From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Sat Jul 05 2003 - 21:17:59 EDT
Richard at Bible Wheel has been asking for opinions of his work. I have
responded that my qualifications are weak at best, I have a masters in
applied math and have had extensive informal, general training in the Bible.
I am widely, but rather eclectically, well read.
My first response is why would God choose pentagonal numbers? Richard gave
the fact that the fifth day was the day of creation of life and the fifth
commandment was the first with promise. I'm not sure that I find these
reasons to of great significance. He sites repeated themes showing up in
correlated books. Psalms correlates to 1Peter, Isaiah to Romans. I looked
for phrases that did not fit the correlation:
To Richard:
'The earth is my footstool' is in Isaiah and Acts - it doesn't fit your
pattern. Whereas there are many things that do - I do not see how they are
uniquely to be differentiated from those things which do not. What is your
criteria for choosing phrases? Finding patterns can be cloud watching or a
Rorshach (sp) test. The patterns need to be consistently uniquely
determined. I do not see that this is so.
There were all sorts of patterns drawn between Lincoln and Kennedy. What do
you think of those? I do not remember them all - Kennedy's secretary was
named Lincoln, Lincoln's was named Kennedy. This kind of thing repeated in
their two lives a dozen or more times. What does it mean?
It would be nice to have something that shows that the choice of books in
the Bible as chosen by men was actually divinely inspired. How do we know
that one or more other books weren't divinely inspired? The Catholic church
accepted many for a great period of time. What about the book of Thomas? If
your patterns were/are conclusive - then that would give some credence to
the fact that the 66 books and only the 66 books are the divine work of God.
But it can't be coincidental. One can't choose 150 phrases and reject 1000
without giving a clear and unbiased reason for the choice. Do you have such
a reason?
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of richard@biblewheel.com
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 12:50 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Predeterminism and parallel universes
Debbie wrote:
>It's not like one could spend an hour and understand or review your web
site. You have twenty two sections covering the whole Bible. One would need
to at least analyze three or four to even have an opinion. This is not the
work of an afternoon.
You are absolutely correct. I'm certainly not asking for a complete analysis
of everything I wrote! :-)
There are dozens of places to start. The best seems to be the "high level"
super-obvious pattern seen in the sevenfold symmetry of the Canon Wheel.
http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/CanonWheel_FullSize.asp
For those who need mathematical proof that this pattern is too rare to be
reasonably considered a random occurrence, we could discuss my calculation
of the probababilities, which result in one chance in 688,324.
http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/probabilities.asp
This could be augmented with a more detailed view of symmetries that lie
below the level of the Canon Wheel (similar to the idea of broken symmetry
in physics, where some symmetry remains):
http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/symmetries.asp
Also, those familar with the relation between symmetry principles and the
laws of physics might find the derivation of the Canon Wheel from first
principles of interest:
http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/Derivation.asp
And this article reviewing A. Zee's book Fearful Symmetry:
http://www.biblewheel.com/RR/AZ_Fearful.asp
Alternately, for those more inclined towards beauty, art, and theology, we
could discuss how this pattern relates to ancient Christian icons of Christ,
as in these articles:
http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/Art_Wheel.asp
http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/BibleArt.asp
Or this one relating to Blake's Tyger Tyger:
http://www.biblewheel.com/RR/WB_Tyger.asp
Another really good starting place is my overview of the whole Wheel called
"A Great Cloud of Witnesses"
http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/CloudOfWitnesses.asp
Well, that should be enough to get the discussion going.
In service of the Lamb of God,
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Debbie Mann
To: richard@biblewheel.com
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 10:26 AM
Subject: RE: Predeterminism and parallel universes
It's not like one could spend an hour and understand or review your web
site. You have twenty two sections covering the whole Bible. One would need
to at least analyze three or four to even have an opinion. This is not the
work of an afternoon.
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of richard@biblewheel.com
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 11:17 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Predeterminism and parallel universes
In post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0100.html Don WInterstein
wrote:
>Richard McGough wrote in part:
>>Let me make my point again. Consider a single free proton with energy less
than 10^8k. That's one of Tegmark's possible universes. Its Hamiltonian has
an infinite number of continuous eigenvalues. The eigenfunctions are plane
waves, e^-iEt. Therefore, there are an infinite number of _distinguishable_
states for just this one single-proton universe, i.e. every possible wave
packet. Now add the interaction with 10^50 particles and all their states,
spins, etc, and you have an infinity of infinities of possibilities.
>>The number 2^10^118 as the count of all possible physical configurations
in a hubble volume is absurd. Q.E.D.
>I see no problem with this argument. Tegmark considers only particle
location and not momentum, etc. A universe where the momentum of a single
particle differed from that of the corresponding particle in an otherwise
identical universe would be a different universe, would it not? If this is a
relevant consideration, then, using Tegmark's line of reasoning as I
understand it, the nearest Level I universe identical to ours would be
infinitely farther away than Tegmark indicates. While this would not
eliminate the possibility of identical universes, it would make them less
relevant than ever.
>So I think we really need to hear what Tegmark has to say in his defense.
So, Richard, how about writing a letter to Scientific American? There's at
least a chance he would answer in print.
>Don
I agree with Don and will compose the letter today.
I think it is extremely important that we note again the complete lack of
physical reality in Tegmark's binary proton model. A Hubble volume of naked
protons in fixed locations is a strange model indeed. It shoud not be
accepted as the basis for any serious speculation. And this is what really
baffles me. I have presented rock-solid calculations, involving no
assumptions whatsoever, concerning the probability that 66 objects grouped
into seven arbitrary divisions would exhibit the radial and bilateral
symmetry of the 66 Book Canon when displayed on the Wheel. The result is one
chance in 688,324. Here is the link:
http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/probabilities.asp
Thus we know that the large-scale structure of Scripture yields an extremely
rare and very beautiful pattern. But the pattern is not just any pattern. It
matches the threefold cruciform halos used in icons of Christ in ancient
Christian art. This links the geometric structure of Scripture to an icon of
the faith that includes trinitarian overtones. Yet all of this is nothing
but the tip of ten thousand wonders seen when the Bible is viewed in the
form of the Wheel.
Would it be possible to discuss my work in this forum? I just can not
understand how people can be perfectly willing to speculate about the
salvation of copies of Glen in alternate universes while refusing to discuss
the serious and solid study of the geometric structure of the traditional 66
Book Christian Canon. It seems that many have some hidden a priori reason
for rejecting it out of hand, regardless of evidence. I have yearned for
years for nothing but a simple discussion. I have published nearly a
thousand pages on my site. I would like to know what problems or errors
there are in my presentation. I would like to know what know what others
think is most impressive and powerful about the Wheel. I would like to know
what is obvious to others and what is not. I would like intelligent,
informed, and thoughtful criticism. Would this be possible in this forum?
In service of the Lamb of God,
Richard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 05 2003 - 21:16:08 EDT