Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of Tom Paine

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Paine

1
Let me address the most common points of contention raised so far:

(1) How do we know that 2300 "evenings and mornings" refers to 2300 passovers?

The Hebrew phrase translated as “evenings and mornings” in verse 14, is a reference to the
 evening-until-morning timeframe of Passover (see Exodus 12:6-10), so 2300 “evenings and mornings” means 2300 Passovers.

Recognize that even in the rabbinic literature before we even knew Israel would exist in 1967, many understood it as passovers.

However, some here have argued that it could be translated as "days". Sure it is "possible", However, it still remains significant that an equally plausible interpretation of this verse leads us to the year 1967 which is a very significant year when it comes to the Children of Israel. It's the year they finally captured the Temple mount.

(2) Why do we count the year '0' if it is not a real year?

I think there was either a misunderstanding or a problem with the way I explained it. You do not count the year 0. I invite you to do your own calculation using excel (it would take 5 minutes, put in -334 and then use the formula "A1+1" all the way down. Make sure you don't count the year 0. I did it here to show you what I got:

https://imgur.com/a/tL9RSpN

Alexander the Great first moved against Persia in either May or early June of 334 BCE. Passover, which was celebrated on 6 April, 334 BCE, had already occurred before the battle began, and thus the Passover of 333 BCE is the first one to be included in the counting of the 2300 Passovers that determine the duration of the time span set forth in Daniel 8:14. I did this in the above image (click the link)

(3)  Daniel 8 is not specifically mentioning capture of Jerusalem

If you read Daniel 8 (link in OP), you'll notice the whole thing is quite poetic and vague. However, the non-poetic aspects of this chapter inform us that 2300 passovers after Greece defeats Persia by the river, something significant will happen to the Children of Israel--"they will be exonerated" or it can also be translated as "will be victorious"--not very clear what this is specifically referencing because its vague, but it is referencing something major with respect to the Jews. And what we see is that indeed exactly 2300 passovers after this event, a major historical event happened to the Jews.

(4) God could have done better and impressed us with more

This is a very silly argument. Of course God could've simple proven his existence to all of us, the question is why do you think he wanted to do this? This is just you engaging in divine psychology. It is possible that God wanted to give us only slight pointers of his existence sufficiently clear so that those open to him will accept God, yet sufficiently vague such that those whose hearts are closed to him reject God. How do you know this is not the case? We simply don't. So don't appeal to divine psychology when you simply can't know.

You've ignored my point that the sanctuary was not "cleansed" in 1967 and so you cannot say the prophecy was fulfilled.

2
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: An RF post in dramatic form
« on: July 22, 2020, 09:09:22 am »
Yes, films are classics because they have fine bones, which means excellent screenwriting that touches on themes that are challenging and universal to the human experience.  So, whether you are a believer or a non-believer, this scene speaks to us all because we all we die and we all know that we will die, and how we deal with that is not the same but it is a universal that we all must.  The line that was most interesting to me was "Most people reflect neither upon Death nor nothingness."  It may imply that those human beings of a less philosophical bent are the lucky ones.  If you're living your life and too busy to think about it deeply and then one day you abruptly die, you avoid the anguish of reflecting upon death, nihilism, doubting your faith, divine hiddenness, etc.

Yes, Socrates said that unexamined life is not worth living.  I'd say neither is the over examined one.

3
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: God Does Not Exist
« on: July 22, 2020, 08:52:15 am »
@shoyt
I echo Jabberwock's sentiments. Hypotheticals are mind-dependent and are not objectively real, so an unsatisfactory resolution (in your mind's eye) pertaining to any mind-dependent hypothetical (or logical paradox or thought experiment such as the Trolley Problem) has no bearing on mind-independent facts of the matter.

I'm not anti-evolution, I'm simply pointing to the fact that Evolution is not won or lost by a single referent. There is no singular ostensive phenomenon (i.e. something we can point to and say "that's it!") when it comes to Evolution. No isolated fossil record or isolated instance of speciation (i.e. humans breeding dogs out of wolves) can verify or falsify Evolution. It is a conceptual scheme that synthesizes a wide range of facts that often have little to do with each other, much like Plate Tectonics theory.

Similarly, I can point to a number of empirical facts in which the existence of an ontically prior state seems to be necessary for those empirical facts to obtain. We theists call that ontically prior state God. We only need to show that necessary states are mind-independent phenomena, which I think is really easy to do. It seems necessary for planets to orbit around a star, for example. This in turn gives us a warrant to reason backward from effect to cause, from output to input, or from current to prior, or from contingent to necessary.

