In this post we read end-time scenarios, as prophesized by Jeremiah (verses from Chapters 2, 30, 31, 33).
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file.
Audio file below is an enhanced audio, posted November 04, 2025:
Prophet Joel (4:1-2):
“For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring back the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will assemble all nations to the Valley of Jehoshaphat*, and there will I enter into judgement with them for my people and my heritage Israel, whom they scattered among the nations and have divided up my land”;
Joel (4:19):
“Egypt shall become a desolation, and Edom a desolate wilderness, for the violence done unto the Children of Judah, that they have shed innocent blood in their land”.
Final Outcome (Joel 4:20-21):
“And Judah shall forever be settled, and Jerusalem for all generations to come…
and Jehovah dwells in Zion”.
_____________________________________
* Literally (in Hebrew): “Valley where Jehovah has judged”.
For millennia, Jewish rabbis, and other scholars of monotheistic faith, have related to the Hebrew-Bible text as mathematical precise (even when this term was obviously not used).
The objective of this podcast is to demonstrate this precision with three examples (of many), where translation is causing the original Hebrew-text meaning to be lost:
(Related podcast: “Shamayim” — The Most Counter-intuitive Yet Scientifically Accurate Word in Biblical Hebrew (Podcast) .)
The word Shamayim in Hebrew simply means Sky (Rakia in biblical Hebrew; Genesis 1:8):
“And God called the Rakia Shamayim, and there was evening and there was morning second day”.
Rakia in biblical Hebrew, like in modern Hebrew, simply means sky.
So why, in the first chapter of Genesis, is the sky Divinely called Shamayim?
And why, according to the rules of biblical Hebrew, is it fundamentally counter-intuitive, yet, so scientifically accurate?
The word Shamayim comprises two syllables. The first is Sham, which simply means there, namely, that which is inaccessible from here. The second syllable, ayim, is a suffix, namely, an affix added to the end of the stem of the word. Such suffix in added, in Hebrew, to words that represent a symmetric pair of objects, or, more generally, to words that represent objects that appear in symmetry. Thus, all visible organs in the human body that appear in pairs have same suffix, like legs (raglayim), hands (yadayim), eyes (einayim) and ears (oznayim). However, teeth, arranged in symmetry in the human mouth, though not in pairs, also have same suffix. Teeth in Hebrew is shinayim. Other examples may be read in my book at Chapter 5.
Let us address the two claims in the title:
The answer to the first claim is nearly self-evident. When one observes the sky, at dark hours, the observed is far from symmetric. So much so that the twelve Zodiacal constellations had to be invented, in ancient times, to deliver some sense to the different non-symmetric configurations of stars that to this day can be observed by the naked eye in the sky.
Yet, despite the apparent non-symmetry observed in the sky, the Divine chose to grant the sky a word indicative of the most fundamental property of the sky, as we have scientifically learned it to be in recent times, namely, its symmetry (as observed from Plant Earth), or its uniformity (as preached by modern cosmology).
To learn how fundamentally uniform (or symmetric) the universe is, the reader is referred to Chapters 5 and 7 of my book, and references therein. Another good source to learn about the uniformity of the universe, as observed via telescopes and as articulated by modern science, is the excellent presentation by Don Lincoln at Wondrium channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRQvp3XPH_s
Note the term Desert, addressed in the lecture. The term is used, in modern cosmology, to denote the uniformity of the universe at the Big Bang (“In the beginning”).
Surprisingly, the words, Tohu Va-Vohu, describing the universe “in the beginning” (Genesis 1:2), are also associated with desert, as they are employed elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.
Consider, for example Jeremiah (4:23, 26):
“I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was Tohu Va-Vohu…I beheld and, lo, the fruitful land has become the desert…”.
Refer also to Isaiah (34:11).
So:
Articulated more simply:
Whatever direction in the sky you point to, Shamayim states that it is all the same, contrary to what the naked eyes are telling us, in conformance with what modern science is telling.
Personal confession, mind boggling…
(Related podcast: “And There was Evening and There was Morning” (Genesis 1) — A Different Interpretation (Podcast) .)
The known verse from the first chapter of Genesis appears therein, not surprisingly, six times.
The two central words of the verse, which confer on it its meaning, are Boker (morning in biblical Hebrew) and Erev (evening). However, their order of appearance in the verse is bizarre:
“…and there was evening and there was morning one day” (Genesis 1:5).
This is logically flawed (and same applies to all other five variations of the verse). The correct articulation should be:
“…and there was morning and there was evening one day”.
Perhaps the verse is misconstrued by us? Is there an alternative interpretation that may remove the logical flaw, inherent to current interpretation?
In this post (and the allied podcast), we offer a new interpretation. The latter integrates well with the creation narrative, as unfolding in Genesis 1, and, astoundingly, it also comports well with current scientific knowledge of the Big-Bang and its aftermath.
