Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
And just to add another example of how there is no probability involved in our readings:
About five years ago I had a plan.
I asked Yi if it was a good plan and received 17.5.
Six months passed and I procrastinated about starting work on that plan. I asked the exact same question and received 17.5 again. Another six months went by, and for the third time the same reading came for the same question
The 'probability' for that is very very very very very very very very very small. A mathmagician would be as surprised as I was.
Hooray, maths works where you are, too! (The odds are actually marginally under 18% - 729/4096 - so perhaps you could say Yi is simplifying things for you just a little )I just asked trusty spreadsheet to do this for my journal, and unchanging readings are 18.01%, 1,823 out of 10,122 entries of type "Yijing Reading".
...and Yi works where you are, too.What's also fascinating is how Yi manages to agree with theoretical probability in this instance and talk to me meaningfully, that is, give me unchanging readings when I need them.
I'm exceedingly bad at mental arithmetic, but can remember enough 'O' level maths to know how to work this one out. ('O' Level = exam at 16, since replaced by the GCSE. Possibly with your university-level statistics you're a little over-qualified for this?) Also I have a secret weapon in the form of a mathematically-minded husband, who'll work out 0.75 to the power 6 in his head if I ask him nicely.(Also, Hilary, I don't know if I've ever heard you say you're not good at math, but you are henceforth not allowed to say it. I've had a bit of university-level statistics and gave up on David's question. :bows
Precisely. Probabilistically speaking, nothing remarkable happened in Moss Elk's example at all. The interesting part starts where the maths ends.That exactly. And yet I bet if you calculated the percentage of times you've received 17.5 > 51 out of all your readings, it would hew to the expected mathematical probability.
Er, no this is a thing we were supposed to learn, so, the opposite, it was entirely wasted on me :bag:Possibly with your university-level statistics you're a little over-qualified for this?
The odds of getting unchanging vs changing Hexagrams is 1 in 64, Anything else is down to something else, which I am sure everyone would want to know what that was, just in case it was influencing readings away from the most accurate we could get
jukkodave
But we are missing the point. The odds dont change depending on the Yi, While MossElk points out the very good point of getting the same reading 3 times in a row one would have to know the details of how he did his casting, so as to eliminate the possibility of "influence", other than ascribed to the Yi. which as an inanimate object has no Influence whatsoever.
Jukkodave, please try casting a few dozen hexagrams with 3 coins. Not as readings, not with questions, not with any intent to consult the Yi, but purely to demonstrate to your own satisfaction what the odds of an unchanging reading actually are.
It is the use of the coins in any other way, than throwing them at the same time, that creates the methodological error and denies us the full range of the Yi's options.
Unless of course you think that the Yi is some kind of cosmic force in its own right and wanted you to be limited to what it might be able to show you.
udder mystery
And finally, what about the Dao, or path of each cow? What paths do they follow when they leave and return home? Do they walk in the middle of the path, avoiding the edges? Do they forge their own way, or follow established, well-worn paths? Do they go over mountains or cross great rivers and streams? Do they follow detours, or when faced with an obstacle, simply 'return home'?
Well, dying to know of course, but I understand if you don't want to say ....Ahem .... a) You left out the best place where the best cows come from, that is, where I grew up, which shall remain an
Yes, I left them out intentionally. Cow may come home, but cats definitely can't be herded, and would lead to all kinds of wild, crazy-ass probabilities - which the would totally ignore anyway.b)....Cats are more than happy to come running home when milk is on the menu. However, cats would otherwise decline to participate in this study.
The Asian unicorns (and I understand they are a real, but rare, animal) might be so rare that their milk will be hard to come by. I'd say, let's wait and see where the gathering is held and then 'act locally' and drink whatever local beverage is available.c) Would I be adventurous enough to drink Asian unicorn milk? I will give that some thought, in case some is served at our next Change Circle gathering.
I've never thought of it that way, and I've never heard of said cows 'going home.' It seems like it might imply the human perspective - we are here at home, and the cows are coming back to us, or somthing like that.... These cows are said to be 'coming' home, the phrase is 'till the cows come home'. One rarely, if ever, hears 'till the cows go home' .... Or is this coming back meant in the greater ontological sense of coming back to origin?
I don't know if whomever first thought up the phrase really consider this, but if we were to:Some ... might say the cows are coming back to a home which is the premises /barn / stable of the farmer. But if cows live in servitude, slavery even, to said farmer would they themselves perceive these premises as a 'home' to which they 'come' back to ?
We definately make use of cows - for milking and for meat - but to think of it as slavery or servitude seems to be putting a completely human-centric spin on it: I'm not sure if cattle see it in those terms, possibly because they've never known or seen anything else (e.g. 'look at those deer and elk running free on the hillside; perhaps one day we wll too').
Not sure what "cows" have to do with such an important question as "probablity".
Dave
Hello Dave. Actually, the Yi gives no instructions, and says nothing at all about how it's to be used .... nothing, just as it says nothing about the Dao, and next to nothing about yin/yang.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching_divination .... Most of those methods give a skewed starting point that dont leave the entirety of the Yi available .... Of course if such a huge and major influence and skewing was recommended it would no doubt make reference to it in the Yi.
If by 'limited' you mean that some of the methods give a greater probability of getting an unchanging hexagram, than yes, you could say they have that quality.... but it is in the methods that we use to access the Yi and if the methods are so skewed that they are limiting, so that only a part of the Yi is available for each reading, then there isnt even access to the Yi but only part of it.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).