I am not saying the pyramid had a higher function, i am saying if it did, we wouldnt know. Lets assume it was used to generate a large quantum tunneling effect. How could we find evidence for this if our technology is insufficient to test this? I didn't say that you are ''saying'' that, but to answer your question; we couldn't find the evidence, but why do you think that's even worth mentioning once, let alone repeatedly? I've already told you I could say the same thing about pretty much anything and it would hold as much value as what you're saying. Furthermore, (going back to your earlier post) if you were to manage to get people to investigate the Pyramid's, you've just granted that it would be useless anyway, because we wouldn't have the technology to notice any ''higher'' function. . EDIT; I've just read one of your previous post's again, in which you do actually imply that the Pyramid's have a ''higher'' function, try to remember your own opinions, it saves me the trouble of doing it.
If the pyramid served a function such as a tuneable resonant chamber to induce altered brainwave states (similar to binaural beats) then we could test for that. It wouldnt mean they were more advanced but it would demonstrate a higher function than just the architectural marvel that it is. You have science completely backward. We hypothesis what the pyramid may have been built/used for, then we start testing and eliminating the hypothesis. Your assumption would discourage anyone from creating a hypothesis that entertains the possibility that it was a technology, not just a building. One might then hypothesize it was merely a tomb.
You have science completely backward. We hypothesis what the pyramid may have been built/used for, then we start testing and eliminating the hypothesis. Yeah, and you need some kind of reason/logic to begin thinking that the Pyramid served as whatever you think it served as, otherwise there should be no reason to ''investigate'' it, if this wasn't the case then what you think of as ''Science'' would become merely a guessing game - remember the ''talking socks'' example? Besides, there's no reason to think that it's illogical to assume that the Pyramid's are merely great pieces of Architecture in the first place.
One reason would be its completely overbuilt if it is merely a building. Why put so much trouble into making it so damn precise if it doesnt matter? Maybe it wasnt much trouble? Maybe it matters? Who knows if we never ask the question. And no a sock and the Great Pyramid are completely dissimilar. The sock clearly has a simple known function, so its function is not in question. Whereas the Pyramid is an engineering marvel with no understood function. Any curious person wonders about the Great Pyramid, until we can discern its likely function, we should investigate it. You may not be open minded and curious but other people are. Why wouldnt we investigate one of the oldest and most intruiging structures on earth?
One reason would be its completely overbuilt if it is merely a building. Why put so much trouble into making it so damn precise if it doesnt matter? Maybe it wasnt much trouble? Maybe it matters? Who knows if we never ask the question. Why move such heavy rocks if Stone henge is merely a rock arrangement? Why did Michelangelo paint the paintings in the Sistine Chapel so large if it's merely a painting? Why is ''War and Peace'' so long if it's merely a book? Precision and scale aren't proofs of something having a ''higher'' function. And no a sock and the Great Pyramid are completely dissimilar. The sock clearly has a simple known function, so its function is not in question. Whereas the Pyramid is an engineering marvel with no understood function. Any curious person wonders about the Great Pyramid, until we can discern its likely function, we should investigate it. You may not be open minded and curious but other people are. Why wouldnt we investigate one of the oldest and most intruiging structures on earth? First of all, I wasn't talking about the sock's ''function'', I was creating an analogy between the notion that the Pyramid's should be investigated because of an empty claim that somebody might make about it, and the notion that a pair of socks should be investigated because of another equally empty claim that somebody might make about them (i.e, that they could ''talk''), and second of all, you are again pre-supposing that there is a higher ''function'' to the Pyramids.
There is an understood function of it.. several actually. It was a monument built by that civilization. The entire civilization put their heart, soul, and body into creating it.. it was their purpose to them. They built it to line up with astronomical observations they've made over generations, they built it to entomb their leaders, they built it to say "we built this". There is plenty that is understood about the pyramids.. Even with knowing as much about the pyramids as we do.. there is no reason to ever stop being curious, to stop investigating it. No one here is saying to stop.. and we probably never will until we learn all that we can from it. It's just, there's no reason to think there is some mystical force emanating from it that alters brain waves and shit. That's just silly and I know, you'll automatically think I am closed minded because I think it's silly.. but you can literally make up any stupid shit you want and call it a legitimate theory. How bout, when it was a complete structure and had white sides with a top made of gold and silver.. the sunlight reflected back while they sat in it and chanted and fed off of sunlight.. and that's where the practice of Inedia came from. Or maybe it was forced labor by alien scouts who have giant pyramids built with specific properties on planets, where the intelligent life is religious and actually not so intelligent, so they can target the planet with their alien death beam and fire it from their world that is 5,392 light years away.. while accounting for the travel time and where the planet will be when the light speed death beam annihilates the planet 5,392 Earth years later. Seeing as it was built around 2500 BC, that just means we have about 900 years left til it hits.. See.. without any evidence.. those claims sound retarded. We do have evidence that they were used for tombs, we do have evidence that it was a monument built by the drive and desire of pretty much the entire civilization, and we do have evidence that it can be used to map astronomical events.. but not much more. If someone wants to create a new theory.. that's cool, anyone can do that as I have shown. But if they want to pass along their theory and have it taken seriously as a contender, they sure as shit need some evidence. Until then, it's only good for a Sy-fy movie plot.