Ultimately, the new interpretation also explains why the same two words, Erev and Boker, stand for “evening” and “morning”, respectively, in traditional interpretations of the verse.
We base the new interpretation on a basic root analysis of the two words, and support it by numerous other verses in the Jewish Bible, where same roots appear in a context utterly divorced from the traditional meaning as “evening” and “morning”; yet, in context that is consistent with the new interpretation.
Therefore, both Erev and Boker, and their respective roots, are hence forth discussed with no relationship whatsoever to their acceptable meanings as evening and morning, respectively.
We start with Erev.
This word, and other words of same root, appear over 150 times in the Bible. The Hebrew root of Erev corresponds to E.R.B, in English. Most times, the root is associated with “evening”, but not uniquely so. Another common usage relates to mixing, or mixture. Thus, Erev-Rav (literally, “much mixture”) stands for a mixture of tribes, Arov stands for a mixture of animals (one of the Ten Plights of Egypt), and Le-itarev means to mix together.
In other words, Erev, in biblical Hebrew, simply means mixture.
Not surprisingly, the time of day when darkness starts crawling over earth, is also called Erev in Hebrew.
Let us next consider Boker.
Traditionally, the word means morning. We might be astonished to learn that its root is tightly linked to Erev, when the latter is interpreted as mixture. Furthermore, as we shall soon realize, the root of Boker diametrically represents the opposite of Erev, when the latter is interpreted as mixture.
Let us analyze usage of the root of Boker (B.K.R) in various biblical Hebrew words.
The grammatical structure of Boker is the same as Chodesh (month, in Hebrew). The verb associated with Chodesh is Le-Chadesh, meaning to renew. One may understand why month in Hebrew implies renewal, since the Hebrew calendar is based on the lunar (moon-based) month, with some periodical adjustments to keep it in tune with the solar calendar (sun-based calendar).
Similarly, the respective verb, associated with Boker, is Le-Vaker. Among other related meanings, Le-Vaker in biblical Hebrew means to seek out, namely, to make something that is mixed distinct and separate. For example (from Collins Concise Dictionary): “She sought out her friend from among the crowd”.
A typical example for the use of Le-Vaker, sharing same root with Boker, is found in Leviticus. The verse describes donation of an animal to be sacrificed to Jehovah. The verse addresses the donor and relates to his animal donation (Leviticus 27:33):
“He must not seek out (Lo Ye-Vaker) the good from the bad or make any substitution. If he does make a substitution, both the animal and its substitute become holy and cannot be redeemed.”
In other words, if the donated animal is defective, impaired in some way, the donor must not distinguish the good from the bad, or make substitution, so that the sacrifice includes only good parts of the animal. The latter must be sacrificed in its totality.
Similarly, refer to Leviticus 13:36, or Ezekiel 34:11-12.
We realize that, according to the new interpretation based on root analysis, Erev and Boker are inherently connected, diametrically representing two opposite states. Erev describes a state of mixture; Boker describes a state that is the outcome of sorting out the mixture into its individual constituents, rendering them distinct, “separate from the crowd” (the mixture). In short, Boker describes a new state, where constituents of the mixture stand each on its own, materializing to full fruition as a result of the act of bakarah (seeking out the ingredients of the mixture).
With this new insight, based on root analysis of the two words Erev and Boker, the well-known verse, “and there was evening and there was morning”, acquires a completely new meaning. It may more precisely be re-articulated as follows:
”There was mixture (Erev), and then there was non-mixture (Boker)”, a new state where the mixture is dissolved, sorted out into its individual constituents.
We again note that the traditional interpretation, “And there was evening and there was morning one day” (and other versions of same verse) are logically flawed. The morning appears before the evening (to define a day), not the other way around. With the new interpretation, this logical flaw disappears since time is appropriately preserved.
Is the new interpretation consistent with the general description of creation, as unfolding in Genesis creation narrative?
Indeed, very much so.
In Genesis creation narrative, as unfolding in the first chapter of Genesis, the word “create” (Bara), appears not six times, as might be expected, but only twice. It first appears in Genesis 1:1 as an overall statement of all that have been created:
“In the beginning Elohim created the Heavens and the Earth” (Genesis 1:1).
The second time creation is mentioned in Genesis creation narrative relates to the human species (Genesis 1:27):
“So Elohim created Mankind, in His own image, in the image of Elohim created He him, male and female He created them”.
One may wonder:
If creation had happened “In the Beginning” (Genesis 1:1), and then on the sixth day (Genesis 1:27), what has the Divine being engaged in the rest of the six days, where creation is not at all mentioned?
The surprising answer is embedded in the two words, Erev and Boker, based on their new interpretation, based on their root analysis.
In the other days, when no creation is specified, Genesis creation narrative describes, individually for each day, how Elohim, by Divine utterance, has turned Erev (a state of mixture) into Boker (a state of non-mixture, individual parts sorted out from the mixture).
