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

[George E Hammond]

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

Correlation is certainly not proof.

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Correlation CAN BE CAUSATION – in fact,
the CASES OF SCIENTIFIC INTEREST are
in fact where causation does cause correlation

IN PARTICULAR – in the case of Psychometry
where –

MULTIPLE CUBIC
INTERCORRELATION

Occurs – is of particular interest
In Psychology!

The question is – where does the
"cubic intercorrelation"come
from? – and Hammond has pointed
that it can be "neurologically demonstrated" that it comes from
the "cubic cleavage of the brain"

And this ultimately leads to the
world's first:
Scientific Proof Of God: (SPOG)
via the identification of the 13
symmetry axes of a cube with the
12 Olympian gods (13 personality
types).

George

 

[Kristoffer]

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

George

Neither are you.

 

[George E Hammond]

[GE Hammond MS physics]

This post is addressed to "Baldeee"
and "slideshowbob"

Both of you have posted about "why?": –

"A correlation coefficient is the cosine of an angle"

And both of you seem to have figured it out.

Okay – now it's time for you to meet the PSYCHOLOGISTS
who have used this to discover the World's First Scientific
Proof of God (Hammond's SPOG)

LET ME INTRODUCE YOU TO A PSYCHOMETRIST

You can meet one of them by looking at this paper: –

https://pages.uoregon.edu/gsaucier/Sacuier.Benchmarks.92.pdf

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1992 vol. 62 1025 – 1035
Benchmarks: Integrating Affective and
Interpersonal Circles With the Big-Five
Personality Factors
Gerard Saucier
Division of Counseling Psychology
University of Oregon

In this paper you will see HOW the psychologists
have taken the intercorrelations of various
"personality eigenvectors" (personality types)
and taken the arcosine of the intercorrelations
and constructed a (cubically intercorrelated)
geometric model – containing 9 out of the 13
known symmetry axes of a cube !

In this case Gerard Saucier says the following: –
One might depict the 18 (2x9) clusters in
any of several ways. In the Appendix
I simply present them in listwise form.
They might also be plotted
two-dimensionally as circumplexes.
Finally, one might represent the clusters
all on a single polyhedron, such as the
square faces of a
rhombicuboctahedron
as displayed in Fig-1




IOW GERARD SAUCIER has actually
EXPERIMENTALLY discovered and measured
9 out of the 13 symmetry axes of the CUBE
in PSYCHOLOGY – and he doesn't have a
CLUE to the fact that Hammond has already
discovered that this is CAUSED by the
cubic cleavage of the brain !

Okay – so here we are George, Baldeee and
slideshowbob – the only 3 people in the
PHYSICS DEPT in the whole world – who
are aware of this theoretical discovery.

George

 

[George E Hammond]

[GE Hammond MS physics]

This post is addressed to "Baldeee"
and "slideshowbob"

Both of you have posted about "why?": –

"A correlation coefficient is the cosine of an angle"

And both of you seem to have figured it out.

Okay – now it's time for you to meet the PSYCHOLOGISTS
who have used this to discover the World's First Scientific
Proof of God (Hammond's SPOG)

LET ME INTRODUCE YOU TO A PSYCHOMETRIST

You can meet one of them by looking at this paper: –

https://pages.uoregon.edu/gsaucier/Sacuier.Benchmarks.92.pdf

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1992 vol. 62 1025 – 1035
Benchmarks: Integrating Affective and
Interpersonal Circles With the Big-Five
Personality Factors
Gerard Saucier
Division of Counseling Psychology
University of Oregon

In this paper you will see HOW the psychologists
have taken the intercorrelations of various
"personality eigenvectors" (personality types)
and taken the arcosine of the intercorrelations
and constructed a (cubically intercorrelated)
geometric model – containing 9 out of the 13
known symmetry axes of a cube !

