• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Numerology, has it ever been tested?

Jaggy Bunnet said:
You misunderstand. When you wrote out an amount of cash it would consist of three numbers, pounds, shilling & pence (e.g. £5 9s 6d would be five pounds 9 shillings and sixpence). Why does it matter that they chose to represent 10 and 11 by a composite of other symbols as opposed to a completely different symbol? Had they used a for 10 and b for 11 but kept their records in exactly the same way, how would this in any way have changed the base?

If you think that is incorrect, then can you explain what happens if I add five pence to the above? £5 9s 11d

And when I add a further two pence? £5 10s 1d.

Explain how those calculations work under a base 10 system!
Click to expand...

I'll concede that pence were part of a base 12 system.
 
Ladewig said:
I'll concede that pence were part of a base 12 system.
Click to expand...

Then I assume you would also concede that the shillings were part of a base 20 system? The same logic of calculation would apply:

£5 19s 11d

+ 2d

= £6 0s 1d

Oh and this thread is far too interesting to be hidden away under General Skepticism!
 
Last edited:
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Then I assume you would also concede that the shillings were part of a base 20 system? The same logic of calculation would apply:

£5 19s 11d

+ 2d

= £6 0s 1d

Oh and this thread is far too interesting to be hidden away under General Skepticism!
Click to expand...
Not to mention base 21, if you include guineas.


By the same logic, we also had bases 14 and 16 for weight (stones, pounds and ounces), and an assortment for length (8, 3 and 12, off the top of my head).
 
Cuddles said:
The fact that we, mostly, use base 10 now means nothing except that that happened to be the one that caught on. Which is a shame really, since base 12 and base 16 would be much better.
Click to expand...

That doesn't rule out the possibility that the reason it "caught on" was because it's so useful being able to count on 10 fingers. Which is pretty much the same thing as saying that is why we use base 10.
 
What if I wrote out my name in the Cyrillic alphabet, or the Greek? Or in Arabic, or phonetically in Japanese? In cartouches of Egyptian hieroglyphs? Why is the English language and the Roman alphabet necessary for numerology to work?
 
Fnord said:
(1+9+6+3)+(1+2)+(3+0) = 19+3+3 = 25
(2+5) = 7

By your birthday, your number is seven.
Click to expand...

Gosh, this is such a stupid woo. Why would the universe conform to our calendar ?

What happens if my culture divides the year in a different way ? Sucks to be a numerologist, then.
 
Belz... said:
Gosh, this is such a stupid woo. Why would the universe conform to our calendar? What happens if my culture divides the year in a different way?
Click to expand...

How the Sam Hill should I know? Numerology is a scam that is also based on your name, the name of the town you were born in, your parent's names and birthdates, et cetera, according to the following:

1 = {A,J,S}
2 = {B,K,T}
3 = {C,L,U}
4 = {D,M,V}
5 = {E,N,W}
6 = {F,O,X}
7 = {G,P,Y}
8 = {H,Q,Z}
9 = {I,R}

Spaces and punctuation count as zero. Thus:

Fnord = 6+5+6+9+4 = 30 :: 3+0 = 3
Belz = 2+5+3+8 = 18 :: 1+8 = 9

Don't ask me what it means, as I would only make something up. But then, I'd charge you a basic fee for a simple definition, plus double for an analysis, plus double again for an explanation in simple terms.

Belz... said:
Sucks to be a numerologist, then.
Click to expand...

Basic fee = $10
Analysis = $20
Explanation = $40

The look on your face when you fork over $70 for a piece of flim-flam = PRICELESS!

Yeah, it sucks ... all the way to the bank!
 
Last edited:
Spektator said:
What if I wrote out my name in the Cyrillic alphabet, or the Greek? Or in Arabic, or phonetically in Japanese? In cartouches of Egyptian hieroglyphs? Why is the English language and the Roman alphabet necessary for numerology to work?
Click to expand...

There is a different branch of numerological "Science" for each language, culture, and calendar. It's a money-making scam that knows no cultural, geographical, linguistic, political, or religious boundaries.
 
Fnord said:
There is a different branch of numerological "Science" for each language, culture, and calendar. It's a money-making scam that knows no cultural, geographical, linguistic, political, or religious boundaries.
Click to expand...

You forgot "ethical".
 
Firstly I'd like to apologize for starting a thread, and then ignoring it for several days.

Fnord said:
Has numerology ever been tested?

Yes.
......
Click to expand...

Complexity said:
What do you think? Has it been tested?

Of course, _____. It failed, again and again and again and again and again.
Click to expand...

Do you know that it has been tested, or do you just assume that it has?
I know the astrology studies is out there, and you can find links for them if you want, but what about numerology? I can't find them, which is why I asked in the first place.

Tumblehome said:
That's what I was wondering. Would Sheik Yerbouti's name in Arabic give the same results as his name in English?

And can numerology be applied to any name or word? Would it tell me my adjective is well-adjusted? Or maybe the Empire State Building needs to move to another city to find happiness.

The truth is out there. We only need to calculate it. :cool:
Click to expand...

One of my many objections to numerology is somewhat similar. If you look in older texts, say 200 years old, there wasn't always consensus on how you spelled names, even your own! How did the numerological(?) "energies" affect you then?
And even earlier, you didn't even have a written language! Didn't the energies exist then?

Cuddles said:
...I can't remember too many details, but many different counting systems and bases have been used. As I already mentioned, the Romans didn't even have a base system, which made even simple things like division rather complicated. The Babylonians certainly used base 60, which carried over to our time and angel systems. The Mayans used base 20 for counting, but used several different ones, based on surprisingly accurate astronomy, all mixed up for calendars and time, which is why their calendars are so complex........
Click to expand...

Yes, and angle systems too. :duck: Sorry, I can't help it, I'm a surveyor.
 
Mr. Stick said:
Do you know that it has been tested, or do you just assume that it has?
Click to expand...
I know it has been tested because (1) I have participated in such tests, (2) I have tested it myself, and (3) I've written a few programs to generate numerological reports on people's names and birthdates.

That last one really miffs me off, because I wrote those programs for fun, not realizing how much profit could be made. Had I obtained copyrights on the source code alone, I'd could likely live off the royalties.

The tests were open, blind, and double-blind (not all at once, of course). One of my favorites was to take the info from the client, and assign a profile taken at random from an assortment of astrological profiles!

It was determined that numerology was no better than random chance at matching a numerological (or astrological) profile to the client.

These studies were not funded by any government or commercial interest -- just a bunch of geeks having fun with numbers and fortune-telling, and making a healthy profit in the process.
 
Last edited:
Monza said:
But base-10 and 10 fingers makes so much sense.
Click to expand...

I've always wondered about this - surely if fingers were to be used optimally then base 6 would be best - using one hand as single digit and other hand as second 'base' digit (i.e. the '1' in 18) then you could count up to 35 easily, rather than just the standard 10.

Anyway I agree with the previous opinions that scientists should not be expected to waste their time researching every silly theory anyone ever comes up with.

Any scientists believes there is anything there - they can do the research to start with.
 
it is actually easier to count to 100 using you fingers and the base 10 than it is to count to 35 using a base 6
 
< Insert gratuitous joke about counting in base 21 here. >
 
Last edited:
It has been proven using the science of circular logic, but disproven using the method of common sense :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom