Probability of Change

[zafrogzen]

2 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

And you seem to imply that an Yijing reading is something akin to an inkblot test

 

I don't mean to imply the the Yijing itself is akin to an inkblot, but the process by which personal meanings are gleaned from it is. Despite it's often uncanny relevance to the situation being explored, the main value I see in the Yijing is the more universal wisdom it conveys. Almost anything can become a vehicle for divination and intuition, but the Yijing is unique. Its relevance and the advice it imparts go way beyond personal issues like gain or loss, good or bad fortune.

Edited June 13, 2018 by zafrogzen

[Lost in Translation]

I wasn't satisfied with what I could find online so I ran through the yarrow stalk method and calculated the percentage chance for each line (old/young yang/yin). There are basically 64 permutations, yielding the following percentages:

 

Old Yang: 18.75%

Young Yang: 31.25%

 

Old Yin 4.69%

Young Yin: 45.31%

 

In each case there is a 50/50 chance of Yang vs Yin, but the actual likelihood of change varies highly between Yang and Yin! This is even more dramatic than the 3/16 vs 1/16 listed on Wikipedia. My numbers could be wrong, but my test case looks (to me) solid. Searching around I found a website (1) that lists similar numbers based upon statistical analysis.

 

Quote

static yin = 424399 / 939120 =~ 45%
static yang = 4051193 / 14556360 =~ 28%
moving yang = 5957 / 26832 =~ 22%
moving yin = 77 / 1612 =~5%

 

Hopefully someone finds this amusing.

 

(1) http://www.biopscinst.com/QChing/prob.html

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Lost in Translation

[Lost in Translation]

I wrote a program that literally runs though all 71,527  permutations possible via the yarrow stalk method. This includes improbable permutations such as a stack comprised of one stalk.

 

Here are the results:

Permutations: 71,527
Yang (old) percent: 22.145484
Yang (young) percent: 27.871992
Yin (old) percent: 4.382960
Yin (young) percent: 45.599564
 

That's it. I am done geeking out on this topic!

[Michael Sternbach]

5 hours ago, zafrogzen said:

 

I don't mean to imply the the Yijing itself is akin to an inkblot, but the process by which personal meanings are gleaned from it is. Despite it's often uncanny relevance to the situation being explored, the main value I see in the Yijing is the more universal wisdom it conveys. Almost anything can become a vehicle for divination and intuition, but the Yijing is unique. Its relevance and the advice it imparts go way beyond personal issues like gain or loss, good or bad fortune.

 

On the one hand,  according to you, the only divinatory meaning the Yijing has is what we read into it.

 

On the other hand, you testify to its 'uncanny relevance' and the aptness of its advice - which IMO suggests that there is objective information being conveyed from somewhere/something other than the reader's (subjective) mind. 

 

How would you reconcile those opposing views?

[wandelaar]

2 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

On the one hand,  according to you, the only divinatory meaning the Yijing has is what we read into it.

 

On the other hand, you testify to its 'uncanny relevance' and the aptness of its advice - which IMO suggests that there is objective information being conveyed from somewhere/something other than the reader's (subjective) mind. 

 

How would you reconcile those opposing views?

 

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.

Edited June 14, 2018 by wandelaar

[wandelaar]

@ 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.

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

3 hours ago, wandelaar said:

@ 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.

 

The Wikipedia is not wrong, it's just incomplete. There are indeed only 16 permutations that the yarrow stalk method can achieve. 1/16 is old yin, 7/16 is young yin, 3/16 is old yang, and 5/16 is young yang. However, it is false to assume an equal probability of achieving each permutation. In other words there is not a 1/16 chance of getting each outcome and it is this additional factor that is omitted from Wikipedia.

 

What I did was write a program to simulate sorting stalks. I started with three nested loops. In the outer most loop I sorted the stalks in stacks starting at 47-2 through 1-48. In the inner loops I continued this method of sorting while accommodating the removed stalks from the outer loops. I then ran this to completion, totaled all the possible solutions and performed basic math to determine the percentages.

