From: ben (ben@machinegod.org)
Date: Tue Jan 15 2002 - 18:48:20 MST
Ping ben
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:08:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
Sender: owner-virus@lucifer.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
[ben 0] I have one simple question. You and I both know or can easily lookup
the value of pi to N places.
[Hermit 0] Or even calculate it.
[ben 1] touché. None of my measurement devices are precise enough to require
more than the 6 places I've bothered remembering... from a previous post you
may recall my own statements re my math skills.
[ben 0] What's to stop us from encoding that information in a poem, ode,
sonnet, fruitcake recipe etc?
[Hermit 0] Nothing at all. Of course, the same answer would probably apply
if
you asked how much use such "encoding" would be...
[ben 1] which I purposely avoided doing... :)
[ben 0] That being said, would it at all diminish one's ability to do so if
one was a priest of some religion, and proclaimed that one's ability to do
so was due to the glory and power of one's god/gods/sacred stuffed monkey?
[Hermit 0] The same answer as I have repeatedly given to this question
generally holds true. It does not matter who did something, or (usually) why
they did it.
[ben 0] Therefore, if one's culture had determined the value of pi (or even
a
close approximation) anyone with that knowlege could do just that.
[Hermit 0] This is also true.
[ben 0] Whether or not the Vedics specifically did it is outside the scope
of
my point
[Hermit 0] But that is the crux of my point.
[ben 1] Granted, my question is more about the nature of your point and its
delivery than the content therein. I don't know enough about ancient math to
have a qualified opinion on the matter, so I choose to have none at all.
What's more, I find myself less and less concerned as this drags on. What
does interest me is the impression I get that just as a believer will cloud
their vision subconciously to avoid confronting that which threatens to
disprove his comfy worldview, a disbeliever will also do in order to avoid
having to give credit to a believer. There have been pious scientists the
world over...
[hermit 0] The probability that "the Vedics" had such knowledge is so
vanishingly small that it should be discounted entirely until some strong
evidence is shown for this claim - because this is a very strong claim. For
all the reasons I have detailed.
[ben 1] Should it? The previous lack of evidence is so overwhelming then
that any evidence that presents itself is instantly negligable? Sounds like
a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.
[ben 0] , but it seems that a lot of your text on the matter seems to
expound
the belief that if X has religious background or intent then X must be
rubbish.
[Hermit 0] Not at all. The standard of proof should be the same as that
which
you apply to anything and anyone else - although the nature of belief (and
not incidentally the reputation of priests) should warn you (as Descartes
put it) to "first determine whether what know to be true is true."
[ben 1] And yet, the point I'm trying to get to in my round about way is
that the standard of proof seems to end differently in this case. The normal
(to my mind) rational response would have been to wait for supporting
references, and in the absence of such discard the idea as being too
contrary to what you already assume to be true. (At some point, all knowlege
erodes into a series of highly supportable assumptions anyways). The part
that I don't understand is the continuous diatribe about the lack of proof,
as if you've suddenly made it your mission to ensure that not only do _you_
not buy into it, but that nobody else gives it a chance either.
[Hermit 0] Thus any believer, seeking confirmation of his world-perspective
is attempting to persuade you that his world-perspective is valid. <minor
snippage> Believers like their belief. It makes them warm and happy. They
also want you to share it,
because when you say to them "I don't believe" you are challenging their
world-perspective. Which makes them very unhappy. They will say and do
almost anything to make you see their perspective - which validates their
own for them.
[ben 1] Indeed...
[Hermit 0] The secret to immense happiness and complete immunity from belief
is to realize that the world does validate itself, that there are people out
there you can trust to assist to validate (or when needed invalidate) your
world view, but that you do not require approval of your world-perspective
from anybody.
[ben 1] Agreed utterly. Actually I have snipped out most of what you say
about the dangers of belief for the simple reason that there is nothing in
there for me to disagree with.
[Hermit 0] Approval is for people who need certainty. But certainty
itself is non-existent except in a dead, static, and frozen world. And this
is good. Because I love life and growth and warmth and honesty. Certainty
precludes all these things. So the people seeking certainty are in reality
seeking to be fooled about the world and its nature, to be told that they
are growing when they are not. To live in their world requires belief -
because this world can only exist on insufficient evidence.
[ben 1] Here you're starting to lose me. People who seek the truth
(certainty) - a group that you've formerly claimed membership in - are in
fact trying to be fooled into believing comfortable lies?
Simple test to see if we're defining "certainty" in at all compatible
manners: Are research scientists seeking "certainty", by your definition of
the word?
[ben 1] pedantic notes from me because I'm cranky:
[Hermit 0] Because beauty and invisibility are incompatible.
[ben 1] Have you never heard a beautiful sound?
[Hermit 0]Because there is no difference between holy water and
other water.
[ben 1]Sure there is, "Holy water" has someone who believes it is holy,
whereas "regular water" does not.
[Hermit 0] Now consider what I did when I was told that a guru (believer)
was
using the "miracle" of the value of PI/10 to 32 significant digits but
without knowing
his motives, in the light of this parable.
[ben 1] How is pi a miracle? How is somebody being able to perform c/d a
miracle? I recall reading a few sources (I get the feeling I'm going to be
asked to dreg them out, but oh well here goes)
saying that the Egyptians had it. Why not (even as a possibility) the
Indians? Why should "we" be the only people to ever try determining the
relationship between one aspect of a common object and another?
[Hermit 0] I am as free of belief - through careful conscious effort - as I
think a person can be.
[ben 1] We'd all like to think such about ourselves, I wager. However, in
the absence of "certainty" you proposed, aren't we all then "believers"?
[ben 1a - special disclaimer] Considering the nature of this
forum/discussion, I would like to make it painfully clear for future
reference that I do NOT believe any of the claims made previously in this
discussion, nor do I wholly DISbelieve. My opinion on the specific
Veda/pi/ode matter is firmly in that nether state between not knowing and
not caring. Included just because I've seen how these things go here...
-ben
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT