numerical mriacle.....again

[ManMachine]

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

[Angrboda]

And no, "you dont find patterns everywhere" .

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

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.

[sven]

And no, "you dont find patterns everywhere" .

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

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.

[thequestion]

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.

[truthBtold]

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

[Tonus]

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.

[thequestion]

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.

[JuliaL]

All numbers are correct, your comment implies that you find this pattern also kind of "special", i might be wrong.

he does it in front of your eyes and i also did both myself.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzTXNjGbavk

---

I watched the video. Here goes some time I'll never get back.
The strangeness I find in it may be cultural or failures in translation.
The narrator puts forward some observations about equalities of word frequency in the Koran. However, there are some disconnects between his claimed point and the examples demonstrated.
His point is that there is a list of paired antonyms and synonyms which have equal word counts. However at 1:35 this is his list;
Word 1_______Word 2______Antonym or Synonym
Angels________Demons_____Antonym
Action_________Reward_____Neither synonym or antonym
Plant__________Tree_______Sort of similar, but not synonymous
Tongue________Advice______Neither
Worried________Reassured__Sort of antonymous
Benefit_________Harm______Antonyms
Treachery______Foul________Neither
World_________Hereafter____These could be antonyms
Publicise_______Announce____Sort of similar
Disaster________Gratitude____Neither
(apologies for the formatting, I tried the [table] tag but it didn't work)

Somehow 'Jesus' and 'Adam' are supposed to be antonyms (having opposite meaning) or synonyms (having the same meaning.) I can't tell which of these they mean.

My point here is that the narrator is finding equal word counts. So what, they aren't for antonyms and synonyms as claimed. Perhaps some speaker of Arabic would like to clarify that the translations are not correct and that the narrator meant something other than what was displayed. Otherwise I see there being identical word counts for fairly arbitrary word selections. This is not remarkable.

Then there was a demonstration of how a couple of word counts were obtained using some sort of Arabic text processor. To make the numbers come out right, the narrator had to fiddle with the controls by selecting word roots rather than distinct spellings. OK, granted (though whether its differentiation of what words had the same root is nothing I could check.)
For the fourth example the narrator switched for no explicit reason to Microsoft Word. No indication was made that word root searches were being made. But the numbers came out the same so it had to be done corrrectly (didn't it?)

I agree that the calculations in the OP are simple enough to confirm. However, I did some more calculations on your dataset:
The median number of surahs is 57.5 and for ayahs is 39, These are NOT equal.
The sum of modulo 2 surah numbers and sum of modulo 2 ayah numbers are NOT equal. Same for modulo 3 through 8. Then I got bored.
The point is, why did you select an intuitively odd result and claim it miraculous when so many of these other calculations show the number sets to be unremarkable?

[thequestion]

All numbers are correct, your comment implies that you find this pattern also kind of "special", i might be wrong.

he does it in front of your eyes and i also did both myself.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzTXNjGbavk

---

I watched the video. Here goes some time I'll never get back.
The strangeness I find in it may be cultural or failures in translation.
The narrator puts forward some observations about equalities of word frequency in the Koran. However, there are some disconnects between his claimed point and the examples demonstrated.
His point is that there is a list of paired antonyms and synonyms which have equal word counts. However at 1:35 this is his list;
Word 1_______Word 2______Antonym or Synonym
Angels________Demons_____Antonym
Action_________Reward_____Neither synonym or antonym
Plant__________Tree_______Sort of similar, but not synonymous
Tongue________Advice______Neither
Worried________Reassured__Sort of antonymous
Benefit_________Harm______Antonyms
Treachery______Foul________Neither
World_________Hereafter____These could be antonyms
Publicise_______Announce____Sort of similar
Disaster________Gratitude____Neither
(apologies for the formatting, I tried the [table] tag but it didn't work)

Somehow 'Jesus' and 'Adam' are supposed to be antonyms (having opposite meaning) or synonyms (having the same meaning.) I can't tell which of these they mean.

My point here is that the narrator is finding equal word counts. So what, they aren't for antonyms and synonyms as claimed. Perhaps some speaker of Arabic would like to clarify that the translations are not correct and that the narrator meant something other than what was displayed. Otherwise I see there being identical word counts for fairly arbitrary word selections. This is not remarkable.

Then there was a demonstration of how a couple of word counts were obtained using some sort of Arabic text processor. To make the numbers come out right, the narrator had to fiddle with the controls by selecting word roots rather than distinct spellings. OK, granted (though whether its differentiation of what words had the same root is nothing I could check.)
For the fourth example the narrator switched for no explicit reason to Microsoft Word. No indication was made that word root searches were being made. But the numbers came out the same so it had to be done corrrectly (didn't it?)

I agree that the calculations in the OP are simple enough to confirm. However, I did some more calculations on your dataset:
The median number of surahs is 57.5 and for ayahs is 39, These are NOT equal.
The sum of modulo 2 surah numbers and sum of modulo 2 ayah numbers are NOT equal. Same for modulo 3 through 8. Then I got bored.
The point is, why did you select an intuitively odd result and claim it miraculous when so many of these other calculations show the number sets to be unremarkable?

This word counts are not impressive to me, they seem to be very much accidental, sth. that you would expect.

Adam and Jesus appear in a verse which highlights their similarity because both have no earthly father. The verse in which this is said is for Adam as well as Jesus the 7th time they are mentioned in the quran, in no verse are they mentoned together again. Jesus and Adam also appear both 25 times in the quran.

No idea what u mean with modulo, this is also just the first video of the 2. In the second there is the claim that i posted and i am not intersted in any others than them. And yes sum of ayas =/= sum of surahnumbers, i actually have no idea why that is important, that was never claimed to be the same.

[Angrboda]