With God's help,

Hello and blessings,

Thank you for your response,

I'm glad you repeated that "I also wrote that the findings seem impressive to me on their face."
At the same time, in your view, and of course that is your right, you found the matter not important enough to look into further at this stage.

Indeed, you did not intend to write a critical article on the research, but many readers could have thought that maybe you did, maybe not; in any case, it's clear that you did not read the research and did not delve into it, as you yourself noted. You created a column dealing with a more general issue, and within it a mini critical article about the short film and the ability to draw conclusions from it. I wrote this too at the beginning of the document I linked to—that it was clear you had no intention of writing a critical article on the research.

Indeed, you are right, and when such a short film is published, I take into account that it should also be judged based only on what appears in it (even if one hopes it will create a desire to examine things more deeply). I did indeed take that into account, and in my humble opinion this short video contains enough for that purpose, and I will elaborate on that below, God willing.

The idea at the base of what you wrote in Column 640, in the context of the small part of the research about the connection between pi and the first verse, revolving around the short film (under 6 minutes), is to show how a thoughtful person relates to such things and does not get easily impressed or accept conclusions hastily. That is valuable, important, and highly essential. If only many people, if not everyone, knew how to temper emotion and use the mind and careful judgment before jumping to conclusions (which are usually rooted directly in the initial desire to accept or reject this or that, rather than in a desire to accept the truth no matter what).

At the same time, in my view one must also develop the ability to reach the correct conclusions. Reaching the conclusion that "one cannot reach a conclusion" also requires judgment. Usually it requires much less digging and much less energy, though sometimes serious digging is precisely what leads to that conclusion. One needs to know when a conclusion can in fact be reached and/or when one can incline in a certain direction. Therefore I was glad that you repeated your intellectual inclination to say that the findings seem to you, prima facie, impressive—even though you began from a starting point of not accepting this kind of evidence.

Now I will sharpen a number of points, God willing, directly regarding the film and what is shown there specifically, even without delving into the whole research, in relation to what you wrote:

A. Even though the film is short and presents things very basically (so that someone without time can still watch this important matter), in my humble opinion it contains enough to allow a person who is not biased toward rejecting it to accept the obvious conclusion, and I will explain, God willing. Before that, let me say that in my humble opinion, given the enormous significance of the "potential" of this message from the Creator of the world—when the message points to the Sender Himself and to the Torah (for one who understands, or tends to think, and even considers that the message is real)—this is a matter very worthy of attention, and of course it is something I myself am engaged in. It is a universal message for all humanity: there is a Creator, and He gave the Torah (with instructions for all human beings).

How can one reach conclusions rationally?
In this context of identifying a genuine message, one must know how to distinguish between a designed phenomenon and a non-designed phenomenon. Just as a person reading these lines can know—even if I never write here again, which would make it impossible for him to build a chart of future predictions—that what I am writing right now is a designed message meant to answer something specific.

– How so? Because there is a set of prior knowledge (a priori) that enables decoding of this web of letters (syntax) on the basis of rules of language known in advance (a priori). That is, the mapping that works on the basis of semantics is activated and generates meaning suited to the context in which the letters and words are written. The freedom space for writing this message is enormous, but in the proper context and according to the decoding rules known in advance, the message is clear and known to be intentional on the basis of the proper and meaningful context in relation to what appears here specifically—that is, pragmatics demonstrates this. This can be formalized, and indeed it is formalized in message decoding by artificial intelligence systems, encrypted communication, and message decoding.

The important point here is this: there are many cases in which one need not be an expert to understand that there is an intentional message. A person reading this line understands that it represents an intentional message inserted into this computer by some intelligence (the writer, in this case). Of course what is shown in the 6-minute film is not as clear a message as this text, for many reasons, but it is enough to know that there is an intentional message, and we will continue to explain this, God willing. Only there the message is, in my view, important and essential for all humanity.

A. The problem of freedom space:
Freedom space deals with the question: are the letter sequences in the previous paragraphs a random product or not? The general freedom space is enormous. But the freedom space that allows a message to be conveyed is very small within that larger space. Why? Because random mixing of letters in a messy way that does not meet the rules of language and messaging is vast. But out of that total, only certain arrangements allow words, sentences, and a paragraph to be written. All the more so when one requires that it also fit the context of this discussion, the space shrinks even further. It is not enough to generate words and/or sentences; it has to be in the right context and with the necessary sharpness. Therefore one should assess the space only in relation to what has meaning, and give weight to what had the clearest and most primary (a priori) meaning, and measure that against the general free space. This is intuitive to anyone reading these lines, even if he has never realized that this is what he is doing in the background of his consciousness.

