At the end of his fictional book Contact, Carl Sagan describes discovering a message hidden in the literature of the number Pi. If such a message does exist, is a super entity responsible for it?
Among Carl Sagan's other works and writings, his book Contact is also remembered, a science fiction novel whose plot fulfills his ambition, which Sagan put into practice in his life - to discover extraterrestrial intelligence by receiving a radio message.
As you may remember, the plot of the book, which was also adapted into a film starring Jodie Foster, describes the reception of a complex message that contained construction instructions for a machine that made it possible to jump across the galaxy, via a wormhole.
I have read this book several times and enjoyed it all over again. However when I got to the end of the book I encountered something that made me shrug my shoulders. In addition to the received message, which is the main plot of the book, Sagan describes another discovered message at the end of the story.
The delusional story, in my opinion, is like this. In the number pi written in base 11, it was discovered, starting from a certain number after the dot, a continuous series that includes only the digits zero and one. When these digits are arranged in a two-dimensional matrix in the form of a square - the number of rows is equal to the number of columns, a drawing of a circle consisting of ones is obtained, with all the zeros forming the background of the circle.
That is, someone or something has hidden a transcendental (metaphysical, supernatural) message in the number pi which is a transcendental number. The number pi is a ratio in a circle and someone made sure there was a drawing of a circle within its digit sequence. For the avoidance of doubt - this is a fictional fact - such a message is not found in reality. And here is what Saigan writes about this (quotes from the not-so-successful Hebrew translation of Contact).
"He who creates the universes hides messages inside transcendental numbers, so that they will be read fifteen billion years later, when intelligent life will have already been developed." "You think God is a mathematician." "You are looking for the revelation of Shekinah in arithmetic." "The universe was created with intention, said the circle... Take the circumference of the circle and divide it by its diameter, measure it carefully, and you will discover a miracle - another circle drawn miles after the decimal point." "Within the texture of the space and within the essence of the material, as well as in a great work of art, is the artist's signature." "Above men, gods and demons... the wisdom that precedes the universe is erected."
So does that mean Sagan believed in God?
And besides, is Sagan's story even relevant? In irrational numbers, including transcendental numbers, if we only go far enough after the decimal point, we can find any sequence of digits. So what is the wisdom of finding the drawing of the circle within the pie literature, as Sagan described. In the same way it will be possible to find a painting of the Star of David. It's just like the messages encoded in letter skips in the Bible - you can find anything you want, in the Bible and in any text, if you just choose a starting point and suitable skips.
Here is the place to mention Feynman's point. This is the 762nd digit after the dot in the pi number on a decimal base and there the digit 9 appears six times in a row. If we go as far as the 565 millionth place, the number 9 will appear - nine times in a row (if we settle for eight consecutive occurrences of 9, we will find it at the 36 millionth place). Does this have any meaning?
So maybe the part of the story is that the message was discovered at a relatively early position in pi, when a supercomputer discovered it in a reasonable amount of time and not after a thousand or a million years. But that doesn't mean it's anything special; As mentioned, any combination that can be found sooner or later. In addition, Sagan notes in the story that the distribution of Pi's digits is uniform, meaning that if we sample a large number of digits, each digit will appear approximately several times - which is by definition something that has no proof and opinions about its correctness are divided.
And for those who have not read the book - it is recommended. The movie is good, but the plot of the book is much more complex. In the movie, for example, the story of the message hidden in the pie does not appear.
204 תגובות
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3480323,00.html
It turns out that what I wrote in response 70 here (and also distributed by email) reached Netanyahu:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1189399.html
To 213, I have not read the Bible.
Don't panic, it happens. Medication sometimes helps, sometimes not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_complex
As you promised: I'm back with new questions, God:
Why did you only show up at night (today)?
In the morning, were you busy saying 'There is a weapon?'
And how exactly do you 'connect with each other'? What are you shoving a USB up your butt?
Reuven, sorry, Moshe, oh no sorry, God, do me a favor if you're going to try to explain what you understood from your book, at least do it in a way that respects the book. You explain in such a way that every believer and every atheist can understand that you are talking nonsense. It just shows that you didn't understand what you read.
good night baby
I specifically said that you will not make other Gods for yourself and you continue to do the exact opposite, then you come with claims like "God does not exist", do not look for me outside, look for me inside inside you, all the Torah that is written on a book is a copy of what is inside you, dig inside and you will find the whole of creation inside your consciousness, how do you do it? It's very simple to connect with each other and the glue that will connect you will be revealed to you as God.
good night kids
indeed "any reasonable"
Turns out there's still a long way to go before some people drop the token:
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/55/ART1/748/479.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
If there is a law, there is a legislator. Any discussion beyond that is completely pointless.
All theology is based on two basic questions - 1. Is there a creator? 2. Is the religion we are dealing with fulfilling the will of this Creator.
On the first question there is almost no debate in the world today, it is clear to anyone with inner integrity that there is a Creator.
The second question is actually the one that separates the religions and currents. For example, in Judaism the second question is - was the Torah given to Moses in Sinai by the Creator?
There are many people for whom only the first answer is correct.
Also, from a rational point of view, it is better to answer the first question with "it is impossible to know", than to claim it "no" (for further discussion on this matter, see the philosophical approach called "agnosticism").
to Lisa
If you want the responses in full I can send them to you via email.
You would have written simply: trella trella
And my father would block you and that would be the end of the story. but no! You are smarter…
'Are good and bad good and bad'
Is thread and needle thread and needle?
I guess you're trying to present yourself as a god instead of a lunatic.
If anything, man will not become God but God will be a part of man's interiority.
By the way, I thought that evil is done by the devil.
okay, well
This time really good night.
good night my children
Tomorrow you will ask new questions, tomorrow you will look at reality differently "they will be in your eyes as new".
Good thoughts will connect you and that's how you will discover me right among you.
Because I always make life difficult for you, I will not deviate from my custom and therefore I will make your question difficult for you.
Are good and bad good and bad or only good or only bad?
Is it good for you to eat something delicious? Is it good for you that you get a strong toothache from him?
Is it bad for you that you get a small burn from the fire? Is it bad for you that you don't touch fire anymore because you learned that it is harmful?
Is it good for you to be in love? Is it good for you to be in love but the love of your life is not with you?
Is it bad for you that you are not lonely? Is it bad for you to be alone in a room full of world delicacies that only you like?
In short, forget the good and bad of the world, I only created evil and it is your job to turn what I created into good, that's the only way you will be God.
You believe in God and pretend to be one and think that God will not punish you for it.
So why do you think you are talking sense?
Why do you think they will soon finish assembling the puzzle of your creation?
It seems to me that you are too sensitive or rather emotional, that's why logic rarely visits your 'face' inside you.
Hence all your words are spoken out of emotion and not out of reason.
That is, wishful thinking, and not common sense!
Think about it God and good night.
When I said don't make every statue and every picture, I meant that you don't think I'm some grandfather sitting on a cloud, I'm not a figure, I'm love that connects opposites.
When I said that you will not have other gods before me, I meant that you will not receive my abundance in your selfishness, which is called "back" because I give the abundance in the interior of the heart, which is called "face".
In Genesis I wrote you a little hint, "and you were like God, knowing good and evil" this is the situation you will reach soon because you are about to complete the puzzle assembly of my creation.
God
I just asked:
Is good and bad related to emotions or logic?
God said: You shall not make any statue or image, you shall not have other gods before me.
Respondent 184
Because you pretend to be God
God bless you with vobozla!
So what will you do now? Will you go pray and ask for forgiveness? Or will you continue to despise him?
The whole of creation is a deliberate mistake of mine, I wanted to give you a disassembled puzzle so that you could put it together yourself, that's the only way I could make sure that you would have free choice and have your own independence, even though you supposedly have good things in life, it is aimed at you not enjoying the good things for a long time, I want you to be angry with me, I want Hate me, I want you to be true in your thoughts towards me, only then will you begin to understand a little what I am.
In the beginning I created the abundance that fills the entire universe (heaven) and the material that will receive the abundance of the universe (the earth) into it.
The truth is that I only created one thing, you call him "the first man" I call him "me before I reached what I reached" you are all God and you will all reach what I am today because above the bodies and materials everything connects to one whole.
God
You have a few mistakes here and there.
God has finally entered the site of knowledge:) the revival.
Michael Michael don't hide your face from me, don't be afraid of me, know the God of your father and serve him, if you don't know and investigate what I am, how can you work together with me? I need partners to manage our world and create perfect worlds. I created the ruined and broken world so that you, Michael, would rebuild it and then I would be proud of you and say "victory my son"
I guess everyone has already met a talking nut but this is my first time meeting a talking knot
Your mother-in-law tells you that she forgives you for the "silverware"
Religion is a temporary invention of humans, as soon as everyone gives up on religions they will discover that I am only in the connection between you, I am only the connection between humans and nothing more than that.
There are many Michaels and I love them all, I created some of them to be annoying and some of them to be sensitive and loving in general, but one without the other cannot exist, the right Michael and the left Michael complement each other, "I created them against each other"
Tonight you will have insomnia and a lot of thinking and tomorrow you will start thinking about things you never thought about.
A gem before bed:
"Don't believe in yourself until the day you die", that is, until you die your intellectual lie you will not reach the inner truth that your soul contains.
My god
What do you think of Nathan? Can you put it back on the site? Say, do you think you can be cut off from religion?
Tell me God, is there such a thing in other universes as well or is it unique only to us?
Good night God and peace to my late mother-in-law
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I don't know what you value in his slanders and I'm not exactly interested.
I did not "kick" him off the site. I only blocked slanders (and then - at the request of the bloodthirsty audience I put them on display).
I asked him dozens of times to write a comment that has content but he refused to do so.
I let him explain his intentions, but I don't think that if his intention is to discredit me as he shows over and over again, these repetitions should be seen as a legitimate explanation for something that someone didn't understand after repeating himself dozens of times.
I repeat and emphasize - if Natan ever finds something to write other than "Michael Hara" or "Yehuda Hara" or "Yehuda Ilil" he will have no problem publishing his words (just as he never had such a problem).
And now I have to ask you - in the spirit of the claim you made: have you stopped beating your wife yet?
My son, go to sleep, you have worked enough for today, tomorrow is a new day, tomorrow you will learn new things about the universe and yourself, sweet sleep and pleasant dreams.
"Touch today and tomorrow you will find", I will like you and then I will bring you a little closer to eternity.
From * Al
I appreciate Natan's responses and I don't think he deserves to be kicked out of the site. point.
And besides, it's not fair that you talk about Natan's "intentions" and "opinions" and don't let him explain them.
I'm sure that Nathan had something to say about the statement you made - "The connection between Nathan's words and science is not accidental." He simply does not exist." End quote.
For me, scientific thought is defined in a broader framework than yours, and it also includes nativist and reutonian thoughts, and sometimes also chemical ones. That's how I'm comfortable with almost all respondents. I'm sorry we don't have an agreement on the respondents.
But now it's late at night and the air conditioner is working and I'm alone in my six rooms, and there's no better time than this hour after midnight to go to the science site and see what's new.
And maybe, maybe, on this dark night the WIMP was finally discovered?
Happy is the believer
Pleasant surfing
Sabdarmish Yehuda
No discrimination of any religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuoBPGvXFAs&feature=related
Mike Huckabee interviewing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFnLtQFkZxc&feature=related
Richard Dawkins on Bill Maher Show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtZeXuX7-zU&feature=related
I heard you were looking for me. Look, it's not that I don't exist, I just really want you to look for me, if I were next to you then you would never be independent, as soon as you feel that you really want me and without gifts and salary, then I will reveal myself to you, in the meantime I let you have fun with my resemblance to the universe, I believe that you will slowly get tired of it Dig in the universe and start digging in your heart because you are God.
Yehuda:
It is said that since the sword of the Temple the prophecy has been given to fools.
I must admit that in your response 170 you proved that you are not a fool because there is no similarity between Lisa's reactions and Natan's reactions.
And if it's important to you to have fun here, then you should generally oppose comments like Natan's and ask that they be blocked because they are a pure waste of time, electricity and nerves.
Sometimes it can be worth suffering a little if you learn something from it, but here we are dealing with reactions that do not teach anything.
By the way: the connection between Nathan's words and science is not accidental. It simply does not exist and in your words you emphasized the importance of their publication precisely because it is a scientific site.
Lisa:
I wouldn't want to be put in prison either, but nevertheless I support putting criminals in prison and am aware that by doing so I also reduce my ability to commit crimes without being brought to justice.
More than the urge (which frankly does not exist in me) to complain about others is important to me - it is important to me to ensure that they don't complain at all.
Lisa
you are innocent Michael will not stop. This is his public mission.
you are playing with fire Four or five more comments like this and you will be on the right track to join Nathan.
In addition, take these things into account because this is how it should be written (:))
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
If you can intervene
It's true that in football 'it's not just people running after the ball on the field, sometimes they also fight there and sometimes the ball, which should be the most righteous, decides to laugh at the poor goalkeepers, and it also happens... that the referee decides to take something off the field.'
