I have a book which argues that the Bible originated in India and another book that says it originated in China. There are books on any idea you can imagine. I do have a book on the I Ching and I read the Intro and first chapter but it got too dry and technical for me. Interestly, traditional Japaneses, says this book, thought they lost the war because they didn't consult I Ching. It's respected in all Oriental nations I guess

There are books on any idea you can imagine. — Gregory

If you do the research, you'll see that that's not a valid response to this thread.

Four nucleotides: Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine, Guanine. 3-nucleotide codon, each codon codes a protein. Number of possible codons = 4 × 4 × 4 = 64. Does the I Ching have anything to do with the number 64? If it does then, a remarkable coincidence, not to say that ancient Chinese folk couldn't have gained deep insight - the significance of the number 64 - into the fundamental molecular structure of life.

Also, if we consider the simplest character set for a computer keyboard in the English language capable of basic discourse and elementary arithmetic we get:

1. Lower case English alphabets: 26
2. Upper case Enlgish alphabets: 26
3. Math functions {+, -, ×, ÷, ^, (, ), <, =}: 9
4. Basic punctuation (., ?, space): 3
Total = 64 characters

Did ancient Chinese scholars know English would, one day, become the lingua franca of the world?

You bring up an interesting point which applies to eymology. All too often a scholar will believe a coincidence to be something casual instead. Have you ever researched aliens and what the probability is that they exist? I mean actually to put a percent on the likelihood they are here and have visited earth. Once we break things down technically like that, it's not hard to see that finding causality in these matters is far harder than one might initially think.

You bring up an interesting point which applies to eymology. All too often a scholar will believe a coincidence to be something casual instead. Have you ever researched aliens and what the probability is that they exist? I mean actually to put a percent on the likelihood they are here and have visited earth. Once we break things down technically like that, it's not hard to see that finding causality in these matters is far harder than one might initially think. — Gregory

I'm acquainted with Carl Jung's concept of synchroncity, defined as meaningful coincidences. Notice what Jung did there. He denies causality hence, coincidence but, in the same breath, retains meaning hence meaningful.

Since you brought up the matter of probability there's Litttlewood's law:

Littlewood's law states that a person can expect to experience events with odds of one in a million (defined by the law as a "miracle") at the rate of about one per month. — Wikipedia

Then there's Apophenia:

Apophenia (/æpoʊˈfiːniə/) is the tendency to mistakenly perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things. — Wikipedia

DNA language makes up for 64 possibilities, as do I Ching hexagrams. — Noble Dust

When one consults the I Ching with the yarrow stalks, the first thing one does is to lay one stalk aside. This represents the unchanging aspect of being, the ultimate unity of all. One is interested, for the moment, in the changing aspect - the ephemeral. The book itself is unchanging, but one reads a different section each time, and each section describes a way of things changing in terms relevant to humanity.

So it is psychological in character, and describes the laws of thought, or information theory. The close relation to DNA and to computers is not an accident or coincidence, but a necessary feature of all things algorithmic.

The West dismisses its own adage, "As above, so below." as mere superstition, but the self-sameness at different levels of fractals falls out of the mathematics of self- referential definition and reiteration (change).

Incidentally, it's more that the Tao is heavily Ching-ist; Lao Tzu draws heavily on the imagery of the I Ching in the Tao, and inevitably so as the Tao is, as it were, the missing piece of the I Ching, the stick that was laid aside.

Hexagrams are arrangements of six Yin/Yang lines, making for 2⁶ = 64 possible hexagrams .

DNA codons are arrangements of three bases, and there are four different bases, making for 4³ = 64 possible codons.

No deep mystery here, just a very simple structural property.

I know fuck-all about I Ching, but I suspect that the similarities don't go much deeper than that (without some very creative interpretation). Do some of the I Ching hexagrams mean the same thing? Because DNA "language" is highly redundant, with 61 codons specifying only 20 different amino acids. And the other three codons denote start and stop sequences - the equivalent of punctuation. Do I Ching hexagrams include punctuation?

Anyway, I think such numerology is very silly. As is this perpetual canard about "ancient wisdom" somehow prefiguring modern science. Despite numerous alleged connections, I can't think of a single instance in the entire history of human civilization where some "ancient wisdom" led to a scientific insight. The connection is invariably discovered in retrospect by some amateur numerologist with a book to sell.

