Talk:23 (numerology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 23 (numerology) article.

Contents


[edit] July 2006 Cleanup

I added and moved and deleted a bunch of stuff, and it didn't help much. This page needs a lot of work and probably *is* mostly unfit for encyclopedic inclusion. It can be a useful link, though, from Burroughs, Wilson, Crowley, Discordianism, et al. The 23 Enigma, and the multiple ways of looking at it, plays an important role in these philosophies; this article's history illustrates well just how much power and division such a simple idea can provoke. However, the lengthy and unwieldy list really does belong on a blog or discussion page, not in an encyclopedia article. I didn't have the heart to delete all those beautiful ramblings, so I cleaned them up some and left them all for someone else to deal with. Matheson 19:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October 2006 deletion debate

For an October 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The 23 enigma

[edit] Earth's Day = 23 Hours and 56 Minutes per rotation

Earth's Day is really 23 Hours and 56 Minutes per rotation, not exactly 24 Hours. The reason for Leap Year.
Leap years compensate for earth revolution period (~365.24 days). Leap seconds compensate for earth rotational variations (~+1 sec. every 18 months). Also, hours were originally defined as 1/24 of a day, so the rotation period determined the length of an hour not the other way around. Leap seconds are merely adjustments in respect to the standardized atomic time second. IOW, the quoted statement is pure BS.--199.84.45.115 23:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not BS per se, just a misunderstanding. 23 hours 56 minutes is the time it takes the Earth to rotate (sideral day). However, the solar day is exactly 24 hours by definition. Nik42 08:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
... all a bit coincidental in my opinion. I was with you on the blood taking 23 seconds to circulate (although that would most definatly vary from person to person) and biorhythms being 23 days long but you lost me with stuff like Apollo 11 and 12 adding up to 23 (so what..) and Shakespeare.
.......well for me to be at the 23rd st light rail station on the twenty third of june in my 23 rd year watching train twenty three arrive was interesting enough to get MY attention. Then to sign up for internet station #23 at the local libary the very same day and find ABOUT 23 By Jim Fournier online was a lot bit coincidental. ZS

Below is a sample of things claimed to reveal the enigmatic nature of the number 23. Some entries of this list of dubious accuracy (e.g., about blood circulation) or of overstretched applicability (e.g., "23.5 degrees"). I agree, and this is one of the interesting things about it. The "enigma" is rather like the subject of urban legends; the legends need not be true for the fact that so many people believe them to be interesting in itself.

What about tags to identify the confirmed/debunked status of these "facts", such as Snopes uses for urban legends? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18

49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What should not be done is to list completely bogus facts as facts. If you want to work out another systom of indicating which of these "facts" are [1] bullshit or [2] insignificant coincidence, by all means do so. But don't remove cautions about their reliability without replacing them with other cautions. - Nunh-huh 18:09, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you have the shoe on the wrong foot, Nunh. You're saying "This article is non-encyclopedic because it's littered with 'facts' of dubious relevance and of dubious accuracy. There, now I've made it a list of 'facts' of dubious relevance and dubious accuracy, about which I've made penetrating comments that cut to the heart of the matter such as 'They're dead now'; 'Alert the press'; and 'Except it isn't.' There, the article is far more encyclopedic now." I'm not sure why you think it's appropriate for us to be stuck turning your snarky whines into something that you wouldn't be ashamed to show a future employer as a sample of the quality of your work. If you couldn't take a moment to convert your "oh bullshit" reactions into something constructive, why should we? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Because you should be ashamed to peddle falsehoods in an encyclopedia, that's why. - Nunh-huh 20:38, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The falsehoods were put there in the article by someone other than me before I even got to the article, so spare me this "peddling" business, please, and stop offering it as a defense for your own actions. What you did is you saw an article that needed cleaning up, and you took the time and energy that could have been used to do the needed clean-up, but what did you do? Offered little gems like "Alert the press", leaving as much if not more clean-up to be done on the article. Way to go, man; strike that blow against the Establishment. Fight the Power. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:36, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. - Nunh-huh 02:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lost (TV series)

Someone referenced the Lost TV show. Hardly worthy research material. - Should the reference in LOST be added since it is a very common number in the show (and was most likely chosen due to the 23 enigma)

The numbers from Lost are NOT a direct reference to 23, and should not be included on this page. If we included the Lost reference; to be fair, we'd need to build a page for each of the numbers, which would be ludicrous. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 13:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
A follow-up: in my opinion, the references on the page should be about unusual happenings or circumstances/occurrences of 23, not occurrences that are created by human action. In other words; if a writer wrote 23 into a script, it's not worthy of mention in the article. That probably means that most of the "Occurrences in popular culture", if not all, need to go. They aren't, in my opinion, serving the needs of the article. Thoughts? Comments? I'm not going to start hacking up the article without some discussion and consensus. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 15:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Except maybe the freaky deal or no deal occurance? - ANON 11/12/2006
Exactly. That's an "organic" (rather than "constructed") occurrence. Maybe someone could create a page of "intentional mystic number occurrences in pop culture, fiction, film, music, etc.". Those don't belong on a page about organic occurrences. It's like the difference between grass roots organizations and astroturfing. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franklin D. Roosevelt

Oh, and "Franklin Delano Roosevelt contains 23 letters" is worthy?—GraemeMcRaetalk 03:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, William Jefferson Clinton, and George Herbert Walker Bush all have 23 letters in their names.—GraemeMcRaetalk 04:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Debunking

In the tags that confirm or debunk the collection of 23 related facts, much emphasis is put on the arbitrariness of the appearance of 23. For example, the tilt of the earth's axis is rejected because dividing a circle into 360 degrees is arbitrary.

The symbol "23" is also arbitrary. It could also be represented as X X I I I, or 101112, or 23 knots on a piece of string, or 23 pebbles. It is an abstract concept that represents I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I things.

To me, the most important fact is that a human being has 23 pairs of chromosomes. 23 is the number of "things" required to produce a human, that has a brain, that can design the internet, that can write words here.

23 is the number of things required to invent the symbol "23" that represents the number of things required to invent the symbol.

i agree. the quantity of 23 is important, however the number is not. the 9-11-2001 holds no bearing, as you cannot arbitrarily choose to use '11' as '11' and '2001' as '2+0+0+1.' [(9+11+2+0+0+1=23) theory]The undertow 01:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 23 and the illuminatus trilogy

After reading the "illuminatus trilogy" i started to notice the number23 more and more, a year later i took the book off shore to a drill ship that i was working on. We wre working off of Angola west Africa, i lent the book to a surveyor on board the drll ship. He read most of it but started to get nightmares about the book and so stoped reading it. Aweek later wile talking to the captian of the ship about the next job he told us that we will be sailing to an island off of Cameroon called Malabo, this ment nothing to us untill he tol us that tha island used to be called Fernando poo.... this was the name of the island mentioned on the firts page of the book, we arrived on the 18 of april and left on the 23, 5 days later check out the book by Robert Anton Wilson

  ........Nathrak.......


[edit] Deleted excessive "see also"s

I zapped the 'see also's referring to 11, 22 and 33 for the obvious reason, the least of which being that the links point to nonexistent articles. Zeno Izen 08:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

-The number code in the Legend of Zelda in the 'video game references' section is randomised every time you play, with a different message every time, so the 'reference' is probably just a coincidence (but isn't it always?).

[edit] Tool misdirect

The link to the rock band "Tool" took you to the article on "tool" as in hammer or screwdriver, so i fixed the link. --Bmk 03:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] list of 'mythic / legendary' references

