wandelaar

For those willing to tackle an open mathematical problem related to the I Ching see: https://old.reddit.com/r/math/comments/6nmp2e/commutative_rings_with_64_elements/ That will keep you busy for some years to come...

What we see here is that we would never get the result old yin when the division in half of the heap of stalks is done too precise. So the problem isn't entirely academic.

So we see that the probabilities vary depending on how accurately the heap of sticks is divided in half. The division may not be done too precisely in half and it may also not be done too haphazardly! The heap of sticks has to be divided only roughly in half, or else the probabilities for the different kinds of lines will come out "wrong".

Yes - it would be interesting to see whether your results approach those of Wikipedia and others when you do that.

But than we are calculating the probabilities for different situations. I suppose that the heap of stalks is divided roughly in half. You reckon all divisions from L1 = 1 & R1 = 48 to L1 = 47 & R1 = 2 as equally likely (at least statistically).

But that's not how it is done in the video. Do you have references where it says that a division in say 1 stalk for left and 48 stalks for right is just as likely as say 25 for left and 24 for right?

@ Lost in Translation Now there are twelve cases to consider: i) rem(R1 - 1) = 1 ii) rem(R1 - 1) = 2 iii) rem(R1 - 1) = 3 iv) rem(R1 - 1) = 4 v) rem(R2 - 1) = 1 vi) rem(R2 - 1) = 2 vii) rem(R2 - 1) = 3 viii) rem(R2 - 1) = 4 ix) rem(R3 - 1) = 1 x) rem(R3 - 1) = 2 xi) rem(R3 - 1) = 3 xii) rem(R3 - 1) = 4 Do you agree that all those cases are (approximately) equally likely?

If I remember well Taoists didn't like to take part in government because of the loss of personal freedom that goes with it, but they were prepared to do so when the times were such that they could have a positive effect on society as a whole. Confucius as I understand it didn't promote a totalitarian state, but he thought societal interaction could be regulated by decorum, manners, filial piety, etc. (as OldDog wrote). If I remember well there is a story about Confucius regarding filial piety as being more important than criminal law.

@ Lost in translation Before I go any further, could you look whether the formalization below is correct? SUBROUTINE: We will use the symbol "rem(n)" for the end-result of taking away four sticks at a time starting from a heap of n sticks until you end with 4, 3, 2 or 1 sticks. Example: rem(9) = 1 because 9 = 4 + 4 + 1. Start with 50 sticks. Put one stick away as the 'observer'. So there are now 49 remaining. PART 1: Divide the heap of 49 sticks roughly in half so that we get two heaps: one heap to the right with R1 sticks and one heap to the left with L1 sticks. (We will always have: R1 + L1 = 49.) Now we take one stick away from the heap on the right so that we now have R1 - 1 sticks. Now our first number N1 is defined as: N1 = 1 + rem(R1 - 1) + rem(L1) that is: N1 = 1 + rem(R1 - 1) + rem(49 - R1) PART 2: Form a heap of 49 - N1 sticks. Divide the heap of 49 - N1 sticks roughly in half so that we get two heaps: one heap to the right with R2 sticks and one heap to the left with L2 sticks. (We will always have: R2 + L2 = 49 - N1.) Now we take one stick away from the heap on the right so that we now have R2 - 1 sticks. Now our second number N2 is defined as: N2 = 1 + rem(R2 - 1) + rem(L2) that is: N2 = 1 + rem(R2 - 1) + rem(49 - N1 - R2) PART 3: Form a heap of 49 - N1 - N2 sticks. Divide the heap of 49 - N1 - N2 sticks roughly in half so that we get two heaps: one heap to the right with R3 sticks and one heap to the left with L3 sticks. (We will always have: R3 + L3 = 49 - N1 - N2 .) Now we take one stick away from the heap on the right so that we now have R3 - 1 sticks. Now our third number N3 is defined as: N3 = 1 + rem(R3 - 1) + rem(L3) that is: N3 = 1 + rem(R3 - 1) + rem(49 - N1 - N2 - R3) This gives us three numbers: N1, N2 and N3 . So we need a translation function trans( ) such that: trans(4) = 3 trans(5) = 3 trans(8) = 2 trans(9) = 2 Define the code-number C for the line as C = 6, 7, 8 or 9 for "old yin", "young yang", "young yin" and "old yang" respectively. Then we have: C = trans(N1) + trans(N2) + trans(N3)

