He lost me when he said that "binary systems" and DNA were considerably younger than Ba Gua and the I Ching. DNA's been around for much much much longer than any book, martial style, or even the oldest common ancestor between humans and chimps . Numbering systems have been around longer than Ba Gua and the I Ching, but not as long as DNA.
The I Ching is a divinatory manual. For me, that puts it firmly in the same camp as tarot, ouija boards, throwing bones, cutting open a goat to read its entrails, flipping a coin or stepping on a crack. Superstition. Not terribly interested.
Zero is not a negative number. That fact weakens the guy's claims, in my opinion. Further weakening came when he dropped the zero and did a frame switch when he was talking about the 64 possible combinations of trigrams, which is really just an odd composite of a two byte, 3 bit/byte, binary valued system. That sort of frame switch drives the math geeks nuts. Dont talk about zero as a foundation for a supposedly spiritual argument, then leave it behind when you get to explaining reality.
Different cultures use wildly different numerical bases for their numbers. The Mayans used base 20. Babylonians used base 60 (that must have been either a composite base or a total pain in the ass). The Chinese used a composite unary, decimal, and positional system about the time the I Ching was written. Numerical bases are abstract, and therefore rather timeless. The use of specific numerical bases is a cultural artifact. Different cultures needed different numerical systems. Humans tend to prefer the decimal base because we have ten fingers. If we had 8 fingers, we'd tend to octal and that video may have had more of a leg to stand on.
The DNA thing is a profound stretch.
Did he really try to tie in The Matrix?
Maybe his video on finding one's soulmate is better.
We have very different worldviews. I assume that we both prefer to believe true things rather than false things. I am curious about your epistemology, why you believe the things you believe, and by what criteria you judge information for truthfulness. I am an engineer and a scientist. My epistemology is profoundly evidentiary, and in order to make sure my judgments are grounded in reality, I prefer methodological and humanistic naturalism and physicalism. What warrants your knowledge?
Quote:
Graham Christian wrote:
To Ron and Corky and Mary and Krystal.
Firstly Ron and Corky, I see you like looking scientifically at things and relating them to your Aikido.
I wrote a story about Ki which appeared on the open discussions forum and thus mentioned one and zero. This is where Krystal and Mary joined in.
So as a little scientific something that 'logically' addresses a connection between the fundamentals of life and brings together eastern and western 'thought' on the matter and indeed led to the theories behind elctronics, computers etc. I think you may like this little video.
If nothing else may it give you food for thought 
http://youtu.be/M5YhbehrqOQ
Peace.G. |