Do others think it is necessary to have a point-by-point rebuttal to each of these claims about the ubiquity of the number 23? To my mind it is unnecessary and panders to those who would like to start meaningless debate about the validity and significance of each occurrence, also arousing the type of person who believes almost all of society is committed to 'hushing up' and denying the 23 phenomenon. It would be nicer, I feel, to start this list with one well thought out paragraph making the points about the arbitrary nature of the degrees of a circle, date and base-10 numbering conventions etc, and of course the likelihood or otherwise of coincidence etc in all of these and only keep the commentary to those entries in the list which merit further discussion. If no-one feels strongly I will try and make these edits. Via strass 15:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think this is an excellent idea. My own feeling is that the article should perhaps be divided into two parts: 1) an explanation of the phenomena and a few of the interpretations thereof (e.g. hints of conspiracies, mere coincidence, power of perception, influence of past "observers" - Burroughs, Wilson, etc. - on present "observers" such as rock bands and film makers, etc.); 2) a list of occurences/observations, without justification or objection. This could lead to a long list, but it might be a little less cluttered. In short - no objections to your proposed edits. Good luck. Matheson 16:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on my edits Aug 12

  • I have split the list of '23 occurences' into 2: the list of 'occurences and coincidences' and the list of cultural references. The motivation for this is that while having a list of the places 23 appears in popular culture might be interesting, many of these references are intentional, by artists aware of the mythical status of the number. That's why I have left a section 'cultural' in the main list, for things like shakespeare's birthday which is not a 'literary reference'. The list of famous players wearing the number 23 has been kept with that list for the same reason, especially since part of the conspiracy theory surrounding 23 refers to its link to individuals becoming successful. In fact some of these players are said to have chosen the number 23 deliberately for this reason (eg Beckham at Real).
  • The subsection of the mathematical list entitled '322 Skull and Bones' appears to me to be complete garbage, and to bear no link to the number 23 whatsoever. (The digits 2 and 3 unsurprisingly appear in many places where the number 23 does not). I haven't deleted it in the first instance since I am making lots of structural edits right now which others may like to look at and modify first. Obviously the 'equality' here cannot be exact. I am a mathematician and I am not competent to judge what is the unlikelihood of this identity occuring without the help of an all-overarching Skull & Bones conspiracy. I am however the sort of mathematician who is at least willing to accept the possibility that say, the angle at which the Earth rotates, could have been fixed or fudged by Illuminati, but to whom it is anathema that the value of Pi could be anything other that what it is.

[edit] Disputed

Added this number-theoretic breakdown, which I am now disputing. Can someone verify it and determine if it is appropriate?

"As a number with which to associate..."

Alksub 18:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smallest number of integer-sided boxes

Anyone could explain the 23 is the smallest number of integer-sided boxes that tile a box so that no two boxes share a common length. comment? It didn't come across really clearly and the link provided doesn't really help.If this is referring to the squaring the square tiling problem, the smallest number needed to square a square is 21 and not 23. Could someone check/clarify? - fiveless 07:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm going to remove it. I assumed your suggestion was the result referred to. So if you are right it's either the previous best result or complete crap. If someone has a peer-reviewed journal ref i'll put it back. Via strass 11:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry having looked at the reference I think it refers to a different but related problem; covering a rectangle with rectangles, with all lengths different. Via strass 12:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please add to musical references

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblage_23

[edit] MAJOR pruning is needed for this article

This article has become a textbook directory/indiscriminate collection of information. What has to be determined is a) what is worthy of encyclopedic mention and b) what is unimportant trivia. Do we need to know every instance in which a "23" is involved? Every sports uniform number? Every occurrence in popular culture? I think that by focusing on less dubious entries, this can become a more solid article. Thoughts? -- weirdoactor t|c -- 05:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at it. In particular, I've removed Lost (TV series), since the repeated occurrences are not strictly a reference to 23, but rather references to one of the Six Numbers - there are also lots of references to the others (e.g. the flight number containing 8 and 15). Chris cheese whine 06:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Very nice work. I'll try to get some done on it this weekend. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 18:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Argh. It's getting bad again. My Real Life hasn't allowed me much editing time here. Meh. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 17:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 23 and 47 related?

What about this? Can anyone expand please? "47 (number) - another number that is said to occur frequently in connection with nature and human events (and is also, like 23, frequently cited in fiction)." (In "see also") -- Dexter prog 18:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/3/_/Talk%7E23_%28numerology%29.html"