Re: The Hands of A Clock

Expand Messages
• Actually, I will go as far to say that quantitatively the number pops up more frequently than normal probability distribution dictates. And yes, I have done
Message 1 of 2 , Dec 2, 2011
Actually, I will go as far to say that quantitatively the number pops up more frequently than normal probability distribution dictates. And yes, I have done a few ad hoc experiments. Now, it may be that the numbers of 47's are skewed around me so that I see a higher number than another observer. The reason I discovered 47 in the first place was observing license plate numbers on a trip. I was bored and decided to look for triple numbers and basically got a whole set. Then after I was done with that triple number set (only took about 20-30 minutes), I just was looking at every license plate and discovered a lot more 47's than there should be. At that time, I had no idea of anything about 47 so it was not some predisposed bias. Now I am not saying that it was not a subconscious bias but if that was the case, that presents another interesting issue to ponder of how did that bias get implanted in the first place...

--- In 47society@yahoogroups.com, "SL" <swlarosa@...> wrote:
>
> Did you know that the Times Square Bomber had a clock on his failed device? Do you know what numbers the hands of the clock pointed to? A Google image search will promptly produce countless duplicate images of this clock used in the bombing attempt. The viewer will plainly see that the hour hand points at the 4, while the minute hand points at the 7.
>
> It is not so much the presence of the number that gives it significance. There is no doubt the event will occur once within the range of 01 to 99. We may infer that a skillfully rendered survey will produce quantitative results that yield to the conclusion that the combination of 47 presents itself at a decidedly normal frequency. We can also infer that Ii 'real life' Such a count is in vain due to the circumstantial variations in how numbers are presented, and that many numerical combinations occur in an open, as opposed to closed, system. Instead we rely on the significance of the event in which the number presents itself.
>
> Then we find it is not so much the QUANTITY of events in which the number presents itself, but the QUALITY of the events; though it must be said that the quantity of qualitatively significant events involving the number 47 may indeed prove statistically significant. But in a general sense, we will again infer that the quality and quantity are in constant opposition and therefore the attempt to empirically prove the significance and meaning of an event will prove elusive until its true cause is comprehended.
>
• Yes, you ve got a point about the bias. And: why are so many people seeing that number? There s some truly big bias at work. I must admit I m absolutely weak
Message 2 of 2 , Dec 2, 2011
Yes, you've got a point about the bias.
And: why are so many people seeing that number? There's some truly big bias at work.

I must admit I'm absolutely weak with numbers. I just know a few birthdays or phone numbers and the like by heart. My memory and mind are just not focused on numbers.
When I started to see the 47 just about everywhere, I somehow thought I'll foget it and it will slip my consciousness.
Well... it didn't.

--- In 47society@yahoogroups.com, "Creo" <roward@...> wrote:
>
> Actually, I will go as far to say that quantitatively the number pops up more frequently than normal probability distribution dictates. And yes, I have done a few ad hoc experiments. Now, it may be that the numbers of 47's are skewed around me so that I see a higher number than another observer. The reason I discovered 47 in the first place was observing license plate numbers on a trip. I was bored and decided to look for triple numbers and basically got a whole set. Then after I was done with that triple number set (only took about 20-30 minutes), I just was looking at every license plate and discovered a lot more 47's than there should be. At that time, I had no idea of anything about 47 so it was not some predisposed bias. Now I am not saying that it was not a subconscious bias but if that was the case, that presents another interesting issue to ponder of how did that bias get implanted in the first place...
>
> --- In 47society@yahoogroups.com, "SL" <swlarosa@> wrote:
> >
> > Did you know that the Times Square Bomber had a clock on his failed device? Do you know what numbers the hands of the clock pointed to? A Google image search will promptly produce countless duplicate images of this clock used in the bombing attempt. The viewer will plainly see that the hour hand points at the 4, while the minute hand points at the 7.
> >
> > It is not so much the presence of the number that gives it significance. There is no doubt the event will occur once within the range of 01 to 99. We may infer that a skillfully rendered survey will produce quantitative results that yield to the conclusion that the combination of 47 presents itself at a decidedly normal frequency. We can also infer that Ii 'real life' Such a count is in vain due to the circumstantial variations in how numbers are presented, and that many numerical combinations occur in an open, as opposed to closed, system. Instead we rely on the significance of the event in which the number presents itself.
> >
> > Then we find it is not so much the QUANTITY of events in which the number presents itself, but the QUALITY of the events; though it must be said that the quantity of qualitatively significant events involving the number 47 may indeed prove statistically significant. But in a general sense, we will again infer that the quality and quantity are in constant opposition and therefore the attempt to empirically prove the significance and meaning of an event will prove elusive until its true cause is comprehended.
> >
>
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.