Tests for the non-random character of the I Ching

[wandelaar]

@ Harmen

 

Looks like the pdf answers my question. Thank you. It will take me some time to study.

[wandelaar]

No doubt voidisyinyang will go on spamming this topic (and other topics) from here on in stead of starting a topic of his own to discuss his exotic theories, but let's ignore him as best as we can.

[voidisyinyang]

16 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

No doubt voidisyinyang will go on spamming this topic (and other topics) from here on in stead of starting a topic of his own to discuss his exotic theories, but let's ignore him as best as we can.

 

O.K. let's assume your "self-organizing random" exotic theory is true.

https://www.blueswami.com/home/blog/randomreality

Quote

IF YOU could lift a corner of the veil that shrouds reality, what would you see beneath? Nothing but randomness, say two Australian physicists. According to Reginald Cahill and Christopher Klinger of Flinders University in Adelaide, space and time and all the objects around us are no more than the froth on a deep sea of randomness.

Then, based on your assumption, "life" is still explained as quantum nonlocality. Oops. haha.

Quote

Cahill and Klinger believe that these defects are the stuff we are made of, as described by the wave functions of quantum theory, because they have a special property shared by quantum entities: nonlocality. In quantum theory, the properties of two particles can be correlated, or "entangled", even when they are so far apart that no signal can pass between them. "This ghostly long-range connectivity is apparently outside of space," says Cahill. But in Cahill and Klinger's model of reality, there are some connections that act like wormholes to connect far-flung topological defects.

Then we need to address entropy and the ecological crisis - from science wrongly assuming life is random. Oh well.

Math is funny that way.

 

[zerostao]

14 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

O.K. let's assume your "self-organizing random" exotic theory is true.

https://www.blueswami.com/home/blog/randomreality

Then, based on your assumption, "life" is still explained as quantum nonlocality. Oops. haha.

Then we need to address entropy and the ecological crisis - from science wrongly assuming life is random. Oh well.

Math is funny that way.

 

It is interesting that a bum recently laughed at one of your posts and was threatened with being banned. and here you are laughing at another bum's post. Math is funny in a lot of ways. Somehow you are able to pick and choose which mathmagician is correct over other mathmagicians that hold an opposing view, that is interesting too. I wasn't even aware that you have a PhD in math. You do , right?

Spoiler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

apologies to the OP for my single post, I just wanted to make a single point and will take your advice and place a bum on ignore.

[voidisyinyang]

9 minutes ago, zerostao said:

ISomehow you are able to pick and choose which mathmagician is correct over other mathmagicians that hold an opposing view, that is interesting too.

I have corresponded with math professors - and a math professor did say my music-math research was very impressive and asked me to submit it for publication. But humans have been around for a long time without "math" - some human cultures do not count about the concept of "several." haha. And so is "randomness" as concept in Daoism? No - not in the Western definition of randomness.

But Western science is based on quantum physics now - and it is definitely up to debate whether randomness is even real or not.

So quantum physics is noncommutative - and this does change how "randomness" is defined.

Because of the "measurement problem" in quantum physics - we can no longer ignore the process of doing the math, as being part of the experiment.

Quote

This is only possible because of the highly non-commutative nature of these matrices; as we shall see, it is not possible for non-trivial commuting independent random variables to be freely independent.

https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/245a-notes-5-free-probability/

So I was replying to "OldDog" talking about the Uncertainty Principle - and also Michael Sternbach talking about the "Hidden order" of quantum physics.

So I am not just "spamming" this thread - I am replying to their very legitimate concerns about what randomness "means."

Quote

 

a mind influences local randomness from outside spacetime to produce nonlocal order.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antoine_Suarez

Yes I can critique math from a variety of perspectives because my foundation of research is from music theory. All human cultures use the Octave, Perfect Fifth, Perfect Fourth as 1:2:3:4 - and as Chuang Tzu states -

 

Quote

If then all things are One, what room is there for speech? On the other hand, since I can say the word 'one' how can speech not exist? If it does exist, we have One and speech -- two; and two and one -- three(14) from which point onwards even the best mathematicians will fail to reach (the ultimate); how much more then should ordinary people fail?...So since from nonexistence there comes existence and next there are three...depend on This and let that be the end of it." "

         - Chuang Tzu, 300 BCE

And so we see those numbers 1, 2, 3 (infinity) and we think it is simple counting! No - it is actually noncommutative phase - as quantum physics has proven already.

arXiv:1611.05737  [pdf, other]  physics.gen-ph

Telekinetic Entanglement

Authors: Johann Summhammer

Quote

Abstract: A numerical thought experiment with two momentum correlated particles is presented, in which particle A passes through a series of zig-zagging slits and particle B moves unobstructedly.
It is shown that, if particle A's meandering path is monitored by successive non-detections, particle B will loosely adhere to a similar trajectory without violating momentum conservation. The discussion relates this apparent telekinetic influence, which is a standard quantum mechanical result, to supposedly real telekinesis and to Stapp's hypothesis on intention in quantum physics.

These are not "woo woo" or "exotic" physicists. They are standard quantum physicists! haha. This dude, Summhammer, published with a famous Bell Theorem experimenter who also published with the quantum mechanics professor I had, my first year of college.

