Main > Everything Else
The "Bible Code"
Santoro:
--- Quote from: Zero_Hour on March 24, 2005, 12:52:07 am ---I find it strange that people feel the need to debunk DA VINCI CODE, as it is a work of fiction. Having not read it, can someone clue me in as to the writers tone - is the "junk" presented in such a way that the reader is supposed to presume it is actual historical fact? Or, rather are things presented as fact as a way to move the plot?
--- End quote ---
Most of the organizations, places, and works of art referenced really exist.
walls83:
walls, You saw that part where they forecasted the assassination right?
Ya I saw that. But like the chief inspector said "We don't know if he has information from somebody else, or if it is the code"
He kept saying that over and over so I think he thinks that I think that you think that we all think hes lying. was that clear enough?
:P
also this was a new bible code program I saw the first one along time ago also. This is BIBLE CODE II~In his best announcer voice.
My take on the whole thing is wait until 2012 and if we get whipped out by a comet or if we destroy a comet Ill believe it.
RayB:
--- Quote from: Zero_Hour on March 24, 2005, 12:52:07 am ---I find it strange that people feel the need to debunk DA VINCI CODE, as it is a work of fiction.
--- End quote ---
FractalWalk:
The bible code is nothing more than what mathematicians call a datatmining artifact. It is a false pattern that can be found in any set of data by filtering on multiple algorithms. This is the same "phenomenon" that states historically the most reliable predictor of S&P 500 returns is the production of butter in Bangladesh. It's true, but it's bogus. It's a false positive.
The flaw in the mathematical analysis that is usually ignored is the number of different algorithms used to try to find the code. You try one algorithm (every 3rd letter) and that doesn't do too well. So you try another (every 4th letter) and another etc. etc. The more variables you use the more likely you will find a false positive.
It's the same logical/mathematical flaw of saying that flipping twenty heads in a row on a fair coin is a million to one shot: which it is unless you try it a million times at which point it's pretty likely that you will do it. But it doesn't make you a good coin flipper.
The "Dogs of the Dow" theory and its variations (e.g. The Foolish Four") are the financial equivalents of the bible code.
Crazy Cooter:
Me thinks Fractal is a mathemagician (explains the name).
While it would "seem" that the offsets were random, and we use guesses to determine them, what if they were all corelated by some number like pi?
I don't believe this, but run with the idea for a minute:
Suppose the original text was written with the intentions of revealing its "secrets" as man became more aware of his surroundings. It would be easy to filter the text through a matrix and output an encoded document. It would be very difficult without the inverse matrix to return the original text. If (using pi as an example), we need to start on page 14, line 14 with the 14th digit of pi to output the original text, we would never know it. We might hit some numbers here and there, but until we knew the translation from one digit to the next, we would be poking around blind.
It seemed to me that the program explained positives too numerous to be artifacts. It sounded like the number of "hits" in the bible far exceeded the number of "hits" in Moby Dick. Of course all the typing shown was in Hebrew or something so I have no idea what they were really doing... not to mention that like Paige said, you'd need the first version of the book to prove anything.