subscribe to our mailing list:

SECTIONS




Some remarks in regard to D.Witztum's writings concerning the
"code" in the Book of Genesis
By Mark Perakh
First posted on April 27,
1998
Last update  July 31,
1998
Contents:
 Introduction
 General
remarks in regard to D. Witztum's writings
 About
analogies as a tool of discussion
 Remarks about WRR's experimental
procedure
 Discussion of the table of
"ranks" in WRR's paper
 Alternative
explanations of the table of "ranks"
 Final
remarks
 Conclusion
 Appendix (Would an alternative "straightforward" method be preferrable to the
permutations of the data list?)
The paper by D.Witztum, E. Rips, and Y. Rosenberg (WRR) was
published, in 1994, in the journal Statistical Science. The three
coauthors had, reportedly, contributed different parts to that paper.
Apparently, the role of Y. Rosenberg was limited to the development of a
computer program (or programs) used in WRR's experiments. Indeed, besides being
indicated as a coauthor of the paper in question, and of some subsequent papers
(which have not appeared in print) Mr. Rosenberg did not seem to publicly offer
opinions in the discussion that followed the publication of the paper by WRR.
Dr. E. Rips, was, reportedly, the main force in developing the mathematical
algorithm for the estimation of the quantity WRR introduced under the name of
"proximity" (and of what they denoted "cvalue"). WRR considered these
quantities to be the criteria enabling one to distinguish between the
Godinserted "code" and accidentally appearing ELS. Dr. Rips has expressed
certain views and opinions in response to criticisms of the WRR' work. Dr. Rips
stressed, though, that the main contribution to the "code" research was made by
D. Witztum. D. Witztum, in a paper printed in the Jewish Action magazine,
also asserted himself to be the main contributor to the "code" project.
Therefore, everybody involved to some extent in the discussions of the Torah
"code" was interested to hear from Mr. Witztum in regard to the critical remarks
directed at WRR's theory.
Some of the papers in which D. Witztum has offered his rebuttals of
criticisms of WRR's work and, in his turn, countered his detractors with his own
criticisms, have been gathered in a Web site (see http://www.torahcodes.co.il/ ) which
seems to be connected in some way to AishHaTorah organization and to its
seminar's Senior lecturer Rabbi D. Mechanic. Some additional material by D.
Witztum can be found in the Jewish Action magazine. The Web site in
question had been established by, as they have themselves defined it (I am
quoting): "friends and supporters of Doron Witztum's research into the hidden
codes in Genesis in order to provide a forum for him to answer some of the
questions and criticisms which have arisen during the past three years. There
are a great number of misconceptions which have been perpetuated about this
research, and the general public is unaware as to what is fact or what is
fiction." (End of quote).
As it has been indicated in the web page in question, Mr. D. Witztum
had written all that material in Hebrew, so the items in that web page are
translations into English of D. Witztum's original writings. Since I will be
referring in this article only to the English version of D. Witztum's material,
I have to assume that the translation faithfully represents the authentic
writings by D. Witztum.
If the English text is the faithful reproduction of the original,
then one may conclude that D. Witztum has a way with words. His writing is quite
eloquent, displays a rich vocabulary and the ability to clearly express his
views and opinions. Moreover, one can see that D. Witztum has quite a nimble
mind and a good grasp of details and of their relations to the overall picture.
On the other hand, regretfully, D. Witztum, rather than concentrate
only on the substance of criticisms directed at WRR's publications, devoted
considerable effort to remarks of rather personal character. Some of these
remarks are of a general type, like dividing the people involved in the "code"
controversy, into two groups, whose unnamed participants, in D. Witztum's view,
all have some not kosher motivations, etc. Some other remarks by D. Witztum are
more direct, for example, accusing certain opponents of his views in lying, etc.
I have no intention to discuss in detail these remarks by D. Witztum, because,
first, I do not wish to engage in irrelevant matters which have no bearing on
the controversy in question, and second because I am sure the targets of D.
Witztum's personal negative references are perfectly capable of defending
themselves should they choose to do so. Of course, I fully expect to also become
a target of some personal unflattering comments on the part of some "procode"
people. Indeed, as soon as my earlier article was posted (see http://members.cox.net/mkarep/ ), I
received an unsigned email message from Aish Ha Torah organization in
which its author said that they, at Aish Ha Torah, decided not to read my
paper because it "is meaningless and intellectually dishonest." I wonder, how
could the writer (or writers) of that message have formed an opinion of a paper,
which they did not read?
I believe that airing doubts about moral standards of one's opponents
is counterproductive. It is also demeaning first and most for those who indulge
in such personal remarks, and more so if expressions like "intellectually
dishonest," or "meaningless" are employed in a general way. We all will be
better off concentrating only on the essence of the controversy. The best way of
discussion would be to weigh all the evidence in a dispassionate way.
Unfortunately, the matter has become too emotional, hence the dispute
necessarily will become quite heated from time to time. It can be acceptable,
with regret, as long as no personal insults and hints are being circulated.
In this paper my goal is to show that, despite the detailed rebuttals
forwarded by D. Witztum's in defense of his views, D. Witztum's theory is, in my
view, flawed both at the very fundamental level, and in its experimental
implementation. Therefore, in my view, the conclusions of WRR in regard to the
"code" in the book of Genesis have not been sufficiently
substantiated.
In one of his papers (see http://www.torahcodes.co.il/ ) D.
Witztum uses an analogy to explain the alleged vast difference between his own,
scientifically impeccable research, and the allegedly faulty attempts by Dr.
McKay, Dr. D. BarNatan, and others, to show that in certain nonBiblical texts
the "proximity" as defined by WRR, can have "ranks" as extreme as in the text of
the Genesis. In that analogy, D. Witztum compares the search for ELS in texts to
a bombardment of a target. In a "good" bombardment (if we resort to the
use of sucn an oxymoron) the bombs land in close proximity to a target.
Similarly, in a "good" search for ELS (such as the one allegedly employed by
WRR's method) the conceptually related ELS are found within a small
segment of a text, and are in close proximity to each other. In a faulty search
for ELS (such as allegedly performed by Dr. B. McKay et al) the
conceptually related ELS are found within a chunk of text much larger than that
in WRR's experiment, which, according to D. Witztum, is analogous to a "bad"
bombardment where the bombs land over an area much larger than the target's
close vicinity.
