[Besoeker]

Beyond this guy babbling about things he skimmed over on the internet... Yes, 3 is a magic number, just like 0. The guy in the video appears bothered by the word magic because it conflicts with his inner mutterings. He'd like to sterilize the language because it threatens his secular world-view. The video should be called, 'What is magic.' If he started exploring that question, he'd probably delete 'is three a magic number.' 3 is a naturally occurring observable fact. Our cognitive patterns are not meaningless, they're in-fact, meaningful.

Pythagoras mathematically established 3 as one principle form. The sacredness of the triad and its symbol- the triangle- may be derived from the form of the monad and duad, giving birth to sequential order while reinforcing human LOGOS. Without the concept of 3, science & math would be incomplete. In-fact, the trivium had been formed through 3, grammar, logic, and rhetoric (input, process, output). BTW, tools like quantum physics post-structuralism holographic interferometry transcend binary thought. Is pi a magical constant or a mathematical constant?

3-6-9 symmetry
“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” -Nikola Tesla

“If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have the key to the universe.”
― Nikola Tesla

OK. I commented on Pythogras. You cited his theorem. That works perfectly well without three being a "magic" number.
How about Euler? Difficult to see three as a unique or "magic" number in his famous identity.
How about the seven colours of the rainbow.
How many electrons in nitrogen or oxygen......where's the "magic" three in those.

You quote Tesla, the guy who almost single handedly got us alternating current. Now there's a thing. Alternating - two states.
Anyway, I'd be curious to know where you got his quotes from.

[Drlee]

Alternating - two states.

Well. Actually three. One direction. Stop. The other direction.

That is unless you are talking about THREE phase alternating current in which case.......

Every good Christian knows this.

[XogGyux]

If god existed and wanted to send a message about a number and that number somehow was supposed to be "3" it is a pretty inept god, it missed the opportunity to make pi "3.333333333333" by less than 0.16th and instead made it so weird -> 3.141593? so close! Same deal with "e", 2.72? so close! God could not even make the speed of light an even 300,000,000 m/s, instead felt short at just 299,792,458? or why not make our planets gravity a nice round 9m/s which is 3x3 that's a lot of 3!, instead make it 9.8m/s close but no. Or what about carbon... the principal element of life... why not make it make only 3 bonds instead of 4 bounds? that would send a clear message wouldn't it? Or make it so that we need O3 to breath rather than O2? 3 is important for life! People just see what they want to see....

[jakell]

It's true that people tend to see what they want to see, a well-known tendency known as confirmation bias. We know about this though and investigation tries to get past this, not dwell upon it.

Your post here seems to rest upon the mystical (you are the first person here to explicitly mention God as an agent!), but contains a strawman which claims that for Three to be significant it has to be everywhere and exist in disparate fields too. Significance of something is not necessarily congruent with its frequency, this is a quantity over quality argument.
I think you are taking Matt's line in first highlighting the mystical in order to later knock it down, which is an even stronger form of confirmation bias than simply noticing what comes along.

In the OP I suggested that we do not have to discover if the number Three has inherent objective qualities (which could be another strawman), but why it may be significant to us, and this is why I started off with an analysis that broaches psychology and not mysticism, no-one has got back to me on that yet so I am assuming that it has been well received.

[XogGyux]

It's true that people tend to see what they want to see, a well-known tendency known as confirmation bias. We know about this though and investigation tries to get past this, not dwell upon it.

Your post here seems to rest upon the mystical (you are the first person here to explicitly mention God as an agent!), but contains a strawman which claims that for Three to be significant it has to be everywhere and exist in disparate fields too. Significance of something is not necessarily congruent with its frequency, this is a quantity over quality argument.
I think you are taking Matt's line in first highlighting the mystical in order to later knock it down, which is an even stronger form of confirmation bias than simply noticing what comes along.

In the OP I suggested that we do not have to discover if the number Three has inherent objective qualities (which could be another strawman), but why it may be significant to us, and this is why I started off with an analysis that broaches psychology and not mysticism, no-one has got back to me on that yet so I am assuming that it has been well received.

(you are the first person here to explicitly mention God as an agent!)

Not really, the first one to mention/imply a "god" is Mr. Dillahunty in the OP video in the first page. He makes the story that he first encountered this notion when a preacher (back when he used to be a religious person) brought it up as a suggestion that it represents the trinity. Furthermore for it to be "magical" at the very least there must be a supernatural entity pushing it's agenda (be it a god, ghost or unicorn, magic fountain, magic tree, etc), if the number 3 just happens to be important in a natural world (which it is, just the same way 2 is important and 4 is important), then it is not "magical" but rather simply important.

Your post here seems to rest upon the mystical (you are the first person here to explicitly mention God as an agent!), but contains a strawman which claims that for Three to be significant it has to be everywhere and exist in disparate fields too.