The West dismisses its own adage, "As above, so below." as mere superstition, but the self-sameness at different levels of fractals falls out of the mathematics of self- referential definition and reiteration (change). — unenlightened

Curious axiom. Why not, "As Westward, so Eastward." The polarity of up and down was pretty straightforward because when you look down you see your feet (if one can discern feet) and when you look upwards you see the heavens (if one sees the heavens). But who looked upwards and downwards and made a habit of it and what were they seeing?

There are comparisons structure/geometry between domains. There are bewildering tiny spheres and there are bewildering large spheres. Who imagined scaling phenomena except with relation to distance from an object. As one walks forward it grows but nothing is seen as one walks backwards, unless one walks backwards and sees things recede into distance.

Why would any ancient ever want to draw a triangle if such an algorithm is novel. What functions have triangles played in the course of humanity's scientific progress and was there ever magic associated with them as opposed to what isn't categorically magical(?).

Did the (night sky) have color for really ancient peoples? One can discern color in mars with naked eyes. What else is red on Earth may belong the to category Mars, which is just to presume a connection based on likeness (sympathetic magic).

The annual and monthly motions of the sky structured by incidents and accidents of coincidence (becoming dogmas and institutions) affairs on Earth. But cosmologists/astronomers are still looking at stuff because of the necessary connection. We must know something worth knowing... but what is worth knowing?

How does one impose meaning on a meaningless object? Or do meaningless objects impose meaning on themselves? Are there any meaningless objects? Or are there necessary connections to be made for the sake of living like a person lives.

Too many questions, my brain exploded.
Here's the evolutionary version of the axiom:-
"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." 'Why?' you will ask, and I will not know except that informational systems are mechanical systems and self-referential programs build complexity from simplicity.

The physicists version of synchronicity, by the way, is "spooky action at a distance".

:up:

I'd suggest consulting it (with an open mind) for a few weeks.

thought they lost the war because they didn't consult I Ching. — Gregory

Luckily the allied forces and Josip Stalin did consult I Ching. Phew, close call. :smile:

If both factions at war against each other consult I Ching, which one wins? :grin:

Whichever one the I Ching predicts will win of course. And that without a fight.

No, that is not true, if I Ching can HELP a party to a victory. The Japanese said they could have won the war if they used I Ching. That indicates positive action, not merely prediction.

I contest that the two are compatible. It either predicts, or it directs. Which one? You have to choose one or the other, as the two are different. You yourself denied that it has executive powers; you are in contention with the Japanese. Once you choose one of DIRECTIVE or else PREDICTIVE, then please don't ever, EVER switch over to the other one.

No, that is not true, if I Ching can HELP a party to a victory. — god must be atheist

It is true; the Japanese obviously do not understand the I Ching. It's an aid to understanding the times, not a magic lucky charm.

People in manias have apophenia. Religious people too, which we have to remember because the I Ching is a religious book!

I agree.

I have a book which argues that the Bible originated in India and another book that says it originated in China. — Gregory

For Europeans, it does not matter, really, that essentially. Both are far away places. Both are out of reach of experiencing directly. Both are almost entirely unknown for their culture. Both are huge and famous.

Reminds me of an old joke. Two people are drinking at a bar: a Jew and a Chinese man. They get a bit slushed. The Jew stands up, and slaps the Chinese man on the face. "What was that for?" Asks the Chinese man in surprise. "For Pearl Harbour," Says the Jew. "Well, that was done by the Japanese, not by the Chinese." The Jew, inebriated, says, "Chinese, Japanese, same difference." They drink a bit on, and the Chinese man stand up and slaps the Jew in the face. "What was that for?" Asks the Jew in surprise. "For sinking the Titanic," replies the Chinese man. "But that was done by an ice-berg," says the Jew. "Goldberg, Iceberg, same difference," says the Chinese man.

When an apophenist is bereft of creative fantasy, he or she will always revert the prediction or past-telling to something s/he is familiar with, and that is always blatant and obvious and commonplace. Nobody was named Joseph S. Rachmeier Jr in a previous life, an ordinary coopersmith's gofor boy who was the secret lover of his wife, and liked to gamble. NO, everyone was either Napoleon, or Julius Caesar or Marie Antoinette. No Bible ever originated in Kapuskasing, Northern Ontario, or in Nimh Hu Teng, a suburb of To Peng Hai, in North Laos; they originated in India, China, or by the ancient Inkas. (Wherever those lived. Most people can't name the country. I can't either.)

