’!
Now, if you tried a ‘religious probability’, or a ‘believer’s probability’, or a ‘scripturally based probability’, you might find something that you can use to ‘validate your personal beliefs’ (since they seem to need validating), science does not!

[Hammond]
Completely unsupported assertion. Worthless pseudoanonymous jactitation.

[Hammond]
Completely unsupported assertion. Worthless pseudoanonymous jactitation.

[Hammond]
This is an essay about SCIENTIFIC PROBABLILITY. None of those probabilities are scientific.

[Hammond]
Unsupported assertion. Worthless pseudoanonymous jactitation.

Your reference to my “personal beliefs” is ad hominem heckling prohibited on this forum.

========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND’S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com

 THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
  [interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3](http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3)

=======================================

Your nonsense website has already been refuted on many levels when you have spammed it (posted and reposted, ignoring valid refutation) previously. Your ‘science’ has been shown to be nonsense. But, as many times as this has been shown, you ignore it and forge ahead in your ‘beliefs’ and keep putting up these nonsense threads.
You self-justification of your ‘beliefs’ is boring. You need not ‘justify’ your beliefs (to others), just believe em.
You exercise the thoughtful examination of a true believer.
Pffft!

No it isn’t, george, it is a valid observation of a mental process that inhibits critical thought and has been the topic of many discussions. Your ‘beliefs’ are relevent to the discussion. I am not saying that your ‘beliefs’ are ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ or any other judgement, just that they inhibit rational critical thought. Sorry if the truth makes you uncomfortable, it does so for many people until they get used to it.

[Hammond]
FALSEHOOD. There has never been even ONE valid refutation of even ONE single issue, point, claim,
evidentiary fact, or conclusion of my Scientific Proof of God by ANYONE, at ANYTIME, ANYWHERE.

[Hammond]
FALSEHOOD. The discovery has been published in the peer reviewed journal literature
in a prestigious journal (New Ideas In Psychology) published by Elsevier Scientific Publishing Ltd.
which is one of the world’s largest premier academic publishers. It was reviewed by no less
than 7 PhD level reviewers and unanimously recommended for publication by them.

[Hammond]
Amateur wannabee unpublished pseudoanonymous Internet posters with no degrees or credentials
have, and still are, conducting a brutal, vicious, unmerciful and tediously boring smear campaign against the discovery
of the world’s first bona fide scientific proof of God (spog) all of which is well documented by the TENS OF THOUSANDS
of anonymous hecklers talking about the discovery on the alt. Usenet newsgroups. Needless to say much of
this is inspired by the well documented atheistic leanings of modern academia.
In fact I have turned to this MODERATED forum where ad hominem attack, heckling and
slander are EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED by formal rules and enforced by moderators.

[Hammond]
I DON’T HAVE ANY “BELIEFS”. I am a scientist (M.S. Physics) and the only thing I “believe” is proven scientific fact,
and that is the only thing which is on my website, or in my published papers, which BTW I’m quite sure you are not even
qualified to read much less critique.
If you don’t have anything SPECIFIC to say about the discovery but just intend to post handwaving, unsupported
rant and raving OPINION, I’d suggest you would be better off posting to the alt. newsgroups where it belongs, because
NOTHING you have said has any competent connection to the discovery which has been made, proven and published
in the peer reviewed academic literature.

GEORGE HAMMOND’S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com

 THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
  [interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3](http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3)

=======================================

^^^ What excellent evidence in support of ‘critical thought’ and ‘belief’ being diametrically opposed, the more of one, the less of the other.
The ‘belief content’ is obvious.

The scientific evidence of life after death - I can without having read all the relevant material say is zero. The only “research” I’ve seen is either the weight of the human soul, psiist bs or any science is couched in terms that leave it open to interpretation. Science doesn’t do research on ghosts or paranormal phenomena directly anyway. This is a philosophical area purely.

No, just no…

+100 on my crackpot scale for that entire article, seriously there’s a scoreboard somewhere, usually anything over 50 means you’re a common or garden crackpot, over 100 means you’re slightly bonkers.

[Hammond]
With all due respect, the above sentence is unintelligible to this physicist.
I can’t gather whether you are accusing me of scientific incompetence and irrational belief
or whether you are agreeing with my scientific analysis.

Perhaps you could restate the content of your message in less parochial language.
Plain English would suffice.

========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND’S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com

 THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
  [interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3](http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3)

=======================================

[Hammond]
Only a rank amateur would say such a thing.

[Hammond]
That’s what I mean by an “amateur”; you’re obviously neither well read nor learned.