Analogy is akin to modeling. Modeling is quite common in Physics and
other sciences. Without using a model, many problems would be too complex to
crack. Here are a few examples. After J. Kepler had formulated, on the base of
the empirical evidence, his three laws of planetary motion, Newton set out to
derive equations which would explain Kepler's laws from a single postulate,
namely from his universal law of gravitation. To do so, Newton had to adopt a
model of a planet. His model of a planet was simplicity itself. It was a point
mass. Was it a good model? Surely it was. This model had only one common
characteristic with the object it represented, namely the planet's mass. All
other properties of a planet, whose number is enormously large, were ignored in
the model. This allowed Newton to simplify the problem to the extent making the
calculation feasible. All those other properties of a planet could be ignored as
long as only the Kepler's laws were to be derived. How did Newton make his
choice of the properties to be ignored and the properties to be accounted for
(in his case, only the planet's mass)? He did it based mainly on his intuition.
The choice of a model is art. The talent of being able to choose a
good model is what distinguishes a good scientist from a bad one. Let us see
what is the model of a planet, more specifically of the earth, in some other
physical problem. In the science of seismometry, which deals with the
propagation of seismic waves in the crust of the earth, the model of the earth
is an elastic halfspace. It has only three properties, namely Modulus of
Elasticity, Sheer modulus, and Poisson coefficient. All other properties of the
earth are ignored in that model (including the planet's mass!) Is it a good
model? Yes, it is good, because it simplifies the problem to the extent making
the calculation feasible, while the results of that calculation are reasonably
close to the actual characteristics of wave propagation.
So, we have here two models of the same object, earth, which do not
seem to have anything in common, while representing the same object but in
different problems. What makes both models good? In both cases, when choosing a
model, its creators guessed successfully which properties of the planet are
important for the problem to be solved, and which are secondary and could safely
be ignored.
What if the models were chosen differently? For example, what if in
calculating planetary motion, Newton were to choose a model of the planet as
that of an elastic halfspace? It is after all also a model of earth. Obviously,
it would be a bad model as it would account for a property of no importance for
the problem, but ignore the property which is crucial. Equally, a model of earth
as of a point mass would be completely inadequate for the calculation of seismic
wave propagation.
Models in Physics are usually those of objects. Analogy is also a
model, but usually that of a situation. Analogy can also be good and bad. A good
analogy considers a substitute situation (model) which retains all the crucial
features of the actual situation, and ignores its features of secondary
importance. Such substitution is designed to simplify the situation under
scrutiny to the extent enabling one to think through all of its implications and
possible outcomes. A bad analogy retains secondary features of the actual
situation but ignores its important features. It is useless and often simply
misleading.
The analogy used by D. Witztum substitutes, for the situation with
ELS in a text, another situation, that of a bombardment of a target. This is a
good example of a bad analogy. The situation with the bombardment of a target is
superficially similar to that of locating ELS in a text, as it seems to have
some common features with the latter. However, those common features are the
secondary ones and have no bearing on the comparison between the results of
Witztum's vs McKay's searches for ELS. At least one crucial feature is
different in the two situations. Analyzing that crucial feature reveals the
fundamental oversight in Witztum's reasoning which undermines his arguments.
When the situation with bombing a target is considered, there is an
indisputable criterion of what is to be considered a successful bombing. In a
"good" bombardment bombs are expected to hit locations which are in
closest proximity to the target. D. Witztum believes that his analogy is good
because in the search for ELS the successful outcome is to locate pairs of ELS
at minimal distances from each other, in a portion of the text as small as
possible.
This is the fundamental flaw in Witztum's reasoning.
Assume that there was a superhuman creator of "code." How could WRR
know the specific thoughts of that creator of code in regard to the ELS
placement in the text of the book of Genesis? There is in Isaiah 55:8 the
following passage: "My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My
ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My
ways higher than your ways." (Quoted from The Holy Scriptures according to
the Masoretic text, The Menora Press, Chicago, page 362). This saying seems
to be relevant to my question, especially since this question is directed to D.
Witztum.
What criterion may we choose to distinguish between the deliberately
inserted "code" and the ELS occurring by chance? This is the crucial question.
Before this question has been answered, all the subsequent actions, such as
developing a mathematical algorithm for calculating the chosen criterion, or
choosing the proper list of appellations and corresponding dates of birth/death,
etc, are aimless exercises. In the bombing analogy, this criterion is easily
defined as the "proximity" of hits to the target. There is no such simple
criterion for the problem of a "code" in a text.
Witztum and his colleagues, if they wanted to employ a scientific
approach to the problem they faced, should have first discussed the question as
to how to choose a criterion. Instead, they simply accepted that, if the ELS had
been deliberately inserted into the Torah by design, then pairs of
conceptually related ELS must be located in close proximity to each other. They
have never discussed this choice, as if such a choice of a criterion was
selfevident. As they did not discuss it, introducing it instead as something
selfevident, they of course did not provide any justification for their choice.
In my view, this oversight invalidates their subsequent actions, rendering
immaterial their discussions which famous Rabbis had to be included in their
list, how many permutations of the data list to perform, etc, etc.
I can foresee the following counterargument by WRR. They may claim
that they encountered by accident pairs of conceptually related ELS, being
situated close to each other. Impressed by that discovery, they designed an
experiment to investigate the phenomenon statistically. The results of such an
experiment proved that indeed pairs of conceptually related ELS appear in the
book of Genesis in close proximity to each other. From that they concluded that
the effect is "not due to chance."
Maybe WRR are satisfied with such a justification, but in my view it
runs against logic. It does not matter in which order to place the notions. It
still means that they assumed, even if after the fact, that the alleged creator
of the "code" for some reason decided to place the related ELS close to each
other. WRR did not offer any justification for such a hypothesis, either on
logical, or factual, or religious grounds.
As I have mentioned, WRR did not provide any justification for why
the extreme values of the "proximity" (or certain values of what they denoted
"cvalue") should indicate the superhuman origin of the "code." I submit
that this omission alone seriously undermines the entire presentation by WRR.
I further submit that such a justification would encounter very
serious, perhaps insurmountable difficulties.
Indeed, let us look at the method used by WRR to test their
hypothesis. This method involved multiple permutations of the list of "names vs
dates" and calculating the value of "proximity" (or "closeness") for each
permutation. I submit that there is a serious argument against the validity of
all those numbers for statistics P1, P2, P3 and P4 calculated by WRR.
This argumentation will be offered in the following sections. First,
though, let us take a look at the experimental procedure employed by
WRR.
WRR have performed the statistical verification of their results
using two types of control texts. Out of the total of six control texts, four
were permuted versions of the text of the book of Genesis. Two more control
texts were taken from sources other than the book of Genesis. One of those two
texts was taken from the book of Isaiah, and the other from a Hebrew translation
of L. Tolstoy's War and Peace. Testing all six control texts alongside
with the actual text of the book of Genesis, WRR checked in each case one
million of "appellations vs dates" lists. One list was the "correct" one
and 999999 were permuted versions of that list where the "names vs dates"
pairs were deliberately mismatched.