Here is the thing, if your wife wants to leave you a message at home what do you think would be an appropriate way to do it. Put a note on the refrigerator, on top of the dinning table, on the mirror of your bathroom, on the house's door OR do you think that she would be better off writing a note, breaking the paper into 4-5 pieces and stick those pieces underneath your mattress, inside the water tank of your toilet, inside your freezer and behind the TV set?
If there is a supernatural entity making this number "magic," and wanting to give us clues, we should see this pop up in places that have a significance to our existence, not in random places.

Significance of something is not necessarily congruent with its frequency, this is a quantity over quality argument.

I'm in fact saying that there is neither quantity nor quality. Quality would for instance be (in an universe where 3 is a magic number) either exactly 3 or 3.333333 (it is right in the middle yet it is none!). Quantity in the other hand would mean that we see 3 far more commonly than other numbers... this is just not true, we see 2 far more commonly.

In the OP I suggested that we do not have to discover if the number Three has inherent objective qualities (which could be another strawman), but why it may be significant to us, and this is why I started off with an analysis that broaches psychology and not mysticism, no-one has got back to me on that yet so I am assuming that it has been well received.

I don't quite get what you mean. Of course 3 has inherent objective qualities that makes it important, objectively, to humans. This however, does not mean it is magical. It is a small prime number (the second smallest) and because of this, it is one of the most commons "factors" of multiplications for make any other larger number (perhaps the reason why we see it pop up by means of mathematical manipulation). There are many numbers (specially small prime numbers such as 2-3-5-7) that are very important to us. There are also many numbers, which are not whole numbers (such as pi, e, g, etc) that are very important to us as well, this does not mean they are supernatural or magical.

[jakell]

Well, obviously Matt did, but I wasn't counting him. I'm not claiming that Three is 'magical' either, you are creating a strawman there in a similar way to how Matt did.

[XogGyux]

Perfect, we then agree there is no such thing as a magic number. I don't see why you have a problem with this. It is hard to say exactly what is the context of the video he created, it seems that his video is a response to someone (presumably the priest that he is talking about, but perhaps other people have posted and his response is to the most immediate people that posted more recently, so the original argument to which he is replying is unknown to us) to a claim that there is a magic number. So his reply is not a straw man. Mine is to the tittle of the thread and to the people that have stated in favor of such number, so the same...
Either way you seem to agree there is no such thing. So...

[jakell]

Perfect, we then agree there is no such thing as a magic number. I don't see why you have a problem with this. It is hard to say exactly what is the context of the video he created, it seems that his video is a response to someone (presumably the priest that he is talking about, but perhaps other people have posted and his response is to the most immediate people that posted more recently, so the original argument to which he is replying is unknown to us) to a claim that there is a magic number. So his reply is not a straw man. Mine is to the tittle of the thread and to the people that have stated in favor of such number, so the same...
Either way you seem to agree there is no such thing. So...

Actually, I can't say either way because the word 'magic' is vague, and this is the reason why I used inverted commas in the title. I notice that you seem to use it quite comfortably though, I would be less confident.

[XogGyux]

Actually, I can't say either way because the word 'magic' is vague, and this is the reason why I used inverted commas in the title. I notice that you seem to use it quite comfortably though, I would be less confident.

I use it quite comfortably because to the date, after millennia, we have not found a single thing that is magical in a literal sense. Furthermore we have labeled things as "magical" countless times in the past and 100% of them have turned out to be 100% natural phenomenon. So based on about 10k years of history and experience i'm quite comfortably dismissing "magic" in any literal sense quite easily. Don't come with this "you need an open mind" theory! To borrow from yourself "You seem to be quite comfortable with the existence of supernatural, i would be less comfortable though."
I won't play with definitions, magic is magic, if you want to mean something else then use the appropriate word.

[Besoeker]

Well. Actually three. One direction. Stop. The other direction.

Incorrect. There is no stop. It is a continuous sinusoidal functiion with zero duration as it passes through angular axis at the 180 deg point.
Here's one I prepared earlier:

That is unless you are talking about THREE phase alternating current in which case.......

Every good Christian knows this.

How about hexaphase commonly used for LV rectification? Or 24-phase used to mitigate supply harmonics none of which has a factor of three on a three phase system.

Every good electrical engineer knows that.
I'd say nice try - except it isn't

[Atlantis]

The human intellect not only defines the laws of nature, the human intellect defies the laws of nature.

No, our intellectual faculties are the binary filter created by conditioning through which we view reality.

Reality is being, tathagata, or oneness. The binary pattern of the human mind splits the one into two, you/I, black/white, matter/mind, etc., The two beget the three, the Trinity, that is the link between the two, which is to unite us in the oneness of the divinity. Yet, the binary conditioning of the human mind continues on its relentless dividing routine, like a computer program, thus creating the multitude of the world.

