Iain -- I will give you this -- you tried.
On my point 1, which was:
> 1. Assume the denary system is divinely inspired, based on arguments
from
> nature in that humans and some animals have five digits on each
> extremity. Pandas, horses, etc. don't count.
you corrected me (the Babylonians used base 60, not base 12). Must be my
memory, or I read it wrong somewhere. But you did not dispute that the
point was correct -- that the assumption must be made.
Later, you said: " No one is claiming that base 10 is "more efficient"
than any other."
In previous dialog with Vernon, when I pointed out that his scheme
depended on the denary system, he replied to the effect that "aha --
then the denary system must be inspired as well." The "ad hoc" attribute
of this reply was noted but Vernon thought it unimportant.
On my second point, at least one variant on John 1 does exist. You also
wrote:
"But they didn't go around hunting for the right text. It was the first
one
they chose"
That does not exactly answer my argument, of course. But perhaps there
are very few variants, as you argue. You write: " But arguing
probabilistically, one notes that the approximation to e is of order
10^-5, so one would expect to have to search through 100,000 variant
texts before a match could be found, or have a choice of 100,000
interesting numbers that it might come to. In practice there are only a
few dozen "interesting" numbers that might fit (like the Golden ratio,
square root of 2, sqrt(3)/2, and so forth). And e and pi are by far the
most famous."
Those "probabilities" multiply, of course. Assume only two text variants,
24 "interesting numbers," and, say, 20 "interesting mathematical
transformations." The probability of finding two of those numbers under
those circumstances is already fairly high. Add to that the concept that
"if not Gen 1 then perhaps Lev 1, etc. and the odds drop to almost
certainty.
On my point 3, which was:
> 3. Direct dictation of any part of scripture "by God" is problematical.
You wrote that "I don't think Vernon ever claimed that scripture was
directly "dictated" by God. What is claimed is that Scripture is
"inspired by God" (2 Tim 3:16). Inspiration is not necessarily the same
as dictation. Did the writers hear the "voice of God" speaking the
words, or did they write as an act of faith? I would tend to assume the
latter."
But "inspiration" leaves the author free to write in his own way.
On my point 4, which was:
> 4. Direct numeric equivalences are a "fun" thing to do -- are they
> inspired? Maybe. I have never seen an analysis of any that was in the
> least convincing, and I've encountered many which were sheer
balderdash.
You argued that this was not an argument against Vernon's thesis. I
agree. It is an argument against spending any appreciable amount of time
looking at Vernon's thesis. I did not dismiss Vernon's claim as
"balderdash." I only said that in the presence of so many claims like
his that ARE balderdash I would not spend more time on it. I also
qualified that statement (I think) that if someone of repute -- say John
Polkinghorne or his ilk, would endorse it, I'd have to rethink that
position.
On my point 5, which was
> 5. There are thousands of possible mathematical transformations that
can
> be tried. The one used is a simple one, of course; there are still many
> simple ones. Why THIS simple one? No answer.
>
You answered "The only justification I can give for the mathematical
transformation is that the same formula was tested on John 1:1 after it
had been applied to Gen 1:1. The result of finding "e" was a complete
surprise to us all."
Once again, calculate the real odds. I'll bet that they are close to even
that you'd have found SOMETHING given that there are possibilities at
each step.
My point 6 was :
> 6. There are thousands of possible "fundamental mathematical constants"
> that might have resulted.
You answered: "Conway and Guy list about 24 they consider interesting. I
think you are exaggerating here. To get "thousands" there would be some
really obscure ones in there. I for one would not have been at all
convinced if John 1:1, for example had come out close to the mass ratio
of the pion to the muon. That would qualify for the big "so what"?"
24? That's interesting itself. (That makes 25).
When I observed that:
Yes, pi and e are among the most interesting of
> these. But neither pi nor e is subsequently tied to anything else
> theologically. Both are expressed approximately (of course, they have
to
> be; I know that). But why to that particular degree of approximation?
You answered:
"I think the same applies here as in the "theory of everything" answer.
I don't discount physics just because it doesn't tell me the mass ratios
of the elementary particles. Maybe a "theory of everything" will predict
all these, but the impression I get is that physicists accept that there
will be unexplained "brute facts" in any theory.
The degree of approximation is good enough to put it beyond previously
known approximations to pi in antiquity, as far as I am aware. There is
evidence that the Babylonians knew about "e", and that some of their
tablets express some solutions of equations in terms of powers of (2,43)
in hexadecimal
notation, which is 2.7166, far less accurate than the approximation for
e."
You ignored my first point, which is the more important one.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
(Spending time on this because I'm procrastinating on what I ought to be
doing).
http://www.burgy.50megs.com
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 11 2001 - 14:46:33 EDT