In other words, in most of the creation narrative of Genesis 1, the Divine separates the mixture, created “in the beginning”, into its distinct individual elements, materializing them from the uniform mixture, into which they were initially embedded.
How does this interpretation comport with modern science?
Indeed, surprisingly well.
The two words, Erev and Boker, as newly interpreted, are extremely consistent with how the Big-Bang and its aftermath, in the first few seconds of existence, are currently described by science.
A central element in this description is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). This radiation is a relic of the Big-Bang and its immediate aftermath. The uniformity of the radiation across the universe testifies that in the “Beginning” the universe was extremely uniform.
This uniformity is echoed in the Bible, describing the just created physical world (“The Earth”; Genesis 1:2):
“And The Earth was without form and void (Tohu Va-Vohu)..”.
Using root analysis of the two Hebrew words, Tohu and Vohu, let us make sense of this verse and find out what it really conveys.
Science describes the first few seconds after the Big-Bang as extremely uniform. Nothing is yet distinct, there is no information to observe. This scientific description is reflected in Tohu and Bohu. The Bible describes the just created world as being in a state that whatever an observer at the time would observe, he or she will be bewildered (Li-Tehot, to wonder; Hebrew verb linked to Tohu). Also, the imaginary observer would look around purposelessly (Li-vehot; Hebrew verb linked to Bohu). Both descriptions allude to an observer, bewildered and looking around purposelessly. Why? because there is no information, nothing to observe that might help making sense of the observed (just as in a desert).
We have come to the end of our exploration journey regarding creation of The Earth, as alluded to in Genesis 1. We realized that in most days of creation, the Divine sorted out, by uttering a Divine command, that which was created “In the beginning”.
We address the second creation, that of humankind (on the sixth day of creation; Genesis 1:27).
Humankind was not created when God created “The Heavens and the Earth” (Genesis 1:1), or the word “created” would not be repeated describing creation of Mankind (Genesis 1:27).
Since creation first alludes to “The Heavens and the Earth”, and only later to Humankind, we, human beings, are doomed to repeat, in our own life, the same process, as described regarding The Earth in the first five days of Genesis creation (and some also on the sixth day) .
According to the creation narrative, the physical world (The Earth) has moved, from one day to the next, from a vague mixture (Erev, Tohu Va-Vohu) into its visible distinct constituents (Boker), turning the potential into observable reality.
We, human beings, who were separately created, are doomed to repeat the same process as The Earth.
Exercising free will, we are doomed to sort out the hidden faceless mixture, residing within us from infancy, into observable, distinct and separate personality and character.
Once we do that, transforming the potential, lurking within us in a mixture form, into the “I”, or “Me”, which we have grown up to become;
Once we do that, then, and only then, may we offer our own creation, our own non-mixed unique self, to the world, to be of benefit to the rest of humanity, and to all other creatures living on the surface of Planet Earth.
This post considers various paths to Holiness, suggested in the past, and contrast them with the biblical way.
What does “Truth” stand on? How do we tell truth from falsehood?
The Hebrew Alphabet conveys to us the essential ingredients of truth.
We denote these:
The Three Pillars of Truth.
What are they?
Why is there free-will?
What are the necessary and sufficient requirements for free-will to be exercised?
How do we make decisions within the two worlds, comprising our lives, the “World of Law-of-Nature” and the “World of Randomness”?
These questions and others are addressed, supported by excerpts from the Bible.
Jewish Kosher laws, seemingly arbitrary and devoid of any possible rational justification, in fact are based on a very deep principle of how we should conduct our lives to maintain health, spiritually and physically.
What is this principle?
In this new book, “Words of Wisdom and Experience”, I have assembled posts published on “Professor Haim Shore Blog” starting July, 2010. The Kindle version had appeared July, 2018. Both versions will periodically be updated as more posts are added (see list of books on Professor Haim Shore books on Amazon).
From the Preface to the book:
“This compendium of essays is divided into three parts:
I hope that reading the book the reader may benefit from these words of wisdom and experience, wisdom of mainstream Bible scholars, past and present, and my own cumulative life experience.”
Amazon link to the book (soft-cover) :
Haim Shore_Words of Wisdom and Experience_Paperback Sep 2019
Job feels he is righteous and has done no harm. Why bad things happen to good people?? What ultimately gives Job comfort?
The first of the Ten Commandments reads:
“I am Jehovah, your Elohim, who have brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, of the house of slaves” (Exodus 20:2).
This commandment looks more like a declaration:
What then transforms this “declaration of facts”, “description of reality”, into a commandment?
“Why bad things happen to good people” is an ancient quandary that has occupied the minds of thinking people for millennia. We have likewise addressed this issue in this post. As related therein, perhaps the ultimate source to address this issue is the biblical book of Job, not coincidentally attributed to Moses. The story of Job is well known:
“In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil” (Job 1:1). Furthermore, he had a family and much property so that “…this man was the greatest of all the men of the East” (Job 1:3).
