RE: virus: Bible code and Fractals !

Chitren Nursinghdass (
Thu, 05 Jun 1997 14:22:31 +0000

At 15:50 04/06/97 -0700, vous avez écrit:
>This is absolutely true, and in fact the existence of subliminals
>embedded in the KJV (King James Version) is the main reason for its
>continued success. No fewer than 3,121 embeddings of the word "sex"
>appear scattered throughout its purportedly holy pages (that have been
>found so far!). Recently, researchers at the Santa Fe Institute looking
>for fractal patterns in the KJV found Mandelbrot-like embeddings of
>"death", "sex", and "know" (biblical for coital relations) in 22% of the
>pages. Twenty-two percent is, of course, the optimal reward frequency
>for maximum effect of intermittent operant conditioning, being the
>frequency with which the average (prehistoric) female achieved orgasm
>during normal coitus. In addition, Prof. Marvin Minsky of the MIT
>Artificial Intelligence Laboratory has sent me a pre-publication draft
>of a groundbreaking paper on the subject which postulates the existence
>of "agents" used to weave subliminals through the Bible, Shakespeare's
>works, and the academic transcripts of all Harvard students from the
>university's founding in 1636 until the transcript system was
>computerized in 1978.

Aha, this is marvellous.

Some say that KJV is the most perverted version of the bible to date.
But then if it is the "word of god" as they maintain, then no matter
what you do to it, it must remain the same, no ? So why do they lament
on translation if they really believe in the power of their god ?

They auto-contradict !

Whereas some auto-generate !

Per chance weren't the agents called angels in ancient times ?

Why do I say per chance ?

I'm sending you the links on the Shakespeare-is-FranciBacon thingie

There goes :

Now, if some memes are embedded fractally, sooner or later you're bound
to come across them. Makes sense.

What I'd like to know is the following : by our statistical standards
is such a thing as fractal embedding a coincidence or something
which is so wildly improbable in our system that it must have been
deliberate ? Or else we're just interepreting what was there all along ?
That is we're pasting our perception (fractal paradigm) on the world ?

Either the argument itself is fallacious and this kind of thinking should be
stopped, or not and hence the statistical standards should be revised.

It's time for change.

And guess what : I'm sure that if you analyze the academic prints of students
of Cambridge you'll find the same results.

But now, we know about electronic agents in our time with AI and ALIFE
programming, but what about the agents in the 1636 periods ?

The plot thickeneth...