In this case Gerard Saucier says the following: –
One might depict the 18 (2x9) clusters in
any of several ways. In the Appendix
I simply present them in listwise form.
They might also be plotted
two-dimensionally as circumplexes.
Finally, one might represent the clusters
all on a single polyhedron, such as the
square faces of a
rhombicuboctahedron
as displayed in Fig-1
View attachment 4819



IOW GERARD SAUCIER has actually
EXPERIMENTALLY discovered and measured
9 out of the 13 symmetry axes of the CUBE
in PSYCHOLOGY – and he doesn't have a
CLUE to the fact that Hammond has already
discovered that this is CAUSED by the
cubic cleavage of the brain !

Okay – so here we are George, Baldeee and
slideshowbob – the only 3 people in the
PHYSICS DEPT in the whole world – who
are aware of this theoretical discovery.

George

[GE Hammond MS physics]
POSTSCRIPT: –

This post is addressed to "Baldeee"
and "slideshowbob"

Notice that Gerard Saucier's
rhombicuboctahedron fits
perfectly inside the CUBE of Hammond's
diagram below that one: –



This shows that Gerard Saucier the
Psychometrist has measured to
2 decimal point accuracy 9 of the
13 total symmetry axes of the
CUBIC BRAIN – thus PROVING
Hammond's cubic brain theory!

George

 

[Baldeee]

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Correlation CAN BE CAUSATION – in fact,
the CASES OF SCIENTIFIC INTEREST are
in fact where causation does cause correlation

You are inconsistent in your language even in the one sentence: Correlation can not be causation: they are different phenomena.
But then you say that causation can cause correlation. This is correct: causation can indeed cause correlation.
Notice the difference between "be" and "cause".
I can cause something without being that thing.

IN PARTICULAR – in the case of Psychometry
where –

MULTIPLE CUBIC
INTERCORRELATION

Occurs – is of particular interest
In Psychology!

I don't deny that there is correlation between certain personality traits, as factor analysis within psychometry has demonstrated.
But it hasn't shown any causation (either one personality trait causing another, or that there is something else causing both).
You have fleetingly mentioned the the septo-hippocampal system is involved in regulating anxiety, but beyond that, zip.

The question is – where does the
"cubic intercorrelation"come
from? – and Hammond has pointed
that it can be "neurologically demonstrated" that it comes from
the "cubic cleavage of the brain"

No you have not.
Please stop lying.
You have offered nothing... absolutely nothing... that points to such a thing.
You have, as has littered your "proof", simply asserted it, and then moved on.
You have claimed that the "cubic cleavage of the brain" is important, but have not shown how, other than the linguistic link to "cube".

And this ultimately leads to the
world's first:
Scientific Proof Of God: (SPOG)
via the identification of the 13
symmetry axes of a cube with the
12 Olympian gods (13 personality
types).

I note that you have here dropped the claim that there were actually 13 gods in the pantheon.
Even if there were 13, you are still left with actually showing that the 13 2nd-order personality factors (they are not themselves "personality types") have anything whatsoever to do with the gods.
Remember, merely asserting it is not "proof", or support, or anything other than your claim.
Further, now you seem to admit that there were only 12, you are left with trying to link the 13 factors to the 12 gods, which doesn't even link numerically / linguistically.

Every post you write, Mr. Hammond, simply reconfirms (not that it needs any more) that your proof is a joke, and that you are nothing but a dishonest crank and a troll.


Feeding time over for the day.

 

[George E Hammond]

[GE Hammond MS physics]
POSTSCRIPT: –

This post is addressed to "Baldeee"
and "slideshowbob"

Notice that Gerard Saucier's
rhombicuboctahedron fits
perfectly inside the CUBE of Hammond's
diagram below that one: –
View attachment 4820
View attachment 4821

This shows that Gerard Saucier the
Psychometrist has measured to
2 decimal point accuracy 9 of the
13 total symmetry axes of the
CUBIC BRAIN – thus PROVING
Hammond's cubic brain theory!

George

[GE Hammond MS physics]
POST POST SCRIPT: –

And before you ask me: –
"That's only 9 out of 13 – where are the other 4?

Let me tell you where they are: –
they are the 4 vectors of Clark and Merenda's
AVA – model: –


Clark and Merenda's AVA model

These are the "4-corner diagonals" of the
CUBE – therefore we now have 9+4 = 13
IOW – all 13 cubic symmetry axes of the
CUBIC BRAIN have been measured and
peer published in the academic research
literature – for more than 20 years!

