Go is astrological in origin, you say? I say not a chance!

General Go Discussion
41

Actually I had in mind a book that faced a similar fate, “Astrogenetics” by Maurice Cotterell.

The main idea behind the book is that the stars are obviously too far away to affect us, but there is one star that is not far and DOES affect us. The sun.
The second idea was that the date of birth was not what was really important, but the day of conception was. However noone could really know where that was, so people recorded their birthday and just substracted 9 months. The scientific claim that a fully grown baby cannot really be affected much by the sun, but the very early stage of it where it is just a cell that is undergoing mitosis might be affected is valid. Any effect on those few first cells would be transferred to the rest of them. Any effects on a few cells on a grown baby, would not. So far things are very sensible.
The third idea was that the sun ( which has various magnitic poles - for lack of a better term ) has a yearly phase on how much and what kind of intensity of radiation it sends our way depending on where the earth is and whatnot … the author offers some evidence of that, but of course that is not something that could be easily and conclusively measure.
Be that as it may, the fourth idea was that the ancient astronomers at the very least thought that this was so and that this was one of the things that they were measuring for. When they were gone only the “superstition” level of the “date of birth” (which in itself is not the point, but was used only to estimate the conception) and the “zodiac signs” (which is just a marker for the sun and the stars themselves are unimportant) was left in the collective minds of the masses.

I think only the third part of the main concepts is really up to debate. The others are very reasonable.

As I think an italian phrase goes, even if it is not correct, it is a very interesting idea. :slight_smile:

4 Likes
42

I didn’t say that at all. It even never crossed my mind! :grin:

43

Well, well, well …

Geomancy and Divination were (and for some, still are) a thing, as was alchemy … like there still is Western Esotericism (and Eastern also, but it doesn’t have a dedicated Wikipedia entry), which all are not simply about “false facts” but often just confuse causation and coincidence and the like, they often are about real facts but with (IMO, and for several reasons) false interpretations.

See also:

Back in the past, science and superstition were much more fused than they are now.
And as astrologists observed the skies, they sure also found some valid facts (often it were only their interpretations that have been invalidated)—just like some alchemists discovered/created formerly unknown substances while trying to “make” Gold.

Anyway, the Wikipedia entry for “History of Go” has this to say:

According to legend, the game was created as a teaching tool after the ancient Chinese Emperor Yao 堯 (2356–2255 BCE) designed it for his son, Danzhu 丹朱, to learn discipline, concentration, and balance. Another suggested genesis for the game is that Chinese warlords and generals used pieces of stone to map attacking positions. Other plausible theories relate Go equipment to divination or flood control.

Fun fact:
I have been a politically interested (and sometimes active) person for almost five decades now, and I also “believe in” science (though for me there certainly is “good science” and “bad science”).

Yet … back in the day, I sometimes used the I Ching and Tarot cards (very rarely I still do) … and some of my friends laughed at me because they believed that I was into superstition.

But far from it—I used these to stimulate, and conjure, my so-called “Unconscious” (which I prefer to call “the Ignored” or “the Denied”) when I had some questions about myself, my life, my place in this world, etc., that I couldn’t answer with my everyday consciousness.

3 Likes
44

I think I’ve read some theories very similar to what you proposed somewhere in the past (couldn’t find the exact sources at this moment, I lost quite a bit of links and files when my laptop broke last week). And another similar one but model more ancient Slash-and-burn farming method (ancient farmers would create fire alley roads to separate and control the fields.

But they are still just speculations, using the common metaphors for liberties as the basis. There are so many metaphors used in the ancient time though.

2 Likes
45

Thank you. To assert that a game of logic and math could not possibly have come from a mind also interested in divination and fortune telling is of course preposterous hogwash. I cite myself as another example of a believer in science who has also at times in the past used the I Ching and Tarot cards.

3 Likes
46

In defence of astronomy, I think the main point that you’re trying to make is that you don’t see how astronomy is useful, and find it hard to believe the concepts that are talked about are true.

The way I see how astronomy functions, is that it is one of only two ways we have to get empirical evidence for conjectures made in modern-day theoretical physics (the other being particle accelerators).

In Physics, the theory is made first, and it’s mathematical in nature. Things like how we expect particles to behave under certain circumstances, the way gravity works, relativity, it’s all not much more than fancy formulas. There is nothing arguing that these formulas are actually correct or accurate at that point, so how do we know the mathematics are useful at all? That happens by making predictions.

