🚀 go-pugleaf

In soc.culture.jewish Yaakov Menken <men...@torah.org> wrote:
: On 8 Jun 1997 03:44:33 GMT, da...@taic.net wrote:
: >	Here is my proposition: The ability of a text to have predictive
: >value goes hand-in-hand with statistical relevancy. If I cannot look at a
: >text *before* an event, and find statistically meaningful and relevant
: >information with predictive value, then there can be no statistically
: >relevant "investigation" of such text after the fact to find hidden
: >meanings. Not with any degree of intellectual honesty.

: No, you have entirely missed the point, I'm afraid. Let's say I find
: "datataic" encoded near the word "Moshiach" (Messiah), and the date
: 9Sivan5757. Now, does that mean you are the Messiah, and will be
: revealed in about 6 days? Does it mean that you will open Moshiach's
: Bar and Grill in 6 days? Or is it not talking about you at all??
: Answer: we don't know, and we can't know, and the words have no
: predictive value. Please read those releases I posted more carefully,
: and you will see this explained in detail. As Doron Witztum wrote, he
: found something he _could_ have presented as a code predicting
: Churchill's assassination!

: But after the fact, it is certainly appropriate to go back and do
: research as was done by Rips, Witztum and Rosenberg. What they
: discovered was a pattern whose likelihood of chance appearance was
: vanishingly small. This wasn't presented through hokus-pocus
: blind-my-eyes presentations of codes without statistical value, but
: through serious research presented in the statistics community. This
: sort of research certainly does not depend upon the ability to predict
: the future.

	I will modify my statements to a certain degree.

	I will now admit that there *is* a certain category of information
which can demonstrate that there is something relevant there, even though
one cannot, beforehand, use it predictively. For example, the example you
gave.

	Before I lived, the phrase "datatiac" would be totally meaningless
gibberish, if one did a search for the phrase "posteraboutbiblecodes".
Even if it cut right through that phrase, it would be deemed random noise.
Only after the fact, after I posted, would this be something significant.
I agree.

	However, there are still a whole lot of categories of information
which seem "really really relevant" after the fact, but if they are not
spottable before the fact, are meaningless. Like the "Amir" situation. For
even though one finds the name "Amir" next to the Rabin assassination
phrases, if one also finds 200 other Hebrew names, then this find is
nothing. Not useful before or after. However, for example, if one finds
the phrase "Sus cachol" next to the Rabin Assassination phrasings, even
though this phrase is totally meaningless and useless to someone seeing it
(if he had a computer) 200 years ago, if it turns out that the assassin of
Rabin fired while traveling in a blue Chevrolet, then this is an example
of something highly significant and relevant after the fact, even though
useless and irrelevant before the fact (no predictive value).