WRR have presented their results as a table of "ranks" assigned to
every combination of each text with 999999 permutations of "names vs
dates" pairs. The idea of "ranking" can be explained as follows. For every
text, including the actual text of Genesis, all of its permutations, and also
two nonGenesis control texts, the "proximity" of pairs "name vs date" was
calculated one million times. This calculation was repeated using four different
formulas (referred to as statistics P1, P2, P3 and P4). Each time it was done
both for the "correct" list and for all the scrambled lists. Then, for every
text, the ascending order of the "proximity" values was determined for all
lists, including the correct one and all the scrambled ones. If, for example,
for a text X it was found that the correct list of dates produced proximity
whose value occupied position number r in the ascending series of
proximities, then this text was assigned rank r . In other words, if a
specific text has rank r, it means that there are, among the explored
texts, r1 texts in which the "namedate" pairs are, on the average,
situated closer to each other than in the text ranked r. Hence,
for each text, four ranks have been determined, by using the four formulas
suggested. The lower is the value r of the rank, the "better" is the
overall proximity of the "appellationdate" pair in the given text.
The list of appellations contained 32 personalities juxtaposed to
their dates of birth and/or of death. The number of all possible permutations of
32 names is an expression with 36 digits. As mentioned before, out of this
multitude of permutations, WRR chose at random a subset of 999999
permutations.
One of the permuted versions of the Genesis text was created by
permuting all the letters in the Genesis (control text R), the second one by
permuting all the words in the Genesis without permuting letters within the
words (control text W), one more permuting the verses without permuting letters
within the verses (control text V), and finally one more permuting words within
verses without permuting the letters within each word and the verses themselves
(control text U). (It is obvious that the listed permutations actually produce
not four but only one type of the control text. The Rtype permutations produce
all possible permutations of 78064 letters constituting the text of Genesis,
including the versions resulting from W, V, and Utypes of permutations. Hence,
all four permuted texts were actually just four particular permutations of the
Rtext. Hence the classification of control texts by WRR into four allegedly
different types hardly had any consequence). .
Apart from discussing the results of the tests presented by WRR,
which were based on the use of permutations of the data lists, we can also
consider an alternative way of investigating the texts. This alternative
way is discussed in the Appendix to this
article.
Look at the table of ranks reported by WRR. While the values of
"proximity" can be expected to be nearly extreme for the actual text (see the Appendix) they
have no a priori reason to be sensitive to the permutations of pairs of
related ELS. Therefore, the reported by WRR almost extreme ranks of the lists
they considered to be "correct," among all the scrambled lists of namedate
pairs, is not explained by the considerations offered in the Appendix. To
account for the composition of the table of ranks, we will have to look for a
different way to interpret the reported results.
WRR, on the base of their table of ranks, concluded that the
close proximity of conceptually related ELS does not happen by chance. In
the subsequent comments, including D. Witztum's writings, the above conclusion
had been elaborated by asserting that the "code" had been designed by God.
I believe this conclusion was premature. Before offering such a
notion, WRR, if they wanted to adhere to scientific standards, must have first
explored all possible explanations not requiring extrarational arguments. This
requirement has nothing to do with the scientists' personal beliefs. Many
outstanding scientists had been and are religious people and it is not in any
way contrary to their being also very cautious in seeking an extrarational
explanation for results of a research. Finding a rational explanation in no way
diminishes genuine faith as religious people see God's design in all things that
can be explained rationally. As to the table of ranks in WRR's work, it creates
more questions than answers.
Let us divide these questions into two categories. First consider
those questions which seem to be so crucial that the absence of an attempt to
find answers to them on the part of WRR cast serious doubts in regard to WRR's
overall attitude to the verification of their results.
1. The first question arises immediately when taking the first glance
at the table of "ranks" in WRR's paper. The ranks for the text of Genesis were
found to be, for four "statistics" used, between 4 and 570 (out of one million).
Recall that if for a certain text the "correct" list of appellation/dates
has rank 4 it means that there are only 3 permuted lists (out of one million)
that produce "closer" proximity" for the text in question. Hence, the rank found
for the actual text of the Book of Genesis turned out to be close to the minimal
value among all one million of data list permutations. This was construed by WRR
as the indication of "close proximity" not being due to chance. Indeed, for all
the control texts the ranks were quite far away from the minimal values. Among
the six control texts, there was the Book of Isaiah. Its ranks, found for four
statistics, were between 899830 and 946261, which were the worst results of all
six control texts. In other words, the test proved to be a complete failure for
the Book of Isaiah, where, unlike the Book of Genesis, the criterion chosen by
WRR showed the complete absence of the "proximity" between the dates and
appellations on WRR's list. This fact obviously could not be left unnoticed by
the people who conducted their experiment. This fact must have evoked an
inordinate curiosity on the part of the experimentalists. Strangely, this did
not seem to happen.
The driving force of science is curiosity. I find it very hard to
imagine that WRR simply ignored the exceptionally poor performance of the Book
of Isaiah as if it was some insignificant detail. Generally speaking, even small
details of the experimental results are normally subjected to a thorough
scrutiny. In the case under discussion, the Isaiah outcome was not an
insignificant detail, but a result that related to the very core of the
investigation. How could the three researchers not to get curious about it and
not to set out to study it deeper?
The natural step would be first of all to apply the method they
developed to the four other books of the Torah, and to see if in those four
books the "proximity" will again be nearly extreme for the actual list of Rabbis
as compared with the scrambled lists. Instead, WRR hurried to form a conclusion,
based only on the tests of Genesis plus 6 control texts.
There can be imagined two possibilities. One is that WRR announced
their conclusion to the world and simply ignored the Isaiah result, as something
inconsequential. In this case, they displayed the lack of curiosity quite
amazing for scientists. The other assumption can be that WRR had noticed, and
explored the strange result, and had actually applied their method to the books
of the Torah other than the Genesis, but withheld the results of such
exploration.
Fortunately, some other scientists have filled the void left by WRR's
paper. Dr. A.M. Hasofer, who is a Professor of Mathematical Statistics,
performed the experiment, precisely reproducing WRR's method, on the books of
the Torah other than the Book of Genesis. Prof. Hasofer, who, also, is a
religious Jew, used the same list of appellations and dates as WRR did. He used
the program provided by WRR. For the Book of Genesis, Prof. Hasofer (who used
only 2 out of four "statistics" suggested by WRR) found the "ranks" to be 2 and
716, which is in agreement with WRR's result for the book of Genesis, as these
ranks were quite close to the minimal possible values of ranks among one
million. (The difference between the exact values of ranks for Genesis in
Hasofer's and WRR's tables was due to the use by Hasofer of an updated program
provided by WRR). If the results for Genesis are to be trusted, then also those
for the other four books of the Torah have to be trusted to the same extent. A.
