The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[eggyk]

Wait, do you mean that the Astrolabium splits the Zodiac into 30 parts of 12 sub-parts, instead of 12 parts of 30 sub-parts?  

It splits each zodiac sign into 30 seperate sub-parts, each with a header. My point is that these are effectively 30 standalone sub-parts that could have been presented in many different ways. It wouldn't matter because them being split into 4 squares per page was clearly just a matter of style and space. 

   

These could have been presented as two pages of 3x5 squares, and the content would effectively be presented in the exact same way. That is what I mean.

But please think again.  There is no such thing as the "correct" probability of something, because in the real world there are no probabilities.  In reality, either the die will show '3' or it will not show '3'.  Either the SPS is a copy of the SBJ, or it is not a copy of the SBJ. 

That is almost what I was saying, no? The underlying assumptions are what are "correct" and "incorrect". All I am doing is going one step further, which is to say "probabilities calculated from incorrect values are incorrect with regards to reality". 

So in my view, if someone calculates the probability that the sun will rise tommorow as 0% because they had a dream it would not rise, they are wrong, their assumptions are wrong, and so their calculated probability is (correctly calculated BUT) wrong. To say otherwise is splitting hairs, it really is.

• "The matches found between the SPS and SBJ are valid and signficant"
  
• "The chance that these matches would occur at random is X"
  

These are the same thing.  The matches are significant if there is a low probability that they would occur if the SPS was a random text unrelated to the SBJ.

One was meant as the accuracy of the match, and the other is the significance compared to random chance. 

"The matches found between the SPS and SBJ actually are matches", 
and then assuming that is the case: 
"The chance that those matches would occur at random is X"

The first calls into question the way you interpret the results, which multipliers you use, which error bars you use, which SBJ version you use, which parts you assume to be omitted and which not, which spelling variations you deem acceptable, which spaces you use, which paragraph breaks are used, which Voynichese transcription you use, and a whole host of other variables. Many of those aspects are debatable, and are what I want actually want to discuss. 

I genuinely don't see the use in continuing the philosophical debate on whether probabilities exist and how they exist. Let's just test/discuss whether the things you have assumed stand up to scrutiny. Surely you are open to the possibility that some of your assumptions may be shown to be misguided, or mistaken? Just as I am open to accepting them if you show them all to be reasonable.