The books are The bible in India by Louis Jacolliot and The Discovery of Genesis by Kang and Nelson.

Here's a joke, sorta: what's my favorite passage in the Bible? When the snake turns into the staff in the hand of Moses because of the burning bush. Wink..

I have a book which argues that the Bible originated in India and another book that says it originated in China. — Gregory

It you really look at it, we know almost next to nothing about dinosaurs. What can a group of scattered petrified bones tell us other than that they're bones? Most of what's written in paleontological books and journals are people filling in the gaps in the data with whatever strikes them as a good guess. The bottom line is when the distance between us and something, temporally and even spatially, is huge, absolutely nothing can be ruled out.

I don't know what the I Ching predicts, but MY prediction is that the future will only have ezistentialists. Look to the future

It's not a religious text. It predates religion in China. Yes, it's used religiously, but also secularly; it's associated with Tao, yes, but again, predates it. It's also not generally used for predicting the future; it's used to derive wisdom for what to do in current circumstances; the underlying concept is that everything is in flux, always changing, and consultation is said to describe what course of action you should take in the constantly changing experience of life. I expected basically no one other than @Unenlightened to have a grasp on it, and I'm not surprised. It's not for everyone, and this thread is in "Interesting Stuff" anyway. Ah well.

The binary representation of I Ching hexagram 63, “chi chi” or “after completion”, symbolizing a state of totality, is 101010, which is also the binary representation of the decimal number 42, which according to The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series is “the answer to life, the universe, and everything”, the corresponding question to which is “what do you get when you multiply six by nine”, which is totally true if you do your multiplication in base 13, but that’s a completely unintended coincidence... just like everything in this thread.

Ah, more jokes. I haven't read the books I mentioned in the OP, so I was just wondering out loud if anyone had, or had read any other interesting related sources; I wasn't looking for dismissive jokes about the I Ching; I get that when I mention to people in real life that I consult it, so I've learned to shut up, which I should probably do here as well; wrong crowd.

Sorry, I don't mean to be dismissive of the I Ching generally -- although I don't put any stock in it, but it's interesting, and dismissing it wasn't my point.

My point was just that 64 codons of DNA and 64 I Ching hexagrams is a completely unsurprising coincidence, because there are 4 DNA bases (A, C, T, and G) and codons are have length 3, so 4^3 = 64, while hexagrams have two bases (sometimes written 1 and 0) and hexagrams have length 6, so 2^6 = 64 as well. It's unsurprising that 4^3 = 2^6 because 4 = 2^2, so 4^3 = (2^2)^3 = 2^6.

The number of triplets of classical western elements (earth, air, wind, and fire) is also equal to the number of chords it's possible (if not advisable) to play on a six-string guitar, for exactly the same reason. (And the number of each is exactly the same: 64).

I guess we just have different temperaments, or whatever (or rather most people here have a different temperament to mine). I don't find the coincidence "unsurprising", I find it fascinating; I just haven't done the research, so posted this in "interesting stuff" for the hell of it. It's interesting to note that most people posting seem to have a better understanding of DNA than I do, while I seem to have a more informed understanding of the I Ching...again, temperaments...or perspectives. Maybe what I'm looking for is someone with an actual understanding of both, which would probably warrant less dismissal. I guess any inquiry involving ancient texts and modern science will generally be met with an attitude of dismissal, which is expected.

Galaxies and weather systems tend to come in spirals because {mathematical explanation you might half understand about chaotic systems.}

Six thousand years ago people noticed these kinds of repetitive structural features of the universe without the benefit of computers to model them because they were just as intelligent as you and I.

Unbelievable nonsense!

The thing about religious people is that the world and stuff like this "must make sense". It.must have a clear answer for them. But could God, Heaven, or Gods be testing their faith? Couldn't he allow the "absurd"? Believers turn out to be rationalists!!

The thing about religious people — Gregory

Why do you think it appropriate to air your prejudices about religious people here? Why not have a look at the book we are talking about and see if you can find any mention of God or religion in it? You suffer from the hubris of modernity, which is a relic of the Colonial hubris. Take your god theorising to a thread where it is vaguely on topic.