All thought, let alone all argument is mind-dependent. So, if we are going to exclude the mind-dependent from consideration of ontology, it would seem we would be left with nothing but radical skepticism.


4
Plantinga's argument begins with the observation that our beliefs can only have evolutionary consequences if they affect behaviour; i.e. natural selection does not directly select for true beliefs, but rather for advantageous behaviours. I think it's an erroneous view of beliefs and truth. 

In evolutionary history, SEMANTIC beliefs are recent.  Consider mental constructs in non-verbal animals.  They receive sensory input that produces some sort of  image of the world that is functionally accurate, and implicitly/innately trusted.  Those images have to be functionally accurate in order for them to successfully navigate the world and survive.   Animals also retain some sort of memories of those sensory images, and these also are implicitly/innately trusted.  My cat remembers the location of her food bowl, water bowl, and litter box - and goes to those locations as the need arises.  In a non-verbal sense, she believes those items will be in their particular places - even though she can't express these beliefs verbally. These skills are essential to survival. 

The abstract concept of "truth" is second order, associated with the development of language. Language adds the capacity to describe perceived elements of the world (those non-vebal beliefs) to others, and it is language that introduces the concept of untruths: I describe some aspect of the world that I've perceived to you, and you discover that my description does not correspond with your perception of the world - the perception that you implicitly/innately trust. 

There is indeed a selection for true, nonverbal beliefs: functionally accurate sensory input and memories of those inputs.  It's just that the concept of "truth" depends on language, and it is language that gives rise to untruths.  The existence of both accurate and inaccurate descriptions are the basis for abstracting the concepts of true/false. 

This seems closer to the way evolution would work than Plantinga's strawman.

Good post. I quite agree.  Perhaps "truth" in some strict correspondence sense is less the issue than some more pragmatic sense. I suppose there could be the risk of reducing the argument to a tautology if we defined "truth" just as beliefs that are useful to survival.

When it gets to using whatever grain of truth there is in EAAN as fodder for an argument against the truth of naturalism as a worldview, there is also the problem of not taking into account that a worldview is not a personal mental construct but a social construct and naturalism is not the random musing of some derange savage like the "Paul" of his ridiculous "Paul and the Tiger" analogy, but rather the majority worldview of the best and brightest minds of the modern era, and science is precisely a method developed over centuries of human social evolution as a way of correcting for the deficiencies in our biologically evolved cognitive faculties, which is as the EAAN argument goes exactly what we would expect as naturally evolved beings.

So, in fact, EAAN can be argued to actually support the idea that we are naturally evolved beings, whereas we might expect that if out cognitive faculties were God-given that they would be perfect. This fact causes apologist like Plantinga to have to argue for bizarre ad hoc rationalizations like "trans world depravity"

5
There seems to be so many of them being reported on a daily basis, and they're not unique to the 3 abrahamic religions:

How do miracles happen in hinduism such as levitating gurus, people coming back from death, and the flag flying in opposite direction of air and you start crying when you see shivlingam and ganesh murti drinks milk offered to him?

Do you believe that ALL are false? Is it likely that ALL are false?
Yes, I think they're all false.
 
Many people are apt to attribute unexplained or unexpected phenomena to miracles. In many cases we know they erred, and in no cases has it been proven they've gotten it right (notwithstanding the alleged proofs that believers often point to - they are a bit overeager to believe). 

A lot of people want to believe in miracles, and this makes them gullible.  Consider all the miracle claims that have been exposed as false, or for which reasonable natural explanations have been provided.  The book, "The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven: A True Story". sold by the millions. It was about a boy who claimed he went to heaven and met Jesus.  In 2015, the kid admitted he'd lied.

The Miracle at Fatima (AKA the Miracle of the Sun) is a case where many people experienced an optical illusion and attributed it to a miracle.  Dozens of people witnessed the sun (seemingly) dancing around in the sky, as children (supposedly) conversed with the Blessed Virgin Mary (whom only they could see).  "Miracle of the sun" phenomena have occurred at other times and places, and has been studied - it's a visual illusion caused by staring up at the sun.
 
As a separate matter, it's pretty bizarre that God would intervene in the world so rarely - it almost seems frivolous or downright narcissistic.  If he can cure one child of cancer, why doesn't he cure all of them. Is a child worthy of being saved only if a group of people pray real hard?  That seems ludicrous.  If you believe in God and miracles, you can rationalize it (e.g God having a special purpose for those he chooses to cure), but rationalizations by believers don't constitute good reasons for skeptics.