Hasofer found for the other four books of the Torah the rank's values between
135735 and 947381. Hence, the experiment utterly failed to show any "close
proximity" of "appellations vs dates" pairs for the books of Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
Comment. Let us take a look at the recent "new claims"
about the Torah code, namely at the results reported by Dr. A. Rotenberg at http://www.math.tau.ac.il/~tsirel/alex.html. A. Rotenberg indicated that the resullts allegedly proving the existence
of a "code" comprising the names of the 10 sons of Haman, their date of deaths,
and the words denoting the Purim holiday, improved when he extended his analysis
from the Book of Genesis to the entire Torah. In view of the failure to find a
"close proximity" according to WRR, between ELS for names and dates of the
"famous Rabbis," in four books of the Torah other than Genesis, this
statement by A. Rotenberg sounds quite contradictory, and hints at his results
being just a concidence without a statistical meaning.
A few subquestions seem to be in order. Did WRR try their method on
any of the four books in question? It would take quite a short time and a
minimal effort to do so, as they had the program ready, the text of the Torah
ready, and the computer working. If they did not, it would be an
incomprehensible omission on the part of researchers pretending to approach the
problem in an unbiased way and being interested only in facts. If they did, why
did they not report the results?
It seems worth to note that it would be quite natural for WRR to test
at least the book of Leviticus, probably even before the book of Genesis. I base
this statement on the following information. The book by Dr. J. Satinover
provides a history of WRR's approach to the Torah "code" problem. Supporters of
WRR, in particular Rabbi D. Mechanic, have only nice words in regard to J.
Satinover's book. So far, neither WRR nor their supporters, who quite vigorously
denounce the book by M. Drosnin, have ever contradicted J. Satinover's account.
J. Satinover himself claimed to get all that information directly from WRR.
According to J. Satinover's account, out of the three authors of the paper in
the Statistical Science, Dr. E. Rips was the first to get involved with
the "codes". As J. Satinover tells us, Dr. E. Rips was approached by one Abraham
Oren who asked Rips to investigate ELS that spelled the name of Aharon
(in Hebrew four letters Alef, Hey, Resh, Nun) which Oren found in the book of
Leviticus. That was, according to J. Satinover, the beginning of E. Rips
involvement with the "code." The first discoveries of clusters of ELS in the
Torah made by E. Rips were the occurrences of word Aharon with a
frequency that, according to E. Rips, considerably exceeded the mathematically
expected one.
In view of that history, is it not highly unusual that WRR, if not to
start with the book of Leviticus, at least should have studied it along with the
book of Genesis? Today we know that, if WRR started with Leviticus, their result
would be negative. Or would it?
As many critics of WRR have indicated, the list of "appellations vs
dates" used by WRR had many variables that could be altered at will. Could the
list in question be compiled in a slightly different way, so it would ensure a
positive result with the book of Leviticus? Of course, then the experiment would
fail in Genesis.
In his writings, D. Witztum has not uttered a single word which would
provide an explanation in regard to WRR's failure to investigate the four books
of the Torah other than the book of Genesis.
Comment: WRR very strongly reject some remarks by their
critics, in which the critics imply that WRR could, maybe inadvertently, slant
their data list to get the desired result. I sympathize with WRR in this
respect, as such a suspicion is highly destructive to any scientist's reputation
and should cause a lot of distress. I prefer to believe that WRR have performed
their study in a perfectly honest way. They must admit though that, by failing
to investigate the other four books of the Torah, and more so in view of the
test's subsequent failure with the other four books, WRR have exposed themselves
to those, maybe unfair, but understandable doubts.
2. Besides question 1, another, concomitant question seems to be: if
the "code" is real, why did the alleged creator of the "code" insert it into the
text of the Genesis, but not in the rest of the Torah? This question is quite
natural if one remembers that, according to the tradition in Judaism, whose
adherents E. Rips and D. Witztum claim to be, the Torah was given on Mount Sinai
to Moses as one piece, without being divided into words, sentences, or books.
The division occurred later, even though it is not known when and in which
circumstances. The boundaries between the five books of Moses have no absolute
meaning, and some of those boundaries had been subjects of various
interpretations by prominent Rabbis (for example, by Vilna Gaon). Then why is
there such a vast difference between the "proximity" in the book of Genesis, and
the other four books? I can hypothesize that WRR could reply that they could not
know the reasons the God chose to do or not to do something. Recall though that
WRR claimed to know that God placed the conceptually related ELS in close
proximity to each other. To decide that God chose to behave in such a way, a way
not dictated by a transparent logic, and without any evident reason or aim for
that, seemed to be easy for WRR. So, why would WRR lose that uncanny ability to
know what God wanted to do with ELS in the Genesis, when the other four books
are considered?
In his writings, D. Witztum has provided no comments in regard to the
possible reasons for the difference in "proximities" between the book of Genesis
and the four other books of the Torah.
3. A question similar to 1, even though not as crucial, is why books
of the Tanakh other than Isaiah, were not investigated? Again, the natural
curiosity of a scientist should pose this question as well. Many examples of ELS
found in various books of Tanakh have been demonstrated. Of course, WRR have
stressed more than once, that the occurrences of either individual ELS or arrays
of ELS have no meaning, as only the proper statistical analysis like that
applied to the "famous rabbis" is valid. On the other hand, the book by J.
Satinover contains many examples of those arrays, which have not been subjected
to the statistical analysis according toWRR, but have never been repudiated by
WRR. Moreover, since the tests in which WRR's method was used, failed in
Leviticus, then what about those "Aharon" ELS which appear in that book
in numbers exceeding the mathematical expectations? So, while WRR and their
supporters (like Rabbi D. Mechanic) do not spare harsh words to denounce the
communications by various people about individual ELS or clusters of ELS found
in the Bible, and words like "nonsense", "meaningless" and the like are being
employed casually in those repudiations, they remain silent about similar
discoveries by D.Witztum or E. Rips themselves.
In his writings, D. Witztum has not said anything in regard to WRR's
failure to investigate books of the Tanakh other than Isaiah.
4. One more question is as follows: if the "code" was inserted into
the text of Genesis by design, then would we not expect that it should work in a
nonstatistical way? As a corollary to that question, why is the rank of the
text of Genesis not 1? I could hypothesize a few possible answers to that
question, but WRR did not raise it at all.
In D. Witztum writings there is not a single word in regard to the
values of ranks in question.