[Hammond]
Ghosts and paranormal events are PSYCHOLOGICAL phenomena and Psychology
is (now) a science. In order to explain ghosts and paranormal phenomena (or
even God) one has to scientifically explain Psychology, and Science has made
major strides in that direction, including now the discovery of a scientific proof
of God (Hammond 2003).

[Hammond]
I’ve cited peer reviewed published evidence while you are countering it with nothing more
than an unlearned, unsupported, handwaving opinion. That’s laughable.

[Hammond]
Now you’re resorting to name calling and simple heckling. I’d remind you this is not a Usenet
alt. newsgroup, it is a moderated forum and there is a limit to the abount of heckling and
abuse that the modrators will tolerate under charter rules.

GEORGE HAMMOND’S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com

 THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
  [interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3](http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3)

=======================================

Yeah that’s because you’re a crackpot and there’s no real abuse in saying where someone is on the science scale. If you don’t like honesty then report me to the moderators. Anyhow if you were worthy of discussion, if you say linked a scientific journal for any of this supposed evidence, then maybe just maybe you’d be worth entering into a dialogue. As it is as you’re patently a nobody in any field with no professional qualifications except ones you made up, with no peer review, you can say whatever you want about anything, but I’m not buying any of it. What makes it a 100 on the crackpot scale is that despite going through no scientific process you have claimed where science stands. All you’d have to do now is claim that there was a conspiracy by the establishment to keep you down and my view of you would be complete. Stop spamming up this forum with unfounded nonsense is my advice and can the pretending to be a bonafide scientist its insulting to the field.

Show me some science in reputable journals.

[Hammond]
You’re name calling again which is against forum rules.
I have certified academic credentials which tell where I am on the science scale:

      CURRICULUM VITAE 
      GEORGE HAMMOND 

B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U. and who is presently Distinguished
Professor of Physics at TAMU

Peer reviewed publications:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html

Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html

[Hammond]
I don’t have to report you, they’re already monitoring this thread for abuse.

[Hammond]
The evidence cited is common knowlege to professionals.
Amateursw like yourself can find it with a Google search
in seconds. Do your own leg work, I’m not here to tutor anyone.

[Hammond]
You’re not.

[Hammond]
Liar. My CV cited above and publications are a matter of public
record. Quit lying and heckling.

[Hammond]
My peer reviewed papers are cited above. Quit name calling, lying and heckling.

Snip rest of rant.

========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND’S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com

 THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
  [interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3](http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3)

=======================================

Anyone can say they are anything on the internet, doesn’t make it true.

uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/George_Hammond

  • another 50 you are talking about a field you have not even studied. It just gets better and better. It appears I was right though you are no one, you don’t even have a wiki page. The Noetic journal doesn’t even have a wiki link to it which is odd as even non peer reviewed journals like arxiv are mentioned on wiki. Which tells me two things, it’s not really a peer reviewed legitimate science journal, and obviously therefore its not very convincing.

Yeah I think they are on to you mate. Give it up when you’re infamous for being a crackpot its time to lay down the science hat.

I was wrong the Noetic Journal is on a blacklist of disreputable sources at wiki:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yillo … le_Sources

Using the journal search tool on that link turns up no mention of the journal of: new ideas in psychology. It certainly isn’t on any peer reviewed journal list. Why is that?

I read the blurb its not peer reviewed.

elsevier.com/wps/find/journa … structions

Hmm they frown on empiricism. I don’t think we can accept that as a science journal.

I’m afraid nothing you have linked has shown to be part of reputed works or journals. If you have a link to a reputable source then I’d probably read it, otherwise I think the rather humerous uncyclopedia is more likely to be factual or scientific than one of your papers.

Am I the only one who smells and tastes things in dreams occasionally?

Surely I’m not the only one who hears things in dreams, am I?!

Is there some scientific basis to the assertion that nocturnal dreams are only visual, or did you just make it up?

uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/George_Hammond

[Hammond]
You said it yourself… ANYONE CAN SAY ANYTHING ON THE INTERNET, DOESN’T MAKE IT TRUE… and CERTAINLY none
of that tongue in cheek crap you’ve cited above is true… that’s only fan mail. For christ’s sake an Australian rock
group even recorded a song about me available on mp3 on the internet (see URL in my signature file below).
OF COURSE anyone who discovers the world’s first and only scientific proof of God is going to be famous, and
every mental case on the Internet is going to be following him around like Jesus of Nazareth !!! What else is new?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yillo … le_Sources

[Hammond]
Look… you don’t know what you’re talking about. ELSVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHING is the BIGGEST science
publisher in the world and you will find a citation of my paper on the discovery of the Structural Model of Personalty
on their website at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VD4-460RN9N-6&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F1994&_rdoc=6&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235972%231994%23999879997%23320836%23FLP%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5972&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=25&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=49e5f19e70300e8f061e953d6817508c

Notice the ELSEVIER logo at the bottom of the page. NEW IDEAS IN PSYCHOLOGY certainly is
peer reviewed and is a well known and highly respected journal. By the way ELSVIER will
charge you $31.50 for a copy of my paper of which I recieve nothing lest someone accuse me
of commercial advertising on this forum.

As for the NOETIC JOURNAL, I only published my discovery of the world’s first
scientific proof of God because prof. KARL H PRIBRAM was one of the editors
and he was world famous and and a Stanford professor for 30 years and I thought
he would publsih it when, NATURALLY , unlike the discovery of the Structural Model
which was routine science and could be reviewed by line professional scientists
at New Ideas In Psychology, NO leading journal in the world would even
consider publishing a scientific proof of God… I figured Karl Pribram was probably
the only guy in the world who would!

If its so well known why when I run it through the list of reputable peer reviewed journals search engines on wiki, of which there are four there are there no hits on any of them? I don’t think you will convince me by making claims about the publishing house either.

Any journal that says it wants controversial ideas which preferably lack empiricism is not scientific for a start, or peer reviewed by scientists, its a philosophy journal.

I don’t give a damn if Jesus wrote a song about you and released it and it went straight to no 1 in all 193 countries of the world. That says nothing about your scientific credentials, only that you have gathered a cult following. L.Ron Hubbard had a film made about one of his books and has 600,000 devoutly slavish brainwashed idiots following his drivel, we don’t therefore believe Scientology is credible because it’s clearly a load of nonsense. There is one born every minute though.

[Hammond]
“Scientific basis”… surely you’re joking? Obviously vison is shut off during sleep because you’re eyes are closed
and someone can wave their hands in front of your face and it will NOT wake you up.
On the other hand it is well known that a jab in the ribs, or a loud sound will instantly wake someone up, HENCE obviously
their sense of touch and hearing is NOT shut off during sleep. Neither is taste or smell shut off since the smell of
smoke will often wake someone up… but not always… apparently taste and smell are a bit “reduced” during
sleep but not entierly shut off… which probably explains rare reports of people smelling or tasting things in
a dream.
As for reports of people hearing things in a dream… I think it’s more a case of “imagining” you’re hearing something
rather than actually hearing something… dunno really.
However, one thing is clear; if dreams are MAINLY VISUAL because vision is shut off, can you imagine what a dream would
be like if all 5 senses were shut off… cripes… it would be actual reality wouldn’t it? Apparently that is what
Life After Death is, if it exists!

GEORGE HAMMOND’S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com

 THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
  [interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3](http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3)

=======================================

"

If you hone your reading skills a little you will see that I asked whether there was a scientific basis for the assertion that dreams are ‘only visual’ (a statement in which you put the emphasis on “only” yourself).

Seeing as you now agree that your original assertion - "an ordinary
night time dream which is ONLY visual. " - was false by conceeding that there are “rare reports of people smelling or tasting things in
a dream”, I guess you are agreeing that it was a non-scientific statement that you just happened to make up. So, my query is now answered, thanks.

[Hammond]
Look, I don’t know what your problem is buddy… I typed “New Ideas In Psychology” in Google and the first hit on
the list came up as:

elsevier.com/wps/find/journa … escription

You sound like someone who is only convinced by “arguments from authority” and your searching
for some authority to tell you what to believe about Hammond.

Sorry… I have nothing to discuss with synchophants. Just don’t start heckling me pal, this
is a moderated forum.

GEORGE HAMMOND’S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com

 THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
  [interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3](http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3)

=======================================

[Hammond]
NO… You’re wrong and I’m right. The reason dreams are ONLY visual is because
ONLY vision is shut off during sleep. As for people “reporting” that they can hear, taste, smell
things etc… those are only minority unconfirmable reports… whereas the entire
human race tells us that dream are visual.

so now you have the answer to your question for the second time, same as the first time.

By the way I’m not about to argue with you.

GEORGE HAMMOND’S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com

 THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
  [interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3](http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3)

=======================================

So your tactic in defending the statement “dreams are only visual” is simply to deny that any reports of other senses being experienced in dreams (including hearing) are true?

Or do you have a problem with basic logic - are you unaware of any reason why the statement “dreams are only visual” would be false if just one person had experienced another sense during a dream?

Either way - I suspect - this is a good example of the level of your ‘science’, and has been an informative interchange. And no - there is no argument here. I was just testing to see whether anything you had to say was likely to be worthwhile.