I have always been interested in Mathematics. When I started to research the way Pi is expressed, I was incredibly surprised to find that it does, in-fact, show incredible signs of intelligent design. The number Pi is miraculous because it is a transcendental number and never repeats, continuing on into infinity with no known pattern.
If you don’t know anything about Pi, thats totally fine – I broke down all the concepts I use in the essay. It is obvious to me now that God enjoys playing games with numbers, and he had a lot of fun while he designed Pi.
To be honest, I am certain that Pi, when analyzed with a powerful enough computer, shows that numbers are a language. Pi is like the Rosetta Stone of numbers in my mind, and I will continue to research and report back what I find.
There are many elements that we take for granted that, to the faithful, reveal God’s hand or design. I can see how Pi could be one. I have always found water to be another. Its properties are uniquely perfect for life to exist.
The first thing worth noticing about our 2nd term is that 15 is odd, just as both previous terms. What makes this term unique, however, is that it is a composite number. In other words, it is the first non-prime of our terms.
It had became clear that you were just listing interesting properties of the numbers in pi’s continuous fraction example, and since all small numbers have some interesting properties, you would conclude design no matter what the the numbers were.
I strongly suspect that if the third term had been 17, not 15, you would have been noticing that it is another prime number, the sum of the first four prime numbers, the reverse of another a prime number, etc.
If that’s the case, you’d be reaching the same conclusion from opposite starting points, so your method is flawed and your conclusion invalid.
I hate to rain on your parade but you are looking at Pi as expressed in base 10 which is a human invention. Look at the number in other bases and see what you get. In particular base 2.
The fractional part of
π
π begins with
0.001001000011111101101010…
0.001001000011111101101010…, which continues infinitely as
π
π is an irrational number.
IOW Pi is still an irrational number whatever base it is expressed in. So what is your point?
No. Although √3 has a non-repeating decimal expansion, √3 isn’t transcendental because it is an algebraic number, i.e. it can be expressed as the solution of a polynomial equation with integer coefficients, e.g. y2=3. This cannot be done for π, e or other transcendental numbers.
[/Mathematical pedantry]
However - there are uncountably infinite transcendental numbers, so π is definitely not miraculous in this respect.
My point was the OP was arguing the sequence of digits when base 10 is used had magical meaning but if you look at PI using a different base the magical sequence goes away. IOW the magical sequence isn’t.
I love math, but I confess that I’m not that interested in numerology like this. One can find many patterns in a sequence like that – I found my birthday in the first million digits of pi, and I would have been surprised if it wasn’t there. However, I don’t think I have a mystical connection to \pi.
As you point out, since \pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, you will encounter it in the (infinite) process of calculating the length of the arc of a circle to greater and greater accuracy. So, in that sense, it is a result of design. Many ancient civilizations were also interested in \pi for this reason. I can give you a computer program that, given infinite resources, will give you as many digits of \pi as you want. That would be a result of design.
If you are interested in math, why not read some of the masters. I recommend Hawking’s book “God Created the Integers”, which is a play on the famous quote by Leopold Kronecker - Wikipedia “God made the integers, all else is the work of man”. The book contains translations of original papers. Perhaps these masters were thinking the thoughts of God?
Added in edit:
It would be nice if an updated edition of the book I referenced was released, addressing systemic wrongs in the scientific fields. It could include people such as: