PDA

View Full Version : Is Shakespeare in pi?



WaxRubiks
2005-May-07, 07:01 PM
If pi is a non recurring decimal that goes on forever then is it should be true that any specific set of numbers say a 1000 digits long exists within the digits of the decimal that is pi?

If that were so then if you assign a number to all the letters in the alphabet and one for space(as in ASCII) then any set of letters should also exist within pi, take the works of Shakespeare they might exist within pi's infinitely long non-repeating decimal and maybe not just once, but 100's of times if not an infinite number of times.

Is this true? It would be a shock to the woo woos if they found that...Probably never hear the end of it even though it would be just a matter of maths not the supernatural.

Lance
2005-May-07, 07:16 PM
Wow...

So if it is true, then it would also contain bible codes (or pi codes), accurate predictions of the future and the answers to the question of Life, the Universe and Everything.

And all this time I thought it just had to do with circles.

Candy
2005-May-07, 07:16 PM
Oh dear, Frog march, did you think of this all by yourself? I'm impressed. =D>

01101001
2005-May-07, 07:57 PM
I couldn't find Shakespeare, but I found Frog:


search string = "frog"
20-bit binary equivalent = 00110100100111100111

search string found at binary index = 3058406380

character pi : ::ld;ejxbjjqsevfrog__qtghgvs:iwgxyfmji

From Search the first four billion binary digits of Pi (http://pi.nersc.gov/)

Here's Hamlet:


search string = "hamlet"
30-bit binary equivalent = 010000000101101011000010110100

search string found at binary index = 3088420204

character pi : qxpah-,gapunp:zhamletzs,-ivopoxnwok-vo

That's a start. Four billion is just not enough. Fortunately, pi has much, much -- infintely -- more to offer.

Disinfo Agent
2005-May-07, 07:59 PM
If pi is a non recurring decimal that goes on forever then is it should be true that any specific set of numbers say a 1000 digits long exists within the digits of the decimal that is pi?
Just because it's a non recurring decimal? :)
What about this one: 0.101001000100001...?

WaxRubiks
2005-May-07, 08:02 PM
If pi is a non recurring decimal that goes on forever then is it should be true that any specific set of numbers say a 1000 digits long exists within the digits of the decimal that is pi?
Just because it's a recurring decimal? :)
Here's one that doesn't contain Shakespeare's full works: 0.101001000100001...

yes, that occured to me while I was writing the question....

WaxRubiks
2005-May-07, 08:08 PM
Pi-Search Result:

search string = "hamlet"
30-bit binary equivalent = 010000000101101011000010110100

search string found at binary index = 3088420204
binary pi : 11111010010000000101101011000010110100110101001111 10011011010011
binary string: 010000000101101011000010110100
character pi : qxpah-,gapunp:zhamletzs,-ivopoxnwok-vo
character string: hamlet

Amadeus
2005-May-07, 08:10 PM
search string = "amadeus"
35-bit binary equivalent = 00001011010000100100001011010110011

string does not occur in first 4 billion binary digits of pi

Looks like i'll have to dig deeper to find myself :D

01101001
2005-May-07, 08:21 PM
Just because it's a non recurring decimal? :)
Here's one that doesn't contain Shakespeare's full works: 0.101001000100001...

yes, that occured to me while I was writing the question....

It's not just that it's non-recurring, but that it seems to be normal -- for instance, 7 appears in one tenth of the digits and 37 appears in 1/100 of digit pairs. Any run seems to be as likely as any other, and in the very long run everything might appear eventually.

I can't find that it's been proven normal, though.

Disinfo Agent
2005-May-07, 08:27 PM
I can't find that it's been proven normal, though.
It's still an open question. (http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/5945/facts.html)
Another interesting page. (http://pi314.at/math/normal.html)

P.S.: He, he, he...

22) Satan doesn't appear in Pi to[o] quick, the first time 666 appears is at position 2440.

Sammy
2005-May-07, 09:45 PM
Isn't technology great? This is so much better than the old, expensive method of buying millions of typewriters and monkeys!

Less clean-up also =D>

Lurker
2005-May-07, 11:46 PM
It's true Shakespeare never wrote a word of the works attributed to him. He found them all in pi. It's the most sensational story of our time, but there's more; it reaches into the highest levels.

I can't say more here, its not safe!! 8-[

TRUST NO ONE!!

:o

worzel
2005-May-08, 12:22 AM
I'm currently using e to get my inspiration. I hope Mosheh Thezion (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=465488#465488) does't mind me pinching his technique.

Lurker
2005-May-08, 12:35 AM
I'm currently using e to get my inspiration. I hope Mosheh Thezion (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=465488#465488) does't mind me pinching his technique.
OK... its the weekend right?? Now lets all just mellow out and try to make through to Monday morning!! 8-[

:wink:

Grey
2005-May-08, 02:24 AM
I'm currently using e to get my inspiration. I hope Mosheh Thezion (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=465488#465488) does't mind me pinching his technique.
Careful, worzel. I wouldn't recommend following that technique too closely! :D

Meteora
2005-May-08, 04:34 AM
A friend of a friend (seriously) has an interesting site (http://inamongus.com/numberology/index.html). It doesn't appear to be explained on the site itself, but my friend says that the technique goes like this:

1. You enter a number.
2. Pi is searched until that number is found.
3. The position of that number in pi is noted.
4. The program uses that number to select a quotation.
5. Your quotation is displayed.
6. You determine if that quotation has any significance in your life.

Obviously, a very scientific method. :)

Actually, the author of the site knows very well how scientific that method really is. :)

Lurker
2005-May-08, 04:53 AM
A friend of a friend (seriously) has an interesting site (http://inamongus.com/numberology/index.html). .... snip .....

It's True!! It's True!! pi spoke to me!! I believe!! I believe!! :o

8)

Chuck
2005-May-08, 05:00 AM
If all finite strings of bits are in pi then all copyrights are invalid due to prior existence of the material. The sequence of bits on a CD is somewhere in pi in the same order as they occur on the CD. The publisher of the CD has merely published an already existing sequence of numbers. It's not an original work so it can be freely copied by anyone who wants to.

Melusine
2005-May-08, 06:04 AM
A friend of a friend (seriously) has an interesting site (http://inamongus.com/numberology/index.html). It doesn't appear to be explained on the site itself...
Actually, the author of the site knows very well how scientific that method really is. :)
Funky stuff...I put in my birthday numbers and it said:

When its time has arrived, the prey becomes the hunter. ~Persian Proverb

:P

By the way, I met this man once, who thrust upon me Bible Code literature; he was a pleasant enough person, so I accepted it, but upon reading it, filed it in Kitchen Receptacle #1. I figured I didn't know enough basics to even muddle my mind with such stuff. Is the Bible Code stuff just more of the same of this nonsense? He was very serious about it, and at the time was "writing" a science fiction story, as well. Perhaps, in some cases, my ignorance is bliss.

01101001
2005-May-08, 06:14 AM
If all finite strings of bits are in pi then all copyrights are invalid due to prior existence of the material. The sequence of bits on a CD is somewhere in pi in the same order as they occur on the CD. The publisher of the CD has merely published an already existing sequence of numbers. It's not an original work so it can be freely copied by anyone who wants to.
I've never heard that prior existence automatically demolishes copyrights. Cite? If I create something and you create the same thing without copying from me, I'm pretty sure you can successfully defend against infringement. True, it's usually pretty hard to prove one didn't have access to and copy something that has been previously published.

Good luck trying to prove someone else's copyright is invalid on this theory. You're going to have to find it in pi, and you're going to have to prove that discovery was published, and that the author accessed the discovery and did no creation himself.

Sock puppet
2005-May-08, 01:56 PM
By the way, I met this man once, who thrust upon me Bible Code literature; he was a pleasant enough person, so I accepted it, but upon reading it, filed it in Kitchen Receptacle #1. I figured I didn't know enough basics to even muddle my mind with such stuff. Is the Bible Code stuff just more of the same of this nonsense?

Yes. And you don't even need to follow the "reasoning" (and I do that word a grievous wrong using it there) to know that this is the case. Just ask "If the Bible code can predict things, why does it only ever do so after the event?"