But in football there should not be a situation of yellow or red cards or quarreling with other players, and when this happens it is an extreme situation (which should not happen).
Therefore, when the discourse here becomes 'extreme' and not related to science, this is the time to respond to it accordingly.
Science is neither robot nor human. The people are the ones who deal with science and when the people reach 'extreme' situations in science that is the moment when you have to comment on that 'extreme' situation.
Dear Michael
It is true that the connection is coincidental, but in the spirit of these days it means that football is not only people running after the ball on the field, they sometimes also quarrel there and sometimes the ball, which should be the most righteous, decides that it is laughing at the poor goalkeepers, and it also happens... that the referee decides to take something off the field.
You have to understand that we are human and not robots, and that's what makes it fun.
So let people respond and use the whistle as much as you want just please, please, no red cards
And most importantly
May the Netherlands win
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The issue here is not a desire or unwillingness to see slime.
Obviously there are limits to what can be published.
But one should be careful of excessive use of censorship. My words are also not always factual (and very rarely. Really far. I myself have not seen, but I have heard about a case or years from unauthorized sources, including your words).
I wouldn't want my words censored and I guess you would too.
So the things for your attention,
for your consideration.
Lisa:
And I do not agree with you at all.
You wanted to see slime and you got it, but there is no reason for a site dealing with science to contain comments whose entire purpose is defamation and another one based on lies.
Yehuda:
I completely agree that there was no reason to block comments, I said that I seriously consider censorship of people's words especially in light of the fact that nothing justifying it was said there.
However, in the end things were published, I hope that this wrong practice will stop.
Very nice, Yehuda:
So now maybe you can explain to us what is the connection between these reactions and science?
Maybe you can also point us to a scientific website where you saw such comments?
LISTS
Do you really think that the fact that Michael published what he decided to publish and for reasons reserved with him, is a sign of fairness? After all, this is the most natural thing to do on a scientific website!
In addition, I see that there was nothing in Natan's response that he demanded to be moved from the site.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Lisa:
I can't mess with everyone all the time.
The first comment is the comment because of which it was blocked.
Both before and after that he kept repeating the same false accusations.
The whole conversation with him was just a hassle that I wanted to save from others and I thought that since she would not be exposed she would also be arrested in the end.
I didn't know he was so obsessed but who knows - maybe in the end he will find something else to say.
Reuven
Regarding response 147
Not everyone earns a living, and not everyone starts a family, and not everyone makes love and has children, and not everyone pulls a tooth and goes to the doctor, and not everyone eats three meals a day, and not everyone goes to school, reads books and hangs out.
There are people who murder and rape, and jump from building to building for the thrill, and fly airplanes and beat passers-by to death, and so on and on.
Do you understand why Makhal calls you a liar?
Not because you are a liar, but because your arguments are incorrect, and this is because you do not know what you are talking about, or what you are trying to say is presented by you in a different way than you would like (I believe it is in naivety and lack of knowledge).
I also don't understand what all the fuss is about.
My opinion is that censorship is not a tool that should be used more easily, and certainly not on things such as those that were said (there is a disturbing dissonance between the response that was selected for presentation first and all that were filtered).
However, the very fact that Mr. Roschild eventually responded to the request to publish the things indicates honesty and fairness.
Machel
I really don't see anything, in Natan's comments, except to explain to you how 'unwilling to accept his opinion'.
Like him there are at least a few dozen more that I remember and that includes me.
In the argument between you and Nathan I see a waste of electricity and nothing more, maybe ignore it? But don't block him
Because the majority of the reading public here is not stupid and can judge Natan's 'pearls' on their own and treat them accordingly.
As happens to Yehuda, Lehazi, me, and others and good ones.
Lisa:
There was no slander on my part. I have not said a single thing that is not well supported by facts.
From Natan's side there were only slanders.
I repeat - I gave you an accurate summary: apart from the response that caused him to be blocked, there were only repetitions of the same defamations and complaints about him being blocked.
Here - so that everyone who likes slime can enjoy - all his blocked comments (dates in descending order):
5/7/2010 6:37
M.:
If you had a shred of honesty, you would have presented the entire discussion between us and you would not have extracted from it what was convenient for you. The readers will judge what is relevant and what is not.
This is probably an excessive demand from you, as I see this is not the first time you do this to your interlocutors.
Show the whole conversation if you have a shred of decency left. And do not speak high words and inflated false self-esteem
4/7/2010 8:20
deer:
I apologize for not answering you until now - a certain person who participated in the discussion that I'm sure you know who decided in the most ugly way to block my words to you, I can only regret that the discussion was stopped in such a rude and blatant manner
4/7/2010 0:00
I don't understand what you were trying to show here beyond the very disturbing fact that you are collecting sympathetic comments towards you.
Are you really unable to see a different point of view than your own?
I have nothing but to express deep sorrow and pity.
3/7/2010 23:50
You confirm my suspicions.
You don't have the ability to take criticism.
It is very unfortunate to hear that you equate criticism of you with Holocaust denial.
This ugly gag indicates vileness and a narcissistic view full of false self-importance.
3/7/2010 23:33
I repeat that I have no interest in getting into an argument with you.
You asked a good question:
"What logical reason should make me agree to approve comments that in my view are nothing but lies and slander directed against me?"
Because intellectual honesty and freedom of speech means the possibility of hearing things that go against your opinion, and your personal interests and criticize you. And this without referring to the possibility (which for you does not exist) that you are wrong.
Again, I will not change my responses and opinions to please you, nor the things that were said - other people here in the discussion saw differently than you.
If you don't see this kind of gagging as the height of vileness, ugliness and dishonesty, this indicates exactly those things about you
3/7/2010 23:09
From * as:
I have no interest in getting into any more arguments with you, because you are using the power given to you to shut me up. Others in this discussion did not see my responses as you did, and I would like to address them. If not out of honesty and fairness to me, at least do it out of fairness to them.
I'm ready to accept that you were upset by my words. I will not change my relationship to please you. If you continue to block my comments it shows your honesty and your inability to take criticism
3/7/2010 22:53
From * as:
Until now I disagreed with you but I thought you were an honest person. Please don't ruin this impression either.
3/7/2010 21:49
From * as:
Be that as it may, I can't argue with you - after all, you have your hand on the counter.
Out of respect for Zvi and fairness to me, please confirm my response to him.
3/7/2010 20:59
From * as:
I ask you to confirm my response to the deer if it is within your control. I don't think that there is any reason that any of the Medians should be immune to criticism, of course this also applies to me and I accept your criticism.
3/7/2010 17:06
deer:
I accept your words. Indeed, if you look at the content of the words, my views are probably closer to those of Michael than to those of Reuven.
However, I don't think that Reuven's words at the beginning of the debate entitle him to the nickname "liar". Reuben expressed his beliefs, and I think every religious person would express himself in a similar way. I do not agree with the things that were said and I would be happy if the discussion would develop into a substantive discussion about these beliefs.
In responses such as those of Mkhal, any possibility of a fruitful discussion is avoided. Calling the interlocutor by childish derogatory names such as "stupid" and "liar" actually prevents any meaningful discussion.
But it's probably a question of style and it's a style I don't respect. McAl tries to create a false impression that the world is black and white and the boundaries are clear. I doubt that, and in the context of the discussion, I think this characterizes the religious extremism that is being attacked.
3/7/2010 13:06
From * as:
There is nothing to say. You are righteous and pure. Pearls come out of your mouth and your swellings smell like roses.
Mr. Roschild:
I don't agree with the blunt language, but I see a point in his words. These things are said after censorship, don't forget...
What could be said in a conversation between you that is so terrible? All in all, this is a discussion between two parties, with one of them (you) controlling what will be revealed and what won't. There is a balance sheet here.
Beyond that, there is not much point in personal insults (on both sides)
By the way Lisa:
All of his blocked comments are like this starting from the first one which was written when he was not yet blocked.
Knows what? Lisa:
I decided to return it (149) so that everyone can see which response it is and try to decipher why you are missing it.
The nature of his words sounded a little angry, but one can understand the anger of a person whose words are censored.
I would consider this strict policy one more time, for your consideration.
Lisa:
By the way - he gave it to me too
Lisa:
Because apart from the well-known fact that his profanity is blocked, it only contained profanity
Mr. Roschild:
Sorry to enter into a discussion that is not for me, but why was Nathan's last comment downloaded?
Reuven Vali (Nathan in disguise):
OK.
So you don't see the difference between you and Hitler?
Pay attention - you said it. I'm just asking.
The Lord continues to block my words without any shame.
If he has an iota of honesty, he would reveal the full conversation between us. Of course he won't because it would expose his lies. He took out of my words only what was convenient for him and hid the rest.
Judge for yourselves if this is how an honest person behaves.
He is so full of false self-importance that he is unable to see things from a different point of view - and he even does so under the guise of "enlightenment"
disgrace
right
To Michael,
Please allow me once, to use your style. Look what nonsense you write. You claim that not everyone does the same thing. They do do the same thing, without exception. Everyone makes a living? Yes. Is everyone starting a family? Yes. Everyone makes love and children? Yes. Everyone pulls a tooth and goes to the doctor, from time to time? Yes. Does everyone eat three meals a day? Yes. Everyone is going to study, read books and hang out? Yes. They do the same thing, whether you are a king, a pope, a monk, sitting in the hall of fame, a scientist, a genius or a minister in the Holy of Holies. Oh, I forgot, among other things, everyone also beeps, from time to time. By the way, Einstein and the various "idols" did and are doing the same thing.
Reuven:
I'm done chatting with you
Response 150, refers to Michael.
You can be what you are, I'm interested as the skin of garlic. Everyone is allowed to criticize, but without swearing,
Slanders, and derogatory words, towards anyone. I have seen geniuses as stupid as Nael and grocers as smart as Einstein.
You demand from others, what you yourself do not fulfill. What right do you have to insult the dignity of others, to claim
That others are liars or that a different belief than yours is bullshit. The truth is that you want to be the "smart" "star" in the debates.
I will not let you be, because you are not like that, neither smart nor a star.
Yehuda:
Thanks for the comment.
Response 141 is intentional to Reuven In response to response 137.
to Micha*
For good measure, it is possible to know to whom response 141 is directed
Do I have the respect she has for me?
Or have I arrogated to myself what I do not deserve?
Good day and with a smile
Yehuda Sabdarmish
The truth is not just what I claim to be the truth if only because there are things in the world that I have never spoken about.
As a principle - I can also be wrong (and it has even happened here and there on this site as well) but I try not to make a mistake and in this I am different from many others who allow themselves to say things that they themselves clearly do not know.
Logical mistakes I probably rarely make in general while you actually make a lot of them.
I pointed out your logical errors and you didn't address things at all because it's easier to attack the speaker.
I am not suffering from not understanding what is being read while you act as if you are making a mistake, beyond not understanding what is being read, also not reading what is being written.
I never claimed that Spinoza's words should be accepted and it is not at all clear to him how you deduced this. I myself do not accept his words in several areas (such as women's rights), although it is clear to me that he was a genius and these divisions arose only from the period in which he lived.
Spinoza was not a product of the education he received.
Independently minded people are able to break free from the education they received.
I got rid of him too. I grew up in a religious home.
The truth is that this is a somewhat extreme presentation of things because many of the basics of the education I received I adopted from myself as a graduate and the house I grew up in was indeed religious but neither ultra-orthodox nor bigoted. Obviously, my parents would have preferred if I had chosen a religious lifestyle, but they completely understand my choices and acknowledge them.
In any case - I do not adopt any opinion without critical thought and it does not matter if Spinoza said it, if Einstein said it, if Professor Uman said it or if my parents said it.
Not even if Reuven said it!
Not all people in the world do the same.
There are those who advance humanity, there are those who set it back, and there are those whose influence is little in one direction or another.
Rational human beings are not the result of education or training but of independent thought. This is something that most education systems do not lead to.
However - even independent thinking - when it is expressed in speech or writing - should use languages and terms that are in the public domain. Otherwise there is no point in trying to pass it on to others because it is guaranteed in advance that things will not pass. Your circle and square pattern demonstrates this well.
Ray:
The book was translated into Hebrew under the name "A world haunted by demons" and there is also such a category on the website.
However - to the best of my recollection (it has been a long time since I read it but I just opened the index and the word God does not appear in it) he does not discuss the subject of God and religions in the book.
The story mentioned in the article might have raised doubts in the eyes of some people regarding Sagan's beliefs, but it seems to me that the responses given here might have dispelled those doubts.
The book also came to my mind as soon as I read the article, but I don't remember, as mentioned, that it deals with the subject.
If you think it deals with it, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the page number.
Yehuda:
Circle and square are defined concepts in the Hebrew language.
All of our ability to use language is based on agreement regarding the definition of concepts.
The claim that you see a "circle" as something different from its definition is therefore a meaningless claim that can only sow confusion.
But, actually, maybe you like confusion - after all, only in a confused environment can you make false claims and stand by them for years.
Sorry for separating you from Reuven.
