The Design Inference Game

03/03/03 | Moi

[general_re]

I thought a new thread was a good idea, and here seems to be a good place to put it, so as not to clutter up "News". The only topic available was "heated discussion", though. ;)

If any clarification about the pictures is needed, just say so, and I will try to at least highlight the part that I am interested in for you. Remember that I'm interested in the objects or structures or artifacts being represented, so don't be thrown off if the illustrations seem abstract.

[longshadow]

shock & awe placemarker

[general_re]

OK, so which weighs more, the Great Pyramid or the Chrysler Building?

Well, my scratch-paper estimates suggest that the Great Pyramid has well over six times the volume of the Chrysler Building. Considering that the Great Pyramid is very nearly a solid structure, and the Chrysler Building consists of a lot of empty space to accomodate people...the answer should be intuitively obvious ;)

[PatrickHenry]

Quagmire placemarker.

[Diamond]

Does anyone have anything to say about beeswax?

Cordially,

[PatrickHenry]

Does anyone have anything to say about beeswax?

Regular use of Q-Tips will usually solve the problem.

[betty boop]

The capacity stated (1600t) is 1600 TONS! Such a load can be picked up, moved, and raised to 234 meters. So, yes, handling these stones would be easy with today's technology...

Thank you so much, forsnax5, for putting this into the record. It does not go, however, to the problem of whether Egyptian technology in 2600 BC would be capable of lifting and moving 20-ton blocks. For, pace general_re, some of the stones of which the Great Pyramid of Khofu (Cheops) have been estimated to weigh that much.

Thanks so much for writing.

[betty boop]

IMHO, in