Good point about stone hendge. Large painting, to fill the large ceiling. Long book to tell a long story. And yes, the degree of precision would be a clue to an engineer about its function. Why do we make telescope mirrors so damn precise? Because it enhances the function of the device. Why arent car mirrors made to that precision? Because its too costly and too much work to over engineer them when the effort would make no difference in the mirrors function. Did the builders of the Great Pyramid have too much free time they just decided to build a precise pile of rocks? Or does it seem more reasonable that they put so much work into precision because it was necessary/mattered?
Maybe you didnt read all of what Ive been saying so you misunderstood me. I didnt claim those were its likely function, i invented those for illustratitive purpose. I know there are a lot of hypothesis about the Pyramid but most are just guesses and speculation at this point. Perhaps it was just to say "we built this", perhaps it is just incidental its still here (like the manhattan bull would remain for 10,000 years but with no implied meaning), perhaps it was to tell us something or mark the place as significant. Maybe we will never know, but i dont think we should stop speculating and investigating.
There are a lot of known facts.. they aren't guesses. When you pull a mummified king out of a tomb, that tells you they used it as a tomb for their king.. That is evidence that it was used as a tomb. There is evidence for other uses as well.. like a place of worship, an astronomical marker.. a monument. They wrote their story on the walls.. it was made by them, for them. Think of pyramid building like the religion of that culture.. that's what they did and they were skilled at it, they even competed against each other just like how some employees do today while working. We know a lot, it's just people often just ignore what we know in light of an entertaining idea. If someone wants their entertaining idea to be taken as educational, they need to present the evidence for their claim. Cause as what has been shown, anyone can claim anything.. Think up the silliest theory you can about the pyramids and it will be on par with every other theory that has zero evidence.
Good point about stone hendge. Large painting, to fill the large ceiling. Long book to tell a long story. And yes, the degree of precision would be a clue to an engineer about its function. So the large ceiling and the long story must both have a ''higher'' function owing to their size, right? Why do we make telescope mirrors so damn precise? Because it enhances the function of the device. Why arent car mirrors made to that precision? Because its too costly and too much work to over engineer them when the effort would make no difference in the mirrors function. You're conflating things for which the function is obvious, mirrors, with something that your pre-supposing to have a (''higher'') function, the Pyramids. Did the builders of the Great Pyramid have too much free time they just decided to build a precise pile of rocks? EDIT; On second thoughts, the fact that the stones were so tightly packed together only gives an appearance of precision, there's no reason to suggest however that this appearance of precision wasn't merely the by-product of good building - it doesn't follow that the Pyramids must of had a ''higher'' function from having an appearance of precision, because it doesn't follow that an appearance of precision entails a need for precision. You'll only get a need for precision when you are creating something to have a precise function (i.e, we can say that a mirror is precise because it shows us a precise reflection, and we can say that a mirror is imprecise if it shows us a distorted reflection), and this ''precise function'' is what you need to extrapolate on. EDIT x2; And, just to add, they weren't merely seen or used as a ''precise pile of rocks'' anyway, Mantikore has already listed some of their functions (none of them were what you might call a ''higher'' function though).
