## Saturday, December 28, 2013

Gordon sent me a fun trick invented by physicist Martin David Kruskal. He can read your mind. Choose a random word in the first 3 verses of the Bible. So many choices!

Count the number of letters $$N$$ in that word $$W$$ and find the next word that is $$N$$ words after the word $$W$$; for example, if you chose "heaven" in the first verse, you will have $$N=6$$ and jump to "earth" in the following one; overlook the digits and punctuation marks. If you landed in the 7th verse, stop. Otherwise return by two sentences in this blog post and repeat the instruction again and again.

Let me use the King James Bible as the text:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Which word from the 7th verse did you get?

Your humble correspondent has used the Kruskal coordinates to penetrate inside your brain and he knows what word you got:
It's "God", isn't She? What else could it have been? After all, it's the Bible, stupid. ;-)
Miraculous, right? Alternatively, see this text page or this similar card trick.

It would actually work with much longer (and fewer) words than those at the beginning of the Bible.

1. I wonder if it is only the ratio between the maximum number of values (resp.maximum number of letters) "M"? divided by the number of cards (resp. number of words) "N" which has to be less than some given value, for the trick is working , or if the relation is more complicated....

2. If you want to determine whether a given text with the separation to the "starting portion" and the "final segment" will work uniquely, the decision is surely more complicated than a ratio.

But if you want an order-of-magnitude estimate of the probability that someone may get a different word it will only depend on the typical/maximum number of letters in a word and the length of the text. The more text, the more time the sequence has to stabilize.

3. Global warming would be bad news for the beer making.

OTOH: it'd be a good excuse for them to visit Australia to see how we make "Pilsner" (referred to as "lager" - pronounced as in German) between wrestling crocodiles, out-swimming sharks, biting venomous spiders, boxing kangaroos, shearing sheep, dodging drop bears and sometimes, winning at cricket.

5. Scott ScarboroughDec 28, 2013, 6:03:00 PM

It doesn't always turn out to be "God" does it? Can you do a MonteCarlo simulation of this process?

6. LOL, I haven't verified it rigorously but I am 99.999% sure it's always God. It would work even for a much shorter text in the middle.

8. An interesting approach, and ironic no doubt. Although I was thinking more in something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologica

9. Does it work in Hebrew, before things were sanitized and gift-wrapped? If not, it is less a Theory of Everything than a curve fit - no better than the standard model and its impossibly light "Higgs." (Read right to left, fellas. The alphabet is also the number system; exceptions when forbidden things would be spelled; no zero. Test of faith!)

א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם,
וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.

ב וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי
תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם

ג וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי אוֹר; וַיְהִי-אוֹר.

ד וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאוֹר, כִּי-טוֹב; וַיַּבְדֵּל
אֱלֹהִים, בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ.

ה וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם, וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא
לָיְלָה; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם אֶחָד. {פ

ו וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי רָקִיעַ בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּיִם,
וִיהִי מַבְדִּיל, בֵּין מַיִם לָמָיִם

ז וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָרָקִיעַ, וַיַּבְדֵּל
בֵּין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת לָרָקִיעַ, וּבֵין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מֵעַל לָרָקִיעַ;
וַיְהִי-כֵן

Thank God they put in the vowels. Hebrew arrived without. The calendar has leap months, embolismic months, to curve fit - years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19 of the Metonic cycle. Was somebody knowledgeable ever in charge?

10. You say it is Prague, but the picture has some resemblance to Zaragoza. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vista_de_Zaragoza_en_1647.jpg

11. This has absolutely nothing to do with my supposed inability to understand the simplest things, or with "stupidity". I would match my IQ with yours any day, and childishly calling someone "stupid" reminds me of a friend's 4 year old son, who, when he didn't get what he wanted, called the father a "stupid-head."
Cynthia is not an intellectual ally,but you fail to notice the differences, not surprising for someone whose brain is so right- wing ideologically stultified as yours--a right wing stupid head sui generis.

12. God does not have a Mind. The Mind IS God.

13. You are always complaining supposedly about being attacked “ad hominem” but you are the one who started this “style” in your very first post, expanded it in the next and took it to the greatest (and most childish) heights in the last. Clearly you can dish it out but can’t take any of it at all.

You are also completely unable to follow a consistent line of argument or to bring up any evidence with is not either yours or someone else’s invention. You started off by attacking religion as being irrational and then continued with a spectacular display of pure emotionality - without a hint of reason. When I mentioned the Pascal’s wager, not to support it in its original form but as an example of a clear rational argument in favour of religion, you responded by calling it “craven and contemptible”. Presumably you think this is an example of a “rational argument”?

Everything else you wrote is exactly in the same style but in any case what is the point of arguing about arguments? Anybody reading this can make their own mind up without yours or mine help.

You seem to be also unusually touchy on the point of your IQ. Presumably you are ready to send a suitable certificate but like most of your other arguments it has completely no relation to the issue that you have been pretending to discuss.

So I am certainly going to stop it here. I don’t want to add any other add hominem remarks so I leave them to your imagination as this the one intellectual activity you obviously don’t need help with at all.

