--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > <richardhughes103@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > FWIW, I'm inclined to suspect the ones that aren't > > > > based on circles are human-made. > > > > > > Why? > > > > Just a guess. > > > > > >> Would be more impressed if this had appeared *before* > > > >> man had understood it. If it was a message from a > > > >> different intelligence why is it at exactly the same > > > >> level as us? Why didn't this appear in the 14th century > > > > > > > LOL. First you're dubious because the formations > > > > aren't "meaningful," now you're dubious because > > > > this one *is* meaningful. Make up your mind, please! > > > > > > I don't think you understood that. Read it again. > > > > Actually I don't think you understood what I wrote. > > > > > Oh, OK. I'll explain, this would be more convincing if > > > it had appeard at a time when we didn't understand what > > > it was. > > > > In other words, when it would have been meaningless > > to us. > > Are you winding me up? > > > > As it is we could get pics like this from a high > > > school textbook. > > > > And therefore it's meaningful to us. > > > > Get it now? You say they should be meaningful, but > > then you say they should have been made in the 14th > > century when they *wouldn't* have been meaningful. > > No! I don't say they *should* be meaningful but they only > ever are with things we already know! They don't teach > us anything new! Whereas in the 14th century any mathe- > matical symbol that wasn't already known would be a revelation > to them.
And you believe folks in the 14th century would have been able to derive the Julia set function from that crop circle, even though the mathematical theory for it wasn't created until the early 20th century? Er, rubbish. The point being that we don't even know if the circles are trying to teach us anything new. For all we know, some of them involve math that's as far beyond us as the Julia set would have been to the denizens of the 14th century. Me, I'm not even sure we should be looking for "lessons" in the circles, much less that lessons should be the primary criterion for the possibility that not all of them are made by humans. As I said, I think the most fruitful approach is not to get locked in to any concept of what the circles are about or who/what made them. That just limits our ability to come up with other, possibly more productive lines of investigation. > What we need by comparison from cricle makers these > days is perhaps a more advanced theory of quantum > mechanics that explains all the currently not understood > discrepancies in the subatomic world. That would be nice. > > My mind is made up, unless crop circles > > > suddenly teach us something we didn't know it is most > > > likely the work of man. > > > > > > > And in any case, the "message from a different > > > > intelligence" claim isn't one I'm making. > > > > > > Yes it is. > > > > Excuse me?? Please quote my having made such a > > claim, or admit I'm not making it. > > Read this below: Please quote the parts in which I make the claim that the circles are messages from a different intelligence. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between making a claim and speculating. > > > > But if I were, I could make the argument that the > > > > "message" of a triple Julia set is, "This formation > > > > was made by an intelligent force with a knowledge > > > > of higher mathematics." > > > > > > See. If you think it was made by non-humans they > > > must have been smart enough to understand this. > > > > I don't think they're made by "non-humans," although > > I don't rule it out (or anything else out, for that > > matter). > > > > But of course if I'm wrong and they *were* made by > > non-humans, the non-humans would understand this. I > > don't get your point at all here, and I don't think > > you got mine either, because yours seems to be a > > non sequitur. > > > > > > It's not even clear what you mean by "meaningless > > > > shapes." It seems to me that any coherent pattern > > > > can't be said to be meaningless. I wonder if the > > > > word you're looking for isn't "abstract" rather than > > > > "meaningless" > > > > > > Meaningless in the sense that it's just a pretty pattern > > > rather than the message that ones like the fractal or > > > Julia set seem to be saying. Which is that we understand > > > maths to the same sort of level you do. Or to me it says; > > > These are pretty pictures that will make mugs think we > > > are as smart as them. > > > > Why do you not think that message involves meaning? > > Get out of town.
