Re: Small probabilities

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Tue Nov 29 2005 - 16:24:23 EST

I appreciate Iain's open mindedness to the intriguing patterns. My
question, which I am unqualified to answer, is: how much introduction of
man-made ordering or patterning is required to have the collateral
effect of creating a much larger domain or resultant ? I do know that
perspectives from the study of chaos and complexity indicate that small
rule sets can have profound results in terms of ordering and patterning.
I am also constantly mindful of the stunning array of ordering and
patterning embodied in Creation as a result of a few basic "laws" and
physical properties. These things make it possible for me to consider
that the patterns that Vern and others have diligently sorted out could
indeed be the natural byproducts of a relatively small inclusions of
conscious man-created patterning in the written texts, particularly
since the writers of the texts had such very strong senses of numerical
equivalencies/associations and multiple levels of meaning. JimA

Don Nield wrote:

> Has Iain taken into consideration the fact that the passage in Genesis
> is not a random sequence of letters but rather a Hebrew text and
> therefore should be expected to show some patterns if one searches for
> them?
> Don
>
> Iain Strachan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/29/05, *Randy Isaac* <randyisaac@adelphia.net
>> <mailto:randyisaac@adelphia.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, Vernon, I do agree that facts are facts. Can't argue with
>> that. The significance and meaning of those facts is the
>> question. Your observations are clever and perhaps even creative
>> and artistic.
>>
>>
>> Randy,
>>
>> I wonder if you could clarify what you mean by saying that Vernon's
>> observations are "clever" and "artistic". I may have got you wrong,
>> but it might appear from that that you are saying that with
>> sufficient ingenuity you can find a clever pattern in any sequence of
>> numbers.
>>
>> One of the things I've tried to do in this whole discussion about
>> small probabilities and description length (Kolmogorov theory etc) is
>> to illustrate that I think what Vernon has found is _not_ just the
>> product of an ingenious imagination, or a clever arbitrary bit of
>> mathematical manipulation - that the pattern in the integers was
>> indeed something that was deliberately put there, rather than just a
>> coincidence.
>>
>> One of the inhibiting factors of this discussion, it seems to me is
>> that Vernon wishes to put an interpretation on it (that the first
>> chapter of Genesis is literal truth), which I don't subscribe to, and
>> which makes the overwhelming majority of people on the ASA list want
>> to dismiss his observations out of hand. I think if we could divorce
>> the fact (of the pattern) from Vernon's interpretation, then we might
>> get a little further. I am of the opinion that the pattern, which we
>> both agree is a fact, is a piece of deliberate design. But in
>> general, there appear to be three interpretations of the facts:
>>
>> (1) The pattern is a complete coincidence.
>> (2) The pattern is deliberate and was put there by the human authors.
>> (3) The pattern is deliberate and is intentional Divine action for
>> some purpose.
>>
>>
>> All of my contributions to the "small probabilities" threads (and
>> earlier ones on Kolmogorov) have been to the end of illustating that
>> I think there are sound methods for showing that (1) is not the
>> case. I, therefore have to deal with what are the likely
>> implications of (2) or (3) being the truth.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Iain
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that there is any
>> philosophical or theological significance to the patterns and
>> relationships you have described. The verses you have quoted
>> previously to justify such signficance do not give carte blanche
>> permission to deduce meaning from arbitrary arithmetic
>> manipulation of numeric values of letters. As we've discussed in
>> this forum, the low probability of occurrence of numerical results
>> is not an indication of divine significance.
>> Randy
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Vernon Jenkins <mailto:vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
>> *To:* Randy Isaac <mailto:randyisaac@adelphia.net> ;
>> asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 20, 2005 7:28 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: Small probabilities
>>
>> Randy,
>> Further to the matter of the observed coordination
>> of the
>> numerical geometries that derive from unbroken sequences of
>> the Bible's opening Hebrew words, I invite you consider some
>> additional data which lend considerable weight to these
>> incontrovertible and remarkable events. The relevant page
>> titled "Genesis 1:1 - The Inside Story" may be found at
>> http://homepage.virgin.net/tgvernon.jenkins/Inside_Story_SH.htm
>>
>> <http://homepage.virgin.net/tgvernon.jenkins/Inside_Story_SH.htm>.
>> You may remember, some time ago, Iain commenting on
>> the fact
>> that these realities are 'not everyone's cup of tea'. But
>> facts are facts! And facts are the lifeblood of rational and
>> meaningful debate. Is our grasp of the eternal verities so
>> sure - so secure - that we, as Christians, can afford to
>> ignore such solid empirical data? Surely not, as I think
>> you must agree.
>> Vernon
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Nov 29 16:26:52 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 29 2005 - 16:26:52 EST