Alas, one day the angels came before Jehovah, among them Satan, and the latter challenged the Divine that Job is “blameless and upright and fears God and shuns evil” (as described by God; Job 1:8) only because Job was protected and blessed by God (Job 1:9-10). God then delivers Satan the permission to harm Job any way he wished (“all that he has is in thy power”) except for taking Job’s soul (Job 1:12). Thus, Satan was allowed by God to test Job so that all may realize whether Job, despite all “bad things” that had befallen him, remained faithful to his former self.
Following description of the “bad things”, three of Job’s friends come to visit him “to mourn with him and to comfort him” (Job 2:11). The multi-sided dialogue that then develops, between Job and his friends, is in essence a debate on whether “Bad things happen to good people”. Job holds on to his basic conviction that he is “blameless and upright and fears God and shuns evil” and therefore he is helpless to explain all the harm that has befallen him. The friends defy this claim and elaborate on why it is illogical and impossible to assume that the perfect God would allow this to happen, therefore concluding that Job probably is not “blameless”, as he pretends to be.
Job remains unconvinced and therefore also uncomforted.
What then ultimately comforted Job?
Throughout Scripture, a single theme keeps resurfacing: “The ways by which Jehovah leads his world are unknown to us and therefore humanly unexplainable”.
Examples:
The debate between Job and his friends comes to an abrupt conclusion when Jehovah intervenes in the debate. The essence of God’s explanation for “Why bad things happen to good people” is a genuine mystery:
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4)
Obviously, this does not constitute a satisfactory answer to the basic question. Surprisingly, Job is now comforted and he expresses this explicitly:
“I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now that my eye has seen you I abhor myself and am comforted for the dust and ashes” (Job 42:5).
(Note that “dust and ashes” are signs of mourning, as mentioned early on in Job 2:12.)
Job had not received an answer to the basic question “Why bad things happen to good people”. Yet, once God has spoken to him, Job is comforted. He understands that there is Divine Providence and there is no more room for the basic question— silence is the right response (“..and Aharon kept his silence”, Leviticus 10:3).
We, mere mortals, are not privileged as was Job. We are “doomed” to exist in a universe of free will, and the latter cannot co-exist with the certainty that God exists and that there is Divine Providence. Either we have free will or we know for certain that God exists. Both, by definition, cannot co-exist. Job, once being exposed to God speaking to him, is no more a man of free will. We are.
The first of the Ten Commandments, outwardly looking like a mere declaration of facts, is in fact a commandment that demands of us the ultimate expression of free-will:
“Out of free will I accept as faithful description of reality existence of Elohim-Jehovah; Out of free will I accept as faithful description of reality existence of Divine Providence (Hashgacha Pratit)”.
*********************
*Shorty is a short post
Two new video clips (Hebrew/English), each about ten minutes long, have recently been produced by Mr. Oren Evron. In these I explain, in plain language, the basic principles underlying my research on the Jewish Hebrew Bible and on biblical Hebrew. Below is the English version:
Two other videos (English/Hebrew) focus on Genesis creation narrative:
English:
Hebrew :
How is “Killing the Messenger” associated with antisemitism?
On October 1892, Asher Tzvi Ginzberg (1856-1927), also known by his pseudonym Achad-Haam, published an article in the Hebrew periodical Hamelitz. The title of the article was: “Half a Comfort” (Chatzi Nechamah). The article was published half a century after the Damascus blood libel, and in it Achad Haam tries to extract a useful lesson from the anti-Semitic blood libel (if one can be extracted at all). He denotes this lesson: Chatzi Nechamah. Achad Haam hoped that his Chatzi Nechamah would help Jews worldwide to cope with the devastating psychological effects of constant vilification of the Jews as part of the acceptable Anti-Semitic “General Agreement” (in his words; today’s “General Consensus”).
In the article, linked below, I offer an additional “Half a Comfort”, to complement that of Achad Haam:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/anti-semitism-and-killing-the-messenger/
This article may also be downloaded as a PDF file:
Haim Shore_Antisemitism and Killing the Messenger_Oct 2014
This post shows how average lunar month may be algebraically calculated, accurate to five decimal points, from two ancient Jewish concepts, Baharad and Ve-Yad, associated with Written Torah (Genesis) and Oral Torah, respectively.
The average duration of the lunar (moon-based) month is, according to NASA site, 29.530589 days. Jewish tradition offers two concepts, basic to the Jewish calendar:
Baharad and Ve-Yad.
Both are related to an “attempt” to include the six days of creation (no regular days by any account) in the regular Jewish calendar. This is done by defining an imaginary year that preceded the start of the first lunar renewal in the Jewish calendar (starting, according to Jewish tradition, with the completion of the creation of Adam).
In the article, linked below, I show that these two concepts alone, Baharad and Ve-Yad, are sufficient to obtain a solution to an algebraic equation, which implies that the average duration of the lunar month is 29.530594 days (a deviation of 0.000005 days from the value cited at NASA site).
