> In your discussion of SETI criteria you summarized as follows: "Taken
> together...a highly recognizable pattern, a clear pay-off, and a low
> probability of being produced naturally provide a very strong argument
> for 'specification' and 'design'."
>
> It occurs to me that these tests might be usefully directed to assess
> the significance of the numerical phenomena attending the opening words
> of the Bible.
> [...]
> I would appreciate your comments.
This is not an area in which I am interested. But since you
specifically asked for my comments on this list, I'll make a few brief
ones.
The idea of hidden numerical codes in the biblical text poses some
theological problems. However, I will pass over those for now.
In my earlier post, I mentioned the possibility that we can sometimes see
a pattern when none is really there. To investigate whether one is seeing
a true pattern or a false pattern, there are certain tests which must be
performed. There are at least two tests which you must perform for your
hypothesis.
1) You performed many mathematical manipulations on the text before you
found those particular codes/coincidences which you cite. Consider the
entire set of all possible mathematical manipulations which you have
tried. Quantitatively, how large is that set? Given the vast size of
all possible manipulations which you have tried --- or would have
eventually tried --- mathematically, how many of your coincidences
and/or codes could you *expect* to have found? This is a difficult
calculation. ("Counting arguments" are notoriously difficult
mathematical proofs.) But it must be done in order to establish
your claim.
2) Perform the same sets of mathematical manipulations on other randomly
chosen texts (both Hebrew and non-Hebrew). Work just as hard --- even
harder --- trying to find similar coincidences and/or codes in these
other texts as you did in the original text. Do you find just as many
coincidences and/or codes in these other texts as you did in the
original text?
You can be certain that any SETI claim for detecting alien broadcasts
will face those two tests, as well as others.
There is an oft-quoted saying in science labs: "You must be your own
harshest critic." You must try everything you can think of to prove
your own hypothesis wrong. You must think of as many objections to your
own theory as you can, and perform control experiments to test those
objections. And you must present the results of those control
experiments to the rest of the community. Don't expect other people to
do these necessary control experiments for you, and do not expect anyone
to believe your hypothesis unless you do those control experiments
yourself.
What you have presented to the group so far does not have those
necessary calculations or control experiments. So the skepticism
remains.
I hope this is helpful.
Loren Haarsma