George

 

[George E Hammond]

You are inconsistent in your language even in the one sentence: Correlation can not be causation: they are different phenomena.
But then you say that causation can cause correlation. This is correct: causation can indeed cause correlation.
Notice the difference between "be" and "cause".
I can cause something without being that thing.

I don't deny that there is correlation between certain personality traits, as factor analysis within psychometry has demonstrated.
But it hasn't shown any causation (either one personality trait causing another, or that there is something else causing both).
You have fleetingly mentioned the the septo-hippocampal system is involved in regulating anxiety, but beyond that, zip.
No you have not.
Please stop lying.
You have offered nothing... absolutely nothing... that points to such a thing.
You have, as has littered your "proof", simply asserted it, and then moved on.
You have claimed that the "cubic cleavage of the brain" is important, but have not shown how, other than the linguistic link to "cube".

I note that you have here dropped the claim that there were actually 13 gods in the pantheon.
Even if there were 13, you are still left with actually showing that the 13 2nd-order personality factors (they are not themselves "personality types") have anything whatsoever to do with the gods.
Remember, merely asserting it is not "proof", or support, or anything other than your claim.
Further, now you seem to admit that there were only 12, you are left with trying to link the 13 factors to the 12 gods, which doesn't even link numerically / linguistically.

Every post you write, Mr. Hammond, simply reconfirms (not that it needs any more) that your proof is a joke, and that you are nothing but a dishonest crank and a troll.


Feeding time over for the day.

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Hey – get off your high horse – you're not fooling anyone
by nitpicking semantic arguments to cover up the fact that
you have no overall scientific understanding of the subject
at hand.

I use middle-class American English on a forum of this type –
I do not use "the King's English" – an I am ASSURED that
the majority of readers of this forum understand EXACTLY
what I'm saying.

Now please read my posts # 963, 964 and 966
which are addressed specifically to you and
slideshowbob – and I suggest you start hedging
your bet that this is "pseudoscience" against the
possibility that this is a world-class scientific
discovery – and you're going to wind up with
egg all over your face in a worldwide publicity
scandal!


And I will try to refrain from calling you a aggravated
crank, a troll and a heckler !

George

 

[Baldeee]

Hmmm... left a bag of peanuts at the cage... ah, well.

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Hey – get off your high horse – you're not fooling anyone
by nitpicking semantic arguments to cover up the fact that
you have no overall scientific understanding of the subject
at hand.

It's not nitpicking at all.
If you're inaccurate in something as simple as the difference between "be" and "cause", then is it any wonder that you're as inaccurate when it gets to more demanding language?
As it is, it speaks to the rather endemic paucity of your intellectual rigour.
And given the valid criticisms of the so-called "proof" on scientific grounds that you have failed to address, it is quite clear who lacks the requisite scientific knowledge.
(Hint: it isn't me.)

I use middle-class American English on a forum of this type –
I do not use "the King's English"

The English language has moved on since the Fowler brothers authored "The King's English", and if you're not referring to that book then the only other relevant reference is to matters of pronunciation, not meaning.

– an I am ASSURED that
the majority of readers of this forum understand EXACTLY
what I'm saying.

Not always, hence the repeated requests for clarification from most people who have commented.
But while you are generally understandable (at least in as much that you use words that individually can be understood), if you opt to make argument while relying on incorrect usage of the language, expect others to pick you up on it.

Now please read my posts # 363, 364 and 366
which are addressed specifically to you and
slideshowbob...

Given that you have wilfully ignored all criticism of your "proof" thus far, wilfully ignored the vast majority of the questions that I have asked, it is rather ironic that you are now seeming to insist that I read certain posts.
Furthermore, I believe you mean posts #963, 964, and 966.
Which again speaks to your lack of rigour.

I'll address those posts as and when you bother to show how they answer any of the existing criticisms already raised against the matter, which you have avoided, instead opting to simply repeat the claims and argument.

– and I suggest you start hedging
your bet that this is "pseudoscience" against the
possibility that this is a world-class scientific
discovery – and you're going to wind up with
egg all over your face in a worldwide publicity
scandal!