It's a bit difficult to take seriously a claim of "I can predict the future, afterwards"

Candy
2005-May-08, 05:48 PM
A friend of a friend (seriously) has an interesting site (http://inamongus.com/numberology/index.html). It doesn't appear to be explained on the site itself...
Actually, the author of the site knows very well how scientific that method really is. :)
Funky stuff...I put in my birthday numbers and it said:

When its time has arrived, the prey becomes the hunter. ~Persian Proverb

:P

By the way, I met this man once, who thrust upon me Bible Code literature; he was a pleasant enough person, so I accepted it, but upon reading it, filed it in Kitchen Receptacle #1. I figured I didn't know enough basics to even muddle my mind with such stuff. Is the Bible Code stuff just more of the same of this nonsense? He was very serious about it, and at the time was "writing" a science fiction story, as well. Perhaps, in some cases, my ignorance is bliss.

Ohhhhhh, cool! Mine read:


After climbing a great hill, one only finds there are many more hills to climb. ~ Unknown :P

Donnie B.
2005-May-08, 05:56 PM
After climbing a great hill, one only finds there are many more hills to climb. ~ Unknown :P
Just ask Lewis and Clark... :D

Jpax2003
2005-May-08, 06:59 PM
By the way, I met this man once, who thrust upon me Bible Code literature; he was a pleasant enough person, so I accepted it, but upon reading it, filed it in Kitchen Receptacle #1. I figured I didn't know enough basics to even muddle my mind with such stuff. Is the Bible Code stuff just more of the same of this nonsense?

Yes. And you don't even need to follow the "reasoning" (and I do that word a grievous wrong using it there) to know that this is the case. Just ask "If the Bible code can predict things, why does it only ever do so after the event?"

It's a bit difficult to take seriously a claim of "I can predict the future, afterwards"According to the first book on the subject, The Bible Code, by Michael Drosnin, a code they ran suggested that Yitzak Rabin would be assassinated. They even warned Rabin, but to no avail. So the story goes. The foretelling of the Rabin Assassination was one of the events that convinced Drosnin that it could be real, which lead him to write the book, which started off the whole Bible Code/Torah Code craze.

Use some temporal perspective, Sock Puppet. If someone finds what they think is a matrix suggesting a historic event then that event has been "encoded" in the Bible since the Bible was first written. With that logic the data has been there for thousands of years. It may be that someone "discovers" it after the fact, but that is something else. Some might say that the assassin's name was only "discovered" after the assassination, but that would be wrong. The printed matrix contained that information, but Drosnin and others simply ignored it. I'm not saying the code is real or not, just that some issues are human error and not that of the printed material.

WaxRubiks
2005-May-08, 07:04 PM
After climbing a great hill, one only finds there are many more hills to climb. ~ Unknown :P
Just ask Lewis and Clark... :D


Or you could put your name into the first pi search copy the number(position of name in pi) and then paste it into the second pi search and see what quote relates to your name.

BABB="Whatever you're doing, it's not as important as petting the cat"

Makgraf
2005-May-08, 07:48 PM
They weren't exactly putting themselves out on a limb by predicting that a Middle Eastern politician will be assassinated.

I remember my roommate telling me that he was against pi being converted to binary form, for similar reasons to those expressed on this thread. Because it was it random and infinite, eventually there'd be the code for a virus that would destroy the entire internet. I snarkily responded that if that was the case than the anti-virus would also be encoded and there'd be no problem.

pzkpfw
2005-May-08, 08:54 PM
It's a little late, but it occurs to me that English is not "normal".

e.g. "E" occurs more often than "Z".

Does this make it harder to find Shakespear in PI?

I guess when Pi is described as "normal" that basically means "in the long run"; and Infinity is a large number of digits to search in.

Does Infinity really mean all possible sequences, of any given length, may actually occur?

Cheers,

Lurker
2005-May-08, 09:11 PM
By the way, I met this man once, who thrust upon me Bible Code literature; he was a pleasant enough person, so I accepted it, but upon reading it, filed it in Kitchen Receptacle #1. I figured I didn't know enough basics to even muddle my mind with such stuff. Is the Bible Code stuff just more of the same of this nonsense? He was very serious about it, and at the time was "writing" a science fiction story, as well. Perhaps, in some cases, my ignorance is bliss.
You number your kitchen receptacles?? :o

Lance
2005-May-08, 11:46 PM
Does Infinity really mean all possible sequences, of any given length, may actually occur?

I would think "may occur" is a given. But I wonder if they must occur, and for the life of me I can't figure why they would.

ktesibios
2005-May-09, 12:17 AM
Umm, about that copyright thing- copyright begins when the work is fixed in a medium. Obviously, before regulating the right to make copies (which is what copyright protection is all about) can make any sense, a work has to exist in a form which can be copied. Write it down, save it on a disk, engrave it on the head of a pin, recite it into a tape recorder, scribble it with a stick into fresh concrete... now you've got something which is entitled to copyright protection. As long as it remains just a thought in your mind, or an abstract possibility, no dice.

So, if it turns out that the words to "Happy Birthday to You", which is still under copyright, can be found starting at the 1,000,564,876th digit of pi, it doesn't matter because the writers of "Happy Birthday" had the priority of fixing the work in a medium.

In fact, you could say that whoever publishes a computation of pi which contains "Happy Birthday" could theoretically wind up getting done for infringment. :evil:

Maha Vailo
2005-May-09, 12:40 AM
A friend of a friend (seriously) has an interesting site (http://inamongus.com/numberology/index.html). It doesn't appear to be explained on the site itself...
Actually, the author of the site knows very well how scientific that method really is. :)
Funky stuff...I put in my birthday numbers and it said:

When its time has arrived, the prey becomes the hunter. ~Persian Proverb

:P

Cute little site, even if you're not into numerology. I put in my birthdate and it read:


"Life can be only understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards. "

Does anyone remeber who said that?

- Maha Vailo

Chuck
2005-May-09, 01:00 AM
Does it matter exactly how the work is fixed in a medium? If I translate an English book into French the original author will still consider it to be his work. If I convert a track of music on a CD into an MP3 and start selling it the recording industry lawyers will be contacting me. How about if I write a BASIC program that plays the notes to Happy Birthday? The notes aren't embedded in the program but instead are generated by evaluating some complicated formula. If I sell copies of this program who is violating the copyright laws, me or the person who actually runs it on a computer? I strongly suspect that I would be judged to be guilty. What if I don't have a computer and can't even run it myself? I write it out by hand and send it to people by postal mail. I'll never hear its output but I have made it possible for others who do have or will have sufficient computing power to listen to it.

If pi contains every finite string of digits then a formula that encodes the digits of pi also encodes every piece of copyrighted material in existence just as the formula in my BASIC program encodes Happy Birthday. The paper on which the formula was first written is the fixed medium. Anyone with sufficient patience and computing power can use the formula to produce a CD of his favorite songs. But this isn't violating the music industry's copyrights because formulas for pi were known long before their music was composed. The first person to write down such a formula owns the copyrights to everthing that it encodes, although I suspect that the copyrights have expired by now and the material is in public domain. If you disagree that writing a formula to produce something is the same as producing the work itself then my BASIC program is not a copyright violation since it does the same thing.

Grey
2005-May-09, 01:01 AM
"Life can be only understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards. "

Does anyone remeber who said that?
Kierkegaard, I believe.

Melusine
2005-May-09, 02:17 AM
By the way, I met this man once, who thrust upon me Bible Code literature; he was a pleasant enough person, so I accepted it, but upon reading it, filed it in Kitchen Receptacle #1. I figured I didn't know enough basics to even muddle my mind with such stuff. Is the Bible Code stuff just more of the same of this nonsense? He was very serious about it, and at the time was "writing" a science fiction story, as well. Perhaps, in some cases, my ignorance is bliss.
You number your kitchen receptacles?? :o
Lol, yes, and I sew A(1) and A(2), B(1), then B(2),..., on my socks, so I make sure to match the correct ones that have faded in sync over time. I also have everything in my refridgerator chronologically ordered, and occasionally perform numerology on their expiration dates, so I can understand the foods' "essence" and eat said foods when my Sun Sign Pattern is harmonious with the Moon and Ascendents, and after all, Taurus's "Karmic mission is to ORGANIZE in a material, secretive, reflective and strategic manner," so it's only befitting that I should number my trash receptacles in order of importance, so that trash is appropriately discarded in tune with the numbers' significance. Kitchen Receptacle #1 being of the highest order in both size and location.




Actually, I just called it that since I tend to put things down the disposal, too.

