5 ms·

This would be better written in a short story format but I digress. This is precisely the type of thing that would probably happen in almost any society. There

This would be better written in a short story format but I digress. This is precisely the type of thing that would probably happen in almost any society. There are many standards that pop up that are vestiges of one thing or another. The fact we get base 60 from Sumeria but use Base 12 or Base 24 for hours is not a big deal, weird things happen. I doubt any advanced alien would be just so flabbergasted over this. We have multiple cultures all over the world that count differently, so the assumption of base 10, just doesn't really make sense. All standards like time, counting, etc in any culture I think would be this mishmash of legacies from some people's that were dominant at some point that other people's culture imprinted upon that. If anything an alien race would probably be more suspicious if our calendar and time system was some perfect base 10 all through or something of that nature as if the cult of reason had dominated the world after the French Revolution. Also the historical record of someone named Jesus existing isn't debated by any historical scholar I have ever heard of, just the messianic / prophetic / son of god nature seems to be the rub.

Buttons840 4y ago
Aliens are likely to view 12 or 60 as prettier numbers than 10 or 100. Try writing the multiplication tables in base 12 and you'll see how much nicer they are.
- drusepth 4y ago
  Here's the base 12 multiplication tables: https://math.tools/table/multiplication/base/12 https://math.tools/table/multiplication/base/12 It doesn't look more or less nice to me than the base 10 version. Can you describe what is supposed to make it look nicer, especially to aliens?
  - GoldenRacer 4y ago
    In base 10, the times tables for 2 and 5 are easy because they divide 10. If I want 2*7, I know 7/5 is 1 remainder 2 so it's 10+2*2=14. As for 5x7, I know 7/2 is 3 remainder 1 so it's 30+1*5=35. In base 12, there are similarly easy rules for 2, 3, 4, and 6. Doesn't seem like that great of a trade off but it could be beneficial. That also just comes down to 12 being a "superior highly composite number". If I personally was allowed to rewrite our number system, I think I'd choose a base that is either a superior highly composite number or a power of 2. So something in the set [2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 32, 60, 64...]. I doubt 10 would even cross my mind as an option if I didn't have 10 fingers.
    - Buttons840 4y ago
      Another layer to this is that numbers one-off the factors have nice patterns too. For base 10 those are (2, to include the factors), 3, 4, (5), 6, and 9 sort-of, since it's one below 10. Just think how awkward 7 and 8 times tables were compared to the rest. With base 12 I found that all numbers, even 7 and 11, end up having usable patterns and are easier to count by. Of course, I'm still not used to having 12 digits, but on paper I could tell they would be pleasant to count by if I had learned base 12. And an even deeper insight is that it doesn't really matter that much and isn't worth shaking up the whole world to change. We're not going to be better or worse at math because of our number base.
  - Buttons840 4y ago
    You have to fill out the table yourself to appreciate the patterns.
enlyth 4y ago
I follow about 80 people on Twitter and Foone usually takes up more than half of my feed :D
EdwardDiego 4y ago
Yeah, from what I understand, it's generally accepted that some rabble rouser called Yeshua existed, and later had followers who considered him to be holy.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > Yeah, from what I understand, it's generally accepted that some rabble rouser called Yeshua existed, and later had followers who considered him to be holy. Except for where you start a sentence with "yeah," apparently answering in the affirmative a hypothetical question that no one has asked, and adding a superfluous and grammatically incorrect comma, you are vaguely correct. Jesus is the English transliteration of a Germanic adaptation of the Latin transliteration of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshua. What is agreed upon by near universal scholarly consensus is instead that Jesus was baptized and crucified. But I personally believe it is a sure bet he also was a rouser of rabble, had a ministry, and was considered holy, as beyond the 10 or so natural holes he ultimately was given at least 4 additional holes.
  - EdwardDiego 4y ago
    > Except for where you start a sentence with "yeah," apparently answering in the affirmative a hypothetical question that no one has asked, and adding a superfluous and grammatically incorrect comma, you are vaguely correct. Wow, you must be a hit at parties. The way I phrased that sentence is how some some dialects of English, like the one I speak, express agreement. Consider it shorthand for "I agree,". And perhaps consider the limits of your experiences and that wisdom is (partially) knowing what you don't know, and not attempting to speak with authority in such areas. In wording my response to you, I've deliberately avoided other expressions from my dialect that may confuse you, but are very applicable. Like "twat" or "tosser", or "tu meke". > Jesus is the English transliteration of a Germanic adaptation of the Latin transliteration of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshua. Yeah, nah. Thanks for contributing nothing that a basic Google of "Jesus Yeshua" wouldn't have. In my dialect, "yeah, nah" often means "I'm experiencing fremdschämen". > What is agreed upon by near universal scholarly consensus is instead that Jesus was baptized and crucified. You're going to need an awful lot of citations there. Firstly, define the scholars you're referring to. Also, what sources are they working from? Josephus, the closest there is to a contemporaneous source, doesn't mention baptism. Neither do Seutonius, Pliny the Younger, Mara bar-Serapion or Tacitus. Maybe the scholars you refer to are extrapolating from the title "Anointed", or from the fact that, gosh, if you're saying this Jesus is sinless, and baptism is for the remission of sins, then why would you include a story in your holy writings that Jesus was baptised? It makes no sense, so you must've included it to be historically correct! Also known as proof by mortification. [0] Or maybe, you're just referencing crap you garnered from a 5 minute speed read of Wikipedia that really needs more citations? Who knows? Tu meke au. [0]: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/biblical-literalism https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/biblical-literalism
DemocracyFTW2 4y ago
the historical record of someone named Jesus existing isn't debated by any historical scholar It is debated by people like Richard Carrier https://www.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEB&search_query=richard+carrier https://www.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEB&search_query=richard... who says that (IIRC) while it's not unlikely that one or several people with similar messages preached in Judea 2000 years ago, the Jesus of the Bible looks like a literary invention when you go back to all the earliest records in Christian and non-Christian (e.g. Roman) sources. *Edit* now that I got downvoted for mentioning Richard Carrier I'd very much like to hear about substantialized criticism about his work. Any pointers?
- altthought 4y ago
  Richard Carrier is an extremely fringe figure regarding the historical Jesus. The overwhelming majority of scholars in the field from conservative to liberal historians dismiss his ideas as fringe, and his methodologies as inconclusive, at best.
- wl 4y ago
  Richard Carrier is a crank who somehow got popular among New Atheists who didn’t know any better. His work enjoys no support in academia.
- nyokodo 4y ago
  > It is debated by people like Richard Carrier Yes, but there’s little debate amongst scholars that aren’t atheist activists. For instance, it’s extremely difficult to explain the historical facts of the early Christian movement without a historical Jesus due to those events being so recent and broadly falsifiable via living memory let alone records extant at the time and there being no evidence of the Romans using a lack of historical evidence for Jesus as an argument against Christianity.

