A Second Channel of Communication?

[Donn]

I divide six by two; introduce a point something or other by extraneous notation and, lo, I produce three point sundry.

Who would have guessed that seeming and so are exploited by the glib to fool the pale into thrall?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I divide six by two; introduce a point something or other by extraneous notation and, lo, I produce three point sundry.

Who would have guessed that seeming and so are exploited by the glib to fool the pale into thrall?

Ha!

I sort 15 pair by twos, make sure they are all rightside-to, set the temp, add detergent--and ho! I produce three-point laundry.

Who would have guessed that seaming of this sort would make the sort seem easier?

"Sock" it to me.

 

[Donn]

Ha!

I sort 15 pair by twos, make sure they are all rightside-to, set the temp, add detergent--and ho! I produce three-point laundry.

Who would have guessed that seaming of this sort would make the sort seem easier?

"Sock" it to me.

O, you deliciously peccable vampiric Muppet!

 

[blue triangle]

Yeah, OK, this is all well and good, but I have to wonder what the point is of all this.

Assuming that, despite the numerous pitfalls of, among others, translation error, confirmation bias and pareidolia, there are coded numerological/ mathematical messages in the Bible, I'm asking myself why this god would bother? I cannot see how any atheist, agnostic, or any believer from Ahmadi to Zoroastrian would be converted by this. "So there are hidden number codes in the Bible? Really? Wow. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord, I'm a believer!" I really don't see it. Is this supposedly all-powerful god rubbing his holy hands with glee whilst muttering "That'll show those pesky atheists! Oh yes sirree Bob!"
None of this demonstrates in any way the existence of this god. At most, it's quite clever, and deserving of nothing more than a "cool!", followed by life as usual.

If you looked further into it you would see ever more. All you have seen so far is the roof of the cathedral sticking out through the soil. If you dug further and saw more, the response would hopefully be more than 'cool'. Why would your life go on as usual? Aren't you interested in who sculpted this frozen miracle and why?

 

[Slowvehicle]

If you looked further into it you would see ever more. All you have seen so far is the roof of the cathedral sticking out through the soil. If you dug further and saw more, the response would hopefully be more than 'cool'. Why would your life go on as usual? Aren't you interested in who sculpted this frozen miracle and why?

"If you believed as I woo!, you'd understand why you should believe it..."

 

[Delvo]

You're missing out the iota under the last letter of the second word. This has value 10, giving 3627.

Because it's a a diacritic, not a letter. If you want to count diacritics that were once derived from letters but weren't letters anymore, that would include the daseia over the "o" three times, for 70 apiece, making the honest total 3837.

I'm not sure why you don't understand the procedure.

Because the phrases you used to identify what values to put in to the calculations are vague.

Jenkins clearly displays the calculations

I was supposed to track down something by a "Jenkins"? You're the one who's seen that before; why not put it here yourself?

wouldn't you say that this is a phenomenon worthy of further study?

What kind of study would you do? What would be the parameters for an accurate prediction and an inaccurate prediction? More calculations to try to find more recognizable numbers would, at this point, become not just noticing something unexpected like it was at first, but a fishing expedition. Once you've derived several more numbers from the one original number you started with, the number of options to create new calculations from them multiplies rapidly. Just pick any combination of some or all of the numbers you've thrown out here so far, pick any mathematical operator or combination/sequence of operators, and start sticking them together in whatever length and order you want like LEGO bricks... and then ignore the constructions that don't yield something you would want to point out.

If you concatenation the verse values, to give 27013627, then square this number, you this time reveal the first few digits of alpha, the electromagnetic fine structure constant.

No, you reveal a 15-digit number that starts with 4 digits you like followed by 11 you don't because they are wrong for this claim. (You might try to squeeze a fifth coincidental digit out of it, but you'd be rounding that digit down when it actually rounds up.) At least when you were talking about π and e, without seeing the actual results you were talking about, I could give you the benefit of doubt and presume that they might be accurate up to the point where they were rounded off, but this one doesn't stop at the rounding point: it continues with more stuff that we're now supposed to pretend isn't there. And it starts after the decimal point and two zeroes, which brings back up the decimal system problems I mentioned before, only worse this time. And it's using an input number you only got by treating one diacritic as a letter but not others. And it's the result of one combination of the collection of numbers you have now with a couple of mathematical operators, out of I-don't-even-want-to-guess how many other comparable combinations could have been done but have been ignored.