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

So to address the "hidden order of quantum physics" issue that Michael Sternbach raised - this is a known "loop hole" in quantum physics.

 

Quote

A Bell test is a randomized trial that compares experimental observations against the philosophical worldview of local realism¹, in which the properties of the physical world are independent of our observation of them and no signal travels faster than light. A Bell test requires spatially distributed entanglement, fast and high-efficiency detection and unpredictable measurement settings^2,3.

 

O.K. so This is called Bell's Inequality Test - and it has been "disproven" - which means that indeed the foundation of reality is non-local - just as Daoism maintains - there ARE superluminal correlations - faster than light.

 

Quote

physical setting choices

 

This was the big loophole - whether the "Measurement settings" truly are RANDOM or not.

 

So then I accessed the pdf through https://sci-hub.tw/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0085-3

just enter the link to get a pdf download.

And so what this experiment verifies - just as John Bell argued - is that instead of using "random number generators" - it is better to use Human Free Will to create the 0/1 number string.

Randomness is NOT required for the measurement settings but instead what is required is:

Quote

independence of choices from the hidden variables.

So this is very similar to the I Ching experiment because it involves a person making choices.

Quote

Simultaneous experiments on five continents challenge Einstein's principle of local realism. Participants contributed to the experiment generating more than 90 million bits, unpredictably choosing among measurements to escape a paradox known as the 'freedom-of-choice loophole'.

So the freedom of choice loophole is precisely this idea of quantum nonlocality as a deterministic factor.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509135409.htm

Quote

the possibility that the particles themselves influence the choice of measurement. Such influence, if it existed, would invalidate the test;

Quote

But local realism is a question we can't fully answer with a machine. It seems we ourselves must be part of the experiment, to keep the Universe honest."

And so this experiment RULES OUT the use of random number generators to test the foundation of reality.

And what is this foundation of reality? Well again the mainstream view is that there are correlations that are superluminal - but inherently unknowable until they are measured. This is called Lucian Hardy's Paradox.

But other experiments have shown these correlations can be views in "real time" - as "weak measurements" based on the phase probability - or the quantum potential as Bohm called it - these are the noncommtuative "changeables" that once measured become "beables."

And so based on that evidence - Nobel Physicist Gerard t' Hooft argued the Universe is STILL deterministic (not random) at the microscale.

So the point being that "unknowable" is NOT the same as random - and "unknowable" possibly could still be deterministic.

How Does God Play Dice? (Pre-)Determinism at the Planck Scale

Gerard 't Hooft (Utrecht)

(Submitted on 25 Apr 2001)

Quote

In deterministic theories, one can start from a set of ontological states to formulate the dynamical laws, but these may not be directly observable. Observable are only equivalence classes of states, and these will span a basis of "beables", to be promoted to an orthonormal basis of Hilbert Space. After transforming this basis to a more conventional basis, a theory may result that is fundamentally quantum mechanical. It is conjectured that the quantum laws of the real world may be understood from exactly such a procedure.

So it depends on how the experiment is defined but this gets into Entropy again since randomness is inherently tied to entropy - and when we get into entropy then we have to consider the "externalities" of science itself. We assume science to be objective but the "entropy" of science has been a vast ecological and social injustice crisis on Earth.

 

So again Daoism doesn't deal with any of this - randomness is not part of Daoism, since entropy as part of randomness assumes the foundation of reality is a geometric, logarithmic continuum. This is clearly NOT Daoism. haha.

[wandelaar]

@ Harmen

 

The pdf was an interesting read, but I'm afraid it didn't answer my question. Let me quote from Google Books:

 

 

See the part in the red box drawn by me. That's where the procedure deviated from the way I have seen the I Ching thrown on YouTube. Why are the stalks on the right pile not counted by fours until one, two, three, or four stalks remain?

[Harmen]

27 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

@ Harmen

 

The pdf was an interesting read, but I'm afraid it didn't answer my question. Let me quote from Google Books:

 

 

See the part in the red box drawn by me. That's where the procedure deviated from the way I have seen the I Ching thrown on YouTube. Why are the stalks on the right pile not counted by fours until one, two, three, or four stalks remain?

 

Ah yes, I see. This does not correspond to his description in Ch. 10 and yet in Ch. 10 he says that Method B is used in Ch. 9. Especially the first sentence, 'From the right pile take a number of stalks, but no more than four' is ominous - this does not at all correspond with either the traditional method or Method B from Ch. 10. It implies you can also take less than 4 stalks which is not correct.

 

If you want I can ask Ed if this is an error.

[wandelaar]

17 minutes ago, Harmen said:

If you want I can ask Ed if this is an error.

 

Yes - I like to know. It would be highly relevant to this topic and to his calculation of the probabilities.

Edited July 2, 2018 by wandelaar

[Harmen]

11 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

Yes - I like to know. It would be highly relevant to this topic and his calculation of the probabilities.

 

I have sent him an email. If he replies I'll let you know.