BTW, Lurker, are you sure you don't want my numerology quote:
When its time has arrived, the prey becomes the hunter. ~Persian Proverb .
We can negotiate--I'm sure what Pi doesn't know won't hurt it. :wink:
add note

um3k
2005-May-09, 02:40 AM
search string = "iamgod"
30-bit binary equivalent = 010010000101101001110111100100

search string found at binary index = 3424924757
binary pi : 01100110010010000101101001110111100100001000101101 10111110000111
binary string: 010010000101101001110111100100
character pi : wrcnrsm,gdcku.ucfiamgoddkm;cr_f_ba,zeh
character string: iamgod
:o

Lurker
2005-May-09, 02:48 AM
BTW, Lurker, are you sure you don't want my numerology quote:
When its time has arrived, the prey becomes the hunter. ~Persian Proverb .
We can negotiate--I'm sure what Pi doesn't know won't hurt it. :wink:
add note
I already have enough Persian problems...
And in that situation I know who has become the hunter as well as who has become the hunted. #-o

I just don't know when the situation reversed itself... 8-[

Trebuchet
2005-May-09, 03:34 AM
BABB="Whatever you're doing, it's not as important as petting the cat"

I'm reading the BABB and petting the cat!

A Thousand Pardons
2005-May-09, 04:55 AM
If you disagree that writing a formula to produce something is the same as producing the work itself then my BASIC program is not a copyright violation since it does the same thing.
Law is not mathematics, and judges are not mathematicians. :)

Maksutov
2005-May-09, 07:38 AM
Wow...

So if it is true, then it would also contain bible codes (or pi codes), accurate predictions of the future and the answers to the question of Life, the Universe and Everything.[edit]
It certainly does, and within the first 100 places:
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 10582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706 79

Candy
2005-May-09, 10:24 AM
Ahhhhh, 42. :D

Sock puppet
2005-May-09, 01:16 PM
According to the first book on the subject, The Bible Code, by Michael Drosnin, a code they ran suggested that Yitzak Rabin would be assassinated. They even warned Rabin, but to no avail. So the story goes. The foretelling of the Rabin Assassination was one of the events that convinced Drosnin that it could be real, which lead him to write the book, which started off the whole Bible Code/Torah Code craze.

Use some temporal perspective, Sock Puppet. If someone finds what they think is a matrix suggesting a historic event then that event has been "encoded" in the Bible since the Bible was first written. With that logic the data has been there for thousands of years. It may be that someone "discovers" it after the fact, but that is something else. Some might say that the assassin's name was only "discovered" after the assassination, but that would be wrong. The printed matrix contained that information, but Drosnin and others simply ignored it. I'm not saying the code is real or not, just that some issues are human error and not that of the printed material.

What you say is correct if the codes were there. Doesn't it suggest that they might be wrong when they can only find the codes after the fact? Did anyone else see Mystery Men (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0132347/). These guys remind me of the invisible boy in that. (for anyone who didn't see this film, the invisible boy had the amazing power of invisibility........when nobody was looking at him.

edited to fix quotes

Demigrog
2005-May-09, 02:20 PM
Mmm... pi

I once tried to write a compression algorithm that used pi; it searched for bit strings and stored the offset into PI instead of the original data. Sadly, I discovered that (aside from taking a verry long time to compress anything), the offset value's bit string was usually orders of magnitude bigger than the data string. :(

The odds of finding a coherent sentence, let alone a work of Shakespeare, are very low (unless you stack the deck like the Bible code charlatans and pick a “decode” method designed to produce the text you want…). I’d expect that to calculate PI to enough digits to find something that long would likely take longer than the heat death of the universe.

Amadeus
2005-May-09, 03:54 PM
Something I am pondering......

Would it be possible to write a short program to convert the digits of PI into shades of grey? i.e 0 black 9 white?

And to have that program able to allow to say where the line break will be.
so say after 100 squares creates a new row building up a picture.

Basicly I'am interested in seeing if I can find some pattern.

Maybe this is just playing into my woo woo tendances....

Lurker
2005-May-09, 04:08 PM
Something I am pondering......

Would it be possible to write a short program to convert the digits of PI into shades of grey? i.e 0 black 9 white?

And to have that program able to allow to say where the line break will be.
so say after 100 squares creates a new row building up a picture.

Basicly I'am interested in seeing if I can find some pattern.

Maybe this is just playing into my woo woo tendances....
Been there, done that, got a picture of Charles Manson, lost interest...

:wink:

Chuck
2005-May-09, 04:24 PM
I thought I saw a picture of a little arrow embedded in pi, but it turned out to be my mouse pointer.

Amadeus
2005-May-09, 04:27 PM
er... I was thinking more along the lines of a nice abstract pattern :wink:

I was going to do myself a nice A3 poster

btw theres no images in this page so why do I have to keep scrolling to the right?

WaxRubiks
2005-May-09, 05:08 PM
It's a little late, but it occurs to me that English is not "normal".

e.g. "E" occurs more often than "Z".

Does this make it harder to find Shakespear in PI?

I guess when Pi is described as "normal" that basically means "in the long run"; and Infinity is a large number of digits to search in.

Does Infinity really mean all possible sequences, of any given length, may actually occur?

Cheers,


If you say that 00,01,02,03,04 represent A, for example, and Z is just represented by 99 and do this for all the letters to acount for the frequency descrepency then maybe it would work..

Swift
2005-May-09, 07:47 PM
search string = "swift"
25-bit binary equivalent = 1001110111010010011010100
search string found at binary index = 561709404
binary pi : 11111001100111011101001001101010000000011011001000 00101000010111
binary string: 1001110111010010011010100
character pi : psirzoboht,hkpp.gyswift_mrahkvjyefarjw
character string: swift

\:D/ I'm in pi!

search string = "to_be"
25-bit binary equivalent = 1010001111000000001000101
search string found at binary index = 1919281060
binary pi : 10110011101000111100000000100010100000010101000000 01110101011010
binary string: 1010001111000000001000101
character pi : .gwm.lyxe.;.sto_be_jpcumjhlcqgtydcksno
character string: to_be

Actually, that was the only Shakespeare snip-pit I could find. :-?

pumpkinpie
2005-May-09, 08:02 PM
Einstein is not in pi--at least not in the first 4 billion binary digits.

Swift
2005-May-09, 08:04 PM
Einstein is not in pi--at least not in the first 4 billion binary digits.
Is pumpkin? :D

pumpkinpie
2005-May-09, 08:11 PM
Einstein is not in pi--at least not in the first 4 billion binary digits.
Is pumpkin? :D
No. :cry:
But cherry and apple are!

Lurker
2005-May-09, 08:26 PM
Einstein is not in pi--at least not in the first 4 billion binary digits.
Is pumpkin? :D
No. :cry:
But cherry and apple are!
Tells me everything I need to know... pumpkinpie is unnatural!!! 8-[

pumpkinpie
2005-May-09, 08:35 PM
Einstein is not in pi--at least not in the first 4 billion binary digits.
Is pumpkin? :D
No. :cry:
But cherry and apple are!
Tells me everything I need to know... pumpkinpie is unnatural!!! 8-[

Hmmmm.....maybe there are some things about myself that I don't know! :lol:

Jpax2003
2005-May-10, 04:20 AM
According to the first book on the subject, The Bible Code, by Michael Drosnin, a code they ran suggested that Yitzak Rabin would be assassinated. They even warned Rabin, but to no avail. So the story goes. The foretelling of the Rabin Assassination was one of the events that convinced Drosnin that it could be real, which lead him to write the book, which started off the whole Bible Code/Torah Code craze.

Use some temporal perspective, Sock Puppet. If someone finds what they think is a matrix suggesting a historic event then that event has been "encoded" in the Bible since the Bible was first written. With that logic the data has been there for thousands of years. It may be that someone "discovers" it after the fact, but that is something else. Some might say that the assassin's name was only "discovered" after the assassination, but that would be wrong. The printed matrix contained that information, but Drosnin and others simply ignored it. I'm not saying the code is real or not, just that some issues are human error and not that of the printed material.

What you say is correct if the codes were there. Doesn't it suggest that they might be wrong when they can only find the codes after the fact? Did anyone else see Mystery Men (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0132347/). These guys remind me of the invisible boy in that. (for anyone who didn't see this film, the invisible boy had the amazing power of invisibility........when nobody was looking at him.

edited to fix quotesRe-read my quote or read the book. They claim that they did discover an event before it happened. You may doubt the veracity of their claims but you're forgetting the fact that they did make those claims.

worzel
2005-May-10, 09:01 AM
Re-read my quote or read the book. They claim that they did discover an event before it happened. You may doubt the veracity of their claims but you're forgetting the fact that they did make those claims.
I think his point was about your second paragraph stating that just because the codes were discovered after the events doesn't change the fact that codes were there all along. Of course, this is correct, and without meaning, Moby Dick (http://cs.anu.edu.au/people/bdm/dilugim/moby.html) does just as well - as does any text. As to Michael Drosnin's claim about predicting Yitzhak Rabin's assassination before the event, has that been verified? Like every claim to foresee that I have ever seen, he only went public with it after the event.