And why are you trickling this stuff out one at a time? You think that if we weren't convinced before, one more will do the trick next time? This is like a stage show where the mathemagician takes up as much time as possible, acting like he's done one minute and then going "But wait, there's even more! Isn't it amazing how I just keep going & going!" It might be decent theatrics, but it's inefficient communication. And even for just making emotional impressions, it might help if the claims weren't progressively getting weaker as we go along.

 

[blue triangle]

Then why was God so inaccurate?

There are at least three answers to this one, although I wouldn't call errors of one part in 100000 and an error for (pi + e) of 1 part in 800000 particularly huge.

1. There are many more patterns in there, so what you have is a 'best fit' incorporating all the patterns. The errors are sufficiently small for us to be reasonably sure these are the numbers (pi and e) that were encrypted. Any greater accuracy might be considered redundant. It is the entire pattern that counts, not one particular part.

2. The errors virtually cancel out by summing.

The arithmetic error reduces to 1 in 800000 when the sum of the derived values (pi + e) is compared with the actual value of the sum.

When alpha is included (the first few digits of this physical constant are obtained by concatenating the verse values then squaring) then the error of (pi + e + alpha) is only 1 in 18 million.

3. The actual words had to make sense too. Quite a feat I would say!

 

[John Nowak]

Exactly. If we could only convince blue triangle.

With the area code? And are you including the 1 before the area code?

I'd like to answer this because it is a fair question, but you'll excuse me if I remain deliberately vague about this; I'd rather not drop more clues about my mom's phone number in a public forum.

Given the huge amount of numbers we deal with on a daily basis, I don't find it extraordinary that these things happen, which is of course my point.

 

[blue triangle]

Because it's a a diacritic, not a letter. If you want to count diacritics that were once derived from letters but weren't letters anymore, that would include the daseia over the "o" three times, for 70 apiece, making the honest total 3837.

That is an interesting point you make, and one I will investigate. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Because the phrases you used to identify what values to put in to the calculations are vague.

I was supposed to track down something by a "Jenkins"? You're the one who's seen that before; why not put it here yourself?

I left a link to his work in an earlier post, which I assume you read (16). I would reproduce them here but I don't have the skill to do it on this iPad.

What kind of study would you do? What would be the parameters for an accurate prediction and an inaccurate prediction? More calculations to try to find more recognizable numbers would, at this point, become not just noticing something unexpected like it was at first, but a fishing expedition. Once you've derived several more numbers from the one original number you started with, the number of options to create new calculations from them multiplies rapidly. Just pick any combination of some or all of the numbers you've thrown out here so far, pick any mathematical operator or combination/sequence of operators, and start sticking them together in whatever length and order you want like LEGO bricks... and then ignore the constructions that don't yield something you would want to point out.

This is a scurrilous misrepresentation of what Vernon Jenkins has achieved. You suggest all kinds of ingenious and totally pointless calculations, when what he actually did was simply sum the numerical values of the letters in Genesis 1.1 to find 2701 - no sleight of hand required! Summing the last two words gave 703, core triangle of triangle 2701 - again where were the devious methods?

Pi and e are simple multiplications and divisions. No algebra, calculus or other subtleties required! And since it had already worked with Genesis, there was no room for manoeuvre when repeating the calculation with John. And yet there it is, Euler's number, the second most important number in mathematics (guess which one is first in importance), in John 1.1, similar in location and import to Genesis 1.1.

Different combinations of the Genesis set of word values give more internal structure, again in defiance of the odds.

Where is Jenkins being devious? Is this your argument against it? It's laughable.

No, you reveal a 15-digit number that starts with 4 digits you like followed by 11 you don't because they are wrong for this claim. (You might try to squeeze a fifth coincidental digit out of it, but you'd be rounding that digit down when it actually rounds up.) At least when you were talking about π and e, without seeing the actual results you were talking about, I could give you the benefit of doubt and presume that they might be accurate up to the point where they were rounded off, but this one doesn't stop at the rounding point: it continues with more stuff that we're now supposed to pretend isn't there. And it starts after the decimal point and two zeroes, which brings back up the decimal system problems I mentioned before, only worse this time. And it's using an input number you only got by treating one diacritic as a letter but not others. And it's the result of one combination of the collection of numbers you have now with a couple of mathematical operators, out of I-don't-even-want-to-guess how many other comparable combinations could have been done but have been ignored.

