The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[eggyk]

I never claimed there was some "lunar month" stuff in the VMS.  On the contrary, that concept is notable for its absence.  Instead, what I see is that the Zodiac section divides the year into 12 sections of exactly 30 "things" (or 24 sections of exactly 15 "things").  That is neither the Western Zodiac nor a solar or lunar calendar.   

I found one system that divides the Ecliptic into 24 sections of exactly 15 "things".  The problem is, it is a Chinese system called the "solar terms" ...

Well.. there is also the horoscopes found in Alfonso's manuscripts, and later the Astrolabium Planum, which splits each zodiac sign into 30 seperate sub-characters. Alfonso's works also contain zodiacs in the middle of large circular diagrams surrounded by 30 drawings, so would strike me as more relevant than a loose connection to solar terms. As far as I know, there is no evidence of any link with chinese solar terms apart from the fact that it is split as 12x30 or 24x15. I'm also unaware of any examples of eastern imagery that depict solar terms alongside zodiac symbols in any way, let alone in a way relevant to the VMS imagery.  

There is no need for the zodiac section to be representative of days, months or years. Many western + arabic works containing zodiacs are completely seperate from that concept.

There is no such thing as real "proof" outside of mathematics.  There are only probabilities.  In real life, we say that a thing is "proved" when our probabilty for the alternatives is too small for us to bother with them.

(And note that I said "our" probability. Because there is no such thing as "the" probability, either.  The probability of a statement is a numeric expression of our belief is true. Therefore "my" probability is different from "your" probability which is different from that other guy's probability.  Because the probability is determined by the totality of what one knows and how one reasons.)

What? Either the probability of your matches being coincidence are based on some actual mathematical foundation, or they aren't. Otherwise, what is to stop you from saying "I found 1 word that matches once, therefore it is proven to be a match". There has to be some kind of standard of proof here, or everyone will just claim anything without any proof at all. Can you honestly say that if you were reading this thread (written by someone else), that you would consider this theory as being proven? 

If no -which I would expect considering you openly admit that you don't expect others to be convinced- why are you convinced of something that you do not think people will be convinced by? 


Either way, there is no way this could have reasonably happened in this case. I believe there must be some mistake in the probabilities that you are calculating for this. Have you truly considered all other possibilities, or overestimating just how unlikely your matches are? To me, this seems like the theory version of many imagery comparison threads, where someone goes "look, these two diagams look similar, they must be related. What are the chances that these things match up perfectly?". I imagine that in such cases those people could also run the same statistical process and come to the conclusion that the chance of their match being a coincidence is very low.