Gotta agree with Fred here. It makes me think of the Irish mathematician/apologist, whose name escapes me, who tells the story of how he had a Bible for some reason, I forget what was unusual about it, available to him just at the right moment for him to pass it on to a Russian atheist who had expressed some interest in learning more about Christianity, or some such. All I could think of was all the horrible tragedies that were probably taking place at the same time that it would be necessary to believe God was allowing to happen while going out of his way to make a Bible available to convenience this guy's evangelism. It just seems incredible narcissistic to believe something like that.

6
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: podcast - The Empty Tomb (7/13/2020)
« on: July 17, 2020, 04:53:24 pm »
Add the Shroud of Turin to your discussion given the powerful evidence for collaborating the biblical account. The linen of the Shroud was very expensive so this suggests that Jesus was properly buried and was resurrected.

You mean "corroborating" not "collaborating." Also the "expensive" shroud was apparently woven in the middle ages with a weave that was either extraordinarily un comm0n or non existent in the 1st century. What reason do we have to believe that the contemporary bishop who declared it a fraud was lying?

7
For the last year or so, I have been brainstorming ways to articulate a "Doxastic Argument" for the existence of God. It goes something like this:

We have persistent and undeniable intuitions that something real exists, and that it originates from outside of us. We also have persistent and undeniable intuitions (or motivations) to make sense of that which is real. This leads us to two claims:

A. Reality is a user-illusion, whereby we arbitrarily decide what is and is not some fact.
B. Reality is not a user-illusion, whereby we discover what is and is not some fact.

In my opinion, common sense, normal everyday experiences, and interactions with other people, as well as the scientific enterprise itself are all on the side of (B). It seems that (A) entails a form of solipsism, and if we have reasons why we think solipsism is false (whatever they may be), then these reasons would also count against (A). While it may be the case that some facts are invented (such as "the capital of France is Paris"), there are other truths that we as humans did not socially construct, such as "the Earth is the third planet from the Sun." This entails another level of analysis where we might consider two more claims:

C. Reality makes sense.
D. Reality does not make sense.

As a conscious agent, I am able to perceive reality to an extent that it makes sense to me. I am aware of my finitude, my mortality, my limitations, my boundaries, and so forth. Reality seems to have rules (dimensional, spatial, physical, etc.) that I cannot break and must adhere to. Even if I were blind, deaf, or mute, and did not know any language I could at the very least feel my way around. I would know I am hungry, or if I am cold, or warm, and so forth. There are facts about myself which are not arbitrary.

Now I am led to ask, what are the sufficient and necessary conditions for both B and C to be the case?

I keep coming back to three possibilities:

i. The sufficient and necessary conditions are completely material. (Materialism)
ii. The sufficient and necessary conditions are completely mental. (Idealism)
iii. The sufficient and necessary conditions are some combination of material and mental. (Dualism)

I think this leaves out another option, i.e., dual aspect monism, perhaps something like digital physics or some synthesis of QFT and QIT where funamnetla reality somehow transcends the dual aspects of the material/physical vs. the ideal/psychical. I'm not saying that is the case, but I think it represents and interesting avenue of inquiry.

Quote
Here is the where "Doxastic Argument" steps in.

1. If materialism is true, then the process of deciding which of the above options is the case would be completely material.
2. The process  of deciding which of the above options is the case is not completely material.
3. Therefore, materialism is false.
4. If Idealism or Dualism is true, consciousness is fundamental.
5. If consciousness is fundamental, then a fundamental consciousness exists.
6. If a fundamental consciousness exists, then God exists.
7. Idealism or Dualism is true.
8. Therefore, God exists.
[/quote]

I'm not sure I agree with 1, especially if the mental/ideal is somehow emergent from the physical or the aforementioned dual aspect schema were to prove fruitful.

8
Daniel 8 has a prophecy that the Jews will be exonerated 2300 years after the time Alexander the Great defeats the persians by the river. That's what Daniel chapter 8 is about. Daniel refers to years as days--be careful if you're not familiar with the language of this apocalyptic literature (which the Jews understood in the Rabbinic literature long before they even understood what this prophecy was about)--2300 "evenings and mornings" refers to 2300 passovers.