Now, there are many other questions which had to be at
least discussed. The questions in this category are of a different character as
compared with the 4 above listed ones. These additional questions relate to the
experimental routine employed by WRR. If WRR's results were more or less within
the domains of generally expected behavior, the questions in this category could
be left to rest. However, given the extraordinary behavior of the texts under
study, in this case these additional questions had better to be addressed, first
of all to satisfy the researchers themselves. Here are a few of such questions:
1. Will the poor performance of the Isaiah text persist
for its permuted versions? (Comment: normally, this question would not be
of a great importance, and the answer to it could be guessed with a good degree
of certainty. However, given the odd behavior of the texts under study, in
particular the astounding difference between the texts of Genesis and those of
the other four books of the Torah, this question acquired the stature of an
additional tool, not to verify any established rules of a statistical
experiment, but to recheck their own experimental procedure by the researchers,
to see if any step of it was not done in some undetected erroneous way).
 How will the text of War and Peace perform with alternative
sets of 999999 permutations of the data list? (The same comment as for question
1).
 How will a permuted text of War and Peace perform? (The same
comment as for question 1 ).
 Will the effect persist with alternative Rtype permuted versions of
the Genesis text? (The same comment as for question 1).
Even if all the missing information corresponding to the above
questions had been collected, it still might not be sufficient to make reliable
conclusions. To make conclusions before obtaining answers to the above (as well
as maybe to some other) questions was so premature as to deprive the alleged
conclusion of scientific significance.
The driving force of science is curiosity. (Or have I already said it
before? Well, repetition is the mother of study  it is a Russian adage). I find
it hard to imagine how researchers who obtained the described strange table of
ranks would not be curious enough to try finding answers to all above questions,
unless their subconscious agenda was to confirm a preconceived view. All the
above questions must have intrigued researchers who obtained such unexpected and
strange results, if they strove for a reliable understanding of their
observations. WRR chose to announce their conclusions while the experiment was
stopped before all the necessary information which could have been extracted by
varying and expanding the experimental conditions, had been collected. During
the years after the experiment was stopped in the middle of the way, WRR
expanded their experimentation by exploring other data lists and adding more
results of the same type they obtained in the original experiment rather than to
try to answer the questions that remained unanswered in the initial
experiments.
D. Witztum, in his writings, has never said anything that would
justify WRR's failure to properly complete their experiment.
I have not touched here on one more, rather crucial item, namely the
bizarre behavior of the four "statistics" suggested by WRR as cumulative
measures of the "proximity" of conceptually related ELS. This item is
discussed in my other paper at Additional critical remarks in regard to D. Witztum, E. Rips, and Y. Rosenberg "code" related publications. In that paper I submit the opinion, based on the analysis of the data
reported by WRR, that the contradictory, haphazard behavior of the four
statistics P is negating any validity of WRR's conclusions, and is indicative of
some profound fault in WRR's approach.
There can be many alternative explanations for the table of ranks
offered by WRR.
The first explanation that comes to mind is that the table of ranks
was obtained in a way that is contrary to the established rules of statistical
research. Indeed, the article by a prominent expert in Mathematical Statistics,
Prof. A.M. Hasofer, which has so far been circulated only as a preprint,
provides a strong indication that the above suspicion has a solid foundation.
The paper by Dr. A. M. Hasofer can be reviewed in this web page at A statistical critique of Witztum et al paper, where it has been placed with its author's kind permission. Dr. Hasofer's
article requires for its understanding a certain background in Probability
Theory and in Math. Statistics. I will provide here some points of Dr. Hasofer's
expert article, trying to make them more or less comprehensible for laymen.
Those readers, however, who wish to really develop a sense of Dr. Hasofer's
powerful argumentation, are recommended to work through A. M. Hasofer's piece.
One of the faults of WRR's research, as shown by Prof. A. Hasofer, is
WRR' failure to set an "alternative hypothesis" which is a necessary condition
for a reliable statistical analysis. To set only a "null hypothesis" as WRR did,
is not sufficient for the results to warrant a statistically sound conclusion.
Prof. A. Hasofer indicated a number of other faults in WRR's
approach. In particular, Prof. A. M. Hasofer has thoroughly analyzed the
fatal results of WRR' switching to the data lists permutations.
A.M. Hasofer indicated that WRR had improperly applied the concept of
"chance" to the situation when only a unique object (the book of Genesis) was
available for the analysis. Their assumption "had no frequency interpretation."
Therefore, concluded Prof. A.M. Hasofer, the final conclusion by WRR in regard
to the "close proximity" as happening "not due to chance," was in their context
a meaningless statement.
Then, WRR had illegally applied an assumption of "equiprobability" to
the items in their sample space. Prof. A.M. Hasofer indicated that,
contrary to the usual routine, in WRR's case, no "symmetry argument" could be
used. This comment can be understood even by readers who have no knowledge at
all of Math statistics. Let us look at it.
In the data list compiled by WRR, most of the
Rabbis have more than one appellation; the dates of birth/death also are given
usually in more than one version; the lengths of appellations also vary.
The effect of the above variations in the number of appellations and dates can
be seen from the following example. Let us consider any two entries in the data
list. Assume that personality X is listed with three possible appellations
A_{1} , A_{2 }, and A_{3 }(for
example, one of the appellations may be only the last name, the other a
nickname, etc) while the dates are given in 2 versions D_{1 }and D_{2
}(for example one is the date of birth, the other of death, etc) etc). Then
personality X contributes 6 "correct" pairs of data to the data list. Let assume
Personality Y is listed with two possible appellations A_{3 }and A_{4
}and with only one date D_{4 }. Then personality Y contributes 2
"correct" pairs of data to the data list. Both personalities X and Y together
contribute 8 "correct" data pairs to the data list. Among the 32! possible
permutations of the data list, there is one in which appellations for
personality X are "matched" to dates for personality Y, and appellations for Y
are "matched" to dates for X. In this combination 3 appellations for X are
combined with 1 date for Y, while 2 appellations for Y are combined with 2 dates
for X. Then the total number of "mismatched" pairs contributed by both X and Y
to this scrambled list of data is 7 rather than 8. Hence, each scrambled list of
data consists of different numbers of entries. The described situation is
exacerbated even more because of various lengths of the appellations for various
personalities (this affecting the "equiprobabilty" hypothesis). Hence, when the appellations/dates list is permuted, to mismatch the
pairs, it creates asymmetric combinations. Prof. Hasofer then indicated that the
absence of a valid symmetry interpretation is a common source of an
"anthropomorphic illusion" when a statistically significant result seems to
exist which has no basis in reality.
One more comment by Prof. A.M. Hasofer relates to WRR's choice of the
measure of the "distance" between the ELS. Prof. A.M.Hasofer has convincingly
showed that the choice made by WRR led to the values of "distances" between ELS
which often defied common sense. Prof. Hasofer offered examples when the
distance between two obviously close ELS, when calculated by WRR's method,
yielded larger values that the one calculated for two ELS which were situated
obviously much farther from each other. (Similar criticism of the "distance"
measure has been offered by another prominent mathematician, Prof. Barry Simon
of Caltech). Prof. A.M. Hasofer provided a number of other critical comments,
which are too technical to be discussed in this article but which are well
founded in Mathematical Statistics. A.M. Hasofer concluded finally that WRR's
work did not meet the requirements of Mathematical Statistics and therefore
WRR's conclusion had no scientific significance.
