From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Jan 13 2002 - 12:48:13 MST
[Yash] I agree somewhat with what you say, Blunderov,
[Hermit] You should agree completely, what he says makes sense and like my
posts before you chose to become insulting, friendly.
[Yash] but see here: if I had given any other example, not related to
religious/spiritual areas, for instance, if I made up one example myself and
presented it, do you think we would have heard such crap?
[Hermit] Almost certainly not - if the example was valid. The trouble is not
the "religious/spiritual areas" per se (although that aggravated things as
we are an atheist religion), but the selection and assertion of what appears
to be an invalid and indefensible example.
[Yash] Obviously not. It just shows how biased people can be. They just get
sick if ethey hear something like that. I do not suffer from such dogmatism,
especially the kind of dogmatism that the COV doesn't wish to accept. But it
is obvious from the ensuing posts that some do.
[Hermit] Either you are asserting that the example was valid (irrational
given the degree of support for the opinion that it is not which you have
refused to examine and, or, address), or you are asserting that demanding
accuracy is to descend into "dogma" (irrational). Thus your position is
irrational. Your inability to defend your irrationality and insistence that
this irrationality is irrelevant exacerbates the situation. No bias at all.
Just an insistence that you stay within the parameters of what the CoV is.
Asserting that you know better than the congregation that you know better
than they what the CoV is, descending to personal attacks, and refusing to
defend your assertions (again irrational), lost you any respect you might
have earned as well as wasting the welcome that all newcomers (even
newcomers that have historic connections) can expect and do receive. As you
received.
[Blunderov] Perhaps it is not important to you whether or not it is in fact
true that Pi is incorporated in this verse or not. Perhaps you are simply
trying to find a way of describing the kind language you wish to design.
[Yash] Exactly, to me that's another argument (whose exploration could also
be interesting if done in a proper way and an open-mind), but is not the
point discussed here.
[Hermit] If this is the case why did you escalate the initial request for
substantiation into a flamewar, instead of accepting the fact that the
assertion was nonsensical and moving on? This assertion here really cannot
be substantiated by your behavior.
[Blunderov] In a way you are saying: "It would be a good idea to create a
language that has embedded mathematical concepts, similar to the way that
the Hindus embedded Pi (or the method for calculating it) into their
writings"
[Hermit notes that this might be more felicitously phrased "...as is claimed
that the Harrapans embedded..." There is no claim that this was done by
Hindus (and no evidence that this was done by the Harrapans).]
[Yash] Well, no, actually I didn't say that nor meant it as should be clear
from the post where I admit to Hermit that I cannot vouch for the
authenticity of such a thing.
[Hermit] Yet you attempted to defend this thing that you thought
unsubstantiated by assertion. Do you consider that to be rational?
[Yash] The only important thing to me at the time was:
[Yash] 1. Trying to build a language conducive to such things (i.e. storing
knowledge in a compressed format) similar to what that ode does.
[Hermit] For reasons which I observed also seem to make no sense, but which
have been deferred until this first issue is settled.
[Yash] 2. Hermit's bashing of the Vedas solely because of a misappropriation
of the proper origin of Pi and the historical impossibility of such a thing
apparent to him.
[Hermit] You think this is trivial?
[Yash] See, in case #2, to me the flaw in the reasoning is "The Vedas are
worthless because Maharishi (bad) is involved with Vedic Mathematics".
[Hermit] No. The argument, well supported is that we cannot confirm the
existence of steganographic content in any material without a predefined
key, and that the Sutras contain multiple low accuracy (easily attainable by
mensuration) values for various PI ratios, making it unlikely that the
authors understood the nature of PI. Further that the Sutras being modified
and first reduced to writing in the period 900-200BCE cannot be taken of
proof as an early PI and that only a non-mathematician and non-historian
could imagine that any of the above is true. Claims to the opposite effect
can only be made by fools or frauds. The fact that it is advocated by a
scam-artist such as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi to make false claim to the "wisdom
of the ages" and the "wisdom of the east" nicely illustrates the case.
[Yash] The same point was correctly raised by Mermaid in her posts. The
Vedas have an intrinsic value in terms of rules and guidelines about living
in society.
[Hermit] Sure. A primitive bronze age society. As I said, they provide an
historic background nothing more. It is you who appears to be asserting
<em>more</em>. A lot more. As was the Mermaid.
[Yash] But see again, as I said and as was raised by Roly Sookias, Hermit
couldn't say the slightest encouraging thing about such an endeavour.