Haim Shore_Average Length of Lunar Month Calculated from Genesis and Jewish Tradition_Oct 2014
Same article appears in Hebrew in a separate post.
On February 4th, 2013, I was interviewed, together with Rav Zamir Cohen of the Hidabroot not-for-profit organization, on the significance of my research results both from the scientific and the Jewish perspectives.
A link to this interview, posted on Hidabroot web site, is given below:
“Torah and Mada” – An Interview with Rav Zamir Cohen and Prof. Haim Shore (Hebrew)
A new in-depth interpretation of the sin of Adam and Eve.
The story of the sin of Adam and Eve, as it is unfolding in the third chapter of Genesis, is well known. Simplistically summarized, the story relates how God had forbidden Adam from eating of the Tree of Knowledge, good and bad, warning him that ”on the day that thou eat of it thou shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17). Seduced by the serpent, Eve, Adam’s madam, defies God’s command and also convince Adam to join the party. As a result of the sin, God imposes custom-made penalties on the serpent, the woman and the man, and expel Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden lest they also ate from the Tree of Life and would live forever (Genesis 3:22-24). The whole story of the sin begins at Genesis 2:15-17 and ends at Genesis 3:1-24.
Numerous interpretations have been offered for this story. The article below offers a new and innovative interpretation:
Haim Shore_Adam and Eve-What was the Sin? What was the Cure?_A Current-day Interpretation
A PDF file of this article may be downloaded here:
Prof Haim Shore_Adam and Eve_What was the Sin_ What was the Cure_ The Times of Israel_Sep 2014
In a workshop about recent advances in the application of statistical methods to quality engineering and management, conducted in March of 2013 by the Open University of Israel, I have delivered a presentation (Hebrew) about SPC-based modeling and monitoring of ecological processes. The lecture was based on my recently published article:
Shore, H. (2013), Modeling and Monitoring Ecological Systems—A Statistical Process Control Approach. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int.. doi: 10.1002/qre.1544
A link to the presentation is given below:
Haim Shore_SPC monitoring of ecological processes_Open University_March 2013
This post delivers an in-depth analysis of the significance of the statistical term Significance Level (in response to an article in Significance Journal).
In a focus article that has appeared in Significance magazine (October, 2013), the author Mark Kelly delivers an excellent review of what “luminaries have to say” regarding the proper significance level to use in statistical hypothesis testing. The author thence concludes:
“No one therefore has come up with an objective statistically based reasoning behind choosing the now ubiquitous 5% level, although there are objective reasons for levels above and below it. And no one is forcing us to choose 5% either.”
In a response article, sent to the editor of Significance, Julian Champkin, I have made the point that, unlike the claim made in the original article, there is an obvious method to determine objectively the optimal statistical significance level. While the editor accepted my article, he declined to include the detailed numerical example therein since “Your illustration, though, is a little too technical for some of our readers – we have many who are not statisticians, and we try to keep heavy maths to a minimum in the magazine.”
In a further (unanswered) e-mail to the editor, I have suggested a solution to the editor’s concern and stated that “Personally I feel that there are many practitioners out there who could benefit from this simple practical example and get aware that engineering considerations are part and parcel of hypothesis testing in an engineering environment. I often feel that these engineers are somewhat neglected in the statistics literature in favor of pure science.”
Based on my own experience of over thirty years of academic teaching to industrial engineering undergraduates, I feel that it is important that individuals working in an engineering environment understand that the view point expressed in Kelly’s article in the Significance magazine, which is quite prevalent, is not accurate in all circumstances.
With this in mind, the originally submitted article, titled:
“What is the significance of the significance level?” “It’s the error costs, stupid!”
is linked below:
Haim Shore_What is the significance of the significance level_Response to Significance_March 2014
On March, 6, 2014, my research team delivered a seminar (in English) at the Soroka Medical Center, describing our ongoing research project in modeling and monitoring fetal growth. The research team includes, besides myself, Dr. Diamanta Benson-Karhi (from the Open University) and Professor Asher Bashiri (from Soroka and Ben-Gurion University).
Concurrently, our graduate student, Mrs. Maya Malamud, had concluded her thesis and delivered a presentation (in Hebrew) during her final exam session.
Both presentations are now accessible here (in PDF format):
Haim Shore_SPC-based Monitoring of Fetal Growth_Presentation (English)_March 2014
Maya Malamud_Fetal Growth Study_Final Exam Presentation (Hebrew)_March 2014
Article published in Quality Ebgineering:
SPC-based Monitoring of Fetal Growth
This book was self-published back in 1992 (2nd edition in 1995). A unique feature of the book is that each page is structured as a separate slide, which may be integrated into a presentation. Related theoretical material is deferred to the appendices.
The book had gained popularity in Israel in institutions, academic and otherwise, where courses, or workshops, in quality engineering had been taught.