Much of astronomy is nothing more than testing these predictions. For example, Einstein thought up the theory of relativity, so we expect certain non-intuitive things to happen, such as the existence of black holes. What happens next, is that we can use the theory to predict what a black hole would look like, and how we could discover one. Then astronomy goes ahead and starts searching for it. Quite spectacularly, a lot of these conjectured observation are then actually made, and thus forms evidence that the mathematical theory of physics has predictive power.

The use of astronomy within the field of physics, therefore, is not so much in looking at things and describing them, but rather in searching for evidence that our theoretical understanding of physics is correct. We’re not looking at the sky, seeing something weird and saying “oh, let’s call it a black hole”; it’s the other way around: we think about mathematics until we predict something like a black hole to exist, and then we start searching for it.

And this, in turn, has major applications. The discovery of black holes is one of the major pieces of evidence that Einstein’s theory of relativity is correct. Without the theory of relativity, we would never be able to get GPS working, for example.

It’s also worth noting, that the theory of relativity is in conflict with the theory of quantum mechanics. We know from the mathematics that one of the two theories must be flawed in some way. So, making wild predictions and testing them, is important to know how we should get a better understanding of physics itself. So far, none of the predictions that have been made by either theory have turned out to be false.

8 Likes
47

I am indeed a proponent of preposterous hogwash! The more preposterous the better.
Let’s wash all the dirt off of this pig and see what is underneath, like it or not.

There are lots of useful ways to explore the various unknowns we might encounter in our lives. Rhetorical devices, such as the I Ching, Active Imagination and creative play can all be useful for achieving a fresh perspective on our lives and problems or bringing ideas up to the surface. I have even heard of people finding insight or inspiration at the Go board.

However, your example is quite specific and narrow compared to what is most often meant by divination. You might be inspired by a dream to take a fresh perspective on your theoretical mathematical formulae. But no matter what the Tarot cards have to say to you, they will never suggest gravitational lensing or seki as your best option for saving the corner in that specific instance. Some alchemists were proto-scientists. Others were fakes, or just confused. But chemistry emerged from the hard work of alchemists aiming at understanding reality. They were trying to ‘divine’ the truth, not god’s will, unless you want to equate the two. Go isn’t even aspiring to observe the world, though. It is an abstract construct, not even a metaphor unless you force it to be one.

There are a lot of mysteries out there. Whatever the ultimate explanation is for two-slit experiment results, the deeper insight we need to reconcile micro and macro will come from theorizing, observing and testing, as opposed to accepting that god wants it this way, or that. Consciousness, energy and the nature of reality may well be deeply connected, but I remain skeptical that we can make our wishes come true by thinking them hard enough.

Sometimes when we work on a problem or idea hard enough and long enough, the answers we seek come to us suddenly and unexpectedly. Some people call this ‘divine inspiration’, but if you recognize that your mind is more unconscious than conscious, then it only makes sense that your own ideas will at times seem foreign to you. Not everything you are not aware of about yourself is something you have intentionally ignored, either. Most of it is just stuff happening we cannot easily be and do not need to be aware of.

Understanding the contents of our own minds is very different than understanding the universe on its own terms. My opinion is that Jungians and other spiritualists mislead us when they suggest that the exploration of the universe is really just an exploration of the unconscious. Of course we take our baggage with us wherever we go, and it is a useful metaphor, but that is all it is.

We have lots of metaphors to play with at the Go board, but we still take one turn at a time, and the number of liberties is the number of liberties, which can be counted. The fact that we are letting AI teach us how to improve our game speaks volumes in this respect. Go is fascinating because so many interesting circumstances emerge from simple, easily understood premises. We get a lot out of it from it being out of reach from our complete understanding. But the way we get better at Go is the way we get better at understanding the universe: by exploring and experimenting and seeing what works.

I believe Go came from this problem-solving attitude, not from an attitude of fatalism, of ceding our fate to ‘The Fates’. It would be a very different, less interesting, game if we rolled the dice to see how many moves we got on the next turn. Hmm…time for me to go explore the variation threads.

3 Likes
48

As I noted in the How Was Your Day thread, these are absolutely valid uses of the I Ching and Tarot cards. To repeat, Philip K. Dick famously used the I Ching to plot The Man in the High Castle, and one of Italo Calvino’s best books, The Castle of Crossed Destinies, was inspired by his playful attempt to create stories by using Tarot cards.

The I Ching is essentially a book of wisdom, put to use for divination purposes. Much of it, I think, is indeed poetically beautiful and wise.

Similarly, the Bible, aside from its religious aspects, is a compilation of history and wisdom, which has by some people been used as a device of divination (ask a question, close your eyes, pick a page at random, and point for a textual answer).

1 Like
49

You had me at Calvino. I have so far only read Invisible Cities and The Non-Existent Knight, but he is already in my top five.

Dick, Calvino, add Eco, Lem, and LeGuin and you have my list.

1 Like
50

Bravo! I’ve read most of Dick, Calvino, and Lem. Loved Eco’s The Name of the Rose and some of his essays, but haven’t yet read his other novels. Calvino’s best book, I think, is The Barron in the Trees.

1 Like
51

You will probably enjoy Foucault’s Pendulum, which is a more modern setting for similar themes from Eco.

Ursula LeGuin spent most of her time writing young-adult fantasy, think dragons and romance and Harry Potter. But Left Hand of Darkness is a classic exploration of gender. Always Coming Home is an amazing and very personal take on a future-primitive society of Northern California. It might be a bit anthropological or obscure in a way, but I found it very, very touching, insightful and relatable as this is my own community.

1 Like
52

If you like discussing books, I highly recommend this thread: What non-Go book are you reading right now?. I don’t want to continue off-topic here.

1 Like
53

Thank you for the suggestion. I have been on OGS for a few years, but I am new to the forums and still adjusting to the etiquette and norms…

3 Likes
54

Let’s assume for a moment that my use of the I Ching has been an “invalid” use (putting aside issues of gatekeeping), while I remain a go player. Would this confluence of supposed contradictory proclivities in one person be enough of a case to allow for the possibility that go originated as astrological apparatus?

I’m still in the process of reading an article about ancient Chinese astronomy and astrology, which I can’t wait to share:
[Connecting Heaven and Man The role of astronomy in ancient Chinese society and culture - Google Docs]

And have you ever seen something like this:

He-Tu-diagram
He-Tu-diagram724×507 92.8 KB

From https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277975366_Luo_Shu_Ancient_Chinese_Magic_Square_on_Linear_Algebra

2 Likes
55

But I believe it is often in this order “Look at that, what might be the reason?”. Observing a phenomenon and then thinking of an explanation is a very natural flow of thought. As an example (please correct me if this is wrong) astronomes observed the redshift of galaxies and because of it conjectured that the universe is expanding (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe#Theoretical_basis_and_first_evidence)

Anyway I don’t see a problem with doing it in this order. As I see it science is all about observing and explaining (or predicting to be precise), and astronomy expands humanities field of vision.

2 Likes
56

I’m torn. Planting my flag hard got the conversation going up to this point, now you want me to be reasonable, when being a bit unreasonable has been working so well for me lately. Shuddering in American

I am a descendant and resident of California who is familiar with and has a lot of love for the East Asian cultures that have been a part of our community here for over 150 years. I am forced to acknowledge my personal discomfort at the prospect of characterizing Chinese culture as superstitious. The 19th Century nickname for Chinese people in California was ‘Celestials’. Cue relevant clip from ‘Deadwood’. …again Shuddering in American

Perhaps we can agree that such lines have not always been easily drawn, may never be completely clear, and gatekeeping might best be avoided, in general. Acknowledging that in the effort to explore, we even almost have to try things like Remote Viewing, or Alchemy just to be certain we are never leaving any stone unturned lest we allow our prejudices to blind us to reality. There have always been curious people in every society, including ancient China, trying to seek reality wherever and however it might be found, regardless of what pressures exist in opposition to that energy.

There just had to have been some very rational minds at work in the history of astronomy and our beloved game. Having thought it through up to this point, I cannot ‘unsee’ that truth or back down from my conviction on this point. We all have rational and irrational sides, and I know plenty of researchers who go to church on Sunday. Do I have to acknowledge one to have the other? Can we validate ‘divination’ without validating ‘superstition’? Has the arc of history not bent from ignorance and prejudice toward rationality, from religious fervor toward skepticism? Help me out if you can, @Aumpa. I would prefer a paradox to a contradiction, if possible.

