Browse Groups

• 93! ... Using those criteria alone, there are 6 different ways to assign the numbers 1, 4, and 7 to the letters N, O, and T. The 4 additional letters H, I, N,
Message 1 of 10 , Aug 13, 2008
View Source
93!

herupakraath wrote:
>
> "threefold31" <threefold31@...> wrote:
>
> > That's hardly surprising, considering that the 'key' was created by
> > massive number-crunching on computer software.
>
> A baseless assumption on your part.
>
> The creation of the Holokey is rooted in the belief the author of
> Liber Legis knew the words Not, None, Nothing, and Nought can be made
> to enumerate to 8, 80, and 418 using English gematria--no massive
> number crunching is required to arrive at that conclusion. Using the
> multitudinal gematria values 1-800, Not is the only word of the four
> noted that can enumerate as 8, which means None must produce the
> enumeration 80. Once the letters N, O, T, E are assigned the values 3,
> 4, 1, 70 respectively, there are only 12 possibilities for value
> assignments for the letters remaining in the word Nothing that will
> make it enumerate to 418, and 30 possibilities for making Nought
> enumerate to 418. If Nothing and Nought both enumerate to 418 as is
> the case with the Holokey, there are only four possible groups of
> value assignments that can make it happen--hardly massive.

Using those criteria alone, there are 6 different ways to assign the
numbers 1, 4, and 7 to the letters N, O, and T. The 4 additional
letters H, I, N, G, can also be assigned to their numbers in 24
different ways, although since Nothing and Nought share G and H, there
are only 4 if they are going to have the same numeration, as you say.
Still, I count 24 or 144 different possibilities, depending on whether
you originally required Nothing and Nought to have the same numeration
or...not.

> There is a total of eight different letters used in the words Not,
> None, Nothing, and Nought, which means that when potential gematria
> values are drawn from a pool of 26 values, and each letter assigned a
> different value, there are approximately 63 billion possible groups of
> values. When the total of the groups is divided by four, the ratio of
> groups that will make the words enumerate as specified to those that
> will not is 15,747,732,000 : 1. The ratio is so lopsided the only
> intelligent conclusion is the author of the Book of the Law knew the
> four words could equate to 8, 80, 418 using English gematria.

Well, really, the only intelligent conclusion is that this didn't
occur by chance - which we already know because you chose the
constraints and went looking for a way of arriving at those values
methodically. If you randomly chose letters and numbers out of a bag
and they happened to fall in an arrangement giving these values, that
would be REALLY impressive - billions to one. But that's not what
happened. When you consider it could have been impossible to make the
words you chose have the values you chose with the number schema you
chose, it's still an interesting result, but using an
odds-against-chance calculation isn't really appropriate, and there
are still 23 other "keys" that give this same result. Solving Rubik's
cube is hard because there are 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 different
configurations possible, and only one is the solution - but solving it
is not evidence of divine intervention. It's just not going to fall
into the right configuration if you kick it across the room.

Besides all that, stating that "the author of the Book of the Law knew
the four words could equate to 8, 80, 418 using English gematria" is
kind of weak, isn't it? A person of marginal intelligence with a free
afternoon could easily demonstrate that the four words *could* equate
to 8, 80, 418, if that's all you're going for. It's kind of like
saying Aiwass could do the NYT Sunday crossword puzzle -- hardly a
basis for a system of government, as they say.

>
>
> Creating a gematria system based on ASCII (which I tried by the way)
> would be no more outlandish or arbitrary than assigning 25 numbers,
> combined with 26 letters, to the 27 trigrams of the Yi-Jing.

I'm sure you meant "27 trigrams of Liber Trigrammaton" since the Yi
has only 8 trigrams, but since the thesis of TEQ is that the trigrams
are themselves numbers in base 3, I'm a little confused about where
you get the "25 numbers" part, unless you mean that zero is not a
number. Well, it's not a natural number...but it is a real number, so
maybe we should split the difference and say the odds against it being
a number are aleph null:2^aleph null.

