(April 29, 2014 at 9:24 am)thequestion Wrote:

(April 29, 2014 at 8:33 am)ManMachine Wrote: There is an entire field of study looking into numerical patterns in religious texts, this is not extraordinary, Jewish scholars have been using Gematria for centuries and found far more interesting things than the one you pointed out.

It's not interesting, not miraculous and plays directly into the functions of the human brain that have evolved to spot patterns. It's an evolved ability put to pointless use.

You're welcome.

MM

show me one. the best/most impressive they have.
thank you


I am not familiar with the "rules" of peotry, but i thought keeping a good metre or rhyme scheme is not that difficult, i might be wrong.

You seem to have completely missed the point of my post, none of it is impressive at all, including the nonsense you posted.

MM

(April 28, 2014 at 6:27 pm)thequestion Wrote: And no, "you dont find patterns everywhere" .

Quote:A typical result in Ramsey theory states that if some mathematical object is partitioned into finitely many parts, then one of the parts must contain a subobject of an interesting kind.

— Wolfram MathWorld: Ramsey Theory

Quote: The problem appears to be two-fold: one is that “the very nature of randomness assures us that combing random data will yield some patterns,” and that “if the data set is large enough, coincidences are sure to appear,” (Martin, 1998). More generally, this can be summed up by the Ramsey theory (Graham and Spencer, 1990) in which Frank P. Ramsey proved mathematically that “Complete disorder is an impossibility… [e]very large set of numbers, points or objects necessarily contains a highly regular pattern.” If humans are pattern seekers, and randomness necessarily contains patterns, then we’ve arrived at our first stumbling block.

— Apophenia: Definition and Analysis

(emphasis added)

So despite your intuitions, yes, if you have enough data points, you will find patterns, though the patterns will have no meaning.

(April 29, 2014 at 11:21 am)rasetsu Wrote:

(April 28, 2014 at 6:27 pm)thequestion Wrote: And no, "you dont find patterns everywhere" .

Quote:A typical result in Ramsey theory states that if some mathematical object is partitioned into finitely many parts, then one of the parts must contain a subobject of an interesting kind.

— Wolfram MathWorld: Ramsey Theory

Quote: The problem appears to be two-fold: one is that “the very nature of randomness assures us that combing random data will yield some patterns,” and that “if the data set is large enough, coincidences are sure to appear,” (Martin, 1998). More generally, this can be summed up by the Ramsey theory (Graham and Spencer, 1990) in which Frank P. Ramsey proved mathematically that “Complete disorder is an impossibility… [e]very large set of numbers, points or objects necessarily contains a highly regular pattern.” If humans are pattern seekers, and randomness necessarily contains patterns, then we’ve arrived at our first stumbling block.

— Apophenia: Definition and Analysis

(emphasis added)

So despite your intuitions, yes, if you have enough data points, you will find patterns, though the patterns will have no meaning.

I believe that your discussion may be moving into the area of schizophrenia.

(April 29, 2014 at 11:06 am)ManMachine Wrote:

(April 29, 2014 at 9:24 am)thequestion Wrote: show me one. the best/most impressive they have.
thank you


I am not familiar with the "rules" of peotry, but i thought keeping a good metre or rhyme scheme is not that difficult, i might be wrong.

You seem to have completely missed the point of my post, none of it is impressive at all, including the nonsense you posted.

MM

you said they found far more intersting things in their texts. Show me one of it, the most intersting or whatever you wanna call it.

I do not understand why some people think that i am unfamiliar with basic statistics or the rules of really large numbers. Even though you can create an infinite amount of sets with the numbers of a book, it does not mean that u can find "anything" in it that looks intersting to humans.

to explain my point consider following example, you ask me to write down 9 numbers from the set of Rational numbers. I write down,

1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9

it could be really an accident that i wrote only natural numbers down, from small to big, always with an addition of + 1. It might be accidently happen but it would almost absurd to believe that. So we have the +1, natural numbers pattern.

3/2 , 2 , 78 , -9 , 0 , sqrt4 , 99 , 2 , 1

we might say we found the "3/2 , 2 , 78 , -9 , 0 , sqrt4 , 99 , 2 , 1" pattern here. Well, yeah it could be the case that i chose this really absurd pattern. So simply saying that you can find a pattern isnt enough, you can define one into existence but thats just bullshit. You can also cherrypick some numbers from some areas without a concept and then create a pattern, but thats also just bullshit, because thats how you can always create one.

so to summarize, it isnt enough to simply define something as a pattern, and it also not enough to basically randomly choose numbers and creating one.

(April 29, 2014 at 1:28 pm)thequestion Wrote:

(April 29, 2014 at 11:06 am)ManMachine Wrote: You seem to have completely missed the point of my post, none of it is impressive at all, including the nonsense you posted.

MM

you said they found far more intersting things in their texts. Show me one of it, the most intersting or whatever you wanna call it.

I do not understand why some people think that i am unfamiliar with basic statistics or the rules of really large numbers. Even though you can create an infinite amount of sets with the numbers of a book, it does not mean that u can find "anything" in it that looks intersting to humans.

to explain my point consider following example, you ask me to write down 9 numbers from the set of Rational numbers. I write down,

1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9

it could be really an accident that i wrote only natural numbers down, from small to big, always with an addition of + 1. It might be accidently happen but it would almost absurd to believe that. So we have the +1, natural numbers pattern.

3/2 , 2 , 78 , -9 , 0 , sqrt4 , 99 , 2 , 1

we might say we found the "3/2 , 2 , 78 , -9 , 0 , sqrt4 , 99 , 2 , 1" pattern here. Well, yeah it could be the case that i chose this really absurd pattern. So simply saying that you can find a pattern isnt enough, you can define one into existence but thats just bullshit. You can also cherrypick some numbers from some areas without a concept and then create a pattern, but thats also just bullshit, because thats how you can always create one.

so to summarize, it isnt enough to simply define something as a pattern, and it also not enough to basically randomly choose numbers and creating one.

Are the kid in that bruce Willis movie?? What was that movie about #s

I don't get it. Is this the same god who appeared to men in the past and took an active hand in people's lives and wants everyone to get to know and worship him? And he decided to "reveal" himself in the future through an obscure math problem? Or several dozen? Or maybe a few hundred? Numerology posts seem to occur fairly regularly here. God sure does like his math puzzles. I guess it was the next step up from turning water to wine, or curing paralysis and blindness.

(April 29, 2014 at 1:41 pm)Tonus Wrote: I don't get it. Is this the same god who appeared to men in the past and took an active hand in people's lives and wants everyone to get to know and worship him? And he decided to "reveal" himself in the future through an obscure math problem? Or several dozen? Or maybe a few hundred? Numerology posts seem to occur fairly regularly here. God sure does like his math puzzles. I guess it was the next step up from turning water to wine, or curing paralysis and blindness.

I dont know if this god exists or not, i also do not know if it is the same god or whatever.

If you want to discuss if mathematical coincidences/patterns could be used to demonstrate the existence of a supernatural being for which god would be an appropriate term, then you can open your own thread and discuss it there.

In this one, it is about the coincidences i showed in my first post and their probabilites.