Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Definitely versus probably....
>
> Okay, here's my last post on this subject here.
>
> When we are talking about "boots on the ground"
> reality in ancient Egypt, there is no such thing
> as an impossibility.

In reality there are impossibilities, only in theory does anything go, unless you have evidence of the Island of Naboomboom. As much reality as your alien argument that I predicted would arise.

> This is a real universe
> where it is impossible to prove a negative, so we
> cannot say for certain that something did NOT
> happen in a specific way. As such, we cannot say
> for absolute certain that the evidence we are
> using actually indicates what we say it does.
> There is still a minute possibility that at some
> time in our past, the pyramids were built by weird
> little aliens who left massive amounts of decoy
> evidence to make us THINK it was our ancient
> ancestors who actually built the pyramids. Hey...
> it's possible.

Only in an attempt to be ludicrous. Let's see the evidence for aliens being around in the Dyn. IV like sekeds and ratios, if none then this is a sad attempt to "muddy the waters" so to speak.


>
> That is the "boots on the ground" reality of
> history. We cannot ultimately rule out anything,
> because that involves a logical contradiction. It
> assumes we know absolutely everything and there
> are no other pieces of evidence or data that can
> be discovered at a later date.

Logic doesn't always apply in reality only in theory. By making absolute statements though one can try to make believe that all is known about a subject. If the evidence base is not complete then there can not, logically, be absolute statements only highly probable ones.

> However, we are not discussing "boots on the
> ground" history. What we're discussing here is
> the nature of the argument for or against sekeds
> in the Old Kingdom.

No what was/is being discussed is the reasonableness of making absolute statements about a highly probable seked location with a limited evidence base.


> In a logical argument (which
> is nothing but a theoretical construct) we can
> HAVE absolutes, because we have a finite data set
> from which to draw proof for our argument. Until
> new evidence is added to the data set, we CAN say
> definitively and absolutely that something did or
> did not exist in ancient history.

Only thing is, in your data set to choose from you have sekeds and seqds, and that is all. There was another option that also got the same results and was used by the AE at the time in question. Symmetry was also important and I believe it is far easier to use ratios for symmetry then seqds.
How did they lay out the seked lines for the descending passages prior to carving them?


> Without any more points in the data set, however,
> we cannot alter the conclusion at which we
> inescapably arrive.

Well if the conclusion is absolutely sekeds then either the conclusion is wrong or the data sets has extra points in it.

> There are no more points in the Seked data set.
> We have two sets of symptoms separated only by
> time. One symptom is directly tied to the seked.
> The other has no such demonstrable context, but
> there is nothing to indicate that the context was
> either improbable nor illogical.

OF course not. Again, no one is arguing that so it does no real good to bring it up as if it was an important point in the discussion.


> Ergo, I do think Hermione slightly misspoke when
> she said "the seked was definitely used in the Old
> Kingdom". What she probably should have said was
> "the argument that the seked was definitely used
> in the Old Kingdom is irrefutable".

That is just as wrong from the point of not having independant evidence from that point in time vs. evidence from 700+ years later.
Unless you can look at a 2RC horizontal line at 90 degrees to a 2RC vertical line with a 45 degree line between the end points and tell me exactly which method(Seked vs. ratio) was used then you have no right to state one method was irrefutable as the possibility of the other actually being used is possible.

Quote

Although we have no explicit evidence or irrefutable proof of the use of sqds in the OK, its likely the scribes knew of, used and could calculate a sqd value for an incline. This may not have been the only method of defining the inclined face or corner of a pyramid, but it is consistent with examples of the first secure attestation of sqds found in 'mathematical texts' from about 1000 years after Dyn 4.

Chris has it better stated here.


> The argument is irrefutable for the following
> reasons:
>
> * There is evidence in support of it.

700+ years later yes.

> * There is no evidence to contradict it.

There is also no evidence to support it but there is evidence they used ratios in the same time period. Less likely used yes but not highly impossible so it allows for two possibilities not just one.

> * There is no evidence to support any other
> interpretation of the data.

There is no evidence to support, irrefutably, any interpretation of the data. The only irrefutable thing is they are lines 1 cubit apart near a construction site.
Their being similar to later usage of sekeds gives a highly reasonable interpretation of sekeds being used at this location but there is lack of independant support, from the time in question, for such concrete conclusions.


> Now, what this translates into is the fact that in
> conversations we can discuss sekeds in the Old
> Kingdom as IF they were definitely used, and build
> upon that with other theories, as needed. IF, and
> I repeat, IF at some time in the future NEW
> evidence is brought to light that indicates that
> some other system BESIDES the seked was used, then
> we will have to adjust all works based upon that
> previous premise. But, for now, based on what we
> know to be true, we can speak comfortably about
> the seked in the Old Kingdom.

Unless there is evidence of the seked's creation date then we can't reasonably conclude that every construction job used them prior to the earliest, confirmed date in history. As this goes it is 700+ years after this particular point in time.

Instead of asking everyone to wait for evidence to prove a statement is right/wrong how about making a statement that is factually correct now and wait for evidence to confirm(irrefutably) or evidence to allow for a refinement of the original statement.


Regards,
Lobo-hotei
lobo


Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents, It was loaned to you by your children.
Native American Proverb