Comments by "" (@baronvonbeandip) on "David Pakman Show" channel.

Wait, ball... is life?
2
Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon
2
@resistcontrol If only you could use that information for something productive lol Numerology doesn't teach your how to use numbers productively. It's just sways you towards a more biased view of the world.
2
Almost like a numerologist does.
2
@geometricreality4543 Woah, now, don't start bashing the Christian; you're in the same boat as he is. Gematria is just as worthless as his proclamation that you are participating in satanism.
2
Because you can't. It's just an isomorphism from letters to numbers. Is it a special isomorphism? No, there are 27! possible permutations. The question is if there is substantial claim to why the alphabetic or phonetic or any other permutation is more preferable than the other. That's the intrinsic problem with much of pseudoscience; the claims are so vague and ill-defined that they cannot be proved or falsified.
2
@2moreminutes It's crazy how useful thinking abstractly can be.
2
Hey, mathematician here, While I'll admit that the stating of the arbitrariness of the modulus of a number system does not suffice to disprove the claim that numerology is valid, I also don't see valid claim by numerology and its practitioners that there is something inherent about numbers and combinations of numbers. For example, your assertion that "there are too many coincidences for it to be coincidence" is vacuous in that, for each thing that happens, you could justify it with any combination of numbers by adding to the set of influences. There is no justification that names have any discernible effect on the world outside the trivial occurrences. Birthday does have an effect on temperament in infants which promulgates in differences in a slight effect in personality but the surroundings of an infant carry far more weight on the development of children. This is also analogous to the effects of celestial bodies whose effect on earth is largely trivial (aka the claims of Astrology). Further, your claim that patterns occur is not a new one and of course he would see patterns in numbers. Mathematicians and their predecessors have been doing this since long before Pythagoras, Babylon, or Ancient China. Humans discover patterns. As a person who has taken it upon himself to test the validity of claims made by numerologists, the hypotheses they put forth are empty and do not follow a pattern with any level of consistency. You are equally likely to find a pattern in chaos just as well as in ordered sets (Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon). Numerologists who do not employ actual mathematics have yet to make a predictive, valid, and/or replicable claim that isn't also well-defined through actual mathematics.
1
@JoryStultz1234 It's just a cipher among the millions of other ciphers. It has proven to be of no more use than anything else. If there is any proof of its use or extensive refutation at it's disuse, then feel free to provide that. Otherwise, it lies among the status quo of "woo woo pseudoscience" that provide no reasonable benefit per unit cost to its practitioners.
1
It's almost like if you take a random sample of the digits of pi and pick the two highest ones, you'll see them the most. Crazy!
1
Yeah, because you can't debunk an invalid claim.
1
Zodiac signs actually have a level of validity to them. Studies show that the season in which you are born has a statistically significant effect on your temperament. However, those differences are largely masked by your upbringing, etc so it's not something you can use like people are so prone to do.
1
Yeah, but sqrt(3)^4 is also 9. There's too many coincidences here for this to be random. Maybe I should look into this... goes back to reading about noncommutative rings of order 9
1
Gematria is just as arbitrary except you are mod 27 instead of mod 10.
1
You hate someone for being a leftist? That's pretty silly. That's like hating children because they are afraid of the dark. Difference in opinion and argument is what makes us stronger.
1
It's not any different than how people get obsessed with phi. When we build out our number system from the ground up, we find the primes by the Sieve of Eratosthenes where we remove all multiples of primes found from the beginning of the countable numbers. It's not surprising when you learn a little number theory that the greatest square modulo 10 is equal to the last digital root in the complete residue system. So you'll see base multiples of 3 everywhere. This would change if our number system was base 24, for example, and maybe Tesla in that universe would be fascinated with 2,3,4,6,8, and 12 and accommodate his fascination to something analogous. But not any more than you would find multiple of 2. In fact, since the integers (which is the only subset of the complex numbers we have addressed so far) are either odd or even so you'd expect 2 would be more popular. These preferences are arbitrary based on a low-level organization.
1
@9WEAVER9 Gematria is just numerology with base 27 instead of base 10. And, while we are at it, any Z/nZ you try to construct is going to have isomorphisms to some other cartesian product of prime orders.
1
We prefer our base (9/5) system thanks.
1
Your counter is post hoc ergo propter hoc and does not invalidate his claim.
1
Hey, hi, math major here. Gematria is also arbitrary and not worth studying outside of cryptography and decoding ciphers. The isomorphisms of the symmetric group of order 27 is not any more important than other group. It's a consequence of the socioeconomic conditions of the initial state of our civilizations and not of any intrinsic truth of the inner workings of the world. If you wanted a pseudoscience adjacent concept that is actually useful, focus on Fibonacci numbers in a rigorous way (ie go learn math pls)
1
Yes, we call that the Associative Property. It also works if your birthday is composed of real numbers, complex numbers, and even quaternions. Craaaazy
1
Jung's idea of synchronicity has been bastardized by the pseudoscience community to be used as a springboard off of which they can make spurious claims about the collective unconscious. They have probably never read any of 7, 5, 9(1)/(2), or 11 and, instead, paraphrase morons.
1