The views expressed by Prof. A.M. Hasofer, are well in agreement with
the opinions of 45 prominent specialists in Math, Statistics and Probability
Theory (see http://www.math.caltech.edu/code/petition.html).
Finally, as it is discussed in my other article at Additional critical remarks in regard to D. Witztum, E. Rips, and Y. Rosenberg "code" related publications, the contradictory behavior of the four cumulative measures P1, P2, P3, and P4
of "proximity" suggested by WRR can alone explain the strange values of "ranks"
they reported.
In D. Witztum's writings there is not a single word in regard to the
faults of WRR's research analyzed by A.M. Hasofer, which WRR must have foreseen
themselves if they wished their work to meet the standards of a statistical
approach. Neither has D. Witztum mentioned anywhere the reasons for the
haphazard behavior of the four measures of "proximity" suggested by
WRR.
Comment. <Consider again the recent "new claims" by
A. Rotenberg in regard to the alleged "code" in the book of Genesis, that "code"
comprising the names and the date of deaths of 10 sons of Haman etc. (http://www.math.tau.ac.il/~tsirel/alex.html) The work done by A. Rotenberg is characterized, as well as that by WRR, by his
ignoring the basic rules of a statistical test. There is no mention in A.
Rotenberg's page of a null hypothesis, or of alternative hypotheses, or of the
sample space, or of the power of test, or of the critical region, etc, which are
necessary components of a legitimate statistical test. This fact alone
invalidates any conclusions one may try to derive from the tables of "cvalue"
and P1 and P2 statistics provided by A. Rotenberg. >
One more point is that, since the values of "proximity" are expected
to be nearly extreme for the actual text (see the "entropy" argument in
the Appendix
to this article) alternative criteria other than "proximity" must have
also been explored. Until such work has been conducted, the conclusion derived
by WRR remains just their preferred interpretation of results, which has
no sufficient justification.
In D. Witztum's writings there is nothing to justify their choice of
only one criterion, not to mention the doubtful foundations for the use of the
only criterion they chose.
There are also serious doubts about the WRR's choice of appellations
and corresponding dates which have been discussed at length elsewhere (see, for
example http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/) so that I do not need to expand on that matter here.
In publications other than the paper in the journal Statistical
Science, WRR's defenders often provide values of probabilities for the
effects they claimed to have observed. These values may be impressive for
laymen, but scientists who dealt with statistical evaluation of their
experimental data know that the value of probability itself is the least
reliable criterion. It may be useful in certain circumstances. For example, if
in an experiment a linear dependence is suspected between two quantities, and a
least square fit is applied, then the correlation coefficient is a convenient
measure to test the probability of the assumption of linearity. Still, it is
just an auxiliary a posteriori measure, as probability has no power of
prediction. In the case of text's analysis the cognitive value of probability is
extremely limited. For example, look again at the case of Aharon ELS
discussed earlier in this article. J. Satinover quoted E. Ripps who estimated
the probability of 25 ELS for Aharon to appear in the pertinent
paragraphs of Leviticus, and that probability was found to be very small.
However, in view of the negative result for "close proximity" found for
Leviticus by WRR's fullfledged method, that earlier calculated probability
turns out to be of no value as a proof. There is an endless list of examples of
events whose probability is extremely small, but which happen anyway.
I am not discussing here the exchange of arguments between WRR, on
the one hand, and their opponents, on the other, in regard to choosing the list
of names, or the spellings of those names, etc, as my argumentation lies in a
different plane. There is however, one point which, in my view, weighs in favor
of WRR's opponents. I believe that WRR on the one hand, and their opponents, on
the other, face different levels of requirements to prove their cases. WRR try
to prove a certain phenomenon and to do so they have to be extremely careful in
choosing their lists of appellations, the dates, etc, The burden of proof is
theirs to show that the alleged phenomenon is real and not an artifact of some
sloppy experimental procedures. Their opponents, on the other hand, are not
constrained in their choice of appellations, dates, etc. They do not need to
prove that the phenomenon in question exists in, say, War and Peace.
Given the statistical nature of the alleged effect, there is no need to adhere
in those debunking experiments to lists of names or of dates that would meet
some stringent criterion. It is sufficient for their task to show that a
phenomenon similar to that allegedly discovered by WRR in the book of Genesis,
can be also found in some other, nonBiblical text, and to do it for some lists
of names and dates, not necessarily having any historical foundation. Actually
if it is shown for any arbitrarily compiled list of fictitious names and dates,
it would serve the purpose of disproving the claims by WRR as well.
Therefore, when opponents of WRR pinpoint imprecise data in WRR's work, it is a
legitimate argument. On the other hand, when WRR pinpoint "imprecise" data in
the examples of their opponents, it is inconsequential.
Overall, I consider the critical remarks in regard to WRR's
experimental routines to be more convincing than WRR's counter rebuttals.
I submit that probably no quantitative criterion enabling one to
distinguish between the Godinserted "code" and randomly occurring ELS can be
plausibly postulated. I see at least two reasons for that.
One reason is as follows. If we assume that a superhuman creator had
indeed inserted a "code" into the Scriptures, we still have no way to know if
that creator wanted indeed to place all those conceptually related ELS in close
proximity to each other. Why would the alleged creator of "codes" make such a
choice? What could be the aim of such a choice?
If a "code" has been inserted, then we may expect that it should
carry a message. The noncoded text of the Torah is indeed carrying a message.
It is such a message, which has been fascinating millions of people for over two
thousand years without any signs of this fascination to subside. There are
people who accept this message as the word of God. There are people who deny it
or doubt it. But there hardly are many people, at least within a half of the
world population, who are indifferent to that message.
What about the alleged "code?" What message does it convey?
None! The alleged "code" does not constitute any logically and
grammatically arranged text. WRR themselves admit that the "code" does
not reveal anything unknown without it. Then what could be the reason
for the "creator" of the "code" to place conceptually related ELS close to each
other if it does not convey any message anyway? If there was a creator of the
"code," why would he not choose to place the related ELS, say, at equal
distances distributed uniformly over the text? Or in such a way, that those ELS
form certain patterns like triangles, squares, etc. Or, say, as far from each
other as possible, and with skips as long as possible? The choice of "proximity"
as a proof of the superhuman origin of ELS arrays is a postulate, which has
no foundation either in faith, or in logic, or in facts.