I haven't gone through all the comments but none refer to the non-fiction book by Carl Sagan - The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
In the book he preaches that skeptical thinking and attempts to disprove claims regarding the existence of gods, witches and the like.
If you want to refer to the personal belief of a deputy, you should base the article on non-fictional literature that is intended to sound better than to reflect reality
Reuven
The claim that you have the right to even say that the square is a circle is very interesting. Not because of the correctness of the claim but because of the right to say the claim.
very interesting.
I will add and try to provoke thoughts about the claim itself.
Let's define a body in the form of a cylinder located in the XYZ axis system with its axis of rotation being the Z axis. The XY surface will cut the cylinder in a circle. A XNUMXD creature living in this area will show a circle. On the other hand, the YZ surface will cut the cylinder in a square and this is what a two-dimensional creature living there will see there
Each creature will see the same thing in a different way. One as a circle and the other as a square...
The importance of this kind of analysis may seem silly to the commenters, but maybe this is the way to see a physical phenomenon of a particle that sometimes appears as a particle and sometimes as a wave?
Food for thought
Thanks to Reuven
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
other
To Michael.
If the truth is only what you claim to be true, then you are dead wrong. It seems to me that you have a misunderstanding of the reading. You are confusing opinion with truth. The truth about the creation of the universe is not known by you, nor by me, nor by other geniuses. This is a discussion to express an opinion about the article, which refers to God in the title. How is it possible to have a discussion without questions, when everyone agrees to what is said in the article, or to any other response. In relation to Spinoza and other "idols" of his kind, I do not underestimate their honor and what they represent. But one should not exaggerate and accept their Torah as Sinai Torah. Some have replaced one idol with another idol, out of rebellion against tradition, brainwashing or for one reason or another. The same can be argued towards you, for having a contemptuous attitude towards the "idols" that others believe in, as a result of education. such as Rambam, Rashi, Rashbi and other "idols" dear to them. As you are a product of a certain education, which your ancestors instilled in you, so everyone else is a product of the education they receive. Even with wrong faith and attitudes (not easy, to know who is right), it is possible to live with it, raise a glorious family and die at the age of 120 upright as a tree. As many people as the number of opinions. Despite the diversity of opinions, all the people in the world do the same things.
Yehuda:
I don't expect Nathan to talk.
Although he said the things with a lack of understanding and while misleading, the truth has not affected him so far and there is no reason why it should suddenly start affecting him.
When I put you and Reuven on the same side of the fence - it was only in a certain context.
I assume that it was his answer regarding the square and the circle that made you feel uncomfortable on his side and I admit that this response of his surprised even me and if I had known he would give it I would have defined a special category for him.
Regarding the days they will say - days do not know how to speak.
The many facts that contradict your physical theories actually speak well.
L***l
Do not expect a person (Nathan) to remain indifferent if his words are called:-
"This recycling that was said with a lack of understanding and while misleading"
Natan's responses and others like him will be missed here.
Let's move on to my troubles.
Regarding my ideas and theories, time will tell if they have value.
Another thing
This division where you put me and Reuven on one side and the other commenters on the other side bothers me a little.
Well, we'll see what happens one day
Today we will go through that as well
good day everybody
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Reuven:
I did win an attack on me honestly.
It's because there are people who are bothered by honesty.
Thanks for sharing your insights on the circle and the square.
I hope that those who have not seen until now what it is about now understand it.
To Michael
The attack on you, you earned it honestly. I'm not the only one who claims that you are too outspoken, towards the other participants in the discussions, which means preachy. Gagging is not in our school. You may have something to contribute and update, in the discussions. But the blunt style hurts you and prevents the participants from listening to you.
The proof that a square is a circle, because I believe it. No one can deny me the right to believe that. Because I see the square as a circle and vice versa, I create room for maneuver and the possibility to reach new insights, which others do not reach. Not everything sees things eye to eye. If there was a blind agreement on everything without questions, as the church forced on its believers, neither science nor art would develop and no change would happen.
According to the spontaneous response, it sounds puzzling. But some see it that way, and that is their full right.
Reuven:
First of all - congratulations for writing an honest response. In my opinion you are wrong - but at least you are not defaming (almost).
You can underestimate all the achievements of all the great minds and your words indicate that this is how you do.
This is also how Yehuda practices when he discusses physical theories without knowing them and without knowing how to solve even simple questions in the field, so it is clear that you (and only you) have a common language (which is not shared with the other commenters, they have a common language that is contrary to yours).
Nathan is different from the two of you because his opinions in the fields of science are probably in the realm of logic (it's hard for me to say because he never explicitly revealed them) and his whole interest in the discussion is to attack me (which is what you and him have in common and your blocked responses testify to that).
By the way - please prove that a circle is a square. I wonder how you intend to do this because the word "proof" is used by you - as proven in your previous comments - in a different meaning than what ordinary people attribute to it.
To Michael,
I can prove to you that a circle is a square, not a circle and a square is a circle. Ask how and I'll answer you. Spinoza said, so what, another genius will come and say something else. Millions of dunams of forest were cut down in order to discover and record the absolute truth. We are all groping in the dark. If you had conducted a dialogue, matter-of-fact and objective as Yehuda and Nathan conducted, perhaps, either you or I, would have had new insights. your loss It's a fact that they both agree on some things, and share it with him. Yehuda and Nathan discover a different perspective on things, Yehuda sees it as an interesting new approach and Nathan is interested in the permanent legality that exists in everything. The other participants show interest and ask questions. If I were a religious person, I would not respond to the article on Shabbat.
Yehuda:
If this recycling that was said in a misunderstanding and while misleading interests you, then great! You found something that interested you in the pile of moral preaching (something that was indeed written out of a lack of understanding and out of an inappropriate purpose, but I can't argue with you about the fact that it interested you).
I see no reason not to be strict with a person who marked me as a target and does not stop attacking me.
He said his opinion, others said theirs, and he continues to repeat his opinion constantly even though there is nothing between it and the article (and between it and reality) and nothing.
There are a total of two of his blocked responses that are not responses that only talk about the block itself.
The first comment is the one I posted (which was really the first of the two and the one that led to the blocking) - a comment that for some reason you complain about me mentioning it even though he is the one who wrote it, and another comment in which he turns to Tzvi who answered him for the previous defamation attempt to try to convince him anyway in disrepute.
that's it.
mile
Your words are just proof that Nathan said interesting things from time to time. Even if they were said before by Spinoza, Nietzsche or others.
I think you are too strict with him.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
incidentally:
If someone is really interested in the fundamental questions that Nathan claims that Reuven "raises" (while he does not raise questions but rather unfounded answers), he can find an interesting discussion of them in the following articles:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ground-problem-of-metaphysics-part-1-0204103/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ground-problem-of-metaphysics-part-2-0704103/
This is what an honest response to these questions looks like.
Yehuda:
This description of God (which is quite meaningless) is part of the regular line of defense of the postmodernists.
After all, this is simply Spinoza's "God" described with a new lack of understanding.
This response, like the others, contains the deception (I don't know if it is intentional or not) as if this is the God Reuven was talking about, when the latter has repeatedly claimed explicitly that this is not the God he is talking about.
As a principle - his words are mostly moral sermons. A large part of them are false, there is no detail in them that relates to the article and they were all written to "educate" me.
Lm*-l
You claim that Nathan didn't say anything substantive in the whole discussion. Are all his words really irrelevant?
Did you see how in response 38 he analyzes God without his religious aspect? I have never seen such a thing anywhere and it is a really interesting experiment. Did that work too?
You call him to collect all his factual words into one response. Why would he do that?
I have no justification for some of his words, such as the subject of the swelling that you repeat, repeat and emphasize, but things are said in a storm of emotions as I imagine epithets such as stupid liar, etc.
Good Day
And tomorrow is the semi-final and we hope for a good game
Sabdarmish Yehuda
For those who expect more tolerance from me:
I am not religious and certainly not a Christian.
I have no intention of turning the other cheek to anyone.
Nathan:
I told you to take all of your filtered responses, extract from them the relevant things and concentrate them in the response that I promised to confirm.
I knew you wouldn't find anything relevant and that you would turn to other channels to continue the slander.
Did you notice that until this moment you have said nothing in the whole discussion?
Just moralizing from the depths of your moral pit.
Yehuda:
You surely mean that the commenters don't deserve to be written a response like this:
From * as:
There is nothing to say. You are righteous and pure. Pearls come out of your mouth and your swellings smell like roses.
Or maybe you mean it's unfair for them to make up lies about them.
I don't believe it could be otherwise - even though you called Nathan to respond.
Tell me: why exactly? Can you point to one thing you learned from him? Or have you decided to renew your days as before?
for everyone
Commentators do not deserve such treatment, whatever their opinion
For your attention, Avi Blizovsky
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Nathan
Although quite a few commenters here received similar treatment from Makhal, and quite a few of them expressed themselves towards him in a similar way to yours (including me).
But there is nothing to do. Mr. Rothschild is not a stupid person and even quite smart, for sure, I have not come across anyone on this site who comes close to him in his wisdom and indeed all his responses so far have been matter-of-fact even when he calls someone a liar.
He called me that too, and I didn't agree with him for calling me a liar either, but I was educated to understand why he used that word towards me. I would suggest that you try to understand why he calls you a liar instead of fighting with him, because that will be a war of attrition that you will most likely not win.
(If you were really right he wouldn't call you a liar and if you expressed an opinion like 'I'm hungry' then you can be sure he won't call you a liar at most he won't respond to you).
Machel,
In my response, I am not coming to defend you (even if it seems that way), but simply expressing my private opinion to Nathan, maybe he will listen to others more than he will listen to you at this point.
Nathan:
It's probably part of the site's terms. I, too, have often resented Mr. Roschild's attitude towards those who have a different opinion.
At the same time, the discussions with him are mostly matter-of-fact and interesting, let's hope for more tolerance...
For respondents:
Mr. M. He decided to shut my mouth in an ugly way, and shamelessly filters my words and chooses what to present and what not.
The only reason he decided to do this is because I criticized the nature of his responses. There is nothing in my criticism of him that is more pronounced than his exaggerated way of expressing himself towards Reuven, which lacks any justification.
I don't agree with Reuven's views, but it is possible to have a discussion about different opinions in a mature and matter-of-fact manner even without childish derogatory names such as "stupid" and "liar". This is the way M chose. And that's what I criticized.
The criticism leveled at Yehuda for being arrogant is dwarfed by the arrogance of M.
to give
Try responding again.
Remember, what's important is that Holland is in the semi-finals.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to R.H. 63
You are mixing religion and belief with opinion. From the moment the universe was created, which includes within it the permanent legality, the creator being, no longer interferes in anything. Since legality itself is what governs everything in the universe. This includes the humans, there is no interference in their actions. Wars and injustices between humans, among themselves, arise from man himself, from his very nature.
The fault is not with God, the fault is with man. The creator being, all love, kindness and giving.
Man received the earth as an inheritance, they are allowed to do with it, whatever they want. It is a fact that man does whatever he wants, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.
At a distance of thousands of years, millions of years and billions of light years, man will disappear and another production will take his place, stars and suns will collapse, new stars will be formed and perhaps, the entire universe will collapse and be reborn. Everything is based on birth and regeneration.
There is no purpose in the existence of the universe or man, as the universe exists and is a fixed fact, for 14 billion years, it will remain so
Always. Man will continue to wonder and explore, develop beliefs, new religions and different theories, wars will continue to exist because of man's stupidity. That's how it will stay, don't expect any surprises.
kid:
I already wrote what you wrote before.
On the other hand - if a program has to be chosen - why not run it through a few more stages so that we can see unequivocally?
Gal, Michael: In the book, the structure of the rectangle (actually, a square) is described quite precisely, and also roughly where it appears - if I remember correctly, it is a number of digits that is greater than what is thought to this day (and certainly what was considered reasonable in Sagan's day) and it is absolutely clear that this is fiction his that fits the message he is trying to convey. Whoever treats the matter as a mathematical truth, this is really his problem.
Besides - I told him that as soon as he had an opinion to express I would let him express it.
We have already heard his opinion about me, although it does not belong to the topic of discussion here. How many times should I let him repeat his insults without actually saying anything?
Yehuda:
Have you read what I wrote?
Did you also go through the response that I specifically stated was why we were blocked?
wave:
Thanks for the information, but the article deals with the fact that it is written in the science fiction book contact and not in some scientific publication of his.
The discussion here was more about the question of Sagan's beliefs than what was happening in Pi's representation in base 11.
Does the representation of pi in base 11 also include a sequence that when arranged as a rectangle of a certain size results in a circle of ones on a background of zeros (or vice versa)?
If you read my 11th comment you will understand that it probably is!
Does it happen in the same place the book talks about?
It is possible to check this but according to your words you did not check (because you calculated 1000 digits and in the quote that bringing the celebration starts from place 1020).
It turns out that the dimensions of the rectangle are not written in the book, so it is difficult to check the matter accurately, but if you run your program, say, up to 1200 digits - you will be able to see if starting from the 1020th place only zeros and ones appear - it could be interesting.
