21-09-2016, 06:47 PM
Julian,
Greetings. My previous reply was a response to what Sam G had said, and your first comment sort slipped in between.
As you point out, the possibility of coincidence is a valid consideration. Seventeen numbered cards laid out sequentially in random order will occasionally result in card number x landing in position x. It's unavoidable, even if it is random. And there it is. I'm sure there must be a mathematical equation that gives a specific percentage.
The consideration of coincidence is problematic. How do we establish validity if we can't eliminate coincidence? And we know that we can't eliminate coincidence, because coincidence is a fact.
And potentially there are some VMs investigators will look on the demonstration of coincidence in an area of research as the equivalent of pushing the 'EJECT' button. - - Don't want to hear that song no more.
So if it is only the Roman interpretation that is considered in isolation, then I would have to agree that it is a line of investigation that barely struggles out of the starting gate and falls flat. But such is not the case. This is a triple convergence of interpretation on a single symbol in the VMs 4 x 17 sequence. And as I said to Sam, I believe that the interpretations involved in the first two examples are more complex and therefore they are more improbable to occur coincidentally. But again, if we go back to randomly deal the the cards, this structure will occur eventually.
But this is a triple convergence, a threefold coincidence. I don't know where you might consider vanishingly small to be irrelevant, but I passed it a while back. Besides, the mathematical calculation of coincidental possibility applies to random systems and the VMs is not a random system. Humans have been show to be incapable of being random.
Where coincidence has, for all practical purposes, been eliminated, what is the alternative? The VMs is an artifact of human creation. All three interpretations are verified by well-known traditions prior to the parchment dates. And the simultaneous existence of three interpretations is ostensibly presented because a single example on its own is much easier to dismiss. While the combination of three is a better guarantee of validity. And validity - and a method to determine validity - is what we are looking for. Having visual similarity is necessary. Having positional confirmation is a significant, independent factor in the search for validity of interpretation. Having the combination of visual similarity and positional confirmation in a certain part of the VMs indicates to me an area where further investigation could be useful. Having all three examples together strongly indicates an intentional construction. The triple convergence is there, but why? 'Why' is a question still lacking a viable answer. However that is not the same as labeling the matter as coincidental and dismissing the whole symbol investigation for a lack of validated interpretation.
Greetings. My previous reply was a response to what Sam G had said, and your first comment sort slipped in between.
As you point out, the possibility of coincidence is a valid consideration. Seventeen numbered cards laid out sequentially in random order will occasionally result in card number x landing in position x. It's unavoidable, even if it is random. And there it is. I'm sure there must be a mathematical equation that gives a specific percentage.
The consideration of coincidence is problematic. How do we establish validity if we can't eliminate coincidence? And we know that we can't eliminate coincidence, because coincidence is a fact.
And potentially there are some VMs investigators will look on the demonstration of coincidence in an area of research as the equivalent of pushing the 'EJECT' button. - - Don't want to hear that song no more.
So if it is only the Roman interpretation that is considered in isolation, then I would have to agree that it is a line of investigation that barely struggles out of the starting gate and falls flat. But such is not the case. This is a triple convergence of interpretation on a single symbol in the VMs 4 x 17 sequence. And as I said to Sam, I believe that the interpretations involved in the first two examples are more complex and therefore they are more improbable to occur coincidentally. But again, if we go back to randomly deal the the cards, this structure will occur eventually.
But this is a triple convergence, a threefold coincidence. I don't know where you might consider vanishingly small to be irrelevant, but I passed it a while back. Besides, the mathematical calculation of coincidental possibility applies to random systems and the VMs is not a random system. Humans have been show to be incapable of being random.
Where coincidence has, for all practical purposes, been eliminated, what is the alternative? The VMs is an artifact of human creation. All three interpretations are verified by well-known traditions prior to the parchment dates. And the simultaneous existence of three interpretations is ostensibly presented because a single example on its own is much easier to dismiss. While the combination of three is a better guarantee of validity. And validity - and a method to determine validity - is what we are looking for. Having visual similarity is necessary. Having positional confirmation is a significant, independent factor in the search for validity of interpretation. Having the combination of visual similarity and positional confirmation in a certain part of the VMs indicates to me an area where further investigation could be useful. Having all three examples together strongly indicates an intentional construction. The triple convergence is there, but why? 'Why' is a question still lacking a viable answer. However that is not the same as labeling the matter as coincidental and dismissing the whole symbol investigation for a lack of validated interpretation.