Now, in the column (640) on this site there was an attempt to show possible freedom spaces, intended to try to dilute the probability in order to assess the rarity of the phenomenon as an intentional phenomenon and not merely a rare one. But adding freedom spaces that do not exist—such as arithmetic possibilities that are impossible in practice (impossible sums, such as a sum of 82 digits that cannot be obtained), and sometimes very strained possibilities such as square digits reaching the same sum as non-square digits (despite a large number of digits with a uniform distribution, creating digit variance in a 1-to-1 relation between each digit and a 1-to-10 relation overall, and therefore highly strained)—these are not legitimate additions to the freedom space and cannot reduce the overall probability at all. Moreover, they must be incorporated relative to that same probability, and it is not enough merely to demonstrate a possible space; I will elaborate in the next section, God willing.

B. Probability and significance:
In the short film itself there is, near the end, a table showing the private probability of the findings presented. From this one could derive the individual probability of each finding in light of correct, possible, and rational freedom spaces. This was not done in Column 640. Had it been done, it would have shown the intelligent viewer who wants to examine and reach correct conclusions—even without fully incorporating the dependence among the findings (some of which are independent and/or only minimally dependent, and some inversely so)—that this is a designed phenomenon, because the freedom spaces do not—emphasis on do not—allow one to escape enormous significance. This would also have made it easy to see, for example, that the average of the initial letters is itself a very rare thing, and that the test had already taken into account also the final letters—even though, from an a priori perspective, initial letters technically and semantically come before final letters (the beginning of creation is hinted at in initial letters, and initial letters are much more common than final letters, all the more so than equidistant letter skips and such things).

C. Technical apriority that creates natural context and meaning:
Points A and B are especially strong in light of the fact that this is the first technical verse, the use of the book's name "Torah," and the mathematical constant that appears in very many cases as the most important constant in many fields of science. That is before one even studies the beginning of creation, the act of contraction, and many sayings of the Sages teaching what the message of the world's creation is, how it was done, and more.

To sum up the matter of probability and significance on the basis of the film alone: one can discern a highly exceptional probability, after taking into account the reasonable freedom spaces and the apriority of the structure of the findings, the book in which they are found, the verse itself (the first one), the mathematical constant pi, and the methodology.

This leads to the conclusion that the significance is very substantial and that there is deliberate intent behind this message. It is not a product arising from the researcher's freedom space, but a self-contained message embedded in the first verse and in pi.

That conclusion, in my view, should lead a person to accept that there is a real message here, to examine what that means, and to see what else has been discovered.

In the case of the column on this site, you summarized it somewhat differently, but you did add, as mentioned, that "the findings seem to me impressive on their face."

The experts who were mentioned:
The reason I mentioned the experts—and that is only a partial list—is simple: in order for there to be fruitful discussion on the topic, it is worth taking into account that there are experts who did find this interesting and important, examined it, and gave public agreement and support. That does not mean it is true just because of that. It is true because it stands up to the rules for distinguishing truth from falsehood, and to the ability to distinguish between a real message and an artificial message—the product of freedom space, the product of the researcher. This fact, that these experts publicly supported it despite how difficult that is to do, as you noted, should strengthen both those who do not investigate deeply and those who do.

Have a wonderful rest of the day, God willing,
Thank you very much,

Best regards,

Oren Y. Evron

Rabbi, what about this?

What about it? I wrote what I had to say.

Response to Column 640 – on the "Seal of Creation," rigid symmetries, and the statistical boundary

In honor of Rabbi Dr. Michael Abraham, greetings.

I read with interest Column 640 on your site, in which you addressed the statistical findings that Oren Evron presents regarding the first verse in the book of Genesis. As someone who appreciates the analytical approach you champion, and your demand for intellectual honesty and rigorous scientific standards, I agree with your methodological starting point in the column.