You can suggest all you like.
Personally I would not even give your so-called "proof" the label of "pseudoscience" as I do not think it hurdles even that bar.
I think the term gives it too much credence.
It is garbage.
A joke.

And I will try to refrain from calling you a aggravated
crank, a troll and a heckler !

Calling me any of those would be as accurate as the rest of your so-called "proof".

You, on the other hand, are quite clearly a crank[/quote]: "a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false".
I consider you a troll because, rather than be here for an honest discussion of your so-called "proof", you in fact have zero intention of such, you disregard all criticisms of it, and you simply repeat what you have stated.
In my book that makes you a troll.
As for you calling someone a "heckler", that only speaks to you having complete disregard for the nature of discussion on this forum, a completely dishonest approach to having your so-called "proof" challenged.
I also add to those that you are as dishonest as they come, and wilfully ignorant, both based solely on your engagement on this forum.

 

[sideshowbob]

For instance since we reach full growth
at age 18 – a 9-year-old's brain is only
50% fully grown!

That doesn't follow. Physical growth and mental development don't proceed at the same rate.

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!

There's almost a germ of truth in that. A two-year-old sees a year as half a lifetime where a fifty-year-old sees a year as two percent of a lifetime. Our perspective is often a comparison to ourselves: somebody who is taller than me is tall, somebody who is shorter than me is short.

So yes, "God" is a bigger deal to a nine-year-old with an undeveloped brain and undeveloped thought patterns than He is to many mature adults.

 

[sideshowbob]

In this paper you will see HOW the psychologists
have....

That isn't how the forum works. YOU have to explain how they did it. You can't just tell us to go read War and Peace and it will answer all of our questions.

So let's try again. In fact, let's back up a step or two. Start by showing us what kind of questions those psychologists asked. Then tell us how they scored the answers, so we'll have some idea where the correlation coefficients came from.

 

[Baldeee]

For instance since we reach full growth
at age 18 – a 9-year-old's brain is only
50% fully grown!

I can only assume that one of your claimed 2 degrees is not biology.
Nor that you pay much attention to reality.

The human brain is about 80% of an adult's brain size by age 3.
By age 5 it is 90% the size.
Your blase disregard for science and facts is quite astonishing.

Further, it should be apparent just from opening your eyes that a child does not grow in a linear manner with time.
The average height of a 9-year old is about 133cm, and 18-year old it is about 170cm (some variance between male and female).

Oh, right, you were only talking metaphorically?
Only you aren't.
You genuinely think you're talking "science".

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!

Except they don't.
At least not in the way you are suggesting.
They see a world that is far bigger than "twice as big", not because of size of the brain, but because of lack of experiences and understanding.
They also see a world far slower than older people, because (so actual science suggests) they have not yet formed the neural links, making it slower to process things.
As has been explained to you, this is why a week to a child seems to last so much longer than a week to an adult.
But hey, what does actual science or, you know, reality, have to do with anything in your so-called "proof", right?

THIS IS THE "PHENOMENON OF GOD"

So "God" is just a label for the difference in perception between that of a child and that of an adult?

Therefore "God" is a mental phenomenon,
but God IS NOT AN IDEA IN THE BRAIN –

GOD IS AN INVOLUNTAARY PHYSICAL
PROPERTY OF THE BRAIN

So NOT a mental phenomenon???
It appears you can't even be consistent within the same sentence.
Which is it: a mental phenomenon or a physical property?
And how many, and which, physical properties of your brain do you consider to be voluntary?

We've had enough comedy around here –

Yet still you continue with your stand-up routine, it seems.

I only entertain serious Science.

See, another joke.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that the
world average normal adult population is around 15%
growth stunted

Evidence, please?
If there is "absolutely no doubt" then you won't find it difficult to substantiate it.
You know, like you do in science.

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 !

Now it seems you've wandered off into the ravings of a mad man, Mr. Hammond.
There is certainly nothing scientific about any of this, no matter what you claim.
You've also wandered into the realm of the subjective v objective, which is more a matter of philosophy than of science.

Cut the comedy !