I wonder if the number 1020 was chosen because 1024 is 2 to the power of 10 or for some other reason.
Lm*-l
I'm sorry for the anger you have in your heart Nathan, but I went through all of his responses and I didn't see anything too unusual in them from the responses of others.
I don't want to get into who is right, and sometimes he exaggerated, but maybe in honor of the excellent game of the German national team that we saw yesterday, you will give Mr. Natan the opportunity to continue expressing his opinions.
Important again
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
So, it seems you were right 🙂
If anyone thinks that Nathan has been convinced to stop the smear campaign against me, maybe he should know that he is wrong.
His comments stopped appearing because he refuses to talk about the article and insists on insulting me.
In order for you to get an idea of what this is all about, I am publishing herewith the comment that started with the block:
From * as:
There is nothing to say. You are righteous and pure. Pearls come out of your mouth and your swellings smell like roses.
Mirom Golan:
I said that I did not intend to turn the article into a discussion of a political issue and I do not intend to do so.
Beyond this comment I will not comment further on the subject.
Occupation - in general, this is a word with a negative connotation - and rightly so.
The justification of occupation (again - in general - there are exceptions) is the justification of the policy of "every Dalim is a man" and in fact destroys any argument we might have if they were to occupy or even destroy the State of Israel.
It also throws the ground under the justification that the nations of the world found for the establishment of the state in the first place because if all Dalims prevailed - then we lost to those who expelled us from the country, we lost to the anti-Semites and there is no reason to rehabilitate us and prevent the continued abuse of us.
It's a simple matter of symmetry. As Hillel the Elder summed up the Torah in "What is hateful to you, do not do to your friend" - the same is true between countries. There is no guarantee that you will always be the strong side.
This is how it is in general and therefore it is correct for every country to claim that occupation is a bad thing and to oppose occupation and this is how the countries of the world practice.
There are exceptions and the question of whether the Golan Heights is one of them is a difficult question.
This is a difficult question for several reasons, one of which is the one you keep implying and that is that the Arabs do not live by the same rules.
Another reason (related to the previous one) is the security need we have in the Golan Heights.
The reason "we don't have land" is not a valid reason because we have land. Everyone knows this and therefore presenting it to the outside will actually cause us harm (because the world's opinion is important to us and it is clear that without support, for example from the USA, we cannot survive).
The question of whether or not to give the level is, from a security point of view, also influenced by the opinion of the countries of the world, and the fact that you call the opinion of the countries of the world "postmodernist" will not advance you at all even if this were true (and in this specific case - it is not at all clear that it is true).
This is not laziness (if there is such a word at all) nor laziness, but a logical and pragmatic consideration that must be made while giving due weight to all influencing factors.
This idea - of a period in which an infrastructure will be built for Syrian motivation for cooperation can work perfectly in my opinion, but it is legitimate for you to think otherwise.
I repeat - this is not the place for a debate on the matter. I brought it up for one and only reason, which I have already explained, and if you continue to insist on arguing, I will not cooperate with you.
106:
There is something original in your words, but in my opinion they have nothing to do with our relations with Syria.
I'm also afraid that the method won't work for Gilad Shalit because whatever we do - there's no problem hiding him - what's more, he can be moved from place to place and housed in places we've already been.
Hamas will also present this as a violation of sovereignty and will use the example of the flotilla as a reason to resort to violence.
He may also not start actual physical violence but instead put a human wall of thousands of people in front of our people and force us to retreat or be the ones who start the violence.
The questions are difficult.
There are usually several solutions that can work.
Our problem is that our solutions are always hybrid creatures that try to answer internal politics that will allow the government to survive instead of external politics that will allow the country to survive.
This is the true laxity in our conduct.
On this site
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Pi+in+base+11
I calculated about 1000 digits after the point
This is what happened:
3.16150702865a48523521525977752941838668848853163a1a54213004658065227350533715271781a6563715781334928885281912992063425270781275548269276978180640386187079590752454659a8876a29287267aa95754164754284475a718a59606a751a75134127a0525aa74070138624292a2542a3167921550550622029836612734698a08a2556602916a53571454756894a25805a65a505a98131716aaa38868204098325970aaa553105877763582301653133a753443a98119127676211a199730a1897918449a5a38659409534a44601077223546a614094a5809235096474789427705a3a492241074091657003897753377195267636138386036442694829545102839328755129856a85a524781730969a4080a901040093010a141a112654a8a9358a3a83415286a887a829645600582179834334013a419985988702a2549a452143497638a92672a26203672a5216966415061384a077a389a3923102a21106200957a6106554a8a54161713428538a39868214084a090107323154a7053692181190a04553706a651a3343816673a2892030896533aa225714357424631651155473011819a72362a789004938559a71067133093a7264a741886685073a93970747430aa6894821810427 15013289258625974765794718568955382a4423a30a2394278197543649849710aa0a9804
There are no interesting repetitions here yet
So I googled a bit
This rumor was mentioned elsewhere without proof
but…
HERE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_%28novel%29
Wikipedia article about the book
contact
by Carl Sagan
It is said that in the plot of the book
The heroine calculates pi in base 11, 10 to the power of 20 digits after a period and finds a name
A repeating pattern of zeros and ones that produce a circle shape...
"In a kind of postscript, Ellie, acting upon a suggestion by the senders of the message, works on a program which computes the digits of π to record lengths and in different bases. Very, very far from the decimal point (1020) and in base 11, it finds that a special pattern does exist when the numbers stop varying randomly and start producing 1s and 0s in a very long string. The string's length is the product of 11 prime numbers. The 1s and 0s when organized as a square of specific dimensions form a rasterized circle.”
Hmmm.
So that's probably where the rumor started
And it is probably fictional
Like the plot of the book
Unbelievable because fabricated
Machel
Although it is not related to the article,
What is the alternative solution to what you propose (50 years)?
If they don't accept the condition, what is the 'plan B' you propose? continue the skirmish? Or is there no 'plan B'?
I would suggest to Noam Shalit to pressure Hamas and not the government, and at the same time also come to the Karni crossing and demand that the government open the crossing and enter Gaza. When you enter, go from house to house (without weapons) and look for Gilad Shalit. To make sure that the IDF clears the way for them and takes care of their safety, and to attach to those people (who are looking for) reporters/journalists with foreign citizenship (Europeans, Americans) who will go 'hand in hand' with Noam Shalit and go door to door. If something happens and they try to harm them, immediately involve the IDF forces to deal with the incidents. (And if a situation occurs where there are casualties on our side, to initiate an attack on the terrorists even if it involves a declaration of war on the part of the government, and to begin eradicating terrorism from Gaza once and for all)
This way, the countries of the world will come to our side, support our actions and see what the Palestinian terrorists are really doing.
In my opinion, after this happens, we will not have to worry about Syria, because Syria will not be in a situation where it can even threaten us and will have to come to meet us in negotiations on the land of the Golan Heights. The world will be on our side, and the Egyptians and Jordanians will continue and strengthen the peace with us. But of course this is just my opinion (not related to the article).
Who said occupation is a bad thing? Only postmodernist movements with a twisted agenda have made the word "occupation" equivalent to anything negative in the world. I strongly protest this - the Golan Heights are occupied just as the Dan Block is occupied; It was simply conquered in another war. The reason why the Arabs did not recognize the legality of this occupation (and carried away quite a few policy-making Jews with them), is that in that war we wiped their face, this is where it begins and this is where it ends.
What feeds the hatred towards us is excessive laziness, and it is precisely the insistence on the righteousness of the way that deters the enemy.
Mirom Golan:
It is "ours" because we conquered it.
The reason why we occupied this land was security and as long as our security is not guaranteed we must not give it up.
The reason was not imperialistic (lack of land) and we have no reason to keep it in our hands because of lack of land because that is the kind of thing that feeds the hatred that many people have towards us.
We have the option of trying to reach peace with the Syrians who will not give it up or fight for it forever.
Since I do not believe the Syrians that if I give them the land today they will give up the war against me, I propose to assure them that they will receive the land after fifty years of normalization.
In my estimation - after fifty years, economic cooperation will already be created on such a scale that it will be difficult for them to give up its advantages in order to achieve... basically nothing except more losses on the battlefield.
Be that as it may, I did not present these things to advance my political views, but only to point out the type of considerations that Professor Uman ignored.
This is what I also wrote in my response - and I quote: "It seems to me that even those who do not accept my solution will understand that it exposes a fundamental error in Uman's argument."
Michael,
If I said something, then I meant that we should keep the little land we have simply because it is ours, please don't look for other reasons. I do not measure the security viability of the Jewish presence in Yosh or the Golan just as I do not measure that in the Tel Aviv, nor do I make considerations of economic viability for any locality.
To be honest, as soon as the State of Israel makes such considerations, it becomes a very dark place, unfortunately. If you are really opposed to imperialism, then you surely know that the Arab presence in most of the territories of the Arab League stems from imperialism, and the trend is not going to decrease if we encourage them to usurp more territories - in case such a thought crossed your mind.
I did not say that there is a "logical" reason to provide evolutionary drives.
These are impulses.
If a certain situation pleases me more than another situation - I will try to switch to that situation.
On the way there I will activate - as necessary the logic.
I don't put my hand in the fire because it hurts.
There is no logic at the base of this behavior (although it is possible to explain with logic why the urge to avoid burning exists) but certainly there is no religiosity in it either.
Michael, honestly I didn't decide not to understand. I do not believe that there is a logical reason in the sense of logic to satisfy evolutionary drives. Maybe there is a reason in the sense of common sense, but in common sense science has no advantage over religion in common sense you have to accept emotion as the source of truth.
courage:
If you understand why I would act logically to satisfy my evolutionary urges then you don't understand.
I think it's really clear to anyone who hasn't decided in advance not to understand.
Mirom Golan:
Since you decided to deviate from the actual discussion of aggression, I will consider sending you back to Syria as well.
When you said that we should give what we don't have - land - you actually said that we should keep the land we conquered because we don't have land.
This is the definition of imperialism.
I really thought you would understand that.
Nir,
It may be that our reality is mathematical in itself, so there is no wonder here.
And besides - did you raise the possibility that mathematics describes the laws of physics beautifully because it was built for this purpose?
Good Day
I think it's an excellent book and I really liked the end and the beginning which correspond with each other and create a full circle of the story. As someone who as a child was fascinated by the mathematical connections between decimal fractions and the number Pi, I really connect with the beginning and end of the book. As far as I'm concerned, it's clear that Carl Sagan wrote the end and the beginning as a narrative way in which he tries to convey to the readers the mystical experience of scientific investigation. ZA the experience that you are exploring something bigger and more sublime than you, exploring the infinite. Regardless of whether there is a God or not. This is just a symbolic way to convey an experience of transcendence from the strange connection between mathematics and the laws of nature, why does mathematics match and predict the laws of nature?
Recommended book
Michael,
Your predictions about what will happen in fifty years sound about as credible to me as the New Age rants about 2012, sorry for being blunt. That the Syrians will give up war?
Remind me where I said something like that... how exactly does colonialism sound from my words? I mentioned a very simple fact.
Michael,
I agree that Natan was not fair in his criticism of you and also that he expressed himself aggressively from the beginning (38), it seems that he is carrying towards you (as well as towards me and towards Noam) more charges from the discussion on the topic of counterfeiters and false prophets (...) - may he be healthy.
In my response, I did not make light of him and did not defend his positions for a second as if everything was kosher and it would be nice for everyone to express their positions - I agree with your position (45) that the postmodern failure to differentiate between truth and lies is a sick evil that does not distinguish between the theory of evolution and the musings of Hazy and between the standard model and the particles of ghosts.
even though,
As far as I'm concerned, Natan is a new figure in the 'Yedan' landscape (it's very possible that I'm wrong and this is an old troll with many misdeeds and you'll know that better than I do), who, through his own fault or not, made a poor impression on me, you, Men'am, Yehuda, Reuven and other people. Since for me he is new, I will try to convince him to reconsider his impression.
If I get the impression that this is impossible and he is convinced that any idiot who spews out his ideas should be treated seriously, I will stop answering him seriously the way I have been doing until now.
deer:
We are dealing with trifles, but still - the word he used in his response is the word "liar" and I think he also knows the word "stupid" so I see no reason to make it easy for him as you do.
Michael,
It is true that he brought Prof. Oman up for discussion - but it was in order to show you that there are intelligent religious people and not in order to attract you to say that Prof. Oman is lying by the very fact that he is religious (in response 59 you claimed that Reuven was lying and hence, the wrong context was made, to which Natan responded As if you claim that every religious person is a liar).
Upon re-reading, there is no doubt that your comment regarding Professor Uman's "bluff" (62) is very qualified and really intended to make it clear that it is nothing more than a passing comment, therefore the statement as if you are attacking Professor Uman for lying is really exaggerated.
Surely the reader found in my words what he wanted to find.
After all, he claimed (response 60) that according to Israel Oman, he was lying even before I even talked about Israel Oman.