You pointed out that when searching for connections within infinite constants (such as pi), the researcher has many degrees of freedom at his disposal. The ability to switch from addition to squaring, or to flex the cut-off boundaries (sometimes 82 digits and sometimes 83) until the result converges, is indeed exposed to the multiple comparisons fallacy (the Look-Elsewhere Effect). Had the research relied solely on the examples shown in the short video to which you referred, your conclusion that this is data mining or ad hoc fitting would have been justified.

However, I am writing to you because your critique focused on a very partial segment of the research. Examining the full data array (as presented in Evron's expanded lectures) reveals a structure of dozens of cross-connections, composed largely of rigid algebraic, geometric, and symmetrical constraints. In these constraints, the researcher does not have even a single degree of freedom. Moreover, what at first glance looks like "flexibility in digit cutoffs" turns out to be rigid symmetrical frameworks that explicitly point to advance planning.

I will present to you a summary of 35 findings from the research, divided into 4 independent clusters:

Cluster 1: Physical geometry and the structure of the verse (zero degrees of freedom)

1. The gematria of the first verse (2,701) is the 73rd equilateral triangular number.
2. The gematria of the center of the verse ("and the earth") is exactly 703.
3. The number 703 is the 37th triangular number (the mirror image of 73).
4. This mirror image is anchored in the series of prime numbers in nature: 37 is the 12th prime, and 73 is the 21st prime (a complete reflection of 12/21).
5. Spatially, embedding triangle 703 inside the center of triangle 2,701 (when inverted) leaves exactly three identical corner triangles.
6. Each of the three corner triangles contains exactly 666 points.
7. The sum of the three corner triangles together is 1,998.
8. The number 1,998 is the exact gematria of the remaining 5 frame words ("In the beginning created God [direct-object marker] the heavens"). The physical geometry separates the verse into frame and core in complete synchronization with the syntax.
9. An internal signature: the letter aleph appears in the verse 6 times. The sum of its index positions within the sentence (3, 9, 10, 15, 23, 26) is exactly 86.
10. The number 86 is the gematria of the word "God." The statistical expectation for a random distribution at such a length tends toward 87.

Cluster 2: Modular arithmetic and algebraic constraints (zero degrees of freedom)
11. The sum of the first 7 letters of the words of the verse is 22. Dividing by the 7 words yields the historical approximation of pi: 22/7.
12. Multiplying the 7 words of the verse by one another yields an 18-digit result.
13. Dividing that enormous product into blocks of 3 digits ("thousands") and summing them causes the result to collapse exactly to the original sum of the verse: 2,701.
14. Mathematically, this operation is completely equivalent to finding the remainder modulo 999. For the text to satisfy this property, the words had to be engineered in advance so that they combine into blocks that are exact multiples of 37 (words 1 and 3 together = 999; words 2, 4, and 5 together = 999). The algebraic constraint created by the Chinese Remainder Theorem is locked in advance inside a sentence with natural Hebrew syntax.
15. An internal sum of the digits inside those same 6 blocks converges to 73 (the number that defines the geometric form in Cluster 1).
16. The sum of all 18 individual digits of the product also converges exactly to 73.

Cluster 3: Cross-structural symmetry in the constants of the universe (tau and pi)
The convergence of the data in this cluster reveals structural symmetries that mathematically rule out the claim of arbitrary, ad hoc stopping by the researcher:
17. The regular gematria of the word "Torah" is 611, and its reduced gematria is 17. Their sum is exactly 628. This is a direct mathematical hint to the constant tau (whose approximate value is 6.28, the full-circle constant known as tau), and it defines the boundaries of the next scan framework.
18. Within the bounded block of the first 628 digits of pi, a double and closed symmetry holds: the sum of the first 611 digits equals 2,701 (the verse).
19. The sum of the remaining 17 digits in that block (indices 612 to 628) equals exactly 82 (the reduced gematria of the verse).
20. The symmetry continues and works in cross-form (mirror image): the sum of the first 17 digits equals 82.
21. The sum of the next 611 digits in the block (indices 18 to 628) equals exactly 2,701.
22. The square-cut sections (which you mentioned in the column) also reveal a rigid symmetrical framework replacing randomness: in pi, the sum of the squares of the first 82 digits equals 2,701. The sum of the squares of the next 83 digits equals exactly 1,998 (the syntactic frame separated in Cluster 1). The total of the squares of the two groups is 4,699.
23. In the second geometric constant, e (the Torah opens with the letter bet = 2), a perfect symmetrical inversion of those exact same cut-off boundaries occurs: the sum of the squares of the first 83 digits equals 2,701, and the sum of the squares of the next 82 digits equals 1,998 (the total remains identical: 4,699). This perfect symmetrical inversion (82/83 versus 83/82) rules out the claim of arbitrary stopping, and proves that this is a closed mathematical structure echoed in both constants in parallel.