The first five digits of pi are found in Genesis, by the simple calculation he employs, overcoming odds of 90000 to 1 against. Isn't that good enough for you? As I said in an earlier thread, there is much more in there, so much so that the adjective 'holographic' almost applies. I would guess that to encode pi to even greater accuracy would be unnecessary detail. Another possibility is that it gives those who wish a 'get out' from believing it to be by design are given it.

And why are you trickling this stuff out one at a time? You think that if we weren't convinced before, one more will do the trick next time? This is like a stage show where the mathemagician takes up as much time as possible, acting like he's done one minute and then going "But wait, there's even more! Isn't it amazing how I just keep going & going!" It might be decent theatrics, but it's inefficient communication. And even for just making emotional impressions, it might help if the claims weren't progressively getting weaker as we go along.

I'm doing it this way because I think it's best to do it this way. It would be one long post if I gave you it all at once. Much more efficient to just give you links to Mr. Jenkins' website. You can get it all there, straight from the horse's mouth.

You think the encoding of alpha is weaker?

 

[blue triangle]

I'd like to answer this because it is a fair question, but you'll excuse me if I remain deliberately vague about this; I'd rather not drop more clues about my mom's phone number in a public forum.

Given the huge amount of numbers we deal with on a daily basis, I don't find it extraordinary that these things happen, which is of course my point.

It certainly is not surprising that these things happen. What is extraordinary is that they happened to the first verse of Genesis.

 

[Donn]

.. I wouldn't call errors of one part in 100000 and an error for (pi + e) of 1 part in 800000 particularly huge.

As gods go.. Meh. A spreadsheet has more precision.

As messages from forces go, a badly-rounded post-hoc pin the digits on the pi is simply not impressive.

(How different our world if only that poxy book's incipit had been: "In the beginning there was soap and water with vigorous washing of one's hands before and after meals as well as toilet." — however, one understands that forces are busy and can't think of every little detail.)

1. .. be reasonably sure these are the numbers (pi and e) that were encrypted

For predetermined values of reasonably sure. You hide Easter eggs and then faint in surprise when you find them, don't you?

2. The errors virtually cancel out by summing.

There are errors: it's a sign of the Forces. There are no errors: it's a sign of the Forces. It's all signs of forces. Get thee to a Jedi.

3. The actual words had to make sense too. Quite a feat I would say!

This feat is known as writing. When you see your reflection in a bowl of water it may seem impossible that the liquid could be so arranged to depict such verisimilitude: so, you.

Like the Emperor's clothes, you see your fashion in these numbers spun from letters. Your audience sees only lard.

 

[blue triangle]

Too small? Love for all humankind, and by acid wisdom the entire ecosystem of the planet which is our provenance, our sustenance and ward?

So according to you, only injecting the smack of a god will make our lowly human experience… what? Meaningful? Heavy? Worthwhile? or what?

From all my experience I conclude that the only purpose of life is to be Experienced. That's sufficient. In fact it's necessary. No god required.

Since you picked up on the line about hippies, and you may be too young to have realised, that line "If the hippies cut off all their hair, I don't care, I don't care" is one of three instances of quotes in this thread from "If Six Was Nine", a Jimi Hendrix song on the album Are You Experienced?

The others are in my first post in this thread, and in the post I quoted in my first post.

If you want to dig the real spirit of the "hippies" or "heads" as we used to say in Glastonbury in 1971, look up The Whole Earth Catalog. It's a lot more alternative and progressive and positive and worthwhile than all the New Age bs being marketed in Glastonbury these days.

Actions speak louder than numerological bias confirmation and thumb-twiddling nonsense of its ilk.

Do us all a favour and read the book I recommended earlier in this thread. You just might free yourself to really get somewhere.

You know, I might just look at the Whole Earth Catalogue. I'd like to know more about the movement.

As for the other book, are you talking about The God Delusion? I read that one. Alister McGrath's tiny The Dawkins Delusion throws some well-aimed stones at it and knocks Goliath to the ground.

 

[Slowvehicle]

As gods go.. Meh. A spreadsheet has more precision.

As messages from forces go, a badly-rounded post-hoc pin the digits on the pi is simply not impressive.