93 93/93
RIKB
• ... by ... Dwtw I believe it was you who said that you created a program to search for gematrias that had specific requirements. That s number- crunching.
Message 1 of 10 , Aug 13, 2008
View Source
--- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "herupakraath" <herupakraath@...>
wrote:
>
> "threefold31" <threefold31@> wrote:
>
> > That's hardly surprising, considering that the 'key' was created
by
> > massive number-crunching on computer software.
>
> A baseless assumption on your part.
>

Dwtw

I believe it was you who said that you created a program to search
for gematrias that had specific requirements. That's number-
crunching. Perhaps not massive, but it is still using a computer to
do the work for you.

> To demonstrate further why the Holokey is not a product of crunching
> numbers,

I don't know how you can say that when you were the one who stated
that you used a computer program, (of your own devising I believe),
to search for a gematreia that suited your conditions. That's number-
crunching.

> > It seems consistent to connect it with some other computing
artifact.
>
> If I had done so intentionally, I would admit as much.

I never said you did it intentionally.

>
> The inference I deliberately created the Holokey to produce the
> Egyptian language features presented in the Bhdt Proof is
demonstrably
> false.

I neither said nor inferred that you deliberatley set the holokey
values to align with MdC. I have said, in another forum, that after
said values were created, or 'found', you then applied them to MdC.

>
>
> > This kind of argument could esily lead one to tout ASCII coding
as
> > the basis of the true gematria of English, since it is used
widely >
> to digitally encode our set of 26 letters. Surely Aiwas saw that >
> coming too, right?
>
> Creating a gematria system based on ASCII (which I tried by the
way)
> would be no more outlandish or arbitrary than assigning 25 numbers,
> combined with 26 letters, to the 27 trigrams of the Yi-Jing.
>

Well, you can blame Crowley for being outlandish, since it was his
idea to attribute letters to trigrams. You remember him, right? the
one who was told to obtain the order and value of the English
Alphabet?

My basic critique of this latest 'proof' is that it has some
interesting elements, but it's quite a stretch to conclude Aiwass saw
all this coming and devised a gematria along the lines of the one you

Litlluw
RLG
• Thelema93, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. ... Thank you for confessing your jest, but I wasn t jesting. I don t make kid when topics of
Message 1 of 10 , Aug 13, 2008
View Source
Thelema93,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

> NOT a bit-Wise says a soroly HOOT, once
> upon a time named HO, a long time ago,
> before bit-ass-kissed-kicked-to-k and cross-
> crossed by soro girders, as she rammed her
> crucifix numbered tongue down HO's throat,
> snagged His Number and k-rocked out
> His eyes!

A HOOT says:

> This should continue to read... and cut off
> His Hawk Head with her golden-ram-cox(e)fix,
> and ("ho-stil Hawk, as knife silently slices
> throat and severs Hawk head").

that guy said:

> One of my chief social faults is failing
> to resist the urge to make jest when topics
> of the utmost seriousness are being
> discussed.

Thank you for confessing your jest, but
I wasn't jesting. I don't make kid when
topics of utmost concern are being
discussed.

I've never been more seriously discussing
a more serious matter, and your wink looked
to be "hood-winking" and Hoot Head
snatching dog-do.

that guy said:

> but with all the pissing and shitting &
> fucking and so on, I want to stand
> squarely out of the way.

HOOT says:

> It will be difficult for you to stand
> out of the way if you stand on a hollow
> key that sets squarely in front of girders
> made of no-things of AL, and a gem(e)d-
> up-atreea that would like to turn AL-EQ &
> ALL THAT IS, AND EVER WILL BE into
> (e)Zshit.

> THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS SITUATION
> AND holokey is a perfect (e)xample of a
> division derivation declaration that
> spells war.

Love is the Law, Love under Will,

the despised harlot

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.