In that sense, three is special since it's to unite the two, but then goes on to create the multitude of the world. The two, matter and mind, don't exist as independent entities, it's just an illusion. The three is the potentiality of quantum physics that creates the world out of nothingness, neither matter nor mind.

We separate everything and classify data because we must violate the laws of nature in order to survive, therefore we are super-natural organisms.

No, we invent laws of nature, that are in reality only a reflection of the binary function of human rationality or human conditioning. But to separate from nature is self-defeating. We always rest in Nature. Our rationality invents a world that is separate from nature, even though we cannot exist one single moment separate from nature. It is the rational attempt to understand nature that creates an image of nature as the illusion of a separate existence. That is the original duality inherent in all communication. The futile attempt of the self-trying to see the self, like a puppy trying to catch its tail. The three is to unite us in communication, yet it separates us in non-communication.

[jakell]

No, our intellectual faculties are the binary filter created by conditioning through which we view reality.

I'm sort of with this, but don't regard it as conditioning as such. In the article I cited in the OP, John Michael Greer argues that our binary preference actually comes from our evolutionary development when we needed to make fast decisions between food/enemy etc in order to simply survive long enough to pass on our genes. so it is useful in times of stress or danger, ie it may be hardwired, The trouble is we can habitually fall back on it even when we don't actually need it, and occasionally we still do need to use it.
Our later rational mind can be sufficient to overcome this, but we need to work on it just a bit, and we tend to be lazy creatures

Reality is being, tathagata, or oneness. The binary pattern of the human mind splits the one into two, you/I, black/white, matter/mind, etc., The two beget the three, the Trinity, that is the link between the two, which is to unite us in the oneness of the divinity. Yet, the binary conditioning of the human mind continues on its relentless dividing routine, like a computer program, thus creating the multitude of the world.

In that sense, three is special since it's to unite the two, but then goes on to create the multitude of the world. The two, matter and mind, don't exist as independent entities, it's just an illusion. The three is the potentiality of quantum physics that creates the world out of nothingness, neither matter nor mind.



No, we invent laws of nature, that are in reality only a reflection of the binary function of human rationality or human conditioning. But to separate from nature is self-defeating. We always rest in Nature. Our rationality invents a world that is separate from nature, even though we cannot exist one single moment separate from nature. It is the rational attempt to understand nature that creates an image of nature as the illusion of a separate existence. That is the original duality inherent in all communication. The futile attempt of the self-trying to see the self, like a puppy trying to catch its tail. The three is to unite us in communication, yet it separates us in non-communication.

[quetzalcoatl]

If god existed and wanted to send a message about a number and that number somehow was supposed to be "3" it is a pretty inept god, it missed the opportunity to make pi "3.333333333333" by less than 0.16th and instead made it so weird -> 3.141593? so close! Same deal with "e", 2.72? so close! God could not even make the speed of light an even 300,000,000 m/s, instead felt short at just 299,792,458? or why not make our planets gravity a nice round 9m/s which is 3x3 that's a lot of 3!, instead make it 9.8m/s close but no. Or what about carbon... the principal element of life... why not make it make only 3 bonds instead of 4 bounds? that would send a clear message wouldn't it? Or make it so that we need O3 to breath rather than O2? 3 is important for life! People just see what they want to see....

The numbers associated with dimensioned physical constants are inherently arbitrary, since these units are invented. The speed of light is a different number depending on what units you choose to express it.

Now, dimensionless physical constants are a lot more interesting - the fine structure constant, for example. In this case you have an observable directly tied to an abstract numerical quantity. A lot of energy has been expended in trying to develop a rationale behind these numbers, with limited success. Arthur Eddington proposed mathematical reasoning why the reciprocal of the fine structure constant had to be exactly 136. Experiments have since shown that Eddington was wrong; to six significant digits, the reciprocal of the fine-structure constant is 137.036. The universe stubbornly resists attempts to reduce it to ideal forms, or so it seems.

[XogGyux]

The numbers associated with dimensioned physical constants are inherently arbitrary, since these units are invented. The speed of light is a different number depending on what units you choose to express it.

Now, dimensionless physical constants are a lot more interesting - the fine structure constant, for example. In this case you have an observable directly tied to an abstract numerical quantity. A lot of energy has been expended in trying to develop a rationale behind these numbers, with limited success. Arthur Eddington proposed mathematical reasoning why the reciprocal of the fine structure constant had to be exactly 136. Experiments have since shown that Eddington was wrong; to six significant digits, the reciprocal of the fine-structure constant is 137.036. The universe stubbornly resists attempts to reduce it to ideal forms, or so it seems.