Buttons840 4y ago

Aliens are likely to view 12 or 60 as prettier numbers than 10 or 100. Try writing the multiplication tables in base 12 and you'll see how much nicer they are.

drusepth 4y ago
Here's the base 12 multiplication tables: https://math.tools/table/multiplication/base/12 https://math.tools/table/multiplication/base/12 It doesn't look more or less nice to me than the base 10 version. Can you describe what is supposed to make it look nicer, especially to aliens?
- GoldenRacer 4y ago
  In base 10, the times tables for 2 and 5 are easy because they divide 10. If I want 2*7, I know 7/5 is 1 remainder 2 so it's 10+2*2=14. As for 5x7, I know 7/2 is 3 remainder 1 so it's 30+1*5=35. In base 12, there are similarly easy rules for 2, 3, 4, and 6. Doesn't seem like that great of a trade off but it could be beneficial. That also just comes down to 12 being a "superior highly composite number". If I personally was allowed to rewrite our number system, I think I'd choose a base that is either a superior highly composite number or a power of 2. So something in the set [2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 32, 60, 64...]. I doubt 10 would even cross my mind as an option if I didn't have 10 fingers.
  - Buttons840 4y ago
    Another layer to this is that numbers one-off the factors have nice patterns too. For base 10 those are (2, to include the factors), 3, 4, (5), 6, and 9 sort-of, since it's one below 10. Just think how awkward 7 and 8 times tables were compared to the rest. With base 12 I found that all numbers, even 7 and 11, end up having usable patterns and are easier to count by. Of course, I'm still not used to having 12 digits, but on paper I could tell they would be pleasant to count by if I had learned base 12. And an even deeper insight is that it doesn't really matter that much and isn't worth shaking up the whole world to change. We're not going to be better or worse at math because of our number base.
- Buttons840 4y ago
  You have to fill out the table yourself to appreciate the patterns.

enlyth 4y ago

I follow about 80 people on Twitter and Foone usually takes up more than half of my feed :D

EdwardDiego 4y ago

Yeah, from what I understand, it's generally accepted that some rabble rouser called Yeshua existed, and later had followers who considered him to be holy.