[Hermit] And as I pointed out to Roly, I don't say positive things about
ideas that I see as being farcical.
[Yash] He got himself worked up about history and mention dates (I never
mentioned dates myself) in a sideline argument which degenerated into the
age old science vs religion argument.
[Hermit] Horseshit. This was your choice, seeing a theology debate instead
of a rejection of a mathematical, logical and historical monstrosity. My
argument, stated in my first response and requoted ad nauseam, was that your
assertion of PI in "Vedic Maths" was and is invalid, incorrect and
unsustainable. That remains the "turd" in the well. You introduced "ancient"
- I put numbers to it to show that your historical assertions were as much a
pile of crap as the PI story.
[Yash] As for the chronology of events, I can only recommend George Ifrah's
Major work on Mathematics which I have in a two-volume French Edition. He's
a historian of mathematics. Of course, the Net resources also show the
discoveries of some early Indian scholars.
[Hermit] If this work purports to substantiate your claims then this work
too is worthless. But I doubt it. Reviews of the work are largely positive
(e.g. http://cheminot.etsmtl.ca/robertgervais/Biblio/Critique/histchif.htm)
and make no mention of overthrowing accepted mathematical history.
[Yash] To me, because religions have their failings, it doesn't mean that
you should reject all things said by religious people. That's fallacious
thinking.
[Hermit] Correct. However, it is advisable to view all belief based claims
and claims made by people who assert belief (as you appear to be doing) with
extreme prejudice until otherwise supported, for belief, once allowed into
ones thinking, precludes rationality and encourages delusion. As most
religions are founded upon belief, this applies to most religious
statements.
[Yash] Notice how Hermit doesn't answer me on the point where I ask him to
read Kepler's own account of the discoveries of the laws geoverning our
planets. One should do the same with Newton's works on gravity and the
motion of bodies. My question was: do you consider Kepler a 'Real
Mathematician' in his own terms.
[Hermit] Who has been asserting that I introduced "sideline arguments"?
Could it be Yash? Surely not, when he states that he does it himself so very
blatantly? I have defered answering this which promises to become a similar
flamefest, due to your unwillingness or inability to argue, until we have
resolved the more substantial issues about your undefended (and seemingly
indefensible) assertions about "Vedic PI."
[Hermit] As it so happens, I have not only read their works, I have used
them to construct orbital and optical models (which function surprisingly
well) as part of a progression from the Babylonians to modern day celestial
mechanics ("The Universe in APL", TMS, 1989). So I understand where they
were coming from, upon whose shoulders they stood, why they threatened the
religious background they emerged from, and why we had to discard their
beliefs before we could utilize their discoveries to their full potential.
As you quite clearly do not. Please note, Kepler could not have done the
work he did had he not been a Lutheran (ask the shades of Gallileo and
Bruno), was undoubtedly a competent mathematician - but was also an
astrologer (partly because it paid the rent, but mainly because he had to
invent astronomy) - and had continuous trouble with the ecclesiastical
authorities because his data clashed with the beliefs of the day. Newton,
being useful to the monarch, and so protected by the government, had a much
easier time of it, but was self-limited by his beliefs, his dishonesty and
his ego.
[Yash] Would we dismiss these works as utter crap solely because they came
about by the obviously religious mind-sets of their authors? Are their
discoveries completely valueless because according to their own accounts,
these searchers were guided by a will to know God (or His language or Mind
or whatever they were looking for)?
[Hermit] They did not "came about by the obviously religious mind-sets of
their authors" - they came about because the time was right and despite the
general superstitions of their days. And this that you describe is not the
scientific method (refer below). A scientists motivation is irrelevant, his
results are what count.
[Yash] Are Kepler and Newton frauds and Charlatans? Of course not.
[Hermit] Newton was a genius - and a fraud and charlatan. He plagiarized,
stole ideas, withheld information until his critics died, destroyed the
careers of anyone who disagreed with him and suppressed research. Read
"Longitude : The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest
Scientific Problem of His Time", Dava Sobel, Walker, 1995) for a very
readable explanation. Do some research into Gottfried Liebnitz, Robert
Boyle, Robert Hooke, Christiaan Huygens and Edmé Mariotte to discover more.
He went off the rails where he allowed his beliefs to influence his research
(mysticism, alchemy). That did not invalidate his contributions in
mathematics, optics, gravity and mechanics (which were significant), solely
because the scientific method does not look at people or nationalities but
facts.
