This formula is analogous to formula of I.Q. given by Wilhelm Stern.

I have also developed mathematical relationship for E.Q. as the function of I.Q. and Wisdom

This leaves anything left-over from what I said like; photographs, etc. that are so called “proof” of supernatural. If it is proof, THEN, you can leave it to science to investigate.

So, I say that if you saw and felt something that is not testable by science, maybe it is! But in the aspect that we must first understand the mind itself, and gather evidence from it. If only we could connect to our brains and gather data from the event. Like your health state, what you where thinking, what you thought you saw, etc. Then we could probably just find out that it was all in your mind, and never “actually” happened (but yet still happened in your mind, making it still testable by science).

i see them,

i know this might be hard for you to believe me, but i have. this isnt a joke, i would laugh at myself if this was a joke but its not. ive seen them, ive felt them,

is it wrong for me to be able to see them, to feel them,
how can i stop this. ??

please. i need help.

If you want to understand what makes many forms of monotheistic religion “work” in their intellectual aspect you need learn to reason in a more fundamental way than any scientific education–however laudable and good in itself–can supply you. That is, you need to study the Western tradition of metaphysics from Plato’s Parmenides and Aristotle, up through at least Aquinas and Scotus. I mean really and intensively try to understand its categories and ways of apprehending the world in their own terms, with the same passion you might use as a scientist trying to understand mathematics necessary for your field. I guarantee some interesting results emerge–especially if you then compare its ways of knowing and reasoning with the modern sciences.

(Modern philosophy in most of its forms doesn’t count, for complicated reasons.)

To make a long story short, I think it can be shown that while modern sciences can most certainly stand on their own two feet with regard to certain kinds of questions–if you will, the “how” questions–at root the scientific way of reasoning is at best capable a very limited critique of older ways of thinking when it comes to “why” questions–although historically the metaphysicians are responsible in large degree for the divorce between the two forms of reasoning in modern times, in part because they tried to explain certain very specific physical processes and relations (like gravitation) metaphysically, when they are really to be explained scientifically. And so people, overgeneralizing from these particular failures, lost interest in it. But now we have the reverse, where people try to grapple with problems like the existence of God on the basis of scientific methods. This strikes me as an awkward category mistake. (Of course, this may not be true of given claims of the miraculous–but metaphysical arguments for God’s existence don’t depend on the miraculous, actually.)

Examples of metaphysical concepts presupposed by science but not–strictly speaking–definable in terms of it: “actuality” and “potentiality” (in general terms), and “reality.”

Barring such attempts to understand each other’s categories of thought, I fear we theists and you atheists and agnostics will just aggravate each other more and more, and civic peace will suffer for it. I don’t think many of us want that!

In that analogy the balloon surface isn’t a boundary as we’re using the distance from the centre to represent time since the Big Bang, not space. Our brains are incapable of picturing the shape of things in 4 dimensions (3 space and 1 time), but dropping one of the space dimensions in this way allows us to construct a 3D mental picture which includes the time dimension. The balloon surface represents the size and shape of a 2D universe at a particular point in time, it’s a momentary snapshot. The centre of the balloon is the beginning of time, not the centre of the universe. “inside” the balloon just means the past, and “outside” is the future. Another snapshot taken at an earlier time would show the same basic shape except that the balloon would be smaller (i.e. the objects within it would be closer together relative to the range of atomic forces etc.). A 2D creature living in this 2D universe would only be aware of the left/right and back/forward space dimensions so it would have no boundary, and “up” and “down” would be meaningless concepts to it in the same way that we can’t imagine a 4th space dimension at 90 degrees to the 3 we’re already familiar with.

Coincidentally, Daniel Rutter over at http://www.dansdata.com/gz074.htm has just come up with a really nice way of visualising the shape of the universe using the virtual worlds of computer games. A 2D side scrolling game which wraps around horizontally can be pictured as occupying the surface of a cylinder, so it has a finite width with no side boundaries, but it has boundaries (or else stretches to infinity) above and below. A 2D game which wraps around horizontally and vertically has a finite area with no boundaries and is doughnut shaped. Our universe can be thought of as a 3D game world which wraps around in all 3 dimensions which means it can have a finite volume but no boundaries.

Quote Thorin:
———————————
I’m still not convinced that we’ll ever be able to measure the universe and thus have it meet Phil’s requirement.
———————————

One of the neat things about using the virtual world of a computer game is that we can see that there doesn’t have to be an external virtual space to contain this universe. The 3D space of a virtual world is simply a mathematical construct and there is no virtual space “outside” the volume which is defined. Of course, a game’s virtual universe exists within our meta-universe, but our physical space isn’t an extension of that virtual space. If it were possible to programme intelligent observers as characters inside the game universe, they would be able to measure the properties of their unbounded universe (including it’s volume), but there’s no way for them to find out anything about our meta-universe. So there might be something in the idea that we’re actually living in a simulation ourselves, but there’s probably no way we’d ever be able to find out, all we can say is that we don’t know.