Maursault 4y ago
> Yeah, from what I understand, it's generally accepted that some rabble rouser called Yeshua existed, and later had followers who considered him to be holy. Except for where you start a sentence with "yeah," apparently answering in the affirmative a hypothetical question that no one has asked, and adding a superfluous and grammatically incorrect comma, you are vaguely correct. Jesus is the English transliteration of a Germanic adaptation of the Latin transliteration of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshua. What is agreed upon by near universal scholarly consensus is instead that Jesus was baptized and crucified. But I personally believe it is a sure bet he also was a rouser of rabble, had a ministry, and was considered holy, as beyond the 10 or so natural holes he ultimately was given at least 4 additional holes.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  > Except for where you start a sentence with "yeah," apparently answering in the affirmative a hypothetical question that no one has asked, and adding a superfluous and grammatically incorrect comma, you are vaguely correct. Wow, you must be a hit at parties. The way I phrased that sentence is how some some dialects of English, like the one I speak, express agreement. Consider it shorthand for "I agree,". And perhaps consider the limits of your experiences and that wisdom is (partially) knowing what you don't know, and not attempting to speak with authority in such areas. In wording my response to you, I've deliberately avoided other expressions from my dialect that may confuse you, but are very applicable. Like "twat" or "tosser", or "tu meke". > Jesus is the English transliteration of a Germanic adaptation of the Latin transliteration of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshua. Yeah, nah. Thanks for contributing nothing that a basic Google of "Jesus Yeshua" wouldn't have. In my dialect, "yeah, nah" often means "I'm experiencing fremdschämen". > What is agreed upon by near universal scholarly consensus is instead that Jesus was baptized and crucified. You're going to need an awful lot of citations there. Firstly, define the scholars you're referring to. Also, what sources are they working from? Josephus, the closest there is to a contemporaneous source, doesn't mention baptism. Neither do Seutonius, Pliny the Younger, Mara bar-Serapion or Tacitus. Maybe the scholars you refer to are extrapolating from the title "Anointed", or from the fact that, gosh, if you're saying this Jesus is sinless, and baptism is for the remission of sins, then why would you include a story in your holy writings that Jesus was baptised? It makes no sense, so you must've included it to be historically correct! Also known as proof by mortification. [0] Or maybe, you're just referencing crap you garnered from a 5 minute speed read of Wikipedia that really needs more citations? Who knows? Tu meke au. [0]: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/biblical-literalism https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/biblical-literalism

DemocracyFTW2 4y ago

the historical record of someone named Jesus existing isn't debated by any historical scholar It is debated by people like Richard Carrier https://www.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEB&search_query=richard+carrier https://www.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEB&search_query=richard... who says that (IIRC) while it's not unlikely that one or several people with similar messages preached in Judea 2000 years ago, the Jesus of the Bible looks like a literary invention when you go back to all the earliest records in Christian and non-Christian (e.g. Roman) sources. *Edit* now that I got downvoted for mentioning Richard Carrier I'd very much like to hear about substantialized criticism about his work. Any pointers?

altthought 4y ago
Richard Carrier is an extremely fringe figure regarding the historical Jesus. The overwhelming majority of scholars in the field from conservative to liberal historians dismiss his ideas as fringe, and his methodologies as inconclusive, at best.
wl 4y ago
Richard Carrier is a crank who somehow got popular among New Atheists who didn’t know any better. His work enjoys no support in academia.
nyokodo 4y ago
> It is debated by people like Richard Carrier Yes, but there’s little debate amongst scholars that aren’t atheist activists. For instance, it’s extremely difficult to explain the historical facts of the early Christian movement without a historical Jesus due to those events being so recent and broadly falsifiable via living memory let alone records extant at the time and there being no evidence of the Romans using a lack of historical evidence for Jesus as an argument against Christianity.