When did Alexander the Great defeat the Persian? There were three key battles, the first and most important battle, where Alexander the Great himself participated in is called the Battle of Granicus which took place by the RIVER of Granicus. And the river is right there is Daniel chapter 8. That is when the Greeks defeated Darius the Persian. This took place in the year 334 BCE in the late spring.

2300 years after the year 334 BCE (make sure you also count the year '0' as one of the years)--count forward and you will find yourself in the late spring of  1967!

For those who don't know, 1967 is the year the Jews gained control of all of Jerusalem (AKA the Temple mount), and they have finally been exonerated after many centuries of persistent and repetitive persecution by the world.

How did people understand this passage in Daniel 100 years ago? The answer is they didn't. The tried to make sense of it, but it was impossible. What does a river have to do with Alexander the Great and the Persians, what is going on here? Many Rabbis expressed the core message that many of these prophecies--we couldn't understand how they will unfold, but we just know they will--and there will be a signpost when it happens that we have lived through that event.

The only question we ask is--what are the odds? Why did it say 2300 years (very weird number of years, why 300 after the 2000) and not 2600, 1200, 500, 1000, why 2300 years? And why did it say after Greeks defeats Persian by the river, when it could've said literally anything else? Again, I say, what are the odds?

Source: http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/Daniel8.pdf
 
If you want to read Daniel 8 for yourself https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16491/jewish/Chapter-8.htm

God keeps his promises. Even if he made them to people in the BCE times.

From a Christian site.

Quote
c. For two thousand three hundred days: Literally, Daniel heard a holy one say “two thousand three hundredmornings and evenings.” Bible students debate if this means 2,300 days or 1,150 days. 2,300 days is almost seven years.

i. Either understanding is possible, but it is more likely that this means 2,300 days. The date when the temple was cleansed is well established as December 25, 165 B.C. If we count back 2,300 days from then, we come to the year when Antiochus Epiphanes began his persecution in earnest (171 B.C.).

ii. However, if we take it to mean 1,150 days it can refer to the time the temple was actually desecrated. Philip Newell makes this case: “For a duration of time during which 2300 daily sacrifices would ordinarily have been offered, one at evening and one in the morning, as specified in Exodus 29:38-43. Since there are two of these daily, the actual time period involved is 1150 days, or slightly over three years. This, in fact, was the time of the Maccabean tribulation, 168-165 B.C., at the end of which the sanctuary was ‘cleansed’ by Judas Maccabeus in his restoration of the evening and morning sacrifices (2 Maccabees 10:1-5).”

iii. This passage has been a favorite springboard for elaborate and fanciful prophetic interpretations. A popular and tragic interpretation of this passage took one year for every day, and William Miller used 2,300 “year-days” to calculate that Jesus would return in 1844 (2,300 years after Cyrus issued the decree to rebuild the temple). His movement ended up giving birth to the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and several other movements.

iv. We can know that Miller and other “year-day” theories are wrong because this passage was fulfilled before the time of Jesus. Jesus recognized that the temple was properly cleansed and rededicated when He attended the Feast of Dedication, commemorating the cleansing and rededication of the temple after the desecration brought by Antiochus Epiphanes (John 10:22).

v. Adam Clarke’s comments show what a hold the year-date approach had to many of his time: “Though literally it be two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings, yet I think the prophetic day should be understood here, as in other parts of this prophet, and must signify so many years. If we date these years from the vision of the he-goat, (Alexander’s invading Asia), this was A.M. 3670, B.C. 334; and two thousand three hundred years from that time will reach to A.D. 1966 , or one hundred and forty-one years from the present A.D. 1825.” There is no foundation for Clarke’s approach, and it has led many others off into serious error.

d. Then the sanctuary shall be cleansed: This amazingly specific prophecy was written some 350 years before the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Great prophetic fulfillment like this demonstrates that God not only knows the future, He also guides the future.



Note, they reckon 2,300 year to 1966, not 1967.  I'm not sure that is correct though as a dating calculator reckoned 2,300 years as ending in 1967. However, the battle of Granicus would have happened after the passover, so there would have only been 2,299 passovers between the two events. Maybe thats nit picking, but more importantly the period is supposed to end with the sanctuary being cleansed and a return of sacrifices, but that did not happen in 1967 despite Israel reclaiming control of Jerusalem and, in fact, the Dome of the Rock mosque still stands in place of the "sanctuary". That makes the idea that "the prophecy" was fulfilled in 1967 untenable.