Stepping down from my rhetorical soapbox momentarily, I will be very excited to hear and/or read about Connecting Heaven when you are finished. That image is pretty convincing and please do share! Gameface restored

2 Likes
57

I have long been skeptical of the traditional explanations of go’s origins. Those explanations have a self-serving quality typical of history, which usually tells of the great doings of the high and mighty, rather than the little doings of the common people. I strongly suspect that go originated among the common people (perhaps especially among common soldiers) far back in antiquity, and developed in a variety of variations until codified by the aristocracy (who promptly took the credit; after all, the literate class writes the histories and records the traditions). The evidence for this lies in three characteristics of the game:

First, the simplicity of the rules points to a humble origin. Sophisticates (the intelligentsia) usually prefer complexity.

Second, playing on the intersections of lines rather than in the boxes also suggests a humble origin. Aristocrats with well-crafted boards would have no reason to play on the intersections and would, I think, tend to play in the boxes as in chess. In contrast, a humble origin presents two reasons for playing on the intersections. If go started on a small scale (which I think is likely), it may have had no grid at all. As it expanded, guide lines for stone placement may have been added. If so, it would have been natural to play on the intersections precisely because the lines were conceived as a guide to placement. Furthermore, irregularities in a casually drawn grid would, in my opinion, be more aesthetically disturbing if stones were placed in the boxes rather than on the intersections. This development might well have occurred among soldiers. It would be convenient for soldiers to draw the lines with their knives on a flat piece of ground, rather than lug around a board.

Third, the egalitarian nature of the “soldiers” in each “army” speaks strongly to a humble origin. I find it inconceivable that aristocrats would create such a structure without generals and sub-officers (to carry out the player’s orders) and without distinctions of equipment and units (archers, cavalry, foot-soldiers, etc.). Indeed, the nature of the “armies” is downright subversive to the order of a hierarchical society.

This is, of course, largely speculation, but I think an origin among the common people is more plausible than any traditional explanation.

3 Likes
58

I’m not sure about this. What rather happens is that something unexplainable may be observed, then a theory is formed that may explain it, and then predictions are made to test whether the new theory is valuable or not. Fitting theory to data does not provide predictions automatically, and it’s far too easy as well to come up with a bogus theory that fits the data perfectly without predicting anything of value (just make a list of exceptions, for example).

2 Likes
59

I don’t see any reason why it does not happen in both directions all the time on some level. If I understand your point, a prediction has to be made in order for the data to be meaningful in some sense. But don’t a lot of data-driven scientists simply ‘predict’ a function based on whatever function makes a logistic fit to the data? I’m out of my depth now, so I am surely saying this wrong somehow, but isn’t it kind of semantics at that point? Or am I missing something deeper?

My brother has done a lot of research with prosopagnosics (face-blind people). Eventually people started coming to him and saying, “I’m the opposite of this. I can recognize someone I met once 20 years later.” Now, super-recognizers are a thing because the data proved their abilities were like an order of magnitude beyond normal people who are good at faces. I know this is pretty far from astronomy, but I have to believe ‘traveling stars’ inspired a lot of research in a similar way…?

1 Like
60

Yes, it goes both ways, but only one of the directions leads to valuable insight, and the other leads to new questions.

Say that I make an observation, then there are an infinite number of possible theories that can explain this observation. Anything ranging from the actual cause, to “the actual cause, except in this particular observation we made” to “it’s all completely random and any correlation is pure luck”. There is little value in any theory on its own without empirical evidence made after the formation of the theory trying to test it. A theory becomes more likely to be true over its competitors when it is better at predicting outcomes that its competitors, so at the point of formation there are only philosophical reasons a theory may be regarded as likely to be true: things like Occam’s razor or the concept of “beauty” in physics / mathematics are after all human heuristics for finding the truth, but there is no law of logic saying that the actual truth needs to be simple or beautiful.

It also implies that theories without predictive qualities are not interesting from a scientific perspective. Something like “it’s all completely random” or “God did it” may very well be the actual truth, but they cannot be tested, since no experiment can falsify such theories. It’s also why string theory is regarded by some physicists to be a bit of a waste of time, since it does not provide us with predictions to test (at least, so far it doesn’t).

2 Likes