When he claims that according to Yisrael Uman, he is lying, I told him that it is not true, but I thought it appropriate to present a case where he nevertheless did not sin by telling the truth.
It has to do with many things, including religion's tendency to make people behave dishonestly (and I think this is exactly what is happening with Israel Omen).
Ada Yonat committed a similar sin in the past, but hearing the audience's reaction, she realized that she crossed the line and did not repeat it.
Israel Oman, on the other hand, continues to do so continuously.
It is very possible that he does so,
He will not be the first to do this and probably not the last either (which of course does not make it normal).
We will agree that as of now (before some troll proposes an alternative theory) we will not challenge the correctness of his discoveries in mathematical game theory, while as for his political analyzes - he is a smart man and his honor is in his place, but there are smart arguments here and there and everyone will judge according to their logic - it is clear that this is not an analysis of reality perfect.
The point was that unfortunately, a large number of people see game theory as nothing more than pranks along the lines of the prisoner's dilemma or the blackmailer's paradox, and thus they think that by commenting on Prof. Uman's analysis in this case, you are challenging his mathematical theory.
The choice of the word "bluffing" was incorrect in this respect as it led to a misinterpretation of your words - although I certainly do not think that it was harsh to the extent that it is fair to say that you are accusing Prof. Uman of actual lies and it seems that the reader found in your words what he wanted to find .
deer:
In relation to the artist - I wrote "bluffing" only because I thought he was smart enough to understand by himself that he is not presenting reality as it should.
That's why I also wrote "bluffing" and not "lying".
I have already read quite a few of his things and in many of them I saw the same kind of bias.
He uses his publication as a game theorist to promote his political views and writes "as if mathematical" articles that lack objectivity.
Nathan
I think that you came to the current discussion, as well as the previous discussion (forgers and false prophets) with the aim of hearing and not speaking and for that I sincerely appreciate you. However, not all of the commenters here are like you, it upsets you and you therefore get into conflicts, but it seems to me that this time (67 and 85), maybe like last time you chose the wrong enemy.
The one who raises the exceptional position, in most cases is not the knight of freedom, but the opposite.
When Yehuda attacked Einstein's theory (and this is only slightly worse than calling the ousting of Brazil by Holland a "black day") he does not do so out of a deep familiarity with it and the preference for the other theory (in this case his) is mainly due to the fact that he has a theory and he wants it to play**.
When Reuben arrives at the site and explodes in a religious outpouring about the great miracle of the existence of the laws of nature - he does not do this in order to hold a real discussion and he does not care at all that for the most part he is wrong (as God does not move in circles, the atmosphere evaporates all the time and the re-emergence of the sun does not will occur forever). What is important to Reuven is to voice his position loud and clear and real and honest arguments will not help here - a discussion will not grow from it.
It is clear that laws of nature exist and to most of the commenters on the site it is clear that the study of nature itself will not explain their origin. Therefore, it is understood that there is ground for a possible real philosophical discussion here and in this respect Reuven does not present anything unknown here.
However, in contrast to other issues, on such issues, fruitful discussions usually do not grow here, and it seems to me that the blame in this case is not placed on the "secular" respondents but on the "religious" respondents.
I did not have a discussion with Noam or R. H. on a non-scientific topic (although I think that the things are true for them as well), but with Michael I held a discussion about two months ago on the subject of the principle of the right to land. We did not agree in the discussion and I believe that we still do not agree, and even so I did not feel disrespect or disrespect from Michael for the mere fact that my opinion is different from his.
I think that his disdain (which he shows aggressively - perhaps exaggerated) is usually towards those who do not come to have a discussion but only to voice their positions - they do not listen at all, are not ready to use the tools of examining the facts, analysis, drawing conclusions or any other logical tool and we will see Lee Sherauben as revealed in the discussion so far meets this definition.
In conclusion,
There is no doubt that in the current conversation no real discussion is taking place and it does not seem to me that any of the commenters think so. However, be careful not to dismiss intelligent people just because of the lack of civility they show towards the ignorant and/or ignorant.
This is a common mistake of people who sincerely come to listen and thus they find themselves in every discussion, showing empathy precisely for those with the anti-rational positions who do not come to hold any conversation because it is not possible under their own agenda.
The thought that anyone can express his opinion and anyone who opposes him is a knight of freedom, leads many nice, innocent and honest Scandinavians to actively support radical Islamic organizations.
=========================================
** Note that this is not similar to Michael's attack on Israel Oman, since Michael did not attack Israel Oman's mathematical Mishnah (which you and I will not understand since we have no knowledge of game theory - Michael, as a mathematician, may have such knowledge, I really do not know which is not relevant), but rather a very specific analysis of political reality in the spirit of "game theory for the masses". By the way, I think this analysis is nice and beautiful, not bad, and in my opinion, even in Michael's view, it would be wrong to say that Prof. Uman is "bluffing", but perhaps not examining reality in a broad enough way.
Nathan:
I forgot to write you something about the ugly rant you wrote at the end of your last comment.
This nonsense - not only is it not true - it is also stupid.
How can I even "blackmail" you into giving up public opinion to me when public opinion is not in your hands?
If you want the public's opinion, you'd better write something interesting.
Did you notice that you did not respond to the article at all and entered the discussion just to attack me?
Did you notice that of all the commenters to the article, only from my response (11) can you understand what is really happening behind the article?
Did you notice that the whole argument started with Reuven's response which is nothing more than one big lie that does not refer to the article at all?
Mirom Golan:
You are wrong.
The Golan was not in our hands when the state was established and no one planned to conquer it.
We occupied it as a result of the security situation and if the security situation had not been so bad we would not have occupied it and even then we would not have had it.
In other words - your claim is exactly what our detractors expect to hear - that our occupations are motivated by imperialist reasons and not security reasons.
After fifty years of normalization there will be a different situation in the region (again - if normalization is defined correctly) and the Syrians will have no motivation to fight.
Reuven:
I have already answered more than once to ramblings like yours regarding the State of Israel.
Here's an example:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/does-et-look-like-us-2301101/#comment-261065
Nathan:
This is not his area of expertise.
His area of expertise is game theory, which does have a role in policy, but before using it, you need to know how to correctly translate reality into a mathematical problem.
You don't learn that in game theory, and in that he was wrong.
I know you want one judgment for Judah and me.
I have already said that you are a postmodernist, so it is clear that the only thing you see as wrong is the defense of the truth.
From * as:
First, the situation in question belongs to Mr. Uman's field of expertise, which is game theory.
To be clear, I do not see anything wrong with disputing the words of a Nobel laureate. I say to you that Judah's judgment should be equal to Machel's judgment.
For the situation described by Yisrael Uman, I believe that the discussions on this website are extremely relevant.
M*Kal sees every discussion as an arena for bickering. The talkback area is the small room, public opinion is the suitcase.
Guess which side M*kal represents.
Keep it up and you will surely get your 90 percent and come out victorious!
And what about the truth? Who even cares about her
The universe was not created for humans, humans are nothing more than a biological machine, to think that the universe was created for humans is egomaniacal arrogance, the universe will exist after being destroyed by the sun or an asteroid, God is an invention of humans about 8000 years ago, there is no need In God or an intelligent being or any other nonsense to explain the universe, and have a good day.
to give
The reason for the permanent unchangeable legality is that change one fundamental law of the earth and it collapses. There is no shortage of crazy people who would try to change laws for fun, if it were possible. If we sail in imagination to an invisible future, over time more permanent basic laws will be discovered, science will go on and on, until a situation where they will try to change the rules, out of curiosity or out of malice for the sake of it. For example, a person can slow down the rotation of the earth, around its axis or speed it up and more "games" such as these. For this purpose, the permanent legality was established, so that it would be impossible to make any changes.
To Michael
Response 82 is addressed to you.
In light of your arguments, in relation to wars, values and morality, you should not live in the State of Israel. since in 48,
You drove out another people, in order to settle in their place. The same happened with the expulsion of the Canaanites. Maybe your house is built on
Land that was confiscated from a refugee from Jabaliya. If you believe in the values as you claim, you are obligated to return the keys and oblige others to act in the same way that you believe. Believing in values on paper is not enough, they must be put into practice. "Nice requires niceness and fulfills", or as soon as there is a personal touch the values fade away.
Israel is required to give exactly the one thing it does not have - land, while the Arabs are required to give exactly the one thing they do not have - peace.
Rah:
Not true.
This is an alternative that is not at all described in Oman's words.
This span of fifty years (or any other span) will not drop the matter and I explained why: I wrote that many tomorrows have already passed. After all, they know that if they don't agree - they won't accept - after all, we have also shown that we are good at insisting.
More than that - here we can really insist wholeheartedly.
Rejecting a course of action on the grounds that the other party will not agree to it is a common type of argument among Israelis.
This is a sure way to miss opportunities and in my working life I have already been through many such situations.
Because in my work environment I had influence - people agreed to try my proposals that were sure the other side would be rejected and see it's a miracle - the other side accepted and the conflict was over.
A proposal to accept the Golan after fifty years of normalization is an achievement for Syria which knows that in fifty years of war it will lose many soldiers and not accept it.
R.H
My comment is awaiting approval. I wonder why?
Mi-L, please handle the matter.
Shabbat Shalom
Yehuda Sabdarmish
to R.H
Where did you find 72?, it happened in the last second of extra time that an Uruguayan player deflected a ball from the goal line with his hand, got a red and flew out of the game but Ghana's penalty was kicked out and in fact.... In the end, I will advance Uruguay to the semi-finals in a penalty shootout. I wonder what Omen or maybe Darwin would say about this? After all, we have altruism in its fulfillment!, the only one in the group volunteered to steal a red so that the group would profit.
Does this show that the universe has a purpose? Or maybe there is a God and he is not in Africa.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda, leave Maradona. Did you see a black day in the World Cup? First Brazil and then the demons of Ghana miss a penalty in the 72nd minute ????
Only that Germany doesn't blow Argentina away tomorrow and then we'll move on to watch tests instead.
God,
Your proposal about normalization is exactly the stage described in the story:
"Reuven can't believe what he's hearing. "What is happening to Shimon?", he thinks to himself. "Why will he receive 90% of the amount, and I will receive only 10%?". He decides to try to talk about Shimon's heart. "Come on, be reasonable", he implores him. "We are both in the same situation, and we both want the money. Let's divide the amount equally
And we will both benefit." But Shimon does not seem bothered by his friend's reasoned explanation. He listens attentively
According to him, and at the end states even more decisively: "There is nothing to talk about." 90-10 or nothing, that's my offer
The last one."
You/Israel will try to talk about the hearts of the Syrians and offer Golan after normalization and they will without blinking say that "there is nothing to talk about, or Golan and then peace or nothing, this is our last offer." And now the question is what to do?
In my opinion, what is missing in the described debate is the emotional response in which in reality most of the people (Israelis) I know would prefer to leave empty-handed and the main thing is that no brats come out in front of Shimon. The story with Syria is a bit more complex, but in general I accept Prof. Uman's analysis.
Lm. Response 70
Why do you state that I compare myself to Einstein? where did you see that
The fact that I make mistakes about Newton, Einstein, Bibi Netanyahu and even Maradona, does not mean that I compared myself to them.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael, the universe is random - meaning the universe appeared out of nothing without any meta-legality to explain it.
For the purpose of this discussion, I am not interested in different technical definitions of randomness, I speak Hebrew.
I just don't understand why you would act rationally to satisfy your evolutionary urges optimally.
And no, if there is no reason it doesn't make sense.
DA, I like efficiency, so you are welcome to ask "why" also about the reason you find, and so on, until you arrive at something illogical because you will not arrive at a logical final answer.
I claim that you are a living refutation of your claim, not mine.
By the way, "Nathan the wise":
I did not see your reference to response 62.
It's not that you haven't responded since then but I guess since you can't handle the allegations you just ignored them.
This is an accepted method for people who have decided in advance what their opinion is and will not let the facts confuse them.
In relation to the means of crowd control:
First of all - it was not the Pope who fabricated Christianity just as the Chief Rabbi did not fabricate Judaism.
This too enslaved the mass control machine built by some people from a culture that by today's standards was completely backward.
Of course, in the religious establishment there are even today those who know how to take advantage of the machine and the masses of ignorant people prove this.
I don't know how smart the Pope is.
I never heard a word of wisdom from him.
On the other hand, I don't know what this has to do with our case.
courage:
Whether you call it religiosity or whether you call it a can of corn - I believe that the universe lacks any purpose - regarding randomness - I don't think it's random and I don't think you know what randomness is, so according to your wrong definitions it's true that you see me as someone who thinks that the universe is completely random and yet I don't choose not to do nothing
I act according to the impulses imprinted in me by evolution and according to logical considerations that show me how these impulses will reach optimal satisfaction.
Nothing religious.
I am merely a living refutation of your claim and you simply prefer to ignore it.
You remind me of the person who enters a zoo and when he sees a giraffe he says - it's not possible! There is no such animal.
Nathan:
I'm sorry to say this, but you really prove Einstein's hypothesis that there is no limit to stupidity.
