The so called '2012 problem' is an urban myth of no importance in mayan belief.
The so called '2012 problem' is an urban myth of no importance in mayan belief.
By complex, I mean stuff like psychoanalysis, which is hard to understand by itself and moreover full of different and possibly contradicting opinions. Converting electrical impulses into web pages is a long process, but it's not complex. It can neatly be divided into small subtasks which are by themselves astonishingly simple. After all, you only need two logical gates to implement the whole thing. But from a more sloppy point of view, I'd agree with you.>> Computers are about as complex as toasters, they are just bigger. Can you make an example of a complex operation?
By 'computers' I mean the combination of hardware and software (converting electrical impulses on a wire into an interactive web page, for example).
Tell us about your progress. I'd be interested to hear your opinion on that matter.>> In fact, the rules of Lambda calculus are much easier to learn than the rules of Go
Wow, really? I'm seriously going to check that out.
That's the whole problem with propositional logic. It doesn't have semantics, so you can actually prove any statement to be true. See the Curry paradoxon:Originally Posted by laserlight
But of course, it is also a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must not be in want of brains
Greets,
Philip
All things begin as source code.
Source code begins with an empty file.
-- Tao Te Chip
>> The so called '2012 problem' is an urban myth of no importance in mayan belief.
But the calender itself is not a myth, and (all Mayan calenders being celestial-based) the fact that it renews in 2012 has *some* significance. It may be as simple as a star visually aligning with a planet. But the fact that it coincides with their creation event is just a little unnerving to me. And this start date is not unique. Egyptian historical records begin at this point, as well (3080, I believe, ie: the First Dynasty). Even Chinese history begins after this date (2852). Does it mean anything? Maybe not. But to rule it out without investigation would be foolish.
Last edited by Sebastiani; 04-27-2009 at 06:22 AM.
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
The creation date is a logical choice for when to begin a calendar, you can then choose any arbitrary cycle length and there will exist a date in the future when that cycle will complete and restart, that does not give any signifigance to the date. It's meaningless and any conjecture to the contrary is nothing but pseudo-scientific numerology.
But then of course, that's the difference between someone that believes in creation and someone that doesn't. If you the type of person that believes that an inteligent Deity created the world within the fairly recent past, you're probably also the type of person that belieces that eventually Deity's going to call it good and end the world.
The kind of people that think it's all a load of garbage also don't believe the world was created less than 10,000 years ago, am I right?
Mormons (and other Christian denominations, depending on their understanding of the Bible) generally put it at 4,000 B.C.And this start date is not unique.
Don't you mean: Couldn't it be that many of the people that believe all this is garbage also believe the world was created <10000 years ago?
C programming resources:
GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
The C Book -- nice online learner guide
Current ISO draft standard
CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge
>> The creation date is a logical choice for when to begin a calendar
First of all, I should clarify that the Mayan "creation" date does not mean "the beginning of time". According to their legends, the world was "created" several times, the last occuring in the year 3114.
>> you can then choose any arbitrary cycle length and there will exist a date in the future when that cycle will complete and restart, that does not give any signifigance to the date.
If the cycle is arbitrary, then that would be a first for the Maya.
>> It's meaningless and any conjecture to the contrary is nothing but pseudo-scientific numerology.
It's easy to write off things that you don't understand (or don't care to); ironically, the very act of doing so is *categorically* unscientific.
Last edited by Sebastiani; 04-27-2009 at 08:43 PM. Reason: gramer
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
>> Mormons (and other Christian denominations, depending on their understanding of the Bible) generally put it at 4,000 B.C.
The flood, or the "beginning"?
One more thing about the Mayan "creation" date. Another reason to think that they themselves did not consider it to be "the beginning of time" is the fact they were known to use dates going back several million years (though I'm not sure what they were dating).
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
The truly frustrating thing about all of this is that all but four of their many books were destroyed. The Mayans basically used the same writing system for thousands of years, which is one reason why they are so easy to decipher. Had these books been preserved, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
What do they feed you in NC? Tulips?
C programming resources:
GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
The C Book -- nice online learner guide
Current ISO draft standard
CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge
>> What do they feed you in NC? Tulips?
I'm suprised that you chose such a non-descript statement as "If the cycle is arbitrary, then that would be a first for the Maya" rather than something like "a 'spike of energy' originating from the center of the galaxy at this apex" to point out my eccentricity.
But to (sort of) address your question, I think it's just that I'm not afraid to consider unorthodox or unexplored ideas. I *usually* reach the same conclusions as others; the path I take to get there is just slightly different. If this appears to some to be insanity then so be it.
The fact of the matter is, I would love to discount all of this, and if someone were to put forward a convincing argument against it, I would gladly accept it. But so far I have heard nothing of the sort; only presumptuous statements based on ignorance and weak logic.
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
When I started this thread, my intent was simply to debate the possible meaning of the Mayan calender; their being an astronomical culture I felt perhaps there may be some correlation between it and some celestial cycle. But perhaps I went too far. There simply isn't enough hard evidence to corroborate my theories; they were highly speculative and I apologize for the apocolyptic tone that this thread has developed. I hope that it is clear to everyone here that I am prone to arrive at wild assumptions from time to time, but they really shouldn't be taken too seriously; instead of reading between the lines I have simply been filling in the blanks, which really proves nothing. In the future I will try to temper my statements with rationality to avoid falling into such ridiculous discussions.
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
//besides, everyone knows that 2012 is the year Terence McKenna comes back
C programming resources:
GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
The C Book -- nice online learner guide
Current ISO draft standard
CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge
While I may be wrong, lets go ahead and dismiss the 'theories' that depend on having an invisible friend in the sky that grants wishes.
Well that's what I meant above. If you think it's a load of crap, of course you think it's a load of crap that someone knows about cataclysmic events ahead of time, unless it's by modern science. Arguing it's just dumb. You believe one thing, the people who believe that the mayan calendar signals the end of the world believe another. More than that, it's just a repeat of that 40+page "God" thread we had on here once.While I may be wrong , lets go ahead and dismiss the 'theories' that depend on having an invisible friend in the sky that grants wishes.