I would like to note one trend I note in this discussion of the potential function of the pyramids, as well as larger trends within the empirical world-view which underlies some of them. First of all, in reference to the fact that we have found buried bodies in the pyramids. So you might conclude, oh yea its just a big extravagant tomb. But this is really reductionist. It served the function of housing the dead body of the pharaoh. But the Egyptians were a spiritual people. Think of all of the implications it must have had in their mind. Their human representative of the Gods was put to rest, moved on to the after-life, a passage-way which was this amazing, mysterious, precise pyramid. So that's just first of all, you can't reduce everything to such a bland, superficial deadening of meaning which can be supported by something we discover. I'm not saying this is entirely you, it's just a trend among people who speak in such ways. Now this leads me to the flaw in the larger train of empiric thought. Physical proof is required for legitimacy. As some in this thread have pointed out, if you believe one unprovable theory, what difference is there in believing in any other random unprovable theory? And there is certainly legitimacy to that. But at the same time, to stick hardline to the strict empirical world-view, you're assuming that all relevant matters can be physically ascertained. And, obviously that's pretty silly. To say that all materials required to form a complete picture of a thing can be physically obtained and analyzed. So all things that are true, that we will never be able to find strict physical proof of, will be considered false. And all of these things will be errors for strict empiricists. Now I'm not trash-talking empiricism. Reason, consistency, appeal to evidence. All really important things. I really dislike a closed-mind, but I also dislike a mind that doesn't care about logic and consistency. Already the strict interpretation given to human past has already been disproven. Physical artifacts have been discovered which pre-date what was supposed to be the very dawn of civilization. Incredible structures have been found which date prior to the previously thought beginning. Not by a whole lot, but getting into that 12,000 year range as opposed to 10,000 which was generally more like what was thought. Now you may say, as I'm sure many do, that just means things started up a bit earlier than we thought. The general paradigm is unshaken. Except that there's strong evidence that in some locations, these structures and various things which evidence planning and some sort of a cultural center, were actually intentionally buried 12,000 years ago. And we come to that date because we find organic material dating 12,000 years. But that only says they were there 12,000 years ago. It doesn't say how long that structure had been that, prior to it being buried. And why was it buried? As to the empirical, materialistic form of thinking taking over modern society. As I have previously stated, certain benefits are undeniable. Certain things can be ascertained far more efficiently than probably any other method. And this is why people feel so damn confident in sticking hardline to that worldview. Since it is so self-definitionally dependent on proof, it can easily dismiss so much. And they can reasonably call it sticking to the evidence. But damn it all if that isn't just the death of what is really the spark of human imagination and its innate drive towards truth. So much of what is true cannot be discovered through strict empiricism. And if you truly stick to empiricism, you can appear to be right about almost everything. And anything that you cannot claim to be definitely right about, is 'unobtainable for the time being,' and thus you are at no loss. But the world is a far more interesting place than can be empirically proven. And all of these interesting and true things will, through that line of thinking, be irrelevant until physical proof is obtained. And if such proof should for whatever reason be unattainable, this interesting truth will be forever scorned by the empiricist.
No im not presupposing anything. You said there is no reason to think it has a higher function. I said the precision would be one reason to think it may. Which i argue, in engineering, the degree of precision is usually indicative of function. Where I work, we have tolerances of thousanths of an inch, because its necessary for the function. Therefore it would not be necessary to produce precision of trillionths of an inch. So are you saying their process of cutting stone was so damn precise, not intentionally but incidentally? So it was no extra effort, just an inherent outcome? Sounds like you believe they were cut by a laser. Nevermind the fact that it wasnt just the cutting of the stones, but the precise positioning, the precise orientation of the whole structure and its resistance to sinking into the ground. Btw the Great Pyramid has no writings in it nor was a body ever found in it. In fact, until the 9th Century, there was no known way to get inside until people started hacking away at it. According to Herodotus in 440 b.c. you could barely find the seems between the polished casing stones. " Petrie related the precision of the casing stones as to being "equal to opticians' work of the present day, but on a scale of acres" and "to place such stones in exact contact would be careful work; but to do so with cement in the joints seems almost impossible". If you accept the cutting techniques we assume they used, optical precision would not be an incidental result. Im sorry you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If indeed you were serious that the precision was an incidental result of their cutting technique then I am curious what technique you believe they used? Id be even more curiois if you could provide evidence.
Hm, interesting if no dead bodies have ever been found...not 100% sure, a quick google search with little desire to research it in-depth seemed to indicate it was true moreso than not. But, haven't looked into it at all hardly. I was just taking, I think it was Mantikore, at his word. Well, one way or another, the general theme of my previous post remains true, whether or not I incorrectly assumed it was true dead bodies had been discovered. I would find that very interesting if it were indeed definitely true that no bodies had ever actually been discovered in/under the pyramids.
Hm, slightly more looking into it seems to reveal that it is indeed true that no bodies have been found...wow that is interesting...unless Mantikore or someone else can prove that wrong?
I was responding to Account, i didnt see your post until i was done. But yes the Great Pyramid is distinctly different since it had no body found in it nor had any way in from the outside. I dont think they found even an underground passage in either. Yes I agree with what you said otherwise. I dont feel like im the only one with an open mind, especially on a cannabis forum, i guess they dont make stoners like they used to.