 

If you are interested in the actual program used (admittedly not my best work, but it was always intended to be a throw away effort) I have uploaded it to my PPD here: 

 

[silent thunder]

4 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

The Wikipedia is not wrong, it's just incomplete. There are indeed only 16 permutations that the yarrow stalk method can achieve. 1/16 is old yin, 7/16 is young yin, 3/16 is old yang, and 5/16 is young yang. However, it is false to assume an equal probability of achieving each permutation. In other words there is not a 1/16 chance of getting each outcome and it is this additional factor that is omitted from Wikipedia.

 

What I did was write a program to simulate sorting stalks. I started with three nested loops. In the outer most loop I sorted the stalks in stacks starting at 47-2 through 1-48. In the inner loops I continued this method of sorting while accommodating the removed stalks from the outer loops. I then ran this to completion, totaled all the possible solutions and performed basic math to determine the percentages.

 

If you are interested in the actual program used (admittedly not my best work, but it was always intended to be a throw away effort) I have uploaded it to my PPD here: 

That is some awesome stuff mate!  Thanks for sharing!

 

[wandelaar]

@ Lost in Translation

 

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

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

@wandelaar

 

Yes, that is the method.

 

The video failed to mention that you need to convert these numbers once more to calculate your line. The #s 4 and 5 translate to 3. The #s 8 and 9 translate to 2. After translation you add the numbers together and will have either 6, 7, 8 or 9. These are old yin, young yang, young yin and old yang respectively.

[zafrogzen]

 

11 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

On the one hand,  according to you, the only divinatory meaning the Yijing has is what we read into it.

 

On the other hand, you testify to its 'uncanny relevance' and the aptness of its advice - which IMO suggests that there is objective information being conveyed from somewhere/something other than the reader's (subjective) mind. 

 

How would you reconcile those opposing views?

 

9 hours ago, wandelaar said:

 

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.

 

I like wandelaar's response and I'd go with that, although I'm open to "somewhere/something" -- but for me it's not "objective information" or anything that's fixed and definite enough to rely on or even discuss intelligently.

[silent thunder]

off topic so apologies, but related so I'll post it anyway as it's compelling and keeps returning to my mind pond lately.

 

I don't see objectivity in any human process or endeavors, it's as illusory a concept to me these days as the notion of some things being 'normal'.  

 

ask the same question of any oracle two times in a row, five times, ten... is there an objective answer?

look at a tree twice... do you see the same tree?  are you the same?  is the tree?

 

 

[wandelaar]

1 hour ago, silent thunder said:

off topic so apologies, but related so I'll post it anyway as it's compelling and keeps returning to my mind pond lately.

 

I don't see objectivity in any human process or endeavors, it's as illusory a concept to me these days as the notion of some things being 'normal'.  

 

ask the same question of any oracle two times in a row, five times, ten... is there an objective answer?

look at a tree twice... do you see the same tree?  are you the same?  is the tree?

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

11 hours ago, wandelaar said:

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.

 

Of course! Other hexagrams will also be relevant, but the other hexagrams are not what you received!

 

Imagine a case where a man is asking for relationship advice from a friend. There are many things his friend could say that would have value, but he does not say all possible things. He chooses his words and gives specific advice. This is analogous to the I Ching. It gives specific advice in the form of specific hexagrams and changing lines. It's up to the reader to accept the advice or not.

 

[wandelaar]

4 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

Of course! Other hexagrams will also be relevant, but the other hexagrams are not what you received!

 

Imagine a case where a man is asking for relationship advice from a friend. There are many things his friend could say that would have value, but he does not say all possible things. He chooses his words and gives specific advice. This is analogous to the I Ching. It gives specific advice in the form of specific hexagrams and changing lines. It's up to the reader to accept the advice or not.

 

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]

14 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

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 understand. @Harmen gave a great explanation of this phenomenon earlier in the thread: 

I can't express it better than him.

[Starjumper]

45 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

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.

 

You aint never going to see proof for anything in an online forum, but I can share my experience.  My experience is related to the book translated by Alfred Huang, who is an ancient Chinese guy who suffered great hardship at the hands of the communists,  being tortured and imprisoned for a couple of decades simply for being a tai chi master.  The other choices are translations by overweight university professors from Europe.