(How different our world if only that poxy book's incipit had been: "In the beginning there was soap and water with vigorous washing of one's hands before and after meals as well as toilet." — however, one understands that forces are busy and can't think of every little detail.)

Inorite?

For predetermined values of reasonably sure. You hide Easter eggs and then faint in surprise when you find them, don't you?

There are errors: it's a sign of the Forces. There are no errors: it's a sign of the Forces. It's all signs of forces. Get thee to a Jedi.

This feat is known as writing. When you see your reflection in a bowl of water it may seem impossible that the liquid could be so arranged to depict such verisimilitude: so, you.

Like the Emperor's clothes, you see your fashion in these numbers spun from letters. Your audience sees only lard.

...except that lard is useful...

 

[blue triangle]

...what is the sound of one goalpost, moving?



Ooops. What is the sound of TWO goalposts, moving? (Cue vampiric Muppet laughter)

Never mind that the "scriptures" you choose to claim is the one out of all that contains this "message" demonstrates, in its content, that the "force" it pleases you to call 'god' does not exhibit any of these three characteristics? (...to say nothing of the fact that they are inherently self-contradictory...)

Explaining how something works (as you understand it) is not the same as moving the goalposts. Now, do you have any substantive points to make?

 

[Donn]

Now, do you have any substantive points to make?

It's darling when the tiny mouse roars. Do you suppose your shadow looms?

Grasp the mettle, my lad! Provoke yourself! Dare to ask: what would confound this numerate faith I hold? Where is its foot of clay?

Here arrayed are stalwart doubters to swarm upon the idol and serve all flaws. Employ them, do not squeak into a megaphone.

 

[tsig]

There are at least three answers to this one, although I wouldn't call errors of one part in 100000 and an error for (pi + e) of 1 part in 800000 particularly huge.

1. There are many more patterns in there, so what you have is a 'best fit' incorporating all the patterns. The errors are sufficiently small for us to be reasonably sure these are the numbers (pi and e) that were encrypted. Any greater accuracy might be considered redundant. It is the entire pattern that counts, not one particular part.

2. The errors virtually cancel out by summing.

The arithmetic error reduces to 1 in 800000 when the sum of the derived values (pi + e) is compared with the actual value of the sum.

When alpha is included (the first few digits of this physical constant are obtained by concatenating the verse values then squaring) then the error of (pi + e + alpha) is only 1 in 18 million.

3. The actual words had to make sense too. Quite a feat I would say!

Why does god use Arabic numerals?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Explaining how something works (as you understand it) is not the same as moving the goalposts. Now, do you have any substantive points to make?

It was not your "explanation" that comprised the moving targets. Read again.

I find pointing out that bad gemiatra is pilpul to be much more substantive than explaining why a "hidden meaning" is dependent upon 'god' (omni-everything, remember?) making math errors.

"Puny 'god'..."

 

[Dancing David]

I've attached a document that displays some of the many fascinating properties of the figurate number 2701 and asserts that the number may have been used as a means of communicating with us. I'd be grateful if any of you who are interested could read it and comment.

http://www.whatabeginning.com/Misc/Miracle_2701.pdf

I'll be on holiday until Saturday, so if I don't reply right away, that's why.

Ha ha ha numerology!

What a hoot!

Does it work in base 16 or base 8?

Nope.

And the ultimate in numerology questions:

Is god to live in a dog?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ha ha ha numerology!

What a hoot!

Does it work in base 16 or base 8?

Nope.

And the ultimate in numerology questions:

Is god to live in a dog?

"Mu"

 

[Dancing David]

If you throw together some random numbers they are unlikely to sum to one as interesting as 2701, and yet there it is, in the first verse of scripture. If you read on you'll find important features of its internal structure in there too.



Not exactly. Every numerical triangle can be divided into a core triangle (inverted to fit precisely within the larger figure) and three satellite triangles. He points out that the final two words in the verse sum to 703, which is that core triangle.

Every third numerical triangle can self-intersect to give a hexagram, which is the first stage in the Koch snowflake. Highlighting the superimposed counters suggests the Star of David and highlighting triangle 703 within triangle 2701 suggests the first stage of the Sierpinski triangle.

ha ha ha ha!

Which language of the scripture?

Aramaic and hebrew qabbalah?
Greek and or latin?

What version of which language of the scripture?