A Thousand Pardons
2005-May-10, 10:49 AM
The Bad Astronomy Pi Code:


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
1 B A D A S T R O N O
2 M Y A C E R L F G H
3 W K N P Q U N X Z A
4 E V M E N I A L J M
5 S Y E T O C K I A D
6 R I C O P F W Y I S
7 H A R D T O B L O G
8 M E A T U Z S V B P
9 S T R E N D R G A F
0 W E V O C G X J N U

Just take the digits of pi, two at a time. For instance, the first two digits, 31, translate into W.

Candy
2005-May-10, 12:10 PM
The Bad Astronomy Pi Code:


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
1 B A D A S T R O N O
2 M Y A C E R L F G H
3 W K N P Q U N X Z A
4 E V M E N I A L J M
5 S Y E T O C K I A D
6 R I C O P F W Y I S
7 H A R D T O B L O G
8 M E A T U Z S V B P
9 S T R E N D R G A F
0 W E V O C G X J N U

Just take the digits of pi, two at a time. For instance, the first two digits, 31, translate into W.
I see Men - tock and hardtoblogmeat. :D

edited

A Thousand Pardons
2005-May-10, 01:56 PM
I see menial Kia Ric-hard

WaxRubiks
2005-May-10, 02:23 PM
So Kia Ric-hard finds it hardtoblogmeat

what does it all mean?

Candy
2005-May-10, 03:41 PM
This Richard Mentock must be somebody special. 8-[

WaxRubiks
2005-May-10, 03:49 PM
This Richard Mentock must be somebody special. 8-[

Googled!!!
Richard Mentock (http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/)

8-[

Candy
2005-May-10, 04:24 PM
This Richard Mentock must be somebody special. 8-[

Googled!!!
Richard Mentock (http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/)

8-[
The music reminds me of my belated Grandpa Louie when he would play his banjo for us as little kids. Grandpa would sing hymns, too. I wonder if Richard sings. :wink:

A Thousand Pardons
2005-May-10, 04:28 PM
what does it all mean?
It's the key to pi!!!! do I have to do all the work?

Jpax2003
2005-May-10, 06:55 PM
Re-read my quote or read the book. They claim that they did discover an event before it happened. You may doubt the veracity of their claims but you're forgetting the fact that they did make those claims.
I think his point was about your second paragraph stating that just because the codes were discovered after the events doesn't change the fact that codes were there all along. Of course, this is correct, and without meaning, Moby Dick (http://cs.anu.edu.au/people/bdm/dilugim/moby.html) does just as well - as does any text. As to Michael Drosnin's claim about predicting Yitzhak Rabin's assassination before the event, has that been verified? Like every claim to foresee that I have ever seen, he only went public with it after the event.Well, it is two different arguments. Moby Dick has no relation to the honesty of the writer. If the Bible Code were true or false, it has no bearing on whether the author tells the truth about it.

I'm not sure what is "correct, and without meaning." Do you mean what I wrote or what he wrote... or what Drosnin wrote?

I'm not sure that failure to publicize a prediction makes it any less real should it occur. I admit that it could be possible to fake such a prediction after the fact, but there are plenty of methods of ensuring provenance without resorting to publication: private organizations, lockboxes, ciphers, and codes may all be used. If I were to tell you, and only you, the details of the 2008 election and it turns out I was right in every detail, would you consider it a fulfilled predition since you knew about it in advance or would you dismiss it since I told no one else? Now, if I tell you that I also knew there would be a blizzard at the inauguration a week after that event, but forgot to tell you that in 2005, would that invalidate the entire prediction?

Sure it's a hypothetical, but if we ever want to seriously examine predictions scientifically then we need to establish a system whereby it can be proved, or at least accepted with credibility and confidence.

A Thousand Pardons
2005-May-10, 07:25 PM
If I were to tell you, and only you, the details of the 2008 election and it turns out I was right in every detail, would you consider it a fulfilled predition since you knew about it in advance or would you dismiss it since I told no one else?
Depends, upon how, and what happens after.

There is a fraud that I like to call the inverse pyramid scheme. I call it the inverse pyramid, because it relies on fewer and fewer investors, not more and more like the traditional pyramid schemes. You call up 32 investors, and tell them in confidence (with confidence!) that a certain stock is going up and they should sell it long. You call up 32 others and tell them that it's going to go down, and to sell it short. None of them will believe you, but 32 of them will think you were right. Call up 16 of those, and tell them that some other stock is to be shorted, and tell the other 16 to go long on the same stock--ignore the first 32 that you gave a bad "prediction" to.

After three or four iterations, a few will be willing to give you large amounts of money for the next "prediction".

Jpax2003
2005-May-10, 08:08 PM
If I were to tell you, and only you, the details of the 2008 election and it turns out I was right in every detail, would you consider it a fulfilled predition since you knew about it in advance or would you dismiss it since I told no one else?
Depends, upon how, and what happens after.

There is a fraud that I like to call the inverse pyramid scheme. I call it the inverse pyramid, because it relies on fewer and fewer investors, not more and more like the traditional pyramid schemes. You call up 32 investors, and tell them in confidence (with confidence!) that a certain stock is going up and they should sell it long. You call up 32 others and tell them that it's going to go down, and to sell it short. None of them will believe you, but 32 of them will think you were right. Call up 16 of them, and tell them that some other stock is to be shorted, and tell the other 16 to go long on the same stock--ignore the first 32 that you gave a bad "prediction" to.

After three or four iterations, a few will be willing to give you large amounts of money for the next "prediction".And the point is that Drosin and Yips were playing statistics when they told Rabin they thought they had a prediction that he would be assassinated? A prediction that occurs is correct despite its origin in common sense, statistics, coincidence, or holy miracle. That's not my argument. You guys like to argue that and that's not the point. The point is that no matter how fake you think the bible code or other forms of prediction are, it does not automatically invalidate a practicioners claim that they happened to get it correct on the occasions that they do.

Someone said all predictions from the Bible code are discovered after the event. That is not proven. The point is that some claim that they discovered the event in the code prior to the event. If you want to invalidate the claim then repudiate the claim itself on its merits not the structure from which it arose. In other words, since Drosnin claims that he discovered the code before the assassination you need to prove that he is lying about the timing of the discovery, but all he needs to prove is that he did tell someone about it before it occured.

Candy
2005-May-10, 08:17 PM
Richard Mentock is the key to pi. Shouldn't we be investigating this aspect? 8-[

Demigrog
2005-May-10, 08:24 PM
The point is that no matter how fake you think the bible code or other forms of prediction are, it does not automatically invalidate a practicioners claim that they happened to get it correct on the occasions that they do.

Someone said all predictions from the Bible code are discovered after the event. That is not proven. The point is that some claim that they discovered the event in the code prior to the event. If you want to invalidate the claim then repudiate the claim itself on its merits not the structure from which it arose. In other words, since Drosnin claims that he discovered the code before the assassination you need to prove that he is lying about the timing of the discovery, but all he needs to prove is that he did tell someone about it before it occured.

Problem with that is considering one "success" without considering the umpteen million failures--especially since these characters often predict both outcomes of a binary event, just so they always have a guaranteed "success" to advertise with later (in general; I don't know about this specific case). Its like claiming my friend's 3 year old daughter might be a good bowler because she got a strike once-- igoring the other 100 gutter balls--and the bumpers on the lane. :)

A Thousand Pardons
2005-May-10, 08:25 PM
the key to pi. Shouldn't we be investigating this aspect? 8-[
Just get a copy of pi, and do it

You guys like to argue that and that's not the point.
You guys?

The point is that no matter how fake you think the bible code or other forms of prediction are, it does not automatically invalidate a practicioners claim that they happened to get it correct on the occasions that they do.
None of "us guys" said that though. "Those guys" may have.

In other words, since Drosnin claims that he discovered the code before the assassination you need to prove that he is lying about the timing of the discovery, but all he needs to prove is that he did tell someone about it before it occured.
And he needs to prove that he's not just scamming. Us, or himself.

Jpax2003
2005-May-10, 09:13 PM
You guys like to argue that and that's not the point.
You guys?

The point is that no matter how fake you think the bible code or other forms of prediction are, it does not automatically invalidate a practicioners claim that they happened to get it correct on the occasions that they do.
None of "us guys" said that though. "Those guys" may have.