 

I didn't get much out of I-Ching readings when reading some of the quickneasy interpretations of translations by Westerners.  However, along the Way, thanks to doing lots of high energy meditations and a high power chi kung for a couple of decades, I became somewhat psychic, which included a lot of magical synchronicity, much more than 'normal', in fact synchronicity became so common for me that i started to hardly notice it.  Plus stuff like premonitions and 'knowings'.  Really, the word for it is plain old magic, of seeing the mystery; and I was told by a local retired chi kung master that the true schools of Taoist cultivation will lead you to experience magic.  Contrasting here with the fake schools of Taoist cultivation, which dominate the scene.

 

I bring this up, because after arriving at this condition,then I got Alfred Huang's book, and even just the cover inspired affection and admiration in me, and I loved the picture of the author on the back cover.  I say this as a lead in to explaining that it appears I have a magical connection to Alfred Huang and/or his book.

 

Now the 'proof' you asked for:  When I first used the book I used the coin method.  On my first throw I got all yang lines with no changing lines, which is chapter one, which really should be read first as it explains a lot about the whole book.  One my second throw, shortly after that, I got all yin lines with no changing lines, which is chapter two.  This chapter also is good for a first reading to learn more about the I-Ching and how it works, not to mention the advice it contains.

 

So why don't you math wizards calculate the chance of getting six yang lines and then six yin lines.  I know what you're thinking, you're thinking it's just a coinkidink, but by my calculation the chances are one in 4096, or 0.0002441.  So I'll accept that as more of my boringly common synchronicity.

 

Then other times, and I don't often use the book, maybe just a couple or a few times a year, when I have a question in mind the title of the chapter will actually have the same primary word as is in my question or a laser like pinpoint into my question.  If I don't have a question in mind, and I'm not a question asking kind of guy, and I throw the coins just for the hell of it, it often exactly targets my current situation.

 

So the answer is, if you do a lot of meditation and start to become more psychic and have lots of synchronicity, and get a book which resonates with you, then you too may experience the magic of the oracle.

 

... and so, if you aint psychic or synchronistic then it's just random + projection.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Starjumper

[Michael Sternbach]

11 hours ago, wandelaar said:

 

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.

 

2 hours ago, zafrogzen said:

 

 

 

I like wandelaar's response and I'd go with that, although I'm open to "somewhere/something" -- but for me it's not "objective information" or anything that's fixed and definite enough to rely on or even discuss intelligently.

 

With all respect, I strongly disagree with this view. The Yijing's answers are far too specific and accurate in order to attribute them to the kind of psychological projection you are referring to. For me, anyways (I can't speak for others, though).

 

Which doesn't require that they would be repeatable in the way of a modern scientific experiment. I believe that the Yijing can indeed answer a question in more than one way, to be sure. However, I stopped "pestering" it with the same question over and over again long ago. I only did that in my very early days of Yijing divination on some occasions, and then I would get reprimanded by receiving hexagram 4 (Youthful Folly) so many times that I soon stopped trying  (just like somebody else posting in this thread has observed).

 

I have made quite similar experiences also with other oracles. E.g., when using Tarot for divination and asking essentially the same question again and again, they often start reflecting the querent's state of mind rather than the topic he or she inquires into. However, if the same basic topic is explored with more composure over a period of time and/or across various decks, typically the same cards show up again and again.

 

However, all that being said, I don't deny the inquirer's own mind playing an important role in the divinatory process, even though this goes far beyond what could be explained by your usual "inkblot psychology". At any rate, there isn't just a receiver (projecting meaning into a basically arbitrary message), but also a transmitter involved, sending the former a very specific message. This is not to say that the latter is not part of yourself too - consider how you are sending yourself a message in a dream sometimes, and more generally, when you make yourself aware of something by way of intuition.

 

Thus, intuition indeed comes into play, as well as the phenomenon known today as synchronicity. This is linked to the reality that is - to some extent - described by quantum mechanics and chaos theory, which are already speaking to there being implicit order in what, on the surface, seems arbitrary.