Traveler/Wanderer = wandelaar (walker)

Is it OK to not like ones own culture? And if so, why shouldn't the same thing be allowed concerning the culture of others? It looks like anti-racism in its politically correct form is now becoming a form of racism itself. Liking ones own culture is considered suspect, and disliking the culture of others is considered racist and xenophobic. We as individual human beings according to PC-doctrine are no longer allowed to form our own preferences concerning cultures, but our ethnic group determines what we are allowed to like or dislike. I find more common sense in some of the posts on the Chinese internet: Not that I like everything that Einstein wrote, but some of the quotes from his diaries are just descriptions of what he saw. And as such they might very well be correct for the China that he visited.

https://qz.com/1305236/chinese-internet-users-are-surprisingly-sympathetic-to-einsteins-racist-remarks/ Einstein was there.

@ Michael Sternbach Thanks for your opinion. If as you say there are certain patterns in the way the I Ching works that go beyond the common sense explanation I gave, then it should be possible to set up experiments to show those patterns. Or do they disappear when we try to explore them?

@ Starjumper Thank you. It is good to hear your experiences because I don't do any advanced chi gong stuff myself and I haven't any psychic abilities.

Harmen's above post I did understand, but the post below I didn't understand.

Yes - but how specific? What I find hard to accept is that the I Ching cares for us and of itself selects the very best helpful hexagram for the situation under consideration. But that's the way many people talk about the I Ching, as if it were a kind of living spiritual entity that is trying to help us. I don't absolutely rule out that possibility, but I haven't seen any convincing proof yet. When I find the time I will try to calculate the probabilities of the lines myself. And then we can compare the results.

@ Lost in Translation Is this the method you calculated the probabilities for? And if so, what are your 16 permutations?

@ Lost in Translation Could you explain how you calculated those probabilities? If you are right both Wikipedia, Edward Hacker and Martin Gardner must be wrong. So it is interesting to see some more details.

That's an interesting question! Subjective experiences of 'uncanny relevance' don't mean much because people are notoriously bad at evaluating statistical data. I almost always find when asking what happened that they didn't properly research how improbable the results actually were. So my opinion on this is that the I Ching gives surprising results because it puts the intuition of the user at work, and the results are than considered surprising because the user generally doesn't know (or doesn't want to know) how the results could be scientifically explained. It's even possible that the I Ching works better for those users that believe the I Ching to deliver information that they don't know themselves, because those people are more motivated to use it and work with the results. I tried the I Ching myself and found out that it works, but as the sceptical person I am I than looked at some other hexagrams and they also proved relevant. So I think the I Ching when used as an oracle is a tool that puts our intuition and creativity at work, without objectively delivering any relevant new information of its own. It does however contain timeless wisdom of general relevance.

@ Starjumper Thank you for answering my questions.

Is it also possible to move for instance a stone by the empty force? That would then rule out the possibility that the feat is accomplished by pure suggestion. I also wonder whether it would work against a sceptical prizefighter.

Calling the effect the "Empty Force" is also looking at it from a personal/subjective perspective. The same effect and more can be achieved by means of hypnosis or suggestion, so it it doesn't prove there is actually a force projected onto the 'victim'. Even if one were to experience the effect oneself it would still not prove there is a force pushing you. To prove the existence of an Empty Force one would have to measure it. A thousand direct personal experiences don't prove as much as one controlled measurement.

@ Harmen Thank you. That looks like a very sensible answer to me.

It should be possible to run a simulation on a computer where the hexagrams change according to the moving lines. In the long run we can then look which hexagrams turn up more often then others. If the hexagrams have an objective meaning, than the world would have to be a different place depending on whether the yarrow-stalk method or the coin-method is correct. I don't see how both could be correct, unless the hexagrams don't have an objective meaning. But in case the meaning of the hexagrams is largely subjective or intuitive the problem doesn't arise.