It may now be downloaded free here (with bookmarks that allow easy access to each chapter):
Shore_Total Quality, Quality Control and Q by Design_1995
What is the linkage between the science of statistics and “Stamp Collecting”? More than you can imagine.. This blog entry (with the linked article and PP presentation) was originally posted, for a restricted time period, on the Community Blog of the American Statistical Association (ASA), where the linked items were visible to members only. The blog entry is now displayed, with the linked items, visible to all.
This is the fourth and last message in this series about the consequences to statistical modeling of the continuous monotone convexity (CMC) property. The new message discusses implications of the CMC property to modeling random variation.
As a departure point for this discussion, some historic perspective about the development of the principle of unification in human perception of nature can be useful.
Our ancestors believed in a multiplicity of gods. All phenomena of nature had their particular gods and various manifestations of same phenomenon were indeed different displays of wishes, desires and emotions of the relevant god. Thus, Prometheus was a deity who gave fire to the human race and for that was punished by Zeus, the king of the gods; Poseidon was the god of the seas; and Eros was the god of desire and attraction.
This convenient “explanation” for the diversity of nature phenomena had all but disappeared with the advent of monotheism. Under the “umbrella” of a single god, ancient gods were “deleted”, to be replaced by a “unified” and “unifying” almighty god, the source of all nature phenomena.
And the three major monotheistic religions had been born.
The “concept” of unification, however, did not stop there. It was migrated to science, where pioneering giants of modern scientific thinking observed diverse phenomena of nature and had attempted to unify them into an all-encompassing mathematics-based theory, from which the separate phenomena could be deduced as special cases. Some of the most well-known representatives of this mammoth shift in human thinking, in those early stages of modern science, were Copernicus (1473-1543), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) and Isaac Newton (1642-1727).
In particular, the science of physics had been at the forefront of these early attempts to pursue the basic concept of unity in the realm of science. Ernest Rutherford (1871–1937), known as the father of nuclear physics and the discoverer of the proton (in 1919), made the following observation at the time:
The assertion, quoted in Kaku (1994, p. 131), intended to convey a general sentiment that the drive to converge the five fundamental forces of nature into a unifying theory, nowadays a central theme of modern physics, represented science at its best. Furthermore, this is the only correct approach to the scientific investigation of nature. By contrast, at least until recently, most other scientific disciplines have engaged in taxonomy (“bug collecting” or “stamp collecting”). With “stamp collecting” the scientific inquiry is restricted to the discovery and classification of the “objects of enquiry”, particular to that science. However, this never culminates, as in physics, in a unifying theory from which all these objects may be deductively derived as “special cases”.
Is statistics a science of “stamp collecting”?
Observing the abundance of statistical distributions, identified to-date, an unavoidable conclusion is that statistics is indeed a science engaged in “stamp collecting”. Furthermore, serious attempts at unification (partial, at least) are rarely reported in the literature.
In a recent article (Shore, 2015), I have attempted a new paradigm for modeling random variation. The new paradigm, so I believe, may constitute an initial effort to unite all distributions under a unified “umbrella distribution”. In the new paradigm, the “Continuous Monotone Convexity (CMC)” property plays a central role in deriving a general expression to the normal-based quantile function of a generic random variable (assuming a single mode and a non-mixture distribution). Employing numeric fitting to current distributions, the new model has been shown to deliver accurate representation to scores of differently-shaped distributions (including some suggested by anonymous reviewers). Furthermore, negligible deviations from the fitted general model may be attributed to the natural imperfection of the fitting procedure or being perceived as realization of random variation around the fitted general model, not unlike a sample average is a random deviation from the population mean.
In a more recent effort (Shore, 2017), a new paradigm for modeling random variation is introduced and validated via certain predictions about known “statistical facts” (like the Central Limit Theorem), shown to be empirically true, and via distribution fitting, via 5-moment matching procedure, to a sample of known distributions.
These topics and others are addressed extensively in the afore-cited new article. It is my judgment that at present the CMC property constitutes the only possible avenue for achieving in statistics (as in most other modern branches of science) unification of the “objects of enquiry”, as these relate to modeling random variation.
In the affiliated Article #4 , I introduce in a more comprehensive fashion (yet minimally technical) an outline of the new paradigm and elaborate on how the CMC property is employed to arrive at a “general model of random variation”. A related PowerPoint presentation, delivered last summer at a conference in Michigan, is also displayed.
Haim Shore_4_ASA_PP Presentation_Feb 2014
References
[1] Kaku M (1994). Hyperspace- A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps and the Tenth Dimension. Book. Oxford University Press Inc., NY.
[3] Shore, H. (2017). The Fundamental Process by which Random Variation is Generated. Under review.
“Outrage in Afghanistan” and a similar, almost concurrent, one in Israel. Sheer historic coincidence??
In his Talking Points on “Bill O’reilly Factor” (Fox News), February 13, 2014, the anchor, Bill O’reilly, related to the outrageous release, by President Karzai of Afghanistan, of 65 convicted Taliban terrorists, who have killed or maimed Americans.
In a response comment, posted on the same day at Foxnews blog, I wrote:
“Whence the surprise that Americans have to furiously witness release of Taliban terrorists, who have killed Americans, if only a few months ago Israelis had to furiously witness the American administration forcing the Israeli government release Palestinians terrorists, who have murdered Israelis? (check the two numbers!)”
In this post I detail the two parallel cases, which have surprisingly occurred no more than six months apart.
On August 2013, the Israeli Cabinet agreed on a four-stage process by which 104 Palestinian prisoners will be released as part of a “confidence-building” measure aimed to boost renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. This decision was taken after US Secretary of State John Kerry, in his efforts to persuade the Palestinian side to re-embark on peace talks with Israel, posed two possible (one may say impossible) options for the Israeli government: To cease construction in Jewish villages and towns beyond the green line (Israel pre-1967 war borders) or release Palestinian terrorists, convicted in due judicial process in the Israeli Justice System.
All of the prisoners slated for release were convicted for terrorism against Israel before the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993; most were directly involved in the murder of Israelis and many were serving life sentences. On August 13, 2013, Israel released the first group of 26 convicted Palestinians terrorists. Another group of 26 were released October, 30th, and another group of 26 prisoners on December 31st, 2013.
By February of 2014, altogether 78 convicted Palestinian prisoners were released from Israeli jails in accordance with the decision of the Israeli government. (a fourth group was slated to be released April, 2014).
On February, 14th, Afghan President Hamid Karzai ordered the release of 65 captured Taliban terrorists who were supposed to be tried for crimes against civilians in their own country. These killers have also been linked to the deaths of 32 Americans and allied troops according to the U.S. command. This decision by Karzai was termed by Bill O’reilly “An Outrage in Afghanistan”.
The parallelism, between US conduct towards the State of Israel and supposed consequences to the US, is the subject of several books, published recently, all pursuing a single paradigm: “As America Has Done to Israel…”.
Examples:
McTernan, J. (2008). As America Has Done to Israel. Whitaker House.
Kroening, W. R. (2008). Eye to Eye: Facing the Consequences of Dividing Israel. About Him. Revised Edition.
The above current historical coincidence may be just that (or not).
This page lists all posts in Professor Haim Shore blog (by category). Press any item in the list to access the linked post.
( Podcast list in Section 7; Bible Reads in Section 8, also here; Link to Shore’s YouTube podcasts: List of Professor Shore’s YouTube Podcasts; Link to Shore’s Authorized Publications List: Professor Haim Shore Authorized Publications List ; Amazon link to Shore’s book, with most posts of this blog: The Bible, Biblical Hebrew, Science and Their Inter-relationships: A compendium of essays, 2010-2023)
1. Statistics
2. Bible and Biblical Hebrew
3. Fetal and Child Growth: Modeling and Monitoring
4. General Statistical Applications
5. Current Historical Coincidences
6. General
7. Podcasts (Audio; Also, Section 8 below)
8. Bible Reads (Audio; Hebrew; Hebrew/English PDF; An updated list is here)
In the last several years (indeed since October, 2010), I have been engaged, with a team of researchers, in collecting data and constructing a new approach to modeling and monitoring fetal growth. The modeling approach is based on Response Modeling Methodology (RMM; see at Wikipedia), a new modeling approach that I have been developing in the last decade or so. The monitoring approach is based on modern principles of Statistical Process Control (SPC), more specifically, SPC-based monitoring of non-linear profiles.
With me in the research team is Dr. Diamanta Benson-Karhi, the initiator of this research effort (from the Open University of Israel), Prof. Asher Bashiri (of the Soroka Medical Center, affiliated to Ben-Gurion (BG) University), and, until recently, Mrs. Maya Malamud, who has just concluded her MSc studies, conducting research and supervising several undergraduate final-project teams in my department at BG University.
A first published document, describing the methodology developed within this research effort, is to appear in the June issue (2014) of Quality Engineering, a journal affiliated to the ASQ (American Society for Quality).
Update (June, 24, 2024): Here are links to the two published papers:
This post explains the central role of Continuous Monotone Convexity (CMC) in Response Modeling Methodology (RMM).
In earlier blog entries, the unique effectiveness of the Box-Cox transformation (BCT) was addressed. I concluded that the BCT effectiveness could probably be attributed to the Continuous Monotone Convexity (CMC) property, unique to the inverse BCT (IBCT). Rather than requiring the analyst to specify a model in advance (prior to analysis), the CMC property allows the data, via parameter estimation, determine the final form of the model (linear, power or exponential). This would most likely lead to better fit of the—estimated model, as cumulative reported experience with implementation of IBCT (or BCT) clearly attest to.
In the most recent blog entry in this series, I have introduced the “Ladder of Monotone Convex Functions”, and have demonstrated that IBCT delivers only the first three “steps” of the Ladder. Furthermore, IBCT can be extended so that a single general model can represent all monotone convex functions belonging to the Ladder. This transforms monotone convexity into a continuous spectrum so that the discrete “steps” of the Ladder (the separate models) become mere points on that spectrum.