Since we have no way to determine what must be the choice of the
alleged creator of "codes" as to in what manner to place them in the text, there
is no way to choose a mathematical criterion to distinguish between the "code"
and the randomly occurring ELS.
The second reason making, in my opinion, the choice of the criterion
in question hardly feasible, is the high probability that the chosen
criterion has an extreme value for the actual text as compared with permuted
"texts", or with completely different, both Biblical and nonBiblical texts,
simply because of the unique or the almost unique standing of the actual
text among all the permuted versions, or because of the specific
composition of a particularly chosen nonBiblical text. The extreme values
of "proximity" reported by WRR, even if they are correct, could as well be
attributed to that lowentropy nature of the actual text vs. most of its
permutations, or, as with the War and Peace and Isaiah experiments, to
accidental compositions of the control texts. Therefore the values of
"proximity" cannot serve as a criterion to prove that the "code" has been
inserted into the Bible by design.
In this article, as well as in the two other articles on this Web
site, my goal was not to prove the absence of a "code" in the Bible, but
rather to show that the existence of such a "code" has so far not been
proven by its proponents. If the "code" is indeed there, it requires a much
more rigorous proof.
My conclusions are that 1) The experiment by WRR was stopped before
its logical completion, leaving many questions unanswered; 2) WRR failed to
substantiate their choice of the criterion used to differentiate between a
deliberately designed "code" and randomly occurring arrays of ELS; 3) because of
the above indicated omission alone, WRR's results and assertions are not
sufficiently substantiated, and 4) D. Witztum, by failing to address the crucial
question of the criterion's choice, as well as many other critical comments, has
so far failed to justify his position and his argumentation.
Would an alternative "straightforward" approach be
preferrable to the permutations of the data list?
At the time of writing this article (April 1998), I was teaching the
course of Statistical Physics at California State university. In my class I had
both undergraduate Physics majors and Graduate students in the Master program.
Of course, in the syllabus for that course, there was no mention of the "code"
in the Torah. However, some of my students happened to see this web page, and
asked question about the "code." This way, the "code" controversy came up for
discussion. I explained the method used by WRR, which involved the permutations
of the data list (i.e. appellations vs dates list). Some students asked,
why did WRR choose such a convoluted way to compare "proximities?" Would it be
not more natural as well as simpler to compare the actual text of the book of
Genesis with its 999999 permuted versions, sticking to only one list of
names/dates?
My students, without realizing this, had actually hit one of the most
vulnerable points in WRR work. WRR, as it has been shown in the body of this
article, switched from the method we have just called "straightforward" to the
more convoluted one, reportedly on the advice of a reviewer at the journal to
which they submitted the first version of their paper. Lest I will be
misunderstood, I am not criticizing the suggestion by the reviewer (if there
indeed was such a suggestion) per se. The use of a data list permutations
was of course a clever (and not unusual) way to treat the problem by making the
condition of the "tests" close (even if not identical) to the model of
"independent" tests. What I am criticizing is how WRR had applied that method.
To use the permutations of data list properly, WRR had to choose the same number
of appellations and the same number of corresponding dates for every personality
One way to do it would be to perform an averaging of all appellations and dates
versions for each personality on the list (as suggested by Dr. B. Simon in a
private communication). Then each entry would have only one appellation and one
date. (Reportedly the reviewer suggested some similar manipulation of the data
list). WRR failed to do so. What had actually happened as a result, was the
replacement of the initial "null hypothesis" by another "null hypothesis"
without first adjusting the data list as mentioned. This caused the fatal
destruction of the integrity of WRR' s statistical analysis, as it is discussed
in the body of this article. The initial "null hypothesis," with all its related
actions, at least did not contradict basic rules of a statistical analysis. The
new "null hypothesis," which corresponded to the data lists permutations
approach, with its accompanying effects, when applied to the list with varying
numbers of appellations and dates for different personalities, resulted in a
violation of basic rules of Math. Statistics (see the body of this
article).
I guess that the realization of the fatal faults inherent in WRR's
"data lists permutations" implementation, may lead to suggestions that WRR would
be better off sticking to the initial "null hypothesis" and to the use of texts
permutations rather than those of data lists. (Indeed, such suggestions have
been voiced on the Web, so far only in the form of private
communications). In this section I intend to show that the
"straightforward" method, even though it would not be contrary to the
fundamentals of Statistical science, has its own, probably even worse
problems.
The totality of all the possible permutations of a text constitutes a
statistical ensemble. In the language of Mathematical statistics, this ensemble
fills up the so called sample space. The text of the Genesis contains 78064
letters. The number of possible permutations of these letters is enormously
large. To understand how immensely large that number is, note that if the
total number of letters in some Hebrew text is only 100 (so that every letter is
encountered in that text, on the average, between four and five times) the
number of possible permutations is an expression with 118 digits. For the text
of Genesis this number is vastly larger.
There is also another possible way to choose the sample space. Rather
than to define it as comprising all the possible permutations of the actual
text, it can be chosen to comprise all the possible combinations of 78064
letters, of which there are 22 versions. This sample space would hold even more
"texts" (this number would be 22 to power of 78064) of which the overwhelming
majority would be meaningless collections of letters, and which would now
encompass not only all possible permutations of the actual text, but also all
possible control texts.
(WRR had though used in their 1994 paper a sample space containing
32! permutations of the data list).
Within the original sample space, containing the "texts," there is a
hierarchy of degrees of order among the "texts". The actual text of the book is
highly organized, since it is arranged conceptually and grammatically. In the
parlance of the Information Theory, the actual text of the book, which has a
high degree of order, has a low value of entropy. Various "texts"
in the sample space possess various degrees of order, from the complete
randomness (when they have a high value of entropy) to a rather high degree of
order (and, correspondingly, lower values of entropy). Among these "texts" there
are some with a higher degree of order than the actual text. For example, a
higher degree of order has a "text" where all "alefs" are collected together,
followed by all "bets" lumped together, then by all "gimels" bunched together,
etc. However, the number of "texts" with a higher degree of order as compared
with the actual text, is much smaller than the number of "texts" with a lower
degree of order. The reason for that is that the higher is the degree of order
(the lower the entropy value) the less probable is the occurrence of a "text"
with such value of entropy. Since the actual text has a high degree of order
(low entropy) it is highly likely that its entropy is close to the bottom of the
variety of degrees of order among the "texts". The number of possible "texts"
that possess specific values of entropy increases exponentially
along with the increase in the value of entropy. Hence, it is highly probable
that any of the control texts has a much larger entropy than the actual text of
the Genesis.