[Harmen]

Answer from Ed:

 

Hi Harmen,

 

Yes, I think it must be an error. The only place in the divination where "four or less" is appropriately mentioned is in the sentence: "The left heap is counted through by fours, and the remainder (four or less) is inserted between the ring finger and the middle finger."

 

I believe that if one could count through the left heap by four or less, the probabilities of obtain the four different kinds of lines would vary considerably.

 

I do not remember the source I used. It was a long time ago. I have no idea how that error occurred. I think it is best to trust only the descriptions of the divination given by sinologists, like Wilhelm and Shaughnessy. My description was obviously incorrectly copied.

 

My best regards,

Ed

[wandelaar]

Thank you Harmen and Ed!

 

I'm thinking about doing a theoretical calculation of the probabilities myself in another topic (it will contain some "good old" math!), but there is one problem before I can start with that. I don't know the probabilities belonging to the division of the heap of stalks in two when done by someone who regularly consults the I Ching by using the yarrow stalk method. What repeatedly happens in the procedure of throwing the I Ching is that the main heap of H stalks is divided roughly in half in a left heap of L stalks and a right heap of R stalks. Now a division with L or R is 0 or 1 would not be considered a legitimate division of roughly in half, while a division with L ≈  R ≈  H/2 would be considered OK. So we would expect something like a Bell Curve to represent the probabilities of L and R. Something like this:

 

 

But what are realistic values for the probabilities of the number of stalks L and R?

Edited July 3, 2018 by wandelaar

[Lost in Translation]

In my program I split the stalks according to the following algorithm.

 

Let Stack = the total number of stalks.

Let X = Stack * 4/10.

Let Random = value between 0 and X

Let Right = Stack / 2 - Random.

Let Left = Stack - Right.

Subtract 1 from the Right

 

For example, assume 49 stalks.

 

Stack = 49

X = 19

Random = 0..19

Right = 24..5

Left = 25..44

Right = 23..4

 

The final split would be a value between 25 and 44 on the Left and a value between 4 and 23 on the right.

 

We carry this same logic down as the stack size decreases.

 

For example, assume 32 stalks.

 

Stack = 32

X = 12

Random = 0..12

Right =16..4

Left = 16..28

Right = 15..3

 

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by Lost in Translation

[wandelaar]

@ Lost in Translation

 

If I understand correctly:

 

- Your number "Stack" is my number "H" being the number of stalks in the main heap.

- Your number "Right" (before taking one stalk away) is my number "R" being the number of stalks in the right heap.

- Your number "Left" is my number "L" being the number of stalks in the left heap.

- The number X = Stack * 4/10 determines the boundaries for the variation of "Right" (R) and "Left" (L) where:

     Stack/2  >  Right  >  Stack/2 - Stack * 4/10  =  Stack/10

     &

     Left = Stack - Right

- All integer values of Right that fall between the boundaries are equally likely to occur.

 

[Lost in Translation]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

@ Lost in Translation

 

If I understand correctly:

 

- Your number "Stack" is my number "H" being the number of stalks in the main heap.

- Your number "Right" (before taking one stalk away) is my number "R" being the number of stalks in the right heap.

- Your number "Left" is my number "L" being the number of stalks in the left heap.

- The number X = Stack * 4/10 determines the boundaries for the variation of "Right" (R) and "Left" (L) where:

     Stack/2  >  Right  >  Stack/2 - Stack * 4/10  =  Stack/10

     &

     Left = Stack - Right

- All integer values of Right that fall between the boundaries are equally likely to occur.

 

 

That sounds correct.

[wandelaar]

1 hour ago, Lost in Translation said:

That sounds correct.

 

Has the picture of your probabilities for the size of the right heap the form of the green graph?

 

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by wandelaar

[Lost in Translation]

The right heap will range from approximately 10% to 50% of the total stack size. The diagram above appears to show 0% to 50%.

[Lost in Translation]

Also the probability of achieving a value between 10% and 50% in my program is linear. It would be better represented with a triangle as follows.

 

 

[wandelaar]

So "Right" in your program can become greater than Stack/2 ?

[Lost in Translation]

3 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

So "Right" in your program can become greater than Stack/2 ?

 

No. "Right" is between 10% and 50%. Left is between 50% and 90%.

[wandelaar]

15 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

No. "Right" is between 10% and 50%. Left is between 50% and 90%.

 

Yes - that's how I understood it. Now I also thought that in your program all integer values of Right that fall between the 10% and 50% boundaries are equally likely to occur. That's why I drew a flat line for their probability of occurring. Is that incorrect?

[Lost in Translation]

1 minute ago, wandelaar said:

 

Yes - that's how I understood it. Now I also thought that in your program all integer values of Right that fall between the 10% and 50% boundaries are equally likely to occur. That's why I drew a flat line for their probability of occurring. Is that incorrect?

 

I misunderstood your diagram. You used a bell curve so I thought you meant the probability of occurring corresponded to the standard deviation. Yes, the probability of occurring is equal so a flat line is correct.

[wandelaar]

OK - thank you. In that case I plan to follow a different approach in my theoretical calculation of the probabilities. And I will start a new topic about that. To much different things going on in one topic will only lead to unnecessary confusion.