When I ask Yehuda how he compares himself to Einstein, I do so after showing him in dozens of ways that his claims are wrong.
When I talk about Israel's mistake/bluff, I do so because I have clear evidence of this.
More than that - this is a statement by a craftsman that does not belong to his field of expertise.
You have already proven that you do not understand either science or me and you should stop bragging as if you did.
Because unlike arguing with Natan, there is a point in the debate I have with Uman on the subject of Syria - I will present here - both Uman's words and my response to them.
It seems to me that even those who do not accept my solution will understand that it exposes a fundamental error in Uman's argument.
The following are Oman's words followed by my response.
Negotiations with Arab countries - the blackmail paradox
Prof. Israel Oman
The Blackmailer's Paradox
The Blackmailer's Paradox
Reuven and Shimon are put into a small room where there is a suitcase containing $100,000 in bills. The owner of the suitcase offers them the following offer: "I will give you the money in the suitcase, but only on condition
One... you are required to negotiate and reach an agreement on how to divide it. That's the only way I'll agree to give it to you
The money".
The rational Reuven appreciates the golden opportunity that has come before him and turns to Shimon with the request: "Come
Take half of the amount, I'll take the other half, and each of us will go our separate ways with $50,000." To his surprise, Shimon looks serious and says in a determined voice: "Listen, I don't know what your intentions are regarding the money,
But I'm not ready to leave the room with less than $90,000. It's good for you to take, it's not good for you, as far as I'm concerned we'll both go home with nothing."
Reuven can't believe his ears. "What is happening to Shimon?", he thinks to himself. "Why will he receive 90% of the amount, and I will receive only 10%?". He decides to try to talk about Shimon's heart. "Come on, be reasonable", he implores him. "We are both in the same situation, and we both want the money. Let's divide the amount equally
And we will both benefit." But Shimon does not seem bothered by his friend's reasoned explanation. He listens attentively
According to him, and at the end states even more decisively: "There is nothing to talk about." 90-10 or nothing, that's my offer
The last one".
Reuven's face is red with anger. He is about to punch Shimon in the face, but immediately pulls back. he
Understands that Shimon is determined to get the most money, and that the only way out of the room is with some
, amount is to submit to his blackmail. He arranges his clothes, pulls out $10,000 bills from the suitcase, shakes Shimon's hand and leaves the room with a humiliated look.
This case is known in game theory as the "Blackmailer Paradox". The paradox that emerges from it is that Reuven
The rational is ultimately forced to behave in a manifestly irrational manner, in order to produce the
The maximum from the given situation in which he is. The logic behind this bizarre result is
Shimon conveys credibility and confidence in his excessive demand, and in this way he manages to convince Reuven
Give in to blackmail in order to get the best possible result.
The Arab-Israeli conflict
The political relationship between Israel and the Arab countries is also governed by the principles of this paradox.
The Arabs present rigid and unreasonable opening positions in every negotiation. They radiate confidence
and belief in their demands, and make it clear to Israel that they will never give up on these demands. debris
Choice, Israel is forced to submit to blackmail with the perception that if she does not submit, she will leave the room without accepting
Nothing. The most striking example of this is the negotiations with the Syrians, which are already being conducted at different intensities
how many years The Syrians made it clear in advance that they would never give up even a millimeter of the Golan Heights.
The Israeli side, so desirous of a peace agreement with the Syrians, recognized the Syrians' position, and today is in the discussion
The Israeli public is clear that the starting point for future negotiations with Syria must include a full withdrawal
from the Golan Heights, despite the critical strategic importance of the Golan in securing defensible borders
To Israel.
Resolving the failure
According to game theory, the State of Israel must go through some perceptual changes in order to improve the
position in the negotiation game with the Arabs, and to win the political struggle in the long term:
A. Willingness to waive agreements - The Israeli political concept is based on the assumption that we must
Reach an agreement with the Arabs at any cost, since a situation of no agreement is intolerable.
In "The Blackmailer's Paradox", Reuven's behavior is based on the concept that he must go out
from the room with any amount of money, even the smallest. Reuven's mental incapacity
Accepting the possibility that he might be forced to leave the room empty-handed makes him inevitably surrender
To extort and leave the room with a certain amount, but in shame and as a loser. in a similar way,
The State of Israel manages its trucking and conditioning from a mental position that does not allow it to postpone
Offers that do not suit her interests.
B. Consideration of "Repeat Games" - According to game theory, the situation must be treated sharply
One time in a completely different way than the situation that repeats itself several times, yes
In the game that repeats itself over time, a strategic balance is created that paradoxically causes sharing
Action between opposing parties. Such cooperation occurs when the parties realize that the game
will repeat itself many times, so they must consider what the effect of the moves that will be made will be
In the present over the games in the future, when the fear of future loss is a balancing factor. Reuven
He treated the situation he found himself in as a one-time game, and behaved accordingly. If there was an alternative
Informing Shimon that he will not give up the part he is entitled to even at the price of a total loss, would change the
The result of the game over time. Although it is very likely that in the current negotiations he would have left
out of the room empty-handed, but if they both find themselves in a similar situation in the future, Shimon will know
seriously and will be forced to reach a compromise with him. In the same way, Israel must act out of patience
and long-term vision, even at the price of renouncing an agreement and continuing the state of war, and this in order to
improve its position in future negotiations.
third. Faith in your positions - Another element that creates the "blackmailer's paradox" is the absolute security of
One side in his positions, in this case of Shimon. Full confidence creates an inner conviction of righteousness
these positions, and in the second stage he also convinces the opponent of their rightness. The direct result of this is
The opponent's desire to reach a compromise even at the cost of irrational surrender and complete distancing
His opening positions. Several years ago I spoke with a senior officer who argued that we must withdraw
From the Golan within the framework of a peace settlement, because from the point of view of the Syrians this is holy land anyway
They will not give her up. I explained to him that the Syrians convinced themselves that this was holy land,
And then they convinced us of that too. The deep inner conviction of the Syrians makes us surrender
to their dictates. This situation will only be resolved if we convince ourselves of the rightness of our positions. Just faith
Filled with our demands, you will also succeed in convincing the Syrian opponent to consider our positions.
Like any science, game theory does not pretend to have an opinion on moral and ethical issues, but rather
To strategically analyze the behavior of opposing parties for a joint game. The State of Israel is playing
in such a game against her enemies. Like any game, even in the Arab-Israeli game there are creative interests
the framework of the game and its rules. Unfortunately, the State of Israel ignores basic Olim principles
from game theory. If the State of Israel is wise enough to act according to these principles, its political position will be in any case
Security will improve significantly.
reactive:
In my opinion - although the game is correctly analyzed - it does not represent reality in the sense that it does not take into account all the ways of acting that exist in reality and do not exist in the game.
Even when Syria says that it wants the entire Golan Heights - it does not insist on accepting it "until tomorrow" and this is well proven in many "tomorrows" that have passed.
It is important for her to know in principle that she will receive the Golan in the future.
Immediately after the occupation of the plateau, I told my friends that the way to reach peace with the Syrians is to offer them an agreement according to which they will receive the entire Golan Heights after 50 years of normalization of relations.
Despite all the water that has dried up since then in Jordan - this is my opinion even today.
In my opinion, this type of agreement (with proper adjustment of the parameters and a proper definition of "what is normalization") - can be acceptable to both parties.
In addition, if religion is only a means of controlling the masses, we should not see the Pope who is at the top of the religious hierarchy praying as the last of the faithful. And as someone who managed to get his hands on so much power, I believe he is just as smart as some famous scientists, both in terms of intelligence and common sense.
In Judaism they say that God also prays.
Michael, I'm not a religious person at all, and I don't intend to kill myself for writing this comment.
It's fun for you and you have moral feelings and more, does not mean that there is any logic and logic in it.
The feeling that connects your motives to logic, is a religious feeling.
You can write endless logical chains breaking your arguments down into smaller and smaller arguments, but you won't find any reason to do anything that doesn't stem from some point outside the logically intelligible world.
From * as:
Your sermons would not embarrass any religious preacher and your fanatical belief in your righteousness does not fall short of that of a devout Haredi.
In the discussion with Yehuda, you resented his audacity to compare his theories with those of Einstein, and here you are doing a similar thing, questioning the intellectual integrity of a Nobel Prize winner.
In your world there is a clear division into truth and lies, black and white, good and bad. God is the only standard.
He who joins the camp is a friend, he who opposes is a bitter enemy.
As far as I understand science, criticism is the mechanism that moves it forward.
As far as I have come to know you, criticism is your bitter enemy.
Reuven:
What a mess.
There have been mass extinctions of animals long before there were humans.
There were millions of people who died from tsunamis and other natural disasters long before they even knew how to warn.
Even nowadays - those who die from a tsunami are not those who you claim could have warned (by the way - are you sure they could? Why didn't you warn? Do you think that hundreds of thousands of people should have died because you didn't warn?)
Even in wars, many are killed who have no fault.
You demonstrate very well how religion distorts all logic and morality.
courage:
Not really true.
You can ignore the fact that I don't believe in God wholeheartedly and still find a lot of interest in life, but I don't think you're doing a particularly smart thing by doing so.
I have no reason to begin detailing why it is fun to live as a human being with all the feelings - including the morality involved in that and not as a robot that suppresses its natural sense of morality so that it can kill Shabbat breakers and homosexuals or evade the army or put the burden of its livelihood on others.
To Michael
Extinction of animals is man-made. How many animals and birds does man slaughter every day, in order to feed humanity.
Humans reproduce, thus competition between humans and animals is created for the same territory. This is a matter of survival.
If it were the other way around, the animals would cause the extinction of man.
As for plagues, humans did not maintain minimal hygiene, due to lack of awareness of the issue. Do bowel movements, wash with the same water they drank from.
Wars break out as a result of conflict between people, because of misunderstanding, for reasons of prestige and respect
the national or for the purposes of taking over territory. Any war can be avoided if there is an understanding between the parties.
Regarding the tsunami, the disaster could have been prevented if there had been a warning in time. This is the result of negligence on the part of those in charge.
The death of Ilan Ramon is also the result of negligence on the part of the planners. They knew there was a problem, but for reasons of prestige and ego,
They took a risk and the launch of the shuttle was not canceled.
Do not cancel the tracking of the asteroids, in order to prevent a disaster. If there is a way to prevent an earthquake,
Or a warning, to a large extent it must be realized.
I think the interesting question here is purpose.
If the universe is a completely random and purposeless machine, then as logical people we must, in every moment of clarity, choose to do nothing.
Every moment we do something, we submit our logic to natural laws that dictate stupid and meaningless behavior.
Although it hurts, but for the sake of doing the logical thing people were already willing to suffer a lot, and I think we can meet the challenge of lying all day without moving until we crumble.
If, on the other hand, you feel that you have some kind of general purpose for your actions in life, talking about the source of that purpose starts to sound more and more like talking about God.
Nathan:
My division of the respondents into two types - not only is it naive but it does not exist. It's just another invention of yours of a trait of the scarecrow you want to attack.
I was talking here about one liar and one truth teller.
The liar has already proven himself to be such in a great many ways (including recently by referring only to man-made disasters for which he had some well-worn mantra and ignoring the fact that many of the disasters I listed are not man-made, but also in almost every one of his responses when he spoke decisively about things he clearly knows who does not know).
The truth-teller also proved himself to be such all along the way.
We didn't talk about Oman and I don't know that Oman deals with conversion.
The truth is that I have already seen Uman...well, well....bluffing (in the article he distributed about Israel-Syria relations which he reduced to the paradox of extortion while ignoring many elements of reality. I don't think he really tried to solve the problem and I'm sure if he did it honestly he would have seen the deception in his words , but it is not relevant to us).
If you see nothing false in the claim that it is impossible to change the course of Mars as a whole;
If you do not see as false the claim that every law requires a legislator, but the law that every law requires a legislator does not have a legislator;
If (despite all evidence to the contrary) you do not detect a lie in the claim that the world is perfect and everything in it works in harmony;
If you don't see the lie in the claim that such a complex world requires (because of the complexity and sophistication) a creator but such a creator (which is obviously much more complex and sophisticated) does not need a creator;
If you do not detect a lie in your claim that I express disdain for anyone who says something that does not align with my beliefs;
If you don't see a lie in your claim regarding the division of the responders that I supposedly do - into two types;
If you don't see a lie in all of these then you probably don't see a lie at all.
I wonder if anyone has already thought of the phrase "blind lies"
Reuven 55,
If you believe that God does not interfere in the actions of humans then the question becomes meaningless. How can it be proven if 12 billion years ago the world was created by itself or if some intelligent entity emerged, created and disappeared? There is currently no way to check this.
The problem is the projection made by all those who do believe that God created the world because then they also assume that they know his desires and in the name of these desires they live their lives in a strange way (for example they cut off the genitals of their sons, do not eat milk with meat, do not allow a woman to show her The faces, homosexuals, don't marry and live in a monastery all their lives - just choose the religion). And in addition, in the name of these desires, they hurt others from throwing stones at them on Shabbat to burning and torturing them according to the best imagination of the Inquisition.