In other words, since Drosnin claims that he discovered the code before the assassination you need to prove that he is lying about the timing of the discovery, but all he needs to prove is that he did tell someone about it before it occured.
And he needs to prove that he's not just scamming. Us, or himself.I'm sorry, that should be youse guys.

You're still barking up the wrong tree. Go back to my first post and the one I referred to. You're not addressing my point. You're constructing strawmen instead. Drosnin claims that it a particular prediction was made, that he and others notified other individuals about the prediction, and that at a later time events occured that matched the prediction. It doesn't matter if the Bible Code is true or false. If you think that I am claiming that the Bible Code is real because of Drosnin's claim then you haven't read what I have been writing. Someone made the claim that bible code matrixes are always found after the fact, implying that after something happens someone goes to see if the event was encoded. I agree this is often the case, however, I know of at least one claim where the prediction was discovered prior to the event. I don't know if that claim is true, but I know they claim it. This refutes what the poster wrote about all claims being after the fact. That's all.

Drosnin does not need to prove he is not scamming anyone, he only has to prove he is not lying, no matter his intent for making the claim. Unless someone proves that Drosnin had positive knowledge that the assassin would assassinate Rabin, in which case he could be accused of criminal conspiracy and such, then any attempt to scam anyone with the prediction has no bearing on its coincidence.

Jpax2003
2005-May-10, 09:22 PM
The point is that no matter how fake you think the bible code or other forms of prediction are, it does not automatically invalidate a practicioners claim that they happened to get it correct on the occasions that they do.

Someone said all predictions from the Bible code are discovered after the event. That is not proven. The point is that some claim that they discovered the event in the code prior to the event. If you want to invalidate the claim then repudiate the claim itself on its merits not the structure from which it arose. In other words, since Drosnin claims that he discovered the code before the assassination you need to prove that he is lying about the timing of the discovery, but all he needs to prove is that he did tell someone about it before it occured.

Problem with that is considering one "success" without considering the umpteen million failures--especially since these characters often predict both outcomes of a binary event, just so they always have a guaranteed "success" to advertise with later (in general; I don't know about this specific case). Its like claiming my friend's 3 year old daughter might be a good bowler because she got a strike once-- igoring the other 100 gutter balls--and the bumpers on the lane. :)You're confused. I am not making that argument. You are absolutely correct in what you said... but it has no bearing on the point I am making. Go back and re-read what I first wrote and it'll make more sense.

People on the BABB do this fairly often. When a person illustrates that a debunker makes one mistatement of fact, everyone automatically assumes that the person offering the correction is trying to undermine the entire debunker argument. Sometimes they jump into a thread or debate without reading the beginning and then post data out of context.

A Thousand Pardons
2005-May-10, 09:24 PM
You're still barking up the wrong tree. Go back to my first post and the one I referred to. You're not addressing my point. You're constructing strawmen instead.
In that first post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=467526#467526) you say

If someone finds what they think is a matrix suggesting a historic event then that event has been "encoded" in the Bible since the Bible was first written. With that logic the data has been there for thousands of years. It may be that someone "discovers" it after the fact, but that is something else. Some might say that the assassin's name was only "discovered" after the assassination, but that would be wrong. The printed matrix contained that information, but Drosnin and others simply ignored it.
That's nonsense. And my pi code proves it. That message in pi was no more "always there" than ice cream dots.


Drosnin does not need to prove he is not scamming anyone, he only has to prove he is not lying, no matter his intent for making the claim. Unless someone proves that Drosnin had positive knowledge that the assassin would assassinate Rabin, in which case he could be accused of criminal conspiracy and such, then any attempt to scam anyone with the prediction has no bearing on its coincidence.
Let's assume that he's not lying then. So what?


People on the BABB do this fairly often. When a person illustrates that a debunker makes one mistatement of fact, everyone automatically assumes that the person offering the correction is trying to undermine the entire debunker argument. Sometimes they jump into a thread or debate without reading the beginning and then post data out of context.
It's not just debunkers that make mistatement of facts. :)

Jpax2003
2005-May-10, 09:52 PM
In that first post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=467526#467526) you say

If someone finds what they think is a matrix suggesting a historic event then that event has been "encoded" in the Bible since the Bible was first written. With that logic the data has been there for thousands of years. It may be that someone "discovers" it after the fact, but that is something else. Some might say that the assassin's name was only "discovered" after the assassination, but that would be wrong. The printed matrix contained that information, but Drosnin and others simply ignored it.
That's nonsense. And my pi code proves it. That message in pi was no more "always there" than ice cream dots.Your pi code is unrelated to my point. You continue to misunderstand me. Is it intentional? Again, I say that the veracity of a bible code has no bearing on my point. The data Drosnin, et al, cherry-picked was there since the bible was written into it's current format (possibly over 2000 years). Drosnin, et al, ran the matrix and printed it out where they claim to have discovered ELS (Equidistant Letter Sequences) that, per their method, seems to indicate that Rabin will be assassinated. Later, after the predicted event occured, they went and re-examined their chart and realized that the name of the assassin was already there. They printed it out but had failed to notice that one part of it it until after the fact. Everything else was notated prior to the event. This series of events was made clear in the book, The Bible Code. Did you read it?





Drosnin does not need to prove he is not scamming anyone, he only has to prove he is not lying, no matter his intent for making the claim. Unless someone proves that Drosnin had positive knowledge that the assassin would assassinate Rabin, in which case he could be accused of criminal conspiracy and such, then any attempt to scam anyone with the prediction has no bearing on its coincidence.
Let's assume that he's not lying then. So what?Well, if Drosnin is not lying then he truly offered a prediction from the Bible Code prior to the event occuring, and this refutes the statement where Sock Puppet implores the question: "If the Bible code can predict things, why does it only ever do so after the event?"





People on the BABB do this fairly often. When a person illustrates that a debunker makes one mistatement of fact, everyone automatically assumes that the person offering the correction is trying to undermine the entire debunker argument. Sometimes they jump into a thread or debate without reading the beginning and then post data out of context.
It's not just debunkers that make mistatement of facts. :)Yes, this is true, however I am not the one guilty of such a misstep in this thread.

Grey
2005-May-10, 09:57 PM
Richard Mentock is the key to pi. Shouldn't we be investigating this aspect? 8-[
Shh, he could be listening in under some kind of assumed name. In fact, he could be one of the people posting in this very thread. I'll bet that this sort of shifty character might change his name periodically though, which could make it harder to track him down.




:wink:

A Thousand Pardons
2005-May-10, 10:05 PM
In that first post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=467526#467526) you say

If someone finds what they think is a matrix suggesting a historic event then that event has been "encoded" in the Bible since the Bible was first written. With that logic the data has been there for thousands of years. It may be that someone "discovers" it after the fact, but that is something else. Some might say that the assassin's name was only "discovered" after the assassination, but that would be wrong. The printed matrix contained that information, but Drosnin and others simply ignored it.
That's nonsense. And my pi code proves it. That message in pi was no more "always there" than ice cream dots.Your pi code is unrelated to my point. You continue to misunderstand me. Is it intentional? Again, I say that the veracity of a bible code has no bearing on my point. The data Drosnin, et al, cherry-picked was there since the bible was written into it's current format (possibly over 2000 years).
I understand you fine. Go ahead, run the pi key matrix (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=468334#468334) against pi. The key limns pi. Was the message that pops out "always there?" If not, how are you so sure that the cherry-picked message was there? That's my point.

It took me a few minutes to find that message. If I spent twenty years and devoted my life to it, I bet I could come up with some really startling ones.

worzel
2005-May-10, 10:51 PM
Re-read my quote or read the book. They claim that they did discover an event before it happened. You may doubt the veracity of their claims but you're forgetting the fact that they did make those claims.
I think his point was about your second paragraph stating that just because the codes were discovered after the events doesn't change the fact that codes were there all along. Of course, this is correct, and without meaning, Moby Dick (http://cs.anu.edu.au/people/bdm/dilugim/moby.html) does just as well - as does any text. As to Michael Drosnin's claim about predicting Yitzhak Rabin's assassination before the event, has that been verified? Like every claim to foresee that I have ever seen, he only went public with it after the event.Well, it is two different arguments.
They were in answer to your two paragraphs :)


Moby Dick has no relation to the honesty of the writer. If the Bible Code were true or false, it has no bearing on whether the author tells the truth about it.
But it is completely revelant to your second paragraph - if you can use the same method to find true predictions in Moby Dick, after the fact, then in the same sense they were already there.