I think the interpretation given in the quote of the 2,300 days (not years) and what that represents is probably correct. What they don't get right is that it was not an actual prophecy written by the historical Daniel centuries before the fact but a piece of Maccabean apocalyptic propaganda that contains no actual prophecies at all,  just a somewhat erroneous recounting of history already known to the writers and what little bit of actual prognostication it attempts actually goes wrong.

That's how I would explain this "stunning Biblical prophecy"

9
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Has atheism lost?
« on: July 17, 2020, 10:38:16 am »
^ Uhmm..we still think it is ageless, it is still not anthropocentric, maths is still just the maths that we have devised to describe some natural regularities and properties.

What is amazing about the idea that rules based systems (mathematics) that were created to describe patterns in nature would themselves exhibit interesting patterns? I would find it bizarre if they did not.

I'm also not sure when believing in naturalism had required a person also believe that life and consciousness are just a fluke. of course the possibility for these things to exist has to in some sense be inherent in fundamental nature itself. All naturalism does is get rid of the un parsimonious step of pushing the problem of "Why?" back to some supernatural entity. 

Unless we are wrong about infinite regress the existence and inherent nature of fundamental reality (be it natural or supernatural) must be w/o cause or explanation.

But we have been through this whole song and dance before, many times.

10
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Has atheism lost?
« on: July 17, 2020, 10:24:27 am »
No particles, OK, but I doubt he meant there are no fields. I'm not a quantum physicist, so maybe, I've got this wrong, but  isn't space composed of fundamental quantum fields?

See here:

Quote
which consists of no space at all, and no time, no particles, no fields, no laws of nature.

Vilenkin says on page 181:  "there is no space to sit in and there is no time."  There is just the laws, that's it.

We, that short quote with no context is pretty useless an I already gave you a longer quote where he explains that "nothing"  means empty space and that that is something.

Quote
The concept of a universe materializing out of nothing boggles the mind … yet the state of “nothing” cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus “nothing” should be subjected to these laws. The laws must have existed, even though there was no universe. … we now know that the “vacuum” is very different from “nothing”. Vacuum, or empty space, has energy and tension, it can bend a warp, so it is unquestionably something.

And "There is just the laws, that's it." is bollix. The laws are laws about physical reality. So there can be no law of physics in a world where nothing physical exists. The idea of abstractions causing concrete reality to exist is patently absurd, IMO. I'd hate to have to hang my worldview's hat on such a specious notion as that.

11
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: What would an Atheistic world be like?
« on: July 16, 2020, 03:21:29 pm »
It would be a society w/o moral foundations. Sam Harris and others have struggled w/this idea and invariably get no where.

No, Sam has it just about right, IMO. What he struggles with is wrapping it all neatly up into a neat little philosophical package. I think that just reflects the fact that nature couldn't care less about accommodating the human desire to wrap things up in neat little philosophical packages. I think Sam might do better to appeal as I do to a social evolutionary imperative as a grounding for an epistemically objective morality based on the principle of reciprocity. But in the end the objective is the same, i.e., the maximization of human flourishing.

12
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Has atheism lost?
« on: July 16, 2020, 03:08:17 pm »
Wrong.

Notice I didn't say "absolute nothing." I said "tunneling in from existence was 'from nothing' and not even fields." Vilenkin holds that there were no fields or particles at t0.

No particles, OK, but I doubt he meant there are no fields. I'm not a quantum physicist, so maybe, I've got this wrong, but  isn't space composed of fundamental quantum fields?

13
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Has atheism lost?
« on: July 16, 2020, 12:01:05 pm »
This brings up further evidence against the existence of God.  If there were a God, he would have insured that we evolved with three fingers and one thumb per hand, so that our cultural evolution resulted in our counting in octal (base eight), rather than anything so irrational as a decimal counting system.

Here's some more:

Munchausen number: 3435 = 3^3 + 4^4 + 3^3 + 5^5
Dudeney numbers: 5832 = (5 + 8 + 3 + 2)^3

But, in arguing against "the human mind sees meaningless patterns" consider this type of number:

Ascending power number: 2646798 = 2^1 + 6^2 + 4^3 + 6^4 + 7^5 + 9^6 + 8^7

Seems to me unlikely to be a mere coincidence but I'm sure you would disagree. Rather, it seems that mathematics has some kind of mystical structure.

Sure I think they are mere coincidences.  As far as I know you pulled those examples from the wikipedia entry "Mathematical_coincidence#Decimal_coincidences".  As far as I know, the vast majority of mathematicians think these are mere coincidences.  I honestly can't fathom how someone as intelligent as yourself can fail to recognize that they are coincidences. 