From * as:
I think your division of the respondents into truth tellers and liars is a bit naive. My analysis of motives is also not accurate - I know neither you nor Reuven, I am not judging the content of your words, only the way they are expressed, which was also repeated in the discussion with Yehuda.
I really don't think there is anything "false" in Reuven's words. Is Professor Israel Oman, a Nobel laureate, also a liar? I think that if you ask him about the source of harmony in nature, he will answer you in the spirit of Reuven's words, and this is how every religious person believes. There is no lie here
I emphasize that there is nothing here that is not postmodernist.
Postmodernism puts the truth and the lie on the same level and this is what Nathan does.
The appropriate question is not new to anyone and in my opinion every child asks it from the day it was on his mind.
Therefore there is no need to upload it.
Reuven brings it up just to give us his false "answers".
I didn't say anything in the rulings that I don't know for sure.
Natan, on the other hand, puts words and intentions into the commenters' mouths that were never expressed in the commenters' words - just so that he would have a reason to discredit the truth-teller and exalt the liar.
I emphasize, if this was not clear, that I am against a decisive approach. This is true of Reuven's words and it is equally true of Michael's words. There is no postmodernist claim here, it is a claim more related to a proper discussion culture and modesty.
There is a proper question (to which Reuven answers with rulings that I think is not proper) of what is the source of laws in nature, what is the reason and nature of the laws in nature.
In my opinion, this is what the discussion should be about - and not about God, which, as mentioned, is too loaded a word.
If the claim is that there is an existence for something that is eternal, unchanging and has no cause or cause for its creation, this seems puzzling to me, or at least clearly incomprehensible.
What created those laws? Is the fact that they are immutable another law? Is this law also immutable (and thus we added another law)? What is the nature of those laws?
If I may comment, I'm a bit sorry that the discussion went in the direction of a pointless bickering that repeats itself over and over again. The matter of the message-in-the-pie is interesting enough to support a fruitful discussion even without degenerating into such bickering.
Of course, the facts continue to be ignored.
A frying pan is a frying pan is a frying pan
to R.H
Why blame God for wars and all the horrors on earth. Wars are waged by humans, because of their stupidity. This is not a malicious plan that God dictates. In my opinion there is no intervention of God, in relation to man's actions.
Humans won the earth, and it is their business what they do with it. They will want to live in peace, they will live, they will want its destruction and destruction, this
Depends on the people themselves. If the force of destruction overcomes the laws of nature, man will disappear from the world.
In Reuven's eyes, everything works in harmony and without faults because he defines everything that happens as part of that harmony.
Here are some selected parts of the harmony:
Mass extinctions of animals.
Mass extinctions of humans as a result of disease.
Mass extinctions as a result of wars.
A tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people.
The death of Ilan Ramon.
I assume that in his opinion the tracking of asteroids approaching the earth should be canceled because if one of these destroys humanity - that too will be part of the harmony.
to give
Not all are equal, understandably.
The reasons (and not from a religious motive) regarding the cycles of movement in the universe, the eternally fixed order and legality, so that everything
Works in complete harmony and without faults, it is not a self-evident thing, created by itself. It can be summed up like this, a supreme being who created the universe once and for all, with operating instructions and basic laws, which cannot be changed when nature applies them in practice. It comes out where the entire universe with all its contents, are subject to the same fixed fundamental laws.
I do not come to preach any faith. Man, man shall live by his faith. I make my claims, because I saw it as necessary.
Reuben,
(41)
Surely there is a contradiction between belief in a supreme being and investigation, after all you stated that it is not possible to investigate a supreme being!
You wrote: "These laws were created by a higher being" - I hope you don't consider this sentence as proof...
So here is a counter-sentence: "These laws were not left by a higher being"
Do you ** logically ** recognize any advantage to either sentence?
(46)
You wrote: "The question arises, where did the material of that point come from and who caused the explosion"
And I ask: Where did the supreme being come from and who created it?"
Do you ** logically ** notice the difference between the two sentences?
To me, your arguments are completely illogical, but reflect a desperate need to believe that behind this amazing universe, there is intent and purpose.
Of course you have the right to believe this, especially if it makes you feel more meaningful in life, but make a distinction: this is a psychological need, and in no way a logical conclusion or a scientific conclusion.
Reply 46,
Your claim is completely religious - as long as they did not discover the source of the material, then it is about a higher being. Even things that cannot be seen can be proven or disproved. Then prove the existence of that entity. Do something that goes against the being's will and we'll see what happens...
Reuben,
As mentioned, I don't think we currently have the tools to decide whether the universe was created on purpose or not.
You come with an explanation: "There is an intelligent being in the name of God who created everything", the burden of proof is on you. The burden of proof is on the claimant. If I claim that the spaghetti monster created everything, the burden of proof will be on me.
You also say "we feel it at every turn", I don't know who you speak for when you say "we". I don't feel anything, on the contrary I think that if the world was run by a supreme judge it would be much more just and good and there would be no wars and no children dying of cancer or in gas chambers.
Reuven:
So what do we have here?
Mila - you say that none of the commenters here know logic.
You also claim that Einstein did not know logic and that in fact most scientists do not know logic
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
You are wrong, and I exposed the logical errors in your words for all to see.
You ignore them, of course, because you have no answer and instead of addressing things you simply repeat your worn out and stupid mantras (if we ignore for a moment the comments that were censored because they contained nothing but profanity)
Nathan,
I agree with everything you say. Indeed there are great religious scientists and of course great religious intellectuals and morals. However, they are also not decisive like Reuven, and if M. *Kal's style bothers you, it is appropriate that Reuven's preaching style should also.
Shabbat Shalom!
And just to emphasize, where does the decisive claim come from: "No one can change, even a little, the distance of Mars from the Earth."
Is this a serious statement that can be considered at all? (Except for Bzura in which I still refer to her)
Of course it is possible to change, and even significantly, the distance between Mars and the Earth!
to R. H.
My claims do not stem from religious motives, but from strictly logical ones. There is an opinion that the big bang started, from one tiny point, from which the universe was created by the expansion. The question arises, where did the material of that point come from and who caused the explosion. It is impossible for this to happen by itself, without outside intervention and a guiding hand. The claims regarding permanent basic laws,
according to which the universe runs, cannot be refuted. In this order, the conclusion is that there is a supreme being, even though one cannot see it
it, but you feel it at every step. Its existence cannot be denied, just because it is not seen.
Prove to me that there is no such being.
Nathan:
I don't think tolerance should be shown towards liars and what Reuven is doing is lying.
He confidently makes claims that he knows he doesn't know. it's a lie.
You consistently defend liars.
This is a symptom of postmodernism and the mind cannot tolerate that either.
When you say that I behave with disdain towards anyone who expresses an opinion that denies my beliefs - you are simply lying to yourself and I have already said what I think about liars.
In relation to God:
It is indeed a religiously charged word.
All of Reuven's responses are also religiously charged.
You may want me to answer Reuven about things he doesn't talk about, but I don't intend to ask you what to do.
Your interpretations of Reuven's words are in direct contradiction with what he himself said.
He said that the laws of nature were enacted by God and not that God is the laws of nature.
Besides - you didn't even address the pitiful "logic" that I spoke about, so what were you even commenting on?
God (who does not exist) knows.
By the way, all your words about him asking good questions are nonsense in themselves.
Reuven talks about questions that every person asks himself (which makes them not particularly wise) and expresses himself only to express what he wants us to believe are the answers to these questions (which I do not intend to do because the "answers" he gives are worthless)
R.H.:
I certainly do not agree with Reuven's decisive approach. But I think he makes very good points, and his words are far from "pitiful". There are great and wise people who believe in God, and see the order in nature as evidence of this.
The interesting points in Reuven's words are his reference to the source of order and legality that we see in nature. That's a question I don't have an answer to.
Reuven and Nathan,
What disturbs Reuven's approach is the absolute decision regarding unknown things. In my opinion, this is one of the things that characterizes people of science versus people of faith. A scientist will never, even after a lot of proof, be so decisive and confident and will never limit himself with a thousand reservations.
On the other hand, Reuben comes and says "God exists a point" (13). Not "God exists with a high probability", not "I assume he exists" not "the confirmations for the existence of God are many". No, Reuven states that he exists, period!
God doesn't need me to defend him, but in this case I assume that the uncompromising but unfounded decision is what outrages him and every other person who believes in logic.
As a matter of fact, I very much agree with Noam that there is a very big difference between God and the laws of nature and the difference is the intention behind the creation. Was the universe intentionally created by an intelligent being or not? In my opinion, today we have no tools and no evidence to decide the question and I would be very happy if Reuven could present even a shred of evidence for a deliberate creation beyond the claim "it's obvious".
Respondent 40
I am convinced that a few thousand years ago when the word God was just invented, the word was a source of search and exploration of the truth, or 'the truth' or whatever you want to call it.
Today it may be that the word is not 'valued' enough, and is not considered particularly important. In other words, the importance of this word today is equal to the importance of learning to light a fire, for example.
To Noam
Nature is subject to laws dictated to it. Nature did not create the laws. There is no contradiction between belief in a supreme being and investigation
understand the world more. From looking around, you can learn and draw conclusions before science.
You don't have to wait for research in science, in order to reach insights. Science cannot solve all the issues that surround us.
Isaac Newton, who was a religious man, came to insights through observation and investigation, he did not invent anything out of thin air, he discovered basic laws that have existed since the universe was created, the same goes for Einstein and every other genius or scientist.
Basic laws cannot be changed in any way. No one can change, even slightly, the distance of Mars from a sphere
Country. The universe operates according to solid and permanent fundamental laws that cannot be changed. All are subject to these laws,
including nature. These laws were created by a higher being.
Reuben,
There is a significant difference between laws of nature and entities:
By the word "entity" we are talking about someone/something that has intentions and has a purpose. Natural laws have no intentions and no purpose - this is a huge difference.
In my opinion, the basic weakness of the "being" argument is that it does not explain, solve or advance anything. It altogether concentrates all the questions and wonders we investigate, about the multitude of bodies and forces in the universe, into one body, which by definition cannot be investigated.
In short, it is good for those who have given up on understanding the world around them.
As a guest for a moment I have a suggestion, why not ask the man himself? Here for example…
The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God by Carl Sagan Edited by Ann Druyan
No sarcasm, just that if the question of Sagan's faith is really interesting to someone, this is the place to look.
Shabbat Shalom
From * as:
First, regarding your disdainful attitude, which I see repeated every time someone makes a claim that contradicts your beliefs, I believe that this mainly indicates your weakness in dealing with the claims. This is not a gang fight, but a discussion that can be conducted in a respectable manner.
Regarding the claims themselves:
God is a word loaded with religious meaning. If we remove the religious burden from it for a moment and look for a moment at a small part of what this word entails, we will get an idea that its meaning is as follows:
A being that has no reason for its existence (or its creation). It has always existed. It explains everything we see around us. It is a being that there is no factor responsible for its creation.
If I understand Reuben correctly, he calls this being "God". If I understood the other commenters correctly, they call it "laws of nature".
Some people think that when they don't see something it's proof that that something doesn't exist.
Well, Nathan, this is not proof. When you don't see something it's only proof that you don't see it and not that it doesn't exist.
It's not even proof that others don't see him.
I actually see what is pitiable in Reuven's approach.
If he claims that God exists without the need for creation and that the "proof" of this is that he is called God, it is indeed pitiful and the sentence I wrote that replaces the word God with the word universe is meant to illustrate this to anyone who is willing to think.
The claim that in order to have laws there must be a legislator is also idiotic.
Is this claim legal? Who enacted this law? After all, this is supposed to be a law that proves the existence of God, so it is impossible that God enacted it.
In fact - the very existence of God who enacts all the laws (if he exists) disproves this claim!
In other words - God who enacts all the laws is an expression that includes an internal contradiction (if the world is pre-existing in such a way that there can be no law without a legislator) and therefore cannot describe anything that exists in reality.
Do you think that using claims that involve a logical contradiction is not pitiful?
A reasoning that has already been voiced here and which is similar to the above reasoning in its intuition is the familiar reasoning of "Who created God?".
If it is said that the world is so complex and sophisticated that it requires a creator, then this creator must be much more complex and sophisticated than the world and according to the same logic it requires a creator himself!
To me the lack of ability to see what is pitiable is also pitiable.
I think Reuven raises interesting questions. I don't see anything pitiful in his words.
The basic laws that Reuven is talking about, if they do exist, are a very puzzling thing.
What is the nature of those laws? Have they always existed?
If they are something eternal and unchanging - then we have something here that can be called God (or any other name we want. God is a term loaded with religious meaning and the claim here is not a religious claim but a philosophical one in essence). It means something permanent, unchanging, that explains to us all the phenomena we see.
The thing that Reuven calls "God", others call here "laws of nature".
Personally I don't believe in either.
These are the laws of physics... the activity in the universe is essentially non-random and is usually predictable today because we have learned the laws of physics.