Cluster 4: Indexes (Pointers) and semantic loops
24. The total number of digits composing the square-symmetry frameworks (82+83) is 165.
25. The gematria of the word "point" (a kabbalistic and geometric symbol for beginning, echoing the decimal point) is 165.
26. The numerical sequence "2701" appears for the first time in pi beginning exactly at index 165.
27. The sum of the 4 indices of that sequence equals 666 (echoing the corner triangles from Cluster 1).
28. A reverse pointer: the 5-digit sequence appearing in pi beginning at index 2,701 is 54,285.
29. Dividing the discovered number (54,285) by the original index (165) yields exactly the number 329.
30. The number 329 is the exact ordinal gematria of the first verse. The mathematical loop closes completely back onto the text.
31. The gematria of the name "Shaddai" (representing the setting of the limits of creation: "He who said to His world, enough") equals 314, which is the accepted approximation of pi.
32. Ordinary addition (without squaring) of the first 165 digits of pi yields the number 737.
33. The number 737 is exactly the gematria of the phrase: "He who said to His world, enough."

The question of cumulative probability and the scientific conclusion
In your column you noted with intellectual honesty that: "One must be honest… the choice of the word 'Torah' or of the first verse are not ad hoc choices… it is difficult to determine categorically that this is obviously an insignificant finding."

In objective statistical analysis, we are required to multiply the probabilities of independent variables. After all, there is no law in nature requiring that a valid Hebrew sentence that satisfies the rigid spatial geometry (Cluster 1) should also satisfy the exact modular constraint of the product (Cluster 2), and also satisfy the cross-symmetry frameworks in pi and e (Cluster 3).

Even if we impose a draconian statistical penalty for possible data mining in the clusters where degrees of freedom may exist (for example, multiplying the result by 10^12 in the sample space to compensate for failed searches), the joint probability of a simultaneous convergence of the entire set of these constraints upon a single sentence is estimated at orders of magnitude between 10^-11 and 10^-19. As is well known, in particle physics a significance threshold of "5 sigma" (about 1 in 3.5 million) is required in order to declare a certain discovery and completely rule out random noise. The data here surpass that threshold by an astronomical margin.

In light of Occam's razor, and given the rigid macro-data (in Clusters 1 and 2), as well as the clear structural symmetries in Cluster 3, the effect of the researcher's "degrees of freedom" is completely ruled out. In such a situation, the explanation of apophenia (finding random patterns in noise) becomes strained and requires significant quantitative and qualitative disregard of the data. By contrast, the existence of a source code designed in advance to contain complex specified information emerges as the most scientific and rational explanation for the phenomenon.

I would very much appreciate reading your analytical response to the expanded data network, and in particular to the algebraic and symmetrical constraints that are not exposed to the multiple-comparisons problem you presented in the column.

With great respect and tremendous appreciation for your work,

Noam

Unfortunately I cannot respond to these arguments. It requires time and effort that I am unable to invest. I wrote a few clarifications at the beginning of the thread here.

With God's help,
Hello and blessings,

The comprehensive study carried out within this framework can be read and downloaded here; it was fully defined and locked before the experiments were run.

The study includes:

A simulation on the scale of more than 10^13 iterations
An examination of all the verses of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)
As well as an adversarial expansion including about 10,000 variations for each verse

The testing framework was designed in a way that significantly favored the null hypothesis, while granting expanded freedom to competing verses—including semantic, mathematical, and pattern-based leniencies—which increased their search space by orders of magnitude greater than 10^12.

The analysis included examination of three competing hypotheses within a system of pre-established criteria (89 criteria), which was locked before the run began, with the aim of reducing degrees of freedom and preventing post hoc fitting.

Under these conditions, a statistical result was obtained indicating a probability on the order of about 1 in 10^19, according to the central metric that was tested.

For the full text:
https://www.thefirstverse.com/he/research/Pi-Genesis-Initial-Study

Best regards,

Oren Y. Evron