Here are some quantitative estimates. The entropy of a fully
randomized English text, as calculated by C. Shannon, is 4.76 bits per
character if spaces are counted as characters, and 4.7 bits per character
if the text is stripped of spaces. A calculation analogous to that
of C. Shannon, gives for a fully randomized Hebrew text stripped of spaces
(which comprises 22 different characters rather than 26 as in English) the value
entropy of about 4.46 bits per character. For a real English text,
C. Shannon estimated empirically the entropy to be about 1 bit per
character. There is no such data for Hebrew texts. An estimate can
be made if we assume a certain value for the redundancy of a Hebrew text.
Since Hebrew texts contain no vowels, their redundancy is considerably smaller
than that of English texts. For the latter the accepted value of
redundancy is 75%. We can then roughly estimate the redundancy of Hebrew
to be close to 50%. The relationship between the redundancy R (as a
fraction) and entropy S is as follows: R=1S*/S, where S* is the entropy of the
real text, and S is that of a fully randomized text. Then we find that the
estimated entropy of a real Hebrew text is close to S*=2.23 bits per character.
It means that the probability that a permuted text happens to be fully
randomized is about ten times larger than the probability for a permuted text to
happen with a degree of order close to that of the real text. Besides the
fully randomized version, there are among the permuted texts a multitude of
versions partially randomized, whose probabilities are also to various extent
larger than that for versions with degrees of order close to the real
text. The probability of a permuted version to have a degree of order
larger that that for the real text (i.e. a smaller value of entropy) is quite
small (but not zero, of course). Therefore the permutations with higher
entropy than that of the real text necessarily are prevalent in the sample
space, while permutations with a lower entropy are relatively rare.
The data by C. Shannon,
namely the value of entropy of real Englsh texts to be about 1 bit per
character, were obtained by Shannon empirically in tests performed on
relatively short segments of texts. As Dr. McKay (see the following
comment) has unearthed patterns of order extending over the entire text it
seems possible to assume that the entropy of real texts is actually even less
than Shannon's estimate. Then the difference in probabilities of permuted
texts to either be randomized to a large extent or to have a degree of
order close to the real text, is even larger than we
estimated.
Comment: The above considerations have received
recently a direct experimental confirmation. (The following information in
this comment is based on a private communication from Dr. B. McKay). Dr.
McKay has performed a series of experiments in which he investigated certain
regularities in the structure of real texts in their comparison with randomized
texts. In particular, Dr. McKay studied the following features of texts:
1) Correlations between the letters situated close to each other (for example,
in English letter q is usually followed by letter u, etc). 2) The
uneven distribution of letters across the entire text; 3. Noneven distribution
of letters within the sentences; 4. A correlation between letters occupying
certain positions in one word and letters occupying the same position, or
different, but fixed, position, in another, closely situated word (for example
between the first letter in one word and the first letter in another word, or
between the first letter in one word, and the last letter in another word, etc).
5. Variations in letters frequencies between left and right halves of verses in
the Bible (and a similar phenomenon in nonBiblical texts) as compared with
randomized "texts".
In all explored real
texts, both in the Bible, and in nonbiblical texts, Dr. McKay had found
all the described effects to be present and to be well pronounced. All
these effects disappeared when the texts were randomized. In his
communications in regard to the above unpredicted effects Dr. McKay never used
word "entropy." However, it is obvious that all these effects are
manifestations of various types of order in real texts, which usually disappear
in randomized texts. Presence of any types of order means lower entropy as
compared to randomized texts where those types of order are absent. The
considerations, preceding this comment, about the relatively low entropy of real
texts among the multitude of all "texts" in the sample space, had general
character and could not specifically predict what forms of order distinguish
real texts from randomized versions, except for a general suggestion that some
forms of order must exist there and cause the entropy of real texts to be
low. The results reported by Dr. McKay reveal some specific forms of order
that exist indeed in real texts, but not in the randomized versions. The
discovery of the mentioned types of order provides a direct proof of the
validity of the notion about real texts having low entropy as compared with the
majority of "texts" in the sample space.
Since D. Witztum, as we have seen, is in favor of analogies, we will
also use one. Recall the concept of the Thermodynamic entropy. Entropy in the
Information Theory was given, in the classic paper of 1948 by C. Shannon,
(following some earlier hypotheses about information entropy) its name not by
accident but because its behavior is analogous in many respects to its
Thermodynamic namesake.
In a statistical ensemble of systems, there is one system, which had
the largest value of entropy. Then, for this "most probable" system all other
thermodynamic potentials also have extreme values. For example, if the entropy
of a system has maximum, then its free energy has minimum. Every thermodynamic
potential, starting with the most commonly used ones, such as Gibbs and
Helmholtz potentials, and extending to the endless variety of combinations of
the basic potentials, has an extreme value for the "most probable" system. Every
"function of state" of which there is unlimited multitude, is tied to the
thermodynamic potentials and therefore all of these functions also have extreme
values for the "most probable system" in the ensemble, which, again, is the
system that has the extreme value of entropy.
The entropy in the Information Theory behaves in a similar way. The
actual text is the one with a low value of entropy, somewhere close to the
bottom of the variety of entropy values among all the "texts". If for a certain
system the value of entropy is close to the extreme value over the ensemble,
then the multitude of other possible functions reflecting various properties of
the text, very likely also have, for that system, values that are close to
either minimum or maximum. This of course relates also to the "proximity"
suggested by WRR
Therefore any quantity mathematically connected to the "text,"
including either the "proximity" calculated by WRR, or their "cvalue, " is
expected, quite likely, to have a value close to the extreme one over the
ensemble. In some cases, even though not very often, there may be a text among
the ones chosen for the test whose entropy is lower than for the actual text,
and then, for that rare situation, the value of "proximity" for that permutation
would happen to be even closer to the extreme one than for the actual text
Hence, the following conclusions can be deduced: a) it is
natural and expected that the "proximity" as calculated by WRR's formula, has
quite often an almost extreme value for the actual text of the Genesis. B) It
would be rare for that value to be far from the extreme one. C) Its almost
extreme value by itself has no evidentiary quality whatsoever in regard to
the distinction between the "code" inserted by design and the ELS occurring at
random. D) Any meaningful quantitative characteristic chosen as a
criterion to test for a "code" versus random ELS, must behave analogously to
functions of state in Thermodynamic systems. Therefore it quite often
will turn out to have an almost extreme value for the actual text as compared
with the control texts. There is no basis whatsoever to assume that the
"proximity" is an exception.
If one chooses a criterion to distinguish between the "code" and the
random arrays of ELS, one must prove that the chosen quantity's extreme value
cannot be attributed simply to the low value of entropy for the actual
text. Of course such a test had not been performed for the "proximity,"
arbitrarily used by WRR
Hence, I believe the above discussion has answered my students'
question. If we were to use the "straightforward" comparison between the values
of proximity for the actual text vs. its permuted versions the results of such
procedure would hardly provide a reliable tool to distinguish between the random
occurrences of ELS and a deliberately designed code.