If an when your microphone is switched off, that will be the outcome.

 

[Baldeee]

So yes, "God" is a bigger deal to a nine-year-old with an undeveloped brain and undeveloped thought patterns than He is to many mature adults.

I actually disagree.
I don't think the average nine-year-old (at least in the West) fully grasps what "God" (or the concept of God) is, and they likely view them more of a sky-daddy who grants wishes etc.
It is only when you have experienced more, developed your reasoning faculties, that you come to a greater comprehension.
To some, God will become just a concept - but a vastly more powerful one than you might have appreciated when only 9.
To others, they will have a deeper and fuller understanding of what (they think) "God" is, how much more it is than when they were 9.


Anyhoo, there is zip scientific about what Mr. Hammond has offered in his claims.
He throws stuff out as if it is meaningful, yet on even cursory inspection it fails to deliver.
Yet still he tries to build his castle out of the scattered rambling rocks, unable to lift even a single one, and none of which fit together.

 

[sideshowbob]

It is only when you have experienced more, developed your reasoning faculties, that you come to a greater comprehension.
To some, God will become just a concept - but a vastly more powerful one than you might have appreciated when only 9.

I wasn't talking about comprehension. I was talking about awe and mystery. In my experience, adults have more of a tendency to "explain" God - they may describe God as bigger and more powerfully but they don't feel the same awe as a child.

 

[George E Hammond]

Start by showing us what kind of questions those psychologists asked. Then tell us how they scored the answers, so we'll have some idea where the correlation coefficients came from.

[GE Hammond MS physics]

Okay, fortunately I have 40 years of computer
files – so I don't have to sit here and write the
answer to simple questions over and over again.

Here is a 400 word answer to your question
the shortest one I could find: –

Psychometry is the field of psychology measurement; mainly IQ and
Personality tests. Modern Psychometry is based on the linear algebra of
Factor Analysis, the Factor Analysis of written questionnaires mainly.

An unabridged
dictionary for example contains roughly 4,000 adjectives describing
human personality (Allport and Odbert 1936). A core list of about 200
substantially describes it. These are words such as:

raffish, effete, hidebound, taciturn, optimistic, facetious, congenial,
flamboyant, impudent, gullible, suspicious, skeptical, naive, prudish,
jovial, witty, smug, pompous, gregarious, polite, cynical, .... etc.

By making up a simple 200 word Adjective Checklist and giving it as a
test to 5,000 people with instructions to score each adjective from -5 to
+5 as to how well it describes themselves, one can compute the
correlation coefficients (of described behavior) between the 200
adjectives. In this case such a procedure yields a 200´200 correlation
matrix describing human personality (Goldberg 1994, Cattell 1973).

Factor Analysis is the method by which the Structural Model of
Personality is deduced from the matrix.

Every real symmetric matrix has
what are known as eigenvectors. This correlation matrix is a scalar
product matrix where each adjective is modeled as a vector in a vector
space. The correlation coefficient is the cosine of the angle between
vectors. If all the correlations were zero the space would be 200
dimensional, but because most of the correlations are nonzero the vectors
occupy far less than 200 dimensions. The Rank of the matrix is the
dimensionality of the space, the Rank being identical to the number of
eigenvectors since the eigenvectors are coordinate axes of the space.
A
modern desktop computer can easily determine the Rank and extract the
eigenvectors. This is called "Factoring" the matrix. This vector space is
referred to as "Personality space" and every point in it represents a
different personality type as measured by the coordinate axes of the
space.

Suppose the Rank of the matrix turned out to be three. Then what we
would know is that the Structural Model of Personality is 3-dimensional.
One might be able to discover this using psychoanalysis (Freud did
apparently, the Tripartite Model), but there is no way to measure it
. Psychometry is a way of measuring it.

Further, by observing which of the
200 vectors load on each of the 3 dimensions, we can identify the 3-
dimensions. That is, we can discover the names of the 3-dimensions
Thus in this case we wind up with a 3-dimensional personality space in
which the dimensions of the space are actually the names of 3 different
personalities – or 3 different "Personality Types".

George

 

[Baldeee]

I wasn't talking about comprehension.