[Yash] But see once more how some people will all too quickly accept Kepler
and Newton's discoveries and their undeniable intrinsic values even though
they are obviously (from the account of the Authors themselves) inspired by
religious or spiritual quest - and at the same time completely and
vociferously and with all manners of devious thinking, reject anything
having to do with the book I mentioned: "Vedic Mathematics".
[Hermit] We can discard the personal and religious issues (except to make
the "story" of science more flavorful) for both Kepler and Newton, and still
be left with a vast body of valid information. When we attempt this with
"Vedic Mathematics" nothing of significance is left. Are you, as it seems,
suggesting that we should discard the scientific method when it comes to
"Vedic Mathematics"? In which case, it seems that you are promoting belief
over rationality and don't belong in this forum.
[Yash] Some of the exercises and methods have better value (as they are more
efficient) than some of Trachtenberg's method.
[Hermit] Are you now citing a late Victorian Russian engineer, whose
expertise was in languages and mental arithmetic as a significant
mathematician? He developed techniques (granted, on his own and without
references) for rapid mental calculation, yet even so, I'd wager that any
Chinese with an abacus could outdo him a thousand years before. As can any
kid with the ability to operate a calculator today. Mental arithmetic is not
particularly important in mathematics. Albert Einstein could not add two
numbers together without misplacing the decimal! But he could manipulate
Lorentz transformations in his head... which was useful at the time as
MathCad had not yet been invented. The important thing is not how you do it,
it is knowing what to do and making the best use you can of the tools
available.
[Yash] I hope you can clearly see that one can safely, for the sake of
investigating efficency in knowledge-storage in a natural+mathematical
language, explore the intrinsic values of such a system.
[Hermit] I see no problem with such an investigation. I simply question its
utility. Maths is performed in the symbolic and visual space.
[Yash] Exploring whether it is legitimate to claim that these things really
are in the Vedas or not are quite another story altogether. It's just as
trying to find out whether Kepler and/or Newton were right or wrong in being
guided in their explorations by their notion of a creator and the order that
is brought forth from his mind.
[Hermit] More BS. What is important is whether the work is useful (i.e.
predictive), can be replicated, whether it can be (at least in principle)
falsified, and whether it can obtain support (is significant). The claims
you make for the Vedas fail on all of these grounds. Which means that they
are not scientific whatever else they may be. End of argument.
[Yash] Now, if you would really like to help, I have been contacted by a
mathematician whose works include trying to unify "electromagnetism and
general relativity (aside from what's already been done)" and who somehow
stumbled on the posts although he's not on the list.
[Hermit] Is his name Everette Allie by any chance? It seems that this would
be right up his street.
[Yash] This involves some very high-level concepts about the foundations of
mathematics and some theorems I'm not familiar with and seem to be weel over
my head (I'll have to seriously re-learn many things to be able to do some
proper discourse at the same level of that person). But he seems genuinely
interested so we could set up a mailing list for just that.
[Hermit] I encourage you to do just that.
[Yash] I have also devised two (imperfect) examples about storing knowledge
about circles which I can send you when I can my way around finishing a
document with the drawings in.
[Hermit] No comment.
[Blunderov] If it is NOT true that the Hindus (or whoever) did this with
their verses then you have not succeded in describing what you intend, or
why it might be useful.
[Yash] I do not particularly care about that argument. It doesn't detract
from what I want to achieve.
[Hermit] But your assertions, coupled with your inability to defend these
assertions, makes it inappropriate for this list - and destroys your
credibility. As it will in any rational group. Which means that even if you
make a really significant discovery (unlikely though this might be) it will
not be taken seriously by those whom you would have to convince.
[Blunderov] You are at liberty to choose another example. You are at liberty
to find another way of describing your idea. But you cannot allow a turd to
continue to float in the well if you wish to retain the good will of a
community which prizes clean water.
[Yash] Well as you have seen, some seem to be enjoying trying to play with
the turd, I'll leave them to wallow in their own too.
[Hermit] Ignoring the people you are trying to persuade of something or who
could maybe help you is silly. So far, you have ignored a large number of
people with very different styles who have all suggested that you are making
a large number of errors of style and substance. Seeing as how you appear to
think that leaving turds floating in the well is neighborly, you can
anticipate, excuse the mixed metaphor, the immune system to take appropriate
action.
[Yash] Please do contact me if you would like to contribute some ideas as to
how to do the thing I was talking about. It's okay to be inspired by
existing examples. It's just a matter of seeing what we can reach with these
explorations.
[Hermit] Please, don't call us, we will call you.
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT