Pi and e

From: John Burgeson (burgythree@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Mar 11 2003 - 20:36:38 EST

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: Re: numbers (from Re: personal revelations)"

    Vernon -- when I reminded you a few days ago that you had never answered (or
    even considered) my question of 2 years ago to you -- "Do you claim the
    denery system to be inspired by God?" you admitted you had dropped the ball
    on that one and asked what were the other questions I had at that time.

    I think there were several, for I tried very hard to consider your claim(s)
    and did do some thinking & study around them. I am reluctant to revisit
    those exercises, for I'm two years older now, and there is never enough
    time, but I will list what I can remember of them.

    1. As far as I can see, if we were using -- say -- the babylonian notation
    of numbers, none of your claims would hold together. As I recall, you
    agreed, and so claimed that the denary system must, ipso facto, be inspired.

    I simply asked there for you to give ANY sort of supporting evidence for
    this -- else it is simply an ad hoc "explanation," that is, something
    assumed w/o any supporting evidence in order to support some other claim. I
    understand you are again considering this question.

    2. You depend heavily on the "odds" argument, but, as has been pointed out
    previously, the odds are calculated AFTER the artifact (pi and e) are
    discovered. I pointed out that on that basis the probability of a "Vernon
    Jenkins" was even less likely. What is needed for your claim is SOME
    independent evidence which predates your discovery, or at least is
    independent of it, bearing on your claim. For instance, some piece of
    observable data that would PREDICT the presence of pi and e in the manner
    you claim to have found them. Perhaps a prediction by some pre-scientific
    philosopher who might know about a "pi" but hardly about an "e."

    3. You need to establish some INDEPENDENT criteria by which the deviance
    (admittedly, not much) from the actual values is justified. Frankly, this
    one has me baffled -- I cannot even conceive of any observable that would
    suffice for this question.

    Those are 3 of the questions I can remember -- there might have been others.
    Oh yes -- the question of different manuscripts; in particular manuscripts
    containing Genesis. Are there variant readings? Are there the POSSIBILITY of
    variant readings? I remember some discussion of the presence or absence of
    something minor in John 1:1 -- and your statement that the one which
    provided the transcendental value must be correct because it "proved" the
    claim. I think at that time I quit thinking about your claims as such an
    argument was simply begging the question.




    MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Mar 11 2003 - 20:37:10 EST