Perhaps, as Kurros suggested, it is a matter of not having thought sufficiently about it.  Perhaps it is a matter of neurological idiosyncrasy.  Whatever the case, I'm baffled at your thinking that there is something mystical about such things.

I remember as a kid thinking there was something magical about this:

9*1=9
9*2= 18  and of course 1+8=9
9*3=27       2+7=9
9*4= 36     3+6=9
9*5=45      4+5=9
...
9*9=81       8+1= 9

After thinking about it on enough one day I realized that its just because its base 1o and 9 is one less than then 10, so each time you raise the multiplier 1 you are increasing the tens place one and decreasing the the ones place by one, which makes them all equal to 9 when added together. It's neat, but there no reason to think there is anything mystical going on.

That's interesting.  IIRC BDSimon and I had a discussion of that pattern, and the fact that an equivalent pattern seems to exist in all the numerical bases I checked.  (Going so far as to check base 32 or 36, I think.)  We never did come to your succinct explanation though.

It' also interesting i you keep going beyond a multiplier of 10

9*11= 99,  9+9=18   1+8=9

9*12= 108, 1+0+8=9

9*13= 117,   1+1+7 =9

9*14= 126 1+2+6 = 9

9*15 = 135,  ...etc

I notice the pattern breaks a little a 9*11= 99....I wonder if I keep going where it would break down further.

9*20= 180
9*21= 189 which again adds to 18
9*22= 198 =18
9*23  207 =9

So, I'm guess times 31, 32 and 33 will add to 18

9*31= 279
 9*32 288
9*33= 297
9*34 = 306  bac to 9

So then is suppose *99 will add to 18

9*99= 891 ... yup

9* 333 = 2997 = 27

It' pretty neat stuff, but not quite enough to make me believe in a 3 omni God. What? Am I supposed to believe God went to the bother of making math fun but then lets little kids be eaten up by parasites and other nice stuff like that. Seems to be something wrong with that picture to me.
               

14
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Has atheism lost?
« on: July 16, 2020, 11:09:53 am »
This brings up further evidence against the existence of God.  If there were a God, he would have insured that we evolved with three fingers and one thumb per hand, so that our cultural evolution resulted in our counting in octal (base eight), rather than anything so irrational as a decimal counting system.

Here's some more:

Munchausen number: 3435 = 3^3 + 4^4 + 3^3 + 5^5
Dudeney numbers: 5832 = (5 + 8 + 3 + 2)^3

But, in arguing against "the human mind sees meaningless patterns" consider this type of number:

Ascending power number: 2646798 = 2^1 + 6^2 + 4^3 + 6^4 + 7^5 + 9^6 + 8^7

Seems to me unlikely to be a mere coincidence but I'm sure you would disagree. Rather, it seems that mathematics has some kind of mystical structure.

Sure I think they are mere coincidences.  As far as I know you pulled those examples from the wikipedia entry "Mathematical_coincidence#Decimal_coincidences".  As far as I know, the vast majority of mathematicians think these are mere coincidences.  I honestly can't fathom how someone as intelligent as yourself can fail to recognize that they are coincidences. 

Perhaps, as Kurros suggested, it is a matter of not having thought sufficiently about it.  Perhaps it is a matter of neurological idiosyncrasy.  Whatever the case, I'm baffled at your thinking that there is something mystical about such things.

I remember as a kid thinking there was something magical about this:

9*1=9
9*2= 18  and of course 1+8=9
9*3=27       2+7=9
9*4= 36     3+6=9
9*5=45      4+5=9
...
9*9=81       8+1= 9

After thinking about it on enough one day I realized that its just because its base 1o and 9 is one less than then 10, so each time you raise the multiplier 1 you are increasing the tens place one and decreasing the the ones place by one, which makes them all equal to 9 when added together. It's neat, but there no reason to think there is anything mystical going on.



15
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Has atheism lost?
« on: July 16, 2020, 10:51:09 am »


I can't speak for Krause but Vilenkin holds that the tunneling in from existence was "from nothing" and not even fields.
.

Wrong.

Quote
The concept of a universe materializing out of nothing boggles the mind … yet the state of “nothing” cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus “nothing” should be subjected to these laws. The laws must have existed, even though there was no universe. … we now know that the “vacuum” is very different from “nothing”. Vacuum, or empty space, has energy and tension, it can bend a warp, so it is unquestionably something. (Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One)

Pages : [1] 2 3 ... 207