The strength of emotional reaction is a minor matter; lack of reference points leads to greater sense of awe of the unknown.
God, to many, is a far "bigger deal" once they have better comprehension.
And I'm not talking about simply understanding God as more powerful, or bigger, etc, but a bigger impact on one's life, either as a concept or as belief.

Anyhoo, this is meandering into something altogether too sensible a discussion for this thread.

 

[foghorn]

George, can you clarify something for me about your idea, is god only something in the mind and so there was no god before the earth was formed?

 

[George E Hammond]

George, can you clarify something for me about your idea, is god only something in the mind and so there was no god before the earth was formed?

[GE Hammond MS physics]

Yes – I can clear that up for you !

The Church position is that the word "EXISTENCE"
only has operational meaning in relation to a
human "OBSERVER".

IOW only Man, ultimaely, can confirm that
anything EXISTS. Therefore The World, The Universe
and so forth could not be in a state of "existence" until
Adam and Eve (modern man) came into existence
say, a million years ago or whenever Homo sapiens
sapiens came into existence. A famous theologian
named Ussher over a century ago thought that was
about "6000 years ago" – but they didn't know
very much Paleontology in his day.

As far as the
Church is concerned – the whole world and the universe
was "existentially created" when Adam and Eve were
created in the garden of Eden – as described in Genesis.

Of course we know the universe was "physically created"
14 billion years ago in the Big Bang – but "physically
created" is not "existentially created" because that requires
the existence of a human observer!

George

 

[George E Hammond]

I actually disagree.
I don't think the average nine-year-old (at least in the West) fully grasps what "God" (or the concept of God) is, and they likely view them more of a sky-daddy who grants wishes etc.
It is only when you have experienced more, developed your reasoning faculties, that you come to a greater comprehension.
To some, God will become just a concept - but a vastly more powerful one than you might have appreciated when only 9.

[GE Hammond MS physics]
WRONG – "God" is a power that controls the SIZE AND SPEED
of the world that a given individual actually sees.
A 9-year-old sees a world that is twice as big and twice as fast as
the world that an adult sees. Therefore the world is TWICE
AS THREATENING to a 9-year-old than is to an adult.
Traffic is more dangerous, physical conflict is more dangerous,
lack of support is more dangerous to a 9-year-old than it is
to an adult.
... Of course a 9-year-old DOES NOT KNOW that this is
the power of "God". He doesn't even know that there is a God
or what it is – or what God controls !

To others, they will have a deeper and fuller understanding of what (they think) "God" is, how much more it is than when they were 9.

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Kids have no idea what God is. Adults, because they are more
FULLY GROWN – ARE CLOSER TO BEING GOD THAN CHILDREN

Anyhoo, there is zip scientific about what Mr. Hammond has offered in his claims

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Your full of baloney Baldeee – are you going to claim
there is "zip scientific content" in my posts #963,
#964 and #966 – you absolutely ignore them because
you're not a scientist and you can't even understand
what they are – your posts contain nothing but a
continuous ad hominem ad nauseam diatribe

He throws stuff out as if it is meaningful, yet on even cursory inspection it fails to deliver.
Yet still he tries to build his castle out of the scattered rambling rocks, unable to lift even a single one, and none of which fit together.

[GE Hammond MS physics]
How about a little more fundamental science in your posts
and less ad hominem commentary. And I'm not talking about
correcting typos – I'm talking about demonstrating some
fundamental large-scale scientific comprehension of what
is being discussed

George

 

[Kristoffer]

No science knowledge is needed in this thread since it's ramblings of an unscientific nature, George.
You're just obsessed with your pet project because you feel a need to be special.

 

[Write4U]

I'm talking about demonstrating some
fundamental large-scale scientific comprehension of what
is being discussed

I believe you are giving a new slant to the concept of "relativity", a subjective experiential observation of physically dynamical relationships and differential equations.

This is clearly demonstrated in the doppler effect. The subjective experience of dynamical change is a variable and has been codified in GR and SR.

I do not see the necessity of a metaphysical causal agency to affect any of this other than a quasi-intelligent mathematical "guiding" equation.