[Fwd: Re: Remarkable unity]

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Sun Apr 17 2005 - 22:04:44 EDT

OK, mea culpa.
Alas, time and convention has dismissed 1 from the ranks of the primes,
diminishing its "uniqueness".
And I guess I'd have to admit that I don't think the SI units system are
divinely endorsed.
I think in truth, when younger, I might have leaned toward attaching
special significance to this observation. But today, in part for reasons
you suggest, it's just an interesting result, a bauble observed along
the roadside.

With respect to the information content of early Genesis a la Vern's
postings, I'm pretty sure we underappreciate the perspectives and
patient and worshipful skills of the Genesis writers with respect to
numerical equivalencies and such. While I'm not sure the writers were
aware of all the geometries and such that have been later associated
with these passages, it would be truly stunning to find out that there
was no attention paid by the Genesis writers to the collateral numerical
significances of the letters and words.

Instead, I would expect there to be extensive and intentional content of
that sort in those words and expressions, given that there are always
overtones and resonances (numeric and otherwise) in Hebrew writings. Any
special content here would be expected, flowing from study and reverence
for the Creator and the Creation story.

Once intentional structure is introduced in such a way, there is bound
to be a significant amount of collateral unintentional structure that
can be discovered. Is that inspired or not? I guess one gets to make a
choice.

These findings are interesting, even intriguing perhaps. But however
captivating, they are far less informative and persuasive for me than a
whole host of other observations and inferences that one may take away
from the "book" of Creation itself (and my own internal sense of God's
reality and presence). My chosen (?) perspective is that much like the
great I AM, Creation is. It is God's handiwork, a reflection in some
measure of the maker Himself, and a teacher, steadfastly telling its
particular stories without language limitations, without cultural
nuance, with timeless patience and integrity that is robust in the face
of limited human capacity for understanding, expression and speculation,
even at its most creative and respectful.

JimA

Iain Strachan wrote:

> Jim,
>
> I'm assuming that this is a gentle wind-up ;-)
>
> Surely your figure of 1.0 depends on arbitrarily chosen units as
> energy density is not a dimensionless value, like Reynold's number or
> the Fine structure constant. So this number could indeed be anything
> you like dependent on the units, e.g. if the standard units of mass,
> length and time happened to have been ounces, years and furlongs, then
> I doubt if it would come to unity. Or if humans had ended up with
> twelve fingers insteas of ten, them I'm guessing that the metric
> system would be based on base 12 and all the units would have been
> different as well.
>
> Unless you are claiming that God inspired the SI units system, then
> the only "interesting" thing I can see about this is that the three
> quantities are approximately equal, but how close are they in reality?
>
> I'd also like to point out that 1 is not by convention nowadays
> regarded as a prime number.
>
> What do you think about this "interesting result"?
> Iain.
>
> On 4/17/05, Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net
> <mailto:jarmstro@qwest.net>> wrote:
>
> Vern, in a recent lecture by Dr. Rogier Windhorst, one of the
> astronomers who is involved in the acquisition and analysis of the
> Hubble Space Telescope images, he spoke briefly about a result I
> thought
> might be of interest to you. This result actually comes out of the
> Cosmic Background Radiation data analysis that ultimately yielded the
> universe age of 13.7 billion years. Three important density parameters
> were derived from the CBR data:
> 1. the total baryon energy density (the energy and material
> equivalents of the stuff we know about) .
> 2. the so-called dark energy that corresponds to stuff whose
> presence is clearly indicated, but about which we know virtually
> nothing
> as yet.
> 3. the energy associated with the exponential portion of the
> universe's expansion, the one that has to do with Einstein's "blunder"
> that proved to be more right than wrong.
>
> These three things encompass all we know to exist of have effect
> in the
> universe. Even though we do not know the nature of two of these,
> there
> is clear evidence of their reality.
>
> The surprising result is that when these three entities are
> summed, they
> add up to 1 0.02.
>
> This is a remarkable result for there is no analytical reason why this
> should be. The individual numbers could have turned out to be
> anything,
> but in reality they somehow are similar in magnitude, and somehow
> do add
> up to unity. They don't sum to decimal fraction, not 2, nor 10^6, but
> simple beautiful unity, the smallest positive integer, and the
> smallest
> prime, a number which uniquely divides itself and multiplies itself to
> produce itself as the result. Moreover, Dr. Windhorst said, if the
> value deviated from 1 even slightly, or even if the value varied
> slightly from 1 near the beginning, or today, or any time between, the
> universe would not be as we know it now.
>
> Given that, I would think this sort of astonishing "coincidence" would
> speak strongly to one with your perspectives.
> The "problem" is that it flows directly out of the data and
> computations
> that yield the 13.7 billion year age of the universe.
>
> Should this surprising result be viewed as an internal
> authentication of
> the validity of the earth age?
> Why not?
> Should I view this is possible legerdemain?
>
> JimA
>
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> There are 3 types of people in the world.
> Those who can count and those who can't.
> -----------
Received on Sun Apr 17 22:07:00 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 17 2005 - 22:07:03 EDT