Jammer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CK wrote
> > This is one of the weaknesses in the theory
> but there are bigger ones.
>
> CK; Some basics in logical deductions. I learned
> these in the 70s from a damn smart professor who
> taught a class in statistical analysis...
>
> 1) If you have a concept that could fail due to a
> single wrong supposition, the chance of failure is
> exactly the assessed % of the supposition being
> wrong...
>
> 2) If you have a concept with 2 suppositions, both
> of which could be wrong, one might assume the
> chance of failure is the summation of the two (ie
> 2)
>
> 3) This would be WRONG. If your hypothesis goes
> "if "A" is right, and if "B" is right..." than
> there are 4 outcomes, 3 of which are failures. A
> is wrong, B is right... A is right, B is wrong...
> A is wrong, B is wrong... are ALL failures.
>
> The only way the hypothesis could work is if both
> suppositions "A" and "B" are both correct.
>
> Mathematically the chance to fail is the product
> of the two chances to fail, not the sum...
>
> You can see how a hypothesis with three, four,
> five or more
> "if", "perhaps", "maybe" , etc rapidly fades to
> statistically unlikely with that math being so
> rigidly applied.
>
> So "If there were deep carbonated aquifers" and
> "if they had deep well drilling technology" and
> "If they had counterweight technology" and
> "if they had pressure rated conduits that could
> hold up" and
> "if the PTs are not metaphorical but literal"...
>
> Considering there is not one shred of actual,
> physical, real evidence of ANY of those...
> I'm going to be real generous and arbitrarily
> assign a one (1%) percent chance of each being
> true.
>
> The chance of all being true are still One in 10
> million.
>
> True word, do the math, (.01 to the 5th power)
>
> And imho, CK, that's being real, real kind with
> that 1%.
>
> Those are only the cornerstones of your
> hypothesis. there are a dozen other shoring
> support suppositions that impact the overall
> chances of this being real...
>
> Such as the general populace being read the PTs?
> That the pyramids aren't tombs?
> That a small, mechanized workforce wouldn't be
> recorded because it was secret tech?
>
> You haven't produced one shred of evidence of any
> of it...
> Need I really go on, CK? Really?

There are a million ways I could answer this post. Actually there are a great many more and I even composed a sentence where each word started with a “z” so I could ask what are the odds. The sentence appeared too contrived so I dumped it. It would take 4.2 times 10 ^ 807000 monmkeys pounding on typewriters to write War and Peace. Tolstoy could have said the same thing in myriad ways so a legitimate question might be what are the odds that Tolstoy would write the book as he did. The odds against it would be staggering as well. The odds against Tolstoy’s birth were equally staggering. More than 300,000,000 sperm fought to fertize the egg whose zygote became Tolstoy. How does one even calculate the odds that that particular egg was as it was and that particular sperm was as well. Then there’s the little matter of education, knowledge, and learning. Tolstoy chose the words he did based on his beliefs and knowledge. What if he had missed the day of school where some important word was learned. How much different would War and Peace be if Tolstoy hadn’t missed some critical day that he did.

If you flip a coin twenty times the odds that it will come up all heads or all tails are quite slim (1: 2 ^ 20). But the odds it will come up the way it does come up are just exactly equally slim yet it will come up with some result by definition. Certainly you wouldn’t claim it’s improbable to flip a coin 20 times because the odds are so poor.

It is this that makes prediction impossible. The odds against everything soar as you look at a smaller scale or longer timeline (yeah, “zietgeist” was in it too). Good prognisticators simply seek processes that are out of sinc with historical norms and predict a return to that norm. They might have insights about the nature of the way it returns to the norm but they are predicting the past, not the future. Ask the folks at Long Term Capital Management about the possibility of seeing the future. They thought they could but went belly up taking billions of dollars of the world’s wealth with them. And they were just betting on the norm.

War and Peace wasn’t much affected by the nuts and bolts of its writing. The coin was little changed by the the outcome of the twenty flips and the equation used to drive LTCM out of business was unaffected by the proof it was nonsense. It’s wholly impossible to reverse engineer War and Peace, the coin flips, or the equation by looking at only the results. (the last one might be possible with enough data and a sufficiently massive computer).

But we’re not counting scuffs on a coin or uses of the letter “z”. We’re looking at a 6 ½ million ton pyramid and a little information about the people who built it. Reverse engineering is about clues that were left not the odds of those clues existence. The odds against any means of building these or their very existence are simply astronomical. Yet there they sit in all their glory without a single sloped line visible amid a cemetery filled with people who were not ramp builders. Now’s the time to ask about odds. What are the odds they could have used ramps and left no clue of it?

> So "If there were deep carbonated aquifers" and

What are the odds anyone has ever looked for evidence of this. It’s only been 47 days that Hawass has admitted there are caves at Giza (the Mouth of Caverns).

> "if they had deep well drilling technology" and

They had the drill. I have no doubt they could have adapted it for this purpose if they had the motivation. Indeed, I believe it was just exactly this motivation which led to the invention iof the drill in 3500 BC.

> "If they had counterweight technology" and

This is a given. If you don’t count the pyramid this is a one piece machine. Exactly like the ramp.

There was a standard weight found in an air vent.

> "if they had pressure rated conduits that could
> hold up" and

They used no pressure conduits. Khenty irty (he who snatches things from mid air),(the God of the mehet weret), simply caught the water at altitude.

> "if the PTs are not metaphorical but literal"...

This is by far my strongest argument. The odds against the PT having a coherent literal meaning by coincidence or some overriding and unknown process are quite large. If the PT are literal then the argument is over.

> Such as the general populace being read the PTs?

This is apparent.

> That the pyramids aren't tombs?

I don’t have a dog in this fight but this is exactly what the PT say. It seems that if they are literal then they are likely literal on this score as well. There’s nothing in the record that contradicts this other than some suggestions of a funereal aspect in a few of the great pyramids themselves.

____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2010 01:53PM by cladking.