SophistiCat

I just can't stop making groundbreaking discoveries! Yippie! Numerology is fun!

Using the same technique applied to the Latin alphabet, it can easily be shown that the name Becke displays the same unique qualities as the Hebrew name Elohim!

Friedrich Johann Karl Becke (1855-1931) - Austrian geologist, mineralogist and petrologist from the University of Prague, developed a method for determining the relationship between light refraction and refractive index differences observed in microscopic specimens.

Louis Becke (1855-1913) - Trader, journalist and writer, "best writer about the Pacific."

Notice the amazing pattern in the dates of birth and death of these famous men!

Move over, God, you have some competition.

Pmarra

I don't agree with you

Using the same technique applied to the Latin alphabet,

the name Becke doesn't have the same unique qualities as the Hebrew name Elohim!

PoodleLovinPessimist

Before we even begin to analyze this sentence, you need to make specific predictions about what we will or won't see under a particular method of analysis. Otherwise we're just rolling the dice and saying the odds of that specific outcome are a gazillion to one!

PoodleLovinPessimist

Why pi? Why not e? Or the golden mean? Or the fine structure constant? Or Plank's constant? Or the age of the universe in seconds? Or the number of photons in the universe? Or the number of times "Close cover before striking" has been published? Or the combined ages of the founders of the Bavarian Illuminati? Or the standard deviation of the distribution of penis sizes among the Kalahari Bushmen? Or the number of Google results for "numerology"?

reddish

You are taking a lot of steps that are arbitrary:

The mapping from letters to values is arbitrary. Your method of calculation is arbitrary. Your selection of texts is arbitrary. Your criterion for target values is arbitrary. Your criterion for "precise" is arbitrary.

I would need to have the same degrees of freedom to get something meaningful from your proposed sentence. Be honest now: was the algorithm, letter mapping, text selection, etc., the first thing that you tried to get your result? If you can honestly say that a priori you had expected the result from the experiment, then did it to find that it worked, we're on to something.

If you just proceeded to try rules, bible fragments, and calculation rules until you hit upon something remotely looking like an important number, you have been stacking the deck massively in your favor: if you try enough things, something seemingly coincidental will happen sooner or later.

So, in order not to have a rigged setup, you will have to give me the same degrees of freedom that you originally had when you went looking for something special.

Just having me do the same algorithm (which is OPTIMIZED to produce an interesting result in Genesis 1 and John 1) on the sentence you provided proves nothing.

Pmarra

• The mapping from the letters to values is not arbitrary

This mapping is always the same from over 4000 years (Actually it is Hebrew that, given the fact it does not use Arabic numbers, has always used the letters of the alphabet as a numerical value)

• The selection of the texts is not arbitrary

You can choose for your tests any sentence

• My criterion for "precise" it is not arbitrary

I am giving to you the same degree of freedom that I had when I went to look for something special

-RRH-

This is the same mapping that numerologists always use for Hebrew. Hebrew uses these symbols to write numbers. It is as arbitrary as any phonetic language, but it was determined long ago, probably before the current version of Genesis was written, so I think it is fair to count it as a priori.

Very. There are easily thousands of other transformations he could have performed on the text. If any of them had resulted in more "interesting" numbers he would have added them to his list. But they weren't interesting enough for him, therefore they are misses, not hits, so he ignores them.

Somewhat. He's got the whole bible to choose from. But he's getting by with a chunk at the very beginning. The length is a little more arbitrary, but I think I think we should be generous and let him count that as a priori.

Yes. Why pi? We all know if he had got an even 3 or one of hundreds of other "significant" or "interesting" numbers we'd be having the same argument.

Yeah. Pi to 5 places? Humans have done better already. For an omniscient being that doesn't impress me.

PoodleLovinPessimist

Every number is interesting. That's why the whole numerology thing is bullshit.

Pmarra

my choice of Pi is not arbitrary

I have shown that Pi is hidden in simple way in Gen1.1 (with two simple multiplications and a division we are able “to discover� a value of the Pi hidden inside Gen1.1)

you say that this circumstance is completely casual and doesn't show anything

if this is true I have to easily find (and with the same technique) Pi at least in some sentence

but if with a computer I analyze million of sentences and I don't find anything

I have scientifically shown that the presence of Pi in Gen1.1 is extremely unlikely

John A. Broussard

Terrific.

Now please find epsilon in Genesis.

After you find that, I'll run down some more constants for you to look for.

Thanks.