I'm not sure what is "correct, and without meaning." Do you mean what I wrote or what he wrote... or what Drosnin wrote?
I suspect you know full well what I meant: that one can find predictions in the bible using this method is not incredible given that one can find the same predictions in any text, as well as many, many more incorrect ones (in the bible too).


I'm not sure that failure to publicize a prediction makes it any less real should it occur.
Possibly not, but one might be forgiven for thinking that you are slightly gullible if you took such unverifyable claims seriously.


I admit that it could be possible to fake such a prediction after the fact, but there are plenty of methods of ensuring provenance without resorting to publication: private organizations, lockboxes, ciphers, and codes may all be used.
As ATP pointed out, without all the predictions being on record publicly, it is very easy to appear to make incredible predictions to a small number of people simply by making many predictions. I'm currently preparing a business plan for my bank manager based on ATP's inverse pyramid scheme :)


If I were to tell you, and only you, the details of the 2008 election and it turns out I was right in every detail, would you consider it a fulfilled predition since you knew about it in advance or would you dismiss it since I told no one else?
I would have to believe that you hadn't made any other predictions to anyone else - that requires trust. Science needs reproducable results that anyone can, in principle, check for themselves. However fancy the titles and maths, if it ain't done scientificly, it just ain't true.


Now, if I tell you that I also knew there would be a blizzard at the inauguration a week after that event, but forgot to tell you that in 2005, would that invalidate the entire prediction?
If you made your prediction publicly so that all could check up on your success rate, then no. If your method provided me with the ability to make such predictions myself, then no.


Sure it's a hypothetical, but if we ever want to seriously examine predictions scientifically then we need to establish a system whereby it can be proved, or at least accepted with credibility and confidence.
That was rather the point of just about everyone elses' comments in this thread, including mine.

A Thousand Pardons
2005-May-10, 11:07 PM
I'm currently preparing a business plan for my bank manager based on ATP's inverse pyramid scheme
If that one works for you, I'll give you another, for a small consideration. :)

I deal two cards...

worzel
2005-May-11, 12:03 AM
I'm currently preparing a business plan for my bank manager based on ATP's inverse pyramid scheme
If that one works for you, I'll give you another, for a small consideration. :)

I deal two cards...
One's a boy right?

worzel
2005-May-11, 12:05 AM
I'm currently preparing a business plan for my bank manager based on ATP's inverse pyramid scheme
If that one works for you, I'll give you another, for a small consideration. :)
I'll give you 150% of my profit if you like. Of course, I'll need to pay myself a salary first :)


I deal two cards...
One's a boy, right?

Grey
2005-May-11, 12:21 AM
By the way, there's a quote that might be appropriate to how some people behave in thinking there is a mystical code hidden in some text. "We are irrational, never transcendental." Now if I could just remember where I heard that. A Thousand Pardons, maybe you've heard it before somewhere? :wink:

worzel
2005-May-11, 12:52 AM
By the way, there's a quote that might be appropriate to how some people behave in thinking there is a mystical code hidden in some text. "We are irrational, never transcendental." Now if I could just remember where I heard that. A Thousand Pardons, maybe you've heard it before somewhere? :wink:
That was in Moby Dick (bible code for M. Richard), but I don't know where you got the comma from.

Lurker
2005-May-11, 12:56 AM
By the way, there's a quote that might be appropriate to how some people behave in thinking there is a mystical code hidden in some text. "We are irrational, never transcendental." Now if I could just remember where I heard that. A Thousand Pardons, maybe you've heard it before somewhere? :wink:
It comes from pi... 8-[

Candy
2005-May-11, 02:00 AM
Richard Mentock is the key to pi. Shouldn't we be investigating this aspect? 8-[
Shh, he could be listening in under some kind of assumed name. In fact, he could be one of the people posting in this very thread. I'll bet that this sort of shifty character might change his name periodically though, which could make it harder to track him down.




:wink:
Scary, isn't it? 8)

Lurker
2005-May-11, 02:50 AM
Richard Mentock is the key to pi. Shouldn't we be investigating this aspect? 8-[
Shh, he could be listening in under some kind of assumed name. In fact, he could be one of the people posting in this very thread. I'll bet that this sort of shifty character might change his name periodically though, which could make it harder to track him down.




:wink:
Scary, isn't it? 8)
What's even more scary is that one of the people viewing this thread may be a coworker of mine... :o

Jpax2003
2005-May-11, 03:08 AM
One more time. The veracity of the bible code is in an issue. Firstly, Sock Puppet said the "[bible code] only ever does so [predicts things] after the event." This is a misstatement of fact. The originators of the Bible Code stated that they found a code, recorded it, acted to stop it, and it happened as they claim to have predicted despite attempts to change it. Whether they are lying or telling the truth is immaterial as it is the claim of prior knowledge (not the method or accuracy) that is at issue. It doesn't matter if it is the Bible or Moby Dick when those that claim to have found the predictive code claim to have found it before the predicted event. If someone claimed to find a prediction in Moby Dick and that the event later did occur as predicted only to have somone else claim that "All Moby Dick Codes only predict things after the event," then I would say they were wrong too. If you find a prediction in Pi and it occurs as you predict and then someone says that Pi only predicts things after the fact, then I would say they were wrong too. I'm not saying that Drosnin's claims are valid, only that he made them. Why is that so hard to follow?

Secondly, chronologically speaking, the words in the bible were there before most of the predicted events. Whether you read them straight or skip every other letter they are there and have been compiled as such for a long time. So, in the event that the code is real it's been there for a long time. In the event the code is not real the data that is being used to make the claim has been there a long time. Whether the code is real or not the source material predates most of the predictions in a readily available form. Can you say the same thing about pi? Perhaps you can, but it's a recent development that a 6 digit or larger computation of Pi is readily available for inspection. Give it time to be in existence for someone can make a claim of prediction prior to a predicted event.

A Thousand Pardons
2005-May-11, 04:32 AM
Can you say the same thing about pi? Perhaps you can, but it's a recent development that a 6 digit or larger computation of Pi is readily available for inspection. Give it time to be in existence for someone can make a claim of prediction prior to a predicted event.
You're not really suggesting that the digits of pi were different just because we didn't know them?

Jpax, I gotta give you credit for this one. :) It's been fun. You other guys, grey, worzel, Lurker, I thought you'd never get around to it

Grey
2005-May-11, 05:48 AM
You other guys, grey, worzel, Lurker, I thought you'd never get around to it
Hey, I was busy today. I just needed a few minutes to sit down and go through it. :)

Jpax2003
2005-May-11, 07:05 AM
Can you say the same thing about pi? Perhaps you can, but it's a recent development that a 6 digit or larger computation of Pi is readily available for inspection. Give it time to be in existence for someone can make a claim of prediction prior to a predicted event.
You're not really suggesting that the digits of pi were different just because we didn't know them?

Jpax, I gotta give you credit for this one. :) It's been fun. You other guys, grey, worzel, Lurker, I thought you'd never get around to itSix figure computation? A computation of pi resulting in a string of 100,000 or more digits. Anyways, I think you finally understand me. The digits of Pi were not different, thus they are the same and have always been, so if something is found in pi, it has always been there. It just took too long with longhand division to get enough digits to examine. I'm glad you finally agree that I am right.

worzel
2005-May-11, 08:42 AM
JPax, this is what got the discussion going:

According to the first book on the subject, The Bible Code, by Michael Drosnin, a code they ran suggested that Yitzak Rabin would be assassinated. They even warned Rabin, but to no avail. So the story goes. The foretelling of the Rabin Assassination was one of the events that convinced Drosnin that it could be real, which lead him to write the book, which started off the whole Bible Code/Torah Code craze.

Use some temporal perspective, Sock Puppet. If someone finds what they think is a matrix suggesting a historic event then that event has been "encoded" in the Bible since the Bible was first written. With that logic the data has been there for thousands of years. It may be that someone "discovers" it after the fact, but that is something else. Some might say that the assassin's name was only "discovered" after the assassination, but that would be wrong. The printed matrix contained that information, but Drosnin and others simply ignored it. I'm not saying the code is real or not, just that some issues are human error and not that of the printed material.
I agreed with your second paragraph to the extent that the codes were already there even if discovered afterwards, and pointed out that they are still meaningless because they are everywhere you look, along with far more incorrect predictions.

With regards to your first paragraph. I initially asked if you knew anything about the validity of the claim.

I was never really opposed to what you were saying, but you have a habbit of replying to a point regarding A as if it were in answer to B which gives the discussion the appearance of disagreement. Also, you seemed to be hell bent on defending the possibility that their claim was true - a possibility I concede exists, however unlikely I think it is.