I agree, however that all gets thrown out of the window if you "assume" that you are being send a message by some kind of higher cosmic force or magic. To put this in perspective, if it did happen that the speed of light was 300,000,000 m/s or 333,333,333 m/s "magic number" advocates would quickly point that out the same way they point to other things. In other words... what kind of inept "god" (or cosmic magic, or whatever you want it to be) would be so inept as to send us a message in the wrong language (e.g. m/s instead of cubit/marsian second)

Now, dimensionless physical constants are a lot more interesting - the fine structure constant, for example. In this case you have an observable directly tied to an abstract numerical quantity. A lot of energy has been expended in trying to develop a rationale behind these numbers, with limited success. Arthur Eddington proposed mathematical reasoning why the reciprocal of the fine structure constant had to be exactly 136. Experiments have since shown that Eddington was wrong; to six significant digits, the reciprocal of the fine-structure constant is 137.036. The universe stubbornly resists attempts to reduce it to ideal forms, or so it seems.

Geez you found a magic number!, first 3 digits before the dot sum up to 11 and the 3 digits after the dot sum up to 9. So the dot represents 10 (between 11 and 9) and our number system is a decimal system based on 10. My friend we should get a Nobel for this!
Oh look, we know the dot represents 10, but if instead of putting the whole number 10, we just substitute it for a 1 as in 1371036, not only you get (10) in the middle, but the sum of the numbers prior to 10 still sum up 11 and the sum of the numbers after 10 still sum up to 9 maintaining the pattern. Furthermore if in 1371036 you imagine that the "1"s are not actual number but rather divisory lines as in |37|036 not only the sum of 3+7 (the numbers inside the lines) sum 10 but also the numbers AFTER the line sum 9 (the immediate number that comes before 10) as in |10|9. So look at how many things we have pointing towards the magic number 10!

[jakell]

I agree, however that all gets thrown out of the window if you "assume" that you are being send a message by some kind of higher cosmic force or magic. To put this in perspective, if it did happen that the speed of light was 300,000,000 m/s or 333,333,333 m/s "magic number" advocates would quickly point that out the same way they point to other things.


Geez you found a magic number!, first 3 digits before the dot sum up to 11 and the 3 digits after the dot sum up to 9. So the dot represents 10 (between 11 and 9) and our number system is a decimal system based on 10. My friend we should get a Nobel for this!

As you've said this twice now I will remark that this seems rather inventive/creative of you.

There's no reason to assume that these numbers would be about a supernatural being trying to communicate. You also said that for something to be 'magical' then it has to be about a supernatural being pushing it's agenda.. again, why would this follow?

I would expect these leaps from an occultist or New Ager, but they seem odd flights of fancy for someone who comes over as as a rationalist. If I were taking such a stance I would at least try to come up with falsifiable hypotheses.

[XogGyux]

As you've said this twice now I will remark that this seems rather inventive/creative of you.

There's no reason to assume that these numbers would be about a supernatural being trying to communicate. You also said that for something to be 'magical' then it has to be about a supernatural being pushing it's agenda.. again, why does this follow.

I would expect these leaps from an occultist or New Ager, but they seem odd flights of fancy for someone who comes over as as a rationalist. If I were taking such a stance I would at least try to come up with falsifiable hypotheses.

My response is along the same contextual lines as the video expresses. Now you might want to talk about numbers that are meaningful or important to the human race, and if that is your goal then lead the conversation in that way (in fact I'd go a step further and submit to you the number 2 and the number pi as potentially meaningful practically and psychologically). Don't call magical numbers but talk about numbers with meaning to humanity, be it psychological meaning or practical meaning or some other kind of meaning. Furthermore I do not have to propose a falsifiable hypothesis because I am not proposing one (proposing 10 as a magical number is clearly a reductio ad absurdum to make a point, it is not an actualy claim as it is not congruent with my previous points to begin with), I am in fact commenting on the proposition that there is a magic number. Notice that such proposition is not falsifiable (as all propositions that claim supernatural/magical/god/etc) because of its very nature. So it is you, in fact, that has made a non-falsifiable proposition when you say "Is 3 a magic number?".

[jakell]

I have not claimed that 3 is a magic number. You said this above and I denied it and now I'm denying it again.

^^^Well, obviously Matt did, but I wasn't counting him. I'm not claiming that Three is 'magical' either, you are creating a strawman there in a similar way to how Matt did.

I'm keeping these posts short and simple but you're still not taking them in.

[Besoeker]

I have not claimed that 3 is a magic number. You said this above and I denied it and now I'm denying it again.

OK. Do YOU think three is a magic number?

[XogGyux]

I have not claimed that 3 is a magic number. You said this above and I denied it and now I'm denying it again.



I'm keeping these posts short and simple but you're still not taking them in.

I refer you to the tittle of the thread.

[jakell]

I refer you to the tittle of the thread.

The title of the thread is a reference to the video and can be regarded as rhetorical (as Matt did too). This is amply reflected in my OP where I describe my approach.