Even if it was merely an astronomical monument, the alignment is warrented, but the other factors of precision are not. So the question remains, why so precise? Not only that, as i pointed out, optical precision would only be incidental if the method of cutting and polishing stones was not a painstaking effort. Oddly they have no evidence primitive methods were imployed, its an implicit assumption that follows the assumption that they were not advanced. The hypothesis to support these assumptions are as lacking in evidence as much as the hypothesis' they reject. The difference? One fits their worldview, the other does not. It is a form of deification to suggest scientists are incapable of supporting a dogma. Scientists are supposed to be objective but scientists are people, subjects to their preconceived notions. Tom Van Flandern talks about this struggle, when he finally had to admit the scientific dogma was wrong, if i recall correctly, he said it took him a few years to come to terms with it. Science does appear to be an atheistic reductionist dogma that cannot let go of its creationist roots. The Big Bang miracle is my favorite example. They have to believe the universe is infinite (contrary to the science) or that it came into existance uncaused and out of nothing (illogical). But in this instance they pretend to be 'open minded', witholding belief either way. I digress, i get fired up about this shit.
It's fun to think about these possibilities but until there's evidence it's just storytelling. It's not like the pyramids are gonna be destroyed to make a mall. People still study the pyramids. Until there's evidence of another use I don't see a reason to believe it was more than an attempt to appease their kings and gods as was the motive for many endeavors in history. I don't think that makes anyone close minded. I'm just too busy to go study it myself. But I'm all ears when it's more than speculation.
No im not presupposing anything. You said there is no reason to think it has a higher function. I said the precision would be one reason to think it may. Which i argue, in engineering, the degree of precision is usually indicative of function. Where I work, we have tolerances of thousanths of an inch, because its necessary for the function. Therefore it would not be necessary to produce precision of trillionths of an inch. Yes.. you're pre-supposing that ''precision'' implies a ''higher'' function, ergo, you're pre-supposing a ''higher'' function, without there being any warrant to pre-suppose it. I've already explained that your mistaking ''precision'' for ''compactness'', and you keep doing it. A thing can only be said to be ''precise'' if either A) it performs a precise function, i.e a mirror is precise insofar as it reflects an image precisely, B) if it imitates something else precisely, i.e a painting may be precise in that it imitates reality precisely or C) it follows a design precisely. i.e a house's construction may be said to be precise, in that it follows a design precisely. Seeing as how we cannot see how the Pyramid's have any apparent function, like a mirror does, or that the Pyramid's are attempting to imitate anything, like a realistic painting does, then the only reasonable way of seeing the Pyramid's as having ''precision'', is to agree to C) that is, that the Pyramid's were designed beforehand, and that the Pyramid's themselves followed this design precisely. However, following a design precisely does not mean that something must necessarily have a function, let alone a ''higher'' one. What if I created a drawing with a huge amount of complexity and compactness, would you then think that my picture had a ''higher'' function? No.. but that's exactly what you're doing in regards to the Pyramids. So are you saying their process of cutting stone was so damn precise, not intentionally but incidentally? So it was no extra effort, just an inherent outcome? No, I didn't say anything about the stone-cutting being ''incidental'', I said that the compactness of the Pyramid's may of been a by-product of good-building/workmanship. ''By-product'' doesn't mean ''incidental'', the workers would of obviously cut the stones carefully. " Petrie related the precision of the casing stones as to being "equal to opticians' work of the present day, but on a scale of acres" and "to place such stones in exact contact would be careful work; but to do so with cement in the joints seems almost impossible". ''Petrie'' was making the same mistake that you are; assuming precision to be the same thing as compactness. . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you're going to reply, I don't want to see any more repetitions please.
Let me tell you what I hate about this thread. I hate that I didn't notice it was 2 pages long. I read the first post and was intrigued, only to find a mess of long posts following. After reading about half of them my eyes got tired and I feel asleep - during my dream I awoke and typed this message.... I'm still asleep. Here is a theory though - assume all history is true and unquestionable. Now... how does that reality and the one in which you posed in your original post have any bearing on what the future can be or what reality is? Edit: The thing about the pyramids is that they didn't have the wheel then. You need to keep in mind that those fuckers have been around for a long time - Giza, I think, is like 420~ (hehe) feet tall at it's peak, and back in the day when it was roughly new, would have been pure white - almost marble like. Now, can you imagine what the Romans must have thought, or the Greeks or the any other peoples that walked across the Nile and saw that monument of past civilization staring them in the face. That's what's boggled people for so long - it's only been the last 35 years or so that the pyramid construction methods have become less and less marvelous or mysterious.