 

However, these are phenomena that we are just beginning to understand. The study of divinatory methods is key, starting with C.G.Jung and his quantum physical colleague Wolfgang Pauli - but by no means limited to the exploration of this topic that they undertook so many years ago.

 

 

 

[wandelaar]

On 13-6-2018 at 10:20 AM, Harmen said:

 

My personal view on this is: hexagrams don't have objective meanings; hexagrams derive their meaning from the context in which they arrive, connected to the person who consulted the Yi. Often people come to me and say "I consulted the Yijing today and I got hexagram 48!" and then they wait for my response. But my response is often (...) because without any context, without any information about why the person consulted the Yi I can't say anything about the hexagram: a hexagram has many aspects/meanings and I don't know which ones are relevant to the person. 

 

I also think that yarrow and coins, or any other method can be valid at the same time. Every method that serves as a random token generator works, and every method has its consequences. Some time ago I purchased trigram dice. I was not satisfied with the consultation method for these dice that was promoted on internet so I made my own version (in this video - in Dutch - I explain my method). The consequence of this method is that the chance of getting the symmetrical trigrams Heaven, Earth, Water & Fire is higher than the chance of getting the other four trigrams. That is why I call these dice 'Neidan trigram dice' because the trigrams Heaven, Earth, Water & Fire play an important role in Neidan Yijing usage. Several people questioned the validity of my method: if the probability of the trigrams is not equally balanced the method was flawed, they said. However, if imbalance would 'break' the method then the yarrow stalk method would also be flawed.

 

But in the end the hexagram itself is not so important, what is more important is how you deal with it and what it means to you. In my view every hexagram applies at every moment in time; every hexagram contains the other 63 hexagrams. Every hexagram can advance you in your situation, every hexagram can give you what you need at that very moment. Here in the West we often think we must choose: it should be either this or that and you can't have both. A similar attitude is seen with the application of the trigrams: many users know the qualities of the trigrams and think they should always choose between them, especially when certain associations seem contradictory. On a forum a member was confused that trigram Lake meant 'happiness' and 'broken, smashed' and she wondered how to choose the right association. I said, why not use them both? She thought that was impossible because the two associations seemed to contradict each other. So I gave her an example. On that forum I asked the administrator to implement the option to type Chinese. She did that which made several members happy. But the side effect was that other parts of the forum stopped working: the new feature broke the forum. So you had both qualities of Lake at the same time. One quality does not have to exclude the other.

 

The same goes for the methods of obtaining a hexagram. The method itself is not important. What is important is how you use the answer of the Yi to your advantage.

 

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

 

44 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

I understand. @Harmen gave a great explanation of this phenomenon earlier in the thread: 

I can't express it better than him.

 

[wandelaar]

@ 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.

[wandelaar]

@ 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?

[wandelaar]

@ 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 .

 

21 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

@wandelaar

 

Yes, that is the method.

 

The video failed to mention that you need to convert these numbers once more to calculate your line. The #s 4 and 5 translate to 3. The #s 8 and 9 translate to 2. After translation you add the numbers together and will have either 6, 7, 8 or 9. These are old yin, young yang, young yin and old yang respectively.

 

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)

 

Edited June 15, 2018 by wandelaar

[Lost in Translation]

@wandelaar Your logic is correct.

[wandelaar]

@ 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?

[Lost in Translation]

15 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

i)    rem(R1 - 1) = 1

ii)   rem(R1 - 1) = 2

iii)  rem(R1 - 1) = 3

iv)  rem(R1 - 1) = 4

 

16 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Do you agree that all those cases are (approximately) equally likely?

 

No. Keep in mind that we start with 49 stalks. The initial value of L1 is between 1 and 47. The initial value of R1 is between 2 and 48.

 

rem(R1 - 1) 2..48 is rem(1)..rem(47), and rem(47) yields 3. So there are twelve opportunities to achieve 1-3 and only eleven opportunities to achieve 4. This slightly changes the odds.