But the point remains, it is not good enough to claim after the fact that one made predictions before the fact. If he could reproduce the results by making public predictions now about the future, don't you think he would have?

A Thousand Pardons
2005-May-11, 02:30 PM
Anyways, I think you finally understand me.
I think I do too. :)

The digits of Pi were not different, thus they are the same and have always been, so if something is found in pi, it has always been there. It just took too long with longhand division to get enough digits to examine.
Ludolph van Ceulen calculated 35 digits of pi before he died in 1610 (they inscribed it on his gravestone, part of the reason pi was sometimes known as the Ludolphine number). My pi code uses less than that.


I'm glad you finally agree that I am right.
I don't.

My point was that you can code almost anything you want into those digits of pi. That doesn't make it "always there". The digits were always there, but the interpretation was not--that's only been around for about 28 hours.

Jpax2003
2005-May-11, 06:35 PM
JPax, this is what got the discussion going:

According to the first book on the subject, The Bible Code, by Michael Drosnin, a code they ran suggested that Yitzak Rabin would be assassinated. They even warned Rabin, but to no avail. So the story goes. The foretelling of the Rabin Assassination was one of the events that convinced Drosnin that it could be real, which lead him to write the book, which started off the whole Bible Code/Torah Code craze.

Use some temporal perspective, Sock Puppet. If someone finds what they think is a matrix suggesting a historic event then that event has been "encoded" in the Bible since the Bible was first written. With that logic the data has been there for thousands of years. It may be that someone "discovers" it after the fact, but that is something else. Some might say that the assassin's name was only "discovered" after the assassination, but that would be wrong. The printed matrix contained that information, but Drosnin and others simply ignored it. I'm not saying the code is real or not, just that some issues are human error and not that of the printed material.
I agreed with your second paragraph to the extent that the codes were already there even if discovered afterwards, and pointed out that they are still meaningless because they are everywhere you look, along with far more incorrect predictions.What actually got the discussion going was Sock Puppet's previous post which you omitted from your quote of my post where it was in evidence.

I agree that any codes may be meaningless. I was making a point about temporality not validity. Pi, on the other hand, is a ratio and needs to be calculated by somone before anyone can claim to find anything ciphered in it. But ATP says it's only been available for 28 hours, so that is not much time for anyone to have found a prediction that has come true that was found prior to the predicted event.


With regards to your first paragraph. I initially asked if you knew anything about the validity of the claim.I read the book where the author, Michael Drosnin, makes the claim. We can assume that he is telling the truth that he found it before the assassination or we can assume that he is lying and never predicted it before the assassination. It does not matter if it was a coincidence or the Bible Code. That is three separate lines of inquiry: Was the prediction accurate? Was the prediction prior to the event? and, Is the mechanism of prediction, from the Bible Code, valid? The fact that Drosnin attributed the prediction to the Bible Code does not mean that denial of one part (validity) automatically negates the others (temporality and accuracy). Sock Puppet said that the Bible Code only makes predictions after the events, this refutes that. Again, just so everyone is clear, I am arguing temporality not validity.

(Actually, Sock Puppet's assertion that the Bible Code makes predictions at all is an assumption of validity, elsewise, the Bible Code makes nothing. I only write this so that certain people with a talent for sophistry don't think I am arguing validty. The assumption is there for the sake of argument as titular to the claim of prediction.)


I was never really opposed to what you were saying, but you have a habbit of replying to a point regarding A as if it were in answer to B which gives the discussion the appearance of disagreement. Also, you seemed to be hell bent on defending the possibility that their claim was true - a possibility I concede exists, however unlikely I think it is.No, you are mistaken. First, Sock Puppet's reply to me was "Doesn't it suggest that they might be wrong when they can only find the codes after the fact?" Which reinforces his assertion that the discussion was about temporality. Your response ignored what we were debating and started a new line of questioning regarding the other paragraph. Don't blame me for staying on target.

Second, I am not hell bent in defending Drosnin's claim as true. I have stated repeatedly, over and over, again and again, that it doesn't matter of the Bible Code is true or not. How many disclaimers do I need to posts, as twice per paragraph does not seem to be sufficient? Once again, I repeat, I am not arguing that their claim is valid, only that they claim to have made it prior to the predicted event. I am not saying this proves anything other than the prediction was extant at the time of the event they claim fulfilled it.


But the point remains, it is not good enough to claim after the fact that one made predictions before the fact. If he could reproduce the results by making public predictions now about the future, don't you think he would have?The point does not remain. It ignores the author's claim of events. Drosnin does not claim that it predicted the assassination and he waited until it happened to make the claim of prediction. According to his book, he acted upon the prediction and notified people of the prediction before the event. The fact that the book, The Bible Code, was published after all these events is an artifact of linear time and is not evidence that his report of the prediction did not occur prior to both the book's publication and the assassination. It seems people are confusing the publication of the story with the report of the prediction.

I'll say it again. Many people who run Bible Codes do so after the event to see if the Bible supposedly encoded it. This is done after the fact. Sock Puppet said the Bible Code only predicts things after the fact. He was stating an absolute. I contend that it is not an absolute as there is at least one claim of prediction prior to the event. Just like in the scientific method, one inconvenient fact throws out a claim of absolutes.

Jpax2003
2005-May-11, 07:00 PM
Anyways, I think you finally understand me.
I think I do too. :)Hmmm,on second thought perhaps you don't. The proper response, if you knew me, would be an apology not an agreement.



The digits of Pi were not different, thus they are the same and have always been, so if something is found in pi, it has always been there. It just took too long with longhand division to get enough digits to examine.
Ludolph van Ceulen calculated 35 digits of pi before he died in 1610 (they inscribed it on his gravestone, part of the reason pi was sometimes known as the Ludolphine number). My pi code uses less than that.
Are those my digits or your digits? Do you mean:
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288
or
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 digits of Pi?
You never did clarify that.


I'm glad you finally agree that I am right.
I don't.

My point was that you can code almost anything you want into those digits of pi. That doesn't make it "always there". The digits were always there, but the interpretation was not--that's only been around for about 28 hours.Exactly my point. Pi has not been around in a readily examinable form for people to try to run Bible Code type programs through. Give them time, ATP, give them time. In a few thousand years we'll have Pi-ists claiming the apocolypse based on a twisted decryption of pi. I mean, the Bible was written by men and is subject to interpretation but, Pi.... Pi is mathematically encoded into space-time itself.... Can you hear them, ATP? They are calling your name. You will be the Adam or Moses of the Pi-Sees. Hmm, the Mayan Calander is claimed to end in 2012, and they used circular calendars. It can't be coincidence. You will herald in the time of the Understanding of Pi, the transformation from crude calendar gears to A More Precise Pi. Instead of 360 degrees, they will institute a metric circle of 1000 divisions called Pardons. You will be the Holy father of the infinite circle. Don't believe me? You know how people do crazy things. This can't not happen. And it's all because of you. Enjoy! :D

Grey
2005-May-11, 07:30 PM
Once again, I repeat, I am not arguing that their claim is valid, only that they claim to have made it prior to the predicted event. I am not saying this proves anything other than the prediction was extant at the time of the event they claim fulfilled it.
Well, and this doesn't even prove that. It only demonstrates that Drosnin claims it. Frankly, I'd want to see some documentation backing up that claim, and if it's to be taken as something other than a fluke, it should be repeatable.


I contend that it is not an absolute as there is at least one claim of prediction prior to the event. Just like in the scientific method, one inconvenient fact throws out a claim of absolutes.
One claim of prediction prior to the event. That doesn't become an inconvenient fact unless it's actually verified to have really happened, and shown that the success of that particular prediction wasn't just a matter of luck.

Jpax2003
2005-May-11, 08:25 PM
Once again, I repeat, I am not arguing that their claim is valid, only that they claim to have made it prior to the predicted event. I am not saying this proves anything other than the prediction was extant at the time of the event they claim fulfilled it.
Well, and this doesn't even prove that. It only demonstrates that Drosnin claims it. Frankly, I'd want to see some documentation backing up that claim, and if it's to be taken as something other than a fluke, it should be repeatable.Exactly, that's what I've been saying: Drosnin claims it. I doesn't have to prove anything, Drosnin does. Again, you can assume he is telling the truth or that he is lying. Read the book if you want more evidence.... I can't prove it, I don't have access to the physical information. All I can do it point you to the sources as anything I say is second hand knowledge. So everyone can either accept it or drop the argument.



