From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 18:13:07 EST
Re:
No one has as yet answered my point that the only scientific explanation that has been postulated for the formation of order out of chaos is an evolutionary process, and that in order for this to work, each change must yield selective advantage. But spelling changes don't change the meaning, and whether or not it adds up to a multiple of a significant number clearly also doesn't add any selective advantage in the process of evolution of a language.<
I don't know if this is responsive to your point, but evolution is not
necessary for order to occur out of chaos. I noticed a big candy vending
machine in one of our malls. In it were several transparent bins
containing different candies. Some were round, roundish (Boston baked
beans), ovoid, banana-shaped, etc. In each case, there were definite
orderings visible in the distributions of candies and their
orientations. There were seams of roughly parallel disks among the ovoid
candies, flowing circular patterns in others.
In the microscopic world there are many factors beside shape that can
strongly influence the ordering of "things" that occur in chaotic
community but are brought into proximity with one another for whatever
reason (gravity, drying of tide pools, etc.).
Regards - Jim Armstrong
Iain Strachan (asa) wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "bivalve" <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
>To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 6:13 PM
>Subject: Re: Numbers
>
>
>
>
>>>No one has as yet answered my point that the only scientific explanation
>>>
>>>
>that has been postulated for the formation of order out of chaos is an
>evolutionary process, and that in order for this to work, each change must
>yield selective advantage. But spelling changes don't change the meaning,
>and whether or not it adds up to a multiple of a significant number clearly
>also doesn't add any selective advantage in the process of evolution of a
>language.<
>
>
>>However, numeric patterns in particular texts might result from selective
>>
>>
>pressures on the part of the editors. The choice of a particular spelling
>or wording among existing variants or synonyms could be directed by an
>effort to create a work that is interesting mathematically as well as
>textually. An analogy might be the versification of Biblical passages into
>hymns. A pattern is generated to suit the needs and interests of the later
>writer without doing violence to the intent of the text.
>Thanks, this is an interesting and thoughtful suggestion; however, given the
>intricacy of the pattern & the fact that it would be a standardisation of
>spelling rather than a choice simply to get that passage to exhibit a
>pattern, I don't think it's all that plausible. There simply wouldn't be
>enough of what mathematicians call "wiggle room". The versification of
>Biblical passages into hymns allows much more wiggle room because you can
>actually change words. At the most, with the Hebrew, all one can do is
>alter spellings (which are "global edits"), or insert the grammatical
>particle "eth". In short I don't think it's really plausible to suggest
>that the evolution of the Hebrew language was driven by a few editors trying
>to get the first verse to exhibit some interesting maths.
>
>I think this thing went on a lot in _human_ attempts to do gematriac poems
>(quite a common passtime in the 17th Century). In this case, frequent
>unorthodox spellings were adopted, and often dubious grammar as well, in
>order to get the lines to add up to a significant number (e.g. 2300 in one
>case). But these weren't passed on to general use in the language. Also
>don't forget that the poet was working from a blank canvas; not from an
>existing text which would be the case for Gen 1:1.
>
>Iain.
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 06 2003 - 18:15:26 EST