Comments by "" (@baronvonbeandip) on "David Pakman Show"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1