14. Just for the record, [The exageration of the] Spanish inquisition is a myth and a part of the "Black Legend". See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revision_of_the_Inquisition

Also, I do not think defend the importance of religion in human evolution may be a stain on the "agnostic pedigree" of a person, actually it's a simple statement of an historical fact. In the other hand, the fact that many of us have overcome the religious perspective, does not disqualify (or qualifies as maniacs) to those who have not. I think it's perfectly compatible not to believe in God (or not ask yourself this question) and not ferociously attack believers (and their advocates). It is indeed my position, and I think that of Lucretius and others in this thread.

15. How so? Empirically, the idea that "Judeo-Christianity" is responsible for Michaelangelo or Mozart is absurd. Empirically, the path of Judaism and Christianity has been as drenched in blood and treachery as that of their spiritual brother, Islam.

16. This is an old and well-known trick. Dynkin apparently used show this trick in class to explain coupling of markov chains...

17. All the paths from the first three verses pass through the "God" in verse 5 as well, so you could have stopped there.
The proof is easy. The last five words in verse 3 converge there, and it is easy to check that no earlier paths skip those (no words are long enough and close enough).

18. The idea that the “Judeo-Christian” civilization is not responsible for Michelangelo, Mozart , Bach, Josquin des Pres, El Greco, Maimonides etc., is preposterous and can only be explained by a combination of ignorance and prejudice.

The same is true of the other statement except one should also add extreme stupidity. Even a very cursory acquaintance of history should make it clear how absurd this claim is.

Perhaps if you can find some historical examples involving the he “Judeo-Christian” civilization comparable to the following illustrations of the achievements of ”islamic civilisation” and “atheist civilisation”, then one could have a discussion.

19. View of the universe per the 2013 gravity comprehension!

On The Nature And
Origin Of The Universe...

Classical
Science Replaced By 2013 Gravity Comprehension !!!

איך
נברא היקום יש מאין

New Science 2013
versus classical science

http://universe-life.com/2014/02/24/gravity/

Attn classical
science hierarchy ( including Darwin and Einstein…)

“I hope that now you
understand what gravity is and why it is the monotheism of the universe…DH”

=================================

Gravity is the natural selection of
self-attraction by the elementary particles of an evolving system on their
cyclic course towards the self-replication of the system. Period

( Gravitons are the
elementary particles of the universe.
RNA genes and serotonin are the elementary particles of Earth life)

כח
המשיכה

כח המשיכה
הוא הבחירה הטבעית להיצמדות הדדית של חלקיקי היסוד של מערכת מתפתחת במהלך התפתחותה
המחזורית לעבר שיכפולה. נקודה

( הגרוויטון הוא
חלקיק היסוד של היקום. הגנים, הנוקלאוטידים של חומצה ריבונוקלאית והסרוטונין הם
החלקיקים היסודיים של חיי כדור הארץ) Dov

http://universe-life.com/2013/11/14/subverting-organized-religious-science/

http://universe-life.com/2013/09/03/the-shortest-grand-unified-theory/

20. THE GREAT science feat in 2013 על מהות ומקור היקום

The 2013 gravity comprehension/definition is the greatest
science feat since the early 1920s.

Learn what natural gravity is scientifically:

Think of the consequences re classical science of this
comprehension of gravity…

איך נברא היקום יש מאין

Origin And Nature of the Universe, the greatest science feat
since the early 1920s.

New Science 2013 versus classical science

Classical Science Is Anticipated/Replaced By The 2013
Gravity Comprehension !!!

http://universe-life.com/2014/02/24/gravity/

Attn classical science hierarchy, including Darwin and
Einstein…

“I hope that now you understand what gravity is and why it
is the monotheism of the universe…DH”

=================================

Gravity is the natural selection of
self-attraction by the elementary particles of an evolving system on their
cyclic course towards the self-replication of the system. Period

( Gravitons are the elementary particles of the
universe. RNA nucleotides genes and
serotonin are the elementary particles of Earth life)

כח המשיכה

כח המשיכה הוא הבחירה הטבעית להיצמדות הדדית של חלקיקי היסוד של
מערכת מתפתחת במהלך התפתחותה המחזורית לעבר שיכפולה. נקודה

( הגרוויטון הוא חלקיק היסוד של היקום. הגנים, הנוקלאוטידים של חומצה
ריבונוקלאית והסרוטונין הם החלקיקים היסודיים של חיי כדור הארץ)

http://universe-life.com/2013/11/14/subverting-organized-religious-science/

http://universe-life.com/2013/09/03/the-shortest-grand-unified-theory/

PS: Note, again:

- Classical Science Is Anticipated/Replaced By The 2013
Gravity Comprehension !!!

- Think of the consequences re classical science of this
comprehension of gravity…

DH

נ.ב.
הבנת מהות כח המשיכה מספקת בסיס הגיוני מפשט/צפוי/מתקן לכל מגזרי ורכיבי
המדע הקלסי

יש פה אי- ניצול של הזדמנות/אפשרות של ישראל להדיח באלגנטיות מתורבתת
את ארה"ב מעמדתה בעולם כמוליכה/המקבעת של עדר ה"מדענים/מדע"
באמצעות האיגוד המקצועי האמריקאי הדתי, ולתפוס את עמדת ההולכה/פיתוח/הובלה של המדע
2013 החדש המשתדרג, ולהפוך את המדע האמריקאי לגרורה של המדע הישראלי. אי-ניצול זה הוא מחדל מטומטם /עלוב/מביש של
ישראל....

דה