In this third entry on the subject (and Article #3, linked below), I introduce in a more comprehensive fashion (yet minimally technical) the general model from which all the Ladder functions can be derived as special cases. This model was initially conceived in the last years of the previous century (Shore, 2005, and references therein) and had since been developed into a comprehensive modeling approach, denoted Response Modeling Methodology (RMM). In the affiliated article, an axiomatic derivation of RMM basic model is outlined and specific adaptations of RMM to model systematic variation and to model random variation are addressed. Published evidence for the capability of RMM to replace current published models, previously derived within various scientific and engineering disciplines as either theoretical, empirical or semi-empirical models, is reviewed. Disciplines surveyed include chemical engineering, software quality engineering, process capability analysis, ecology and ultra-sound-based fetal-growth modeling (based on cross-sectional data).
This blog entry (with the linked article given below) was originally posted on the site of the American Statistical Association (ASA), where the linked article was visible to members only.
On January 6th, 2014, I have delivered a talk that carried the title, as displayed above.
The talk was given in the framework of a workshop organized by the Open University of Israel (see details at the bottom of the opening screen of the presentation). It was based on my article of 2004:
In a previous post in this series, I have discussed reasons for the effectiveness of the Box-Cox (BC) transformation, particularly when applied to a response variable within linear regression analysis. The final conclusion was that this effectiveness could probably be attributed to the “Continuous Monotone Convexity (CMC)” property, owned by the inverse BC transformation. It was emphasized that the latter, comprising the three most fundamental monotone convex functions, the “linear-power-exponential” trio, delivers only partial representation to a whole host of models of monotone convex relationships, which can be arranged in a hierarchy of monotone convexity. This hierarchy had been denoted the “Ladder of Monotone Convex Functions.”
In this post (and Article #2, linked below), I address in more detail the nature of the CMC property. I specify models included in the Ladder, and show how one can deliver, via a single model, representation to all models belonging to the Ladder (analogously with the inverse BC transformation, a special case of that model). Furthermore, I point to published evidence demonstrating that models of the Ladder may often substitute, with negligible loss in accuracy, published models of monotone convexity, which had been derived from theoretical discipline-specific considerations.
This blog entry (with the linked article given below) was originally posted on the site of the American Statistical Association (ASA), where the linked article was visible to members only.
This presentation expounds on various research findings given in my book: “Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew” (Shore, 2 Ed., 2012).
The book is now available for free download at this blog’s home page (“About“).
Presentation is divided into eight parts:
To watch the PDF file in presentation mode, open with Adobe Reader and then go to: View -> Full Screen Mode. To manipulate slides click mouse-left to advance and mouse-right to retreat to previous slide.
Prof Haim Shore presentation_Bible and biblical Hebrew research_March 2016
In this new blog entry, I deliver links to three new documents related mostly to the statistical analyses associated with my research on the Bible and on biblical Hebrew:
1. Three chapters from my book: “Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew”. These chapters mostly address the statistical perspective of my research work, as expounded in the book. Bookmarks may assist navigating between chapters:
2. An article in Hebrew, published recently in “Ha-mahapach 3”, by Rav Zamir Cohen of Hidabrut Oganization.
הידברות מקריות בתורה ובשבת הקודש
3. An article invited by Rav Zamir Cohen for the upcoming book “Ha-Mahapach 4”. The article explains how average lunar month duration can be calculated, from ancient Jewish sources (including the Hebrew Bible), to be 29.530594 days vs. NASA’s estimate of 29.530589 days.
פרופ שור_משך ירח הלבנה הממוצע_עבור המהפך 4_הידברות
Comment: Read my latest peer-reviewed article on the subject (2023): 10.1002/9781118445112.stat08456
The Box-Cox transformation and why is it so effective has intrigued my curiosity for many years. I have had the opportunity to talk both to Box and to Cox about their transformation (Box and Cox, 1964).
I conversed with the late George Box (deceased last March at age 94) when I was a visitor in Madison, Wisconsin, back in 1993-4.
A few years later I talked to David Cox at a conference on reliability in Bordeaux (MMR’2000).
I asked them both the same question, I received the same response.
The question was: What was the theory that led to the derivation of the Box-Cox transformation?
The answer was: “No theory. This was a purely empirical observation”.
The question therefore remains: Why is the Box-Cox transformation so effective, in particular when applied to a response variable in the framework of linear regression analysis?
In a new article, posted in my personal library at the American Statistical Association (ASA) site, I discuss this issue at some length. The article is now generally available for download here (Article #1 below).
Link to an interview with professor Haim Shore, about his statistical analysis research of the Bible and biblical Hebrew, on The Jerusalem Post (Dec. 4th, 2009) :
An Interview with the Author in the Jerusalem Post (Dec., 4th, 2009)
Haim Shore Blog