I contend that it is not an absolute as there is at least one claim of prediction prior to the event. Just like in the scientific method, one inconvenient fact throws out a claim of absolutes.
One claim of prediction prior to the event. That doesn't become an inconvenient fact unless it's actually verified to have really happened, and shown that the success of that particular prediction wasn't just a matter of luck.Hmm, and do you accept the results of the Human Genome Project without actually decoding the entire genome yourself? At some point you have to accept the work of others because you can't do it all yourself. So, you can assume he's wrong because it offends your worldview or you can admit that he is telling the truth about a coincidence. Those in attendence apparently are reported to have accepted the reported temporality of his claim, even if they dimissed the validity.

Here (http://www.thebiblecode.com/newsRabin.php) is a digital copy of a letter claimed to be sent to Rabin prior to his assassination. Here (http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/opinions/lubotsky.html) is a mention of Drosnin's prediction by a mathematical Bible Code Debunker, who, nevertheless, confirms Drosnin's claim of prediction. It is evidence. It may be a fake, but just because it can be does not mean it is. You may attempt to prove such.

To clarify, again as people seem to keep misunderstanding, I am not arguing the Bible Code is true, I am arguing that Sock Puppet's Statement about the Bible Code is not true.

A Thousand Pardons
2005-May-12, 05:05 AM
To clarify, again as people seem to keep misunderstanding, I am not arguing the Bible Code is true,
I went back through the posts, and as near as I can tell, the only poster who has made comments like that has been worzel


I am arguing that Sock Puppet's Statement about the Bible Code is not true.
Got that. I don't think Sock Puppet has even posted since page two (here or other threads I see) But I am arguing against your statement (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=468913#468913) "if something is found in pi, it has always been there." I proved that that was wrong.

Jpax2003
2005-May-12, 06:34 AM
To clarify, again as people seem to keep misunderstanding, I am not arguing the Bible Code is true,
I went back through the posts, and as near as I can tell, the only poster who has made comments like that has been worzel


I am arguing that Sock Puppet's Statement about the Bible Code is not true.
Got that. I don't think Sock Puppet has even posted since page two (here or other threads I see) But I am arguing against your statement (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=468913#468913) "if something is found in pi, it has always been there." I proved that that was wrong.This is a familiar tactic with you. You keep asking the same question over and over until it loses context then make some ridiculous statement not in contest (like here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=468882#468882))and wait for me to make some comment about it which you then claim to refute due to your intentional ambiguity thus leading to a claim of refutation of anything I wrote. You've done it before and you are doing it again. I am on to you, and everyone else probably is now too.

You didn't prove that I am wrong, you only proved that you are willing to misrepresent what other people write. You are trying to start arguments and that is not camoflaged by smilies. This is not the first time and I am not the only one who thinks this. Your actions are consistent with trolling tactics and you should be held accountable.

WaxRubiks
2005-May-12, 07:36 AM
after an event you can apply any algorythum you want to a set of numbers to get the result you want and so appear to have found a prediction.
The thing with predictions or prophecy is that they
have to come before an event.

Sock puppet
2005-May-12, 12:32 PM
I am arguing that Sock Puppet's Statement about the Bible Code is not true.
Okey-dokey. I retract my claim. Or rather, amend it:
The Bible code has never produced a prediction before the event except for one instance in which a public figure whose life was widely known to be in danger may have been warned before the event and the warning may have come from the bible code.

Got that. I don't think Sock Puppet has even posted since page two (here or other threads I see)
Awwwwww. Someone noticed. I've been too busy with exams lately to post much. (not that I'm a lifer on the BAAB, anyway. Not yet.)

Disinfo Agent
2005-May-12, 01:29 PM
If you only knew the power of the Bad Side... :wink:

A Thousand Pardons
2005-May-12, 02:13 PM
You didn't prove that I am wrong, you only proved that you are willing to misrepresent what other people write.
Did you not mean what you said? How did I misinterpret it?

The pi message that I "found" was not always there. It didn't appear until I formed the key. The same thing happens with the bible codes. That's what I was illustrating--and I think it is relevant.

sidmel
2005-May-12, 03:21 PM
sidmel - Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Hmmm, I think it's time to go back to bed and ponder life for a week or so.

Candy
2005-May-12, 03:42 PM
sidmel - Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Hmmm, I think it's time to go back to bed and ponder life for a week or so.
:lol:

WaxRubiks
2005-May-12, 03:45 PM
are JPAX and ATP going to have a custard pi code fight?

Candy
2005-May-12, 03:48 PM
are JPAX and ATP going to have a custard pi code fight?
Can ATP throw the first pi? 8-[

SciFi Chick
2005-May-12, 03:56 PM
are JPAX and ATP going to have a custard pi code fight?
Can ATP throw the first pi? 8-[

He already did.

Jpax2003
2005-May-12, 05:12 PM
I am arguing that Sock Puppet's Statement about the Bible Code is not true.
Okey-dokey. I retract my claim. Or rather, amend it:
The Bible code has never produced a prediction before the event except for one instance in which a public figure whose life was widely known to be in danger may have been warned before the event and the warning may have come from the bible code.Well, I'm pretty sure that the warning was fact (even a Bible Code Debunker admits that), but otherwise it works for me. Debate over.

Sock Puppet, if it got a little hot in here, don't worry, it wasn't aimed at you.

A Thousand Pardons
2005-May-13, 12:31 PM
Debate over.
Great, let's get back to the questions about pi

Chuck
2005-May-13, 03:06 PM
The bible is embedded in pi. So is the bible code book.

A Thousand Pardons
2005-May-13, 03:13 PM
The bible is embedded in pi. So is the bible code book.
Depending on how you do it, they could be embedded in the same part of pi

Lurker
2005-May-13, 05:17 PM
The bible is embedded in pi. So is the bible code book.
Depending on how you do it, they could be embedded in the same part of pi
The bible is imbedded in pi, but if you understand how the bible code works, pi is imbedded in the bible!! :o


8-[

A Thousand Pardons
2005-May-13, 05:26 PM
The bible is imbedded in pi, but if you understand how the bible code works, pi is imbedded in the bible!!
But not the digits, since that is infinite. The formula for pi is finite though.

Finding a message in pi was part of the plot of Carl Sagan's book Contact

closetgeek
2008-Feb-22, 04:41 PM
Your pi code is unrelated to my point. You continue to misunderstand me. Is it intentional? Again, I say that the veracity of a bible code has no bearing on my point. The data Drosnin, et al, cherry-picked was there since the bible was written into it's current format (possibly over 2000 years). Drosnin, et al, ran the matrix and printed it out where they claim to have discovered ELS (Equidistant Letter Sequences) that, per their method, seems to indicate that Rabin will be assassinated. Later, after the predicted event occured, they went and re-examined their chart and realized that the name of the assassin was already there. They printed it out but had failed to notice that one part of it it until after the fact. Everything else was notated prior to the event. This series of events was made clear in the book, The Bible Code. Did you read it?


Well, if Drosnin is not lying then he truly offered a prediction from the Bible Code prior to the event occuring, and this refutes the statement where Sock Puppet implores the question: "If the Bible code can predict things, why does it only ever do so after the event?"


Yes, this is true, however I am not the one guilty of such a misstep in this thread.

I am jumping in here, I see what you are saying but the "after the fact" issue is more about word association. I am just using this as an example, I do know that this was one of those e-mails of unknown source but remember right after 9/11 there was an e-mail circulating that claimed Nostradamus predicted 9/11 with that thing about the twin brothers falling, or something to that effect. It was spoken in poetry and could have been assigned to many different events, had the prediction actually taken place. I never paid too much attention to bible code so I don't really know how it is predicted and language has changed over the centuries. I would assume that the code did not predict in such ways as; closetgeek is going to read this thread and post a reply at 11:28 est. Of course this is an assumption but I think they would have to make sense of the wording first, then connect it to the event. In such a case, how many different events could that one prediction also be associated with. So the significance would be if they were to decipher the code, understand exactly what it meant, make the prediction, then have the prediction occur.

I would also like to point out that the bible[s] used have been changed, translated, mistranslated, and altered so how accurate could the code actually be?

Matherly
2008-Feb-22, 05:04 PM
While your point is well taken, Closet Geek, I do want to point out that the last post on this thread was nearly 3 years ago.

Gillianren
2008-Feb-22, 06:13 PM
The supposed "9/11 Nostradamus Prediction" is an acknowledged hoax. For one thing, it's got five lines, and Nostradamus wrote in quatrains.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/nostradamus.asp