Your idea that natural disasters are also a good and positive thing is an acceptable religious distortion...
The laws were created at the beginning of the universe as a product of strong and weak forces that acted on the primordial materials and resulted in physical balance. You yourself can also do it, when you create a sand castle from drops of mud that will drip between your fingers. The mud will reach a physical balance when the water sinks. There is no wonder here, at least not in the eyes of the secular...
Reuven:
First of all - as Gadi said - the only thing you managed to convince him of is that there is no point in arguing with you.
Your "logical" way of reasoning shows that you do not understand what logic is. That's the only thing you've really been able to prove.
I'll just add an idiotic claim like yours:
The universe is the only entity that was not created by any other force. Otherwise it would not be called a universe.
pathetic.
To 32
The fact that you wake up in the morning and see the sun rising from the east regularly, the fact that the orbit of the planets
around the sun, are in a constant cycle, that there are no interstellar collisions like billiard balls, that
That the atmosphere was not cut off from the earth as a protection for life, that there is day and night, that there is light and darkness, that there are four fixed seasons each year, that the living and the growing, dead and noble and God forbid, that everything in nature has times
For their existence, the fact that objects remain attached to the ground and do not escape into space, just like that. All this, these are basic laws according to which nature works. Super nova and black hole are also the result of the fundamental laws as the sun will end its existence one day. In the universe all the time, there is a collapse and birth of stars. Life is not a mistake, those who think so can also claim that the creation of the universe is a mistake. Duka meteors benefited the earth, they made an important contribution by distributing missing minerals on the planet.
Regarding an opinion against a fact, the disbelief in the existence of a supreme being is also an opinion and not a fact. Without the fundamental laws, the universe would collapse. But one certainly does not intend to create, a universe of such magnitude, in order to let it collapse.
The fundamental laws that were established together with the creation of the universe are what sustain the universe against collapse. It didn't happen by itself, there are those who thought, labored until it came to create a universe as it exists.
Even a rocket will not move from its place, if the fundamental laws are not applied to it, in order to detach itself from the ground.
Reuben,
What is a "failure" for you? How many places have you seen in the universe that you can claim that everything "runs smoothly, with unchanging and fixed fundamental laws"?
Is galaxy collision a glitch? A huge meteor that destroys life is a malfunction? And maybe life is a glitch?
I would appreciate it if you listed the basic rules...
To Mickey
God, is the only being that was not created by any other force. Otherwise she would not be called God. The question of who created God is endless, since the question will always be asked who created the one who created God and so on. God is a being that exists in its own right and is the beginning of everything, in the universe. There is no obligation to pray to him, it is a question of religion and faith, which is one story.
to Reuven Suppose an alien or an alien culture is behind the creation of the universe as it is today, then the question arises as to who created that entity or call it God, if you want. And likewise even if this is true, it still does not mean that this God is the God that people pray to and He hears and intervenes.
Reuven, I assume you understand the difference between opinion and fact. Your last response is all opinion (unreasoned - even what is apparently reasoning is based on weighty assumptions that no one here takes for granted).
Others - I assume that you also understand the difference and therefore understand that there is no point in continuing the discussion on the points that Reuven raised.
It is not possible that the universe was created by itself or created itself, without the intervention of some superior intelligent being. The very fact that there are laws according to which the universe operates, this indicates that there is someone who dictated these fundamental laws, according to which nature operates.
Nature does not know mathematics, a tangible entity does. The concepts of pie, Einstein's formula or any other mathematical formula, it does not come by itself, it is the fruit of the creator's labor, which man discovers from time to time. As for Einstein, his famous statement that "God does not play with dice" is enough to understand that he did believe in God. believe that there is a supreme being,
Does not oblige the person to be religious. God does not interfere with nature on a daily basis, he created fixed laws at the time of creation,
according to which nature works ad infinitum, without its interference with everything included in the universe. The creation is one-off,
which is carried out naturally with planning of thought first. The fact that the universe does not collapse, does not run amok as it sees fit, that everything operates according to regular order and cycles, maintaining the balance to prevent intergalactic assassinations every Monday and Thursday and that which is in chaos
There is order, it means there is someone behind all this. A prejudiced person will not change his mind even if there is proof that God exists. Just as you ask for proof of God's existence, you can also demand proof of his non-existence.
In the case of God's existence, it cannot be proven scientifically, by a simple mathematical formula, since God is not just a mathematical formula, it is much, much more than that. Intelligent, in-depth thinking and pure logic will inevitably lead to the existence of a supreme being
Einstein did not believe in a personal God who intervenes in nature. But he did believe in a philosophical God. Religion is based on belief in a personal God and therefore his perception of this belief in a personal God in religion has no place in the life of a rational person.
Mirom Golan:
In fact Yehuda did not talk about cycles and the example you gave is not an example of cycles either.
It is actually possible to prove very easily that a number that has periodicity is rational.
Yehuda spoke about a method and really - beyond the choice of words - it turns out that you understood him and described a number that has a method and no cycles in it.
By the way - Pi numbers also have a method of course - and this is the method that allows us to calculate them.
Reuven:
You think thatEinstein Did you understand anything about science and drawing conclusions from the things that are discovered through it?
If so - you should read what he wrote (Just the opposite of you):
The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task... [Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941]
The idea of a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible. [Albert Einstein]
The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events... He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion . [Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions]
I prefer to believe that there is nothing. Most comfortable.
Reuben,
You are repeating the obvious, there is no arguing that the things are not random, but from that to conclude that there is an intention behind all of this? Or did an intelligent being create? Where is the proof of this?
Once upon a time people did not understand the wind or the sun and therefore spoke of the wind god and the sun god, little by little with our understanding of the laws of nature the gods went away and moved away. Now God is the one who created the big bang. In the future, if we know more about the reasons for the creation of the big bang, you will come and say that it was he who caused this reason and so on and so on.
This is not proof. You will have to think a lot more about proof or evidence of the existence of an intelligent being who created everything.
Reuben,
How long has it been since the big bang until today?
Lamorang
Maybe tell me what my mistakes are.
to R.H.
The fact that the universe runs without faults, with unchanging and constant basic laws, whether it is on Earth or in space,
This is proof that there is a supreme being and it is not a self-evident thing. From the big bang until today or since creation
The universe, the laws have not changed. The universe operates on the basis of the same primordial laws in the past, present and future.
Morang - Indeed, because Pi appears there in the circular context, this is a scientifically poor choice of message on Sagan's part. But I guess he preferred the literary aspect here and aimed also at readers who are not particularly proficient in mathematics. In this respect, his choice is actually excellent.
Reuven - these lines are too small to contain the explanation for all the mistakes in your claims.
Capricorn,
All galaxies with star clusters rotate in a circle.
Yossi - Pai appears there precisely because of his connection to the circle...
Yehuda,
Periodicity can be found in pi even without this contradicting its being transcendental (you wrote "irrational", but I bet you meant transcendental). This is because a transcendental number is a number that cannot be expressed by a finite number of algebraic operations. This does not mean that it cannot be expressed using another cycle, or some kind of algorithm. For example, a certain fraction, which starts with a zero, a period, and all the digits after the period are zero except for those in the !n place (Azeret, where the "n" is a certain natural number) are equal to 1. The fracture will look like this-
0.110001000000000000000001 and on and on, and still the fraction is transcendental because it cannot be expressed by a finite number of algebraic operations. So are the constants e and pi, and in fact almost all numbers are transcendental. This is because the number of whole numbers can be counted, while the number of transcendental numbers cannot be counted. There can be a transcendental number that differs by only one digit from pi, out of its infinity of digits. In fact, there are an infinite number of such numbers, so Pi is not unusual at all...in fact, these are the whole numbers (the "natural") that are the most unusual! And we still call them natural... God must be laughing at him up there 🙂
Reuben,
Indeed an invincible iron logic. The fact that things are not conducted in a random way is proof of the existence of God and of planning and thought first?
In fact, the heavenly bodies do not exactly go around in a circle but in a more complex and less beautiful path.
God has a point. If everything was done randomly, there could not be a regular cycle of the planets around the sun, of the seasons, of agricultural crops, the life cycle of birth and death, and including that the entire world is based on a regular cycle, with all the heavenly bodies moving in one huge circle, in harmony full
Otherwise, there would be no order in the universe, for example, the sun would rise once in the east and once in the west and set in the east. Agricultural crops would grow out of season and not at fixed times, as is known and known and more...
All this proves that there is a supreme being, who thought of every possible fault and that everything was created with a first thought.
In the ongoing research, we discover from time to time, some of the secrets of the universe and life, which are the fruit of God's creation.
If I remember correctly, there is a reference in the book to this configuration occurring relatively early in the number. It might be possible, but it's about as likely as burning a 700 megabyte file and getting "Casablanca". There is no doubt that this is about literary tastes.
In Hardy's book AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEORY OF NUMBERS, the following sentence appears:
THEOREM 146. Almost all decimals, in any scale, contain all possible
sequences of any number of digits
Therefore, the appearance of any configuration in any number should not be seen as evidence of God's existence.
I haven't read Sagan's book Contact but what is clear is that he did not find the circuit configuration in Pi's development in base 11 or otherwise.
In fact - no one has found such a configuration to date (except for the very small configurations of the zeros that appear in the development of the number 🙂 )
Therefore - when you claim that the configuration appears, do so for one of the following reasons:
1. He knew the above sentence
2. For literary reasons
What is certain is that he did not do it because of faith in God.
Yehuda, what Yossi tried to say (and I agree with him) is that pi is not only "the ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter" (and unfortunately they keep forgetting to add to that "in Euclidean geometry") but that it appears in completely different contexts that are not geometric at all (an example of such a context: Take a solution to the differential equation y”=-y, prove that it is cyclic and check what is half of its cycle).
I don't think that if Carl Sagan mentioned God, that already makes him a believer in him. The same was also said about Einstein, who said that God does not play with dice and immediately those who stated this showed that he was a believer.
And regarding Yossi's response, I think that in a curved universe, Pi could have been another even rational number.
Take for example a circle drawn on a sphere where the ratio between the diameter drawn on the sphere and the circumference of the circle will be different.
And for all those who try to find a "method" in the numbers that make up the sequence of Pei's digits, as far as I understand it contradicts Pei's irrationality.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I would not try to present the universe in such a simplistic way.
Gadi, I have to agree with you, it's just that the things were said quite passionately... but it made me think in general about the universe as a mathematical equation. If the universe is one big equation, then you can say that basically everything is offset and equal to zero, right?
Mickey, I wouldn't call the elements of the Euler identity "all the elements on which mathematics is based", that's a wild exaggeration. Nor would I rush to conclude something about the irrationality of the universe from the fact that in its description there are numbers whose name is "irrational" (a name that does not necessarily indicate "our" sense of irrationality but perhaps simply because they cannot be described as a ratio between two numbers whole; of course there is nothing irrational in "our" sense about these numbers, just as there is nothing imaginary about the imaginary numbers).
Look at Euler's identity, in my opinion, there is nothing more amazing than this in mathematics because it contains all the elements that mathematics is based on in one equation: pi, exponent, complex number, zero and one. What "annoys" us as human beings is that it is precisely the irrational numbers that describe the universe and the characteristic of these numbers seems to hint to us that just as they are irrational, so is the universe.
For a physicist - as long as "form" is a finite sequence of characters, there is only a common number of them. Regarding looking for proof, I would correct your comment for anyone looking for proof *at all*. Any evidence we find is seen as such from our point of view and not God's (although, it's a bit presumptuous to know what God's point of view is, isn't it?)
In general, I agree with those who were bothered by the ending (although the book excepted it is great). I think Sagan was trying with this ending to offer a kind of compromise between science and religion, with a non-intervening god, who all in all subtly hints at his existence and maybe waits for us to develop further before saying goodbye to him. As an essay in the real world it's nothing, but as part of a book - and another book that deals with our dealing with a message from a culture tens of times more developed than us - it's not so bad and even somewhat appropriate. I'm just a little bothered by the improper use of pi, and more in this way (I don't believe that God, even if he exists and is omnipotent, can change pi, and certainly not that the "correct" message to encrypt in it is a drawing of a circle; there was quite a discussion about this Bayel the reader once).
1) I do not agree with the logical conclusion regarding the circle of units: the number of possible forms - from the strength of the sequence, the number of digits after the point - one thousand zeros.
2) Those who look for proofs of God's existence in arithmetic are seriously mistaken. This is us mathematicians/arithmetics. not the god
Since Pi has an infinite number of digits, the smiley that Carl Sagan described MUST appear somewhere along the length of the digit sequence, on ALL possible bases.
Actually there is another problem with the message:
1. Pi doesn't just represent the circle ratio. It also appears in the calculation of powers of complex numbers (for example) and in many geometric columns. And with all due respect to God, He can't affect that by bending space.
2. As the writer pointed out, you can find many encrypted messages in a random series of numbers if you don't know what exactly you are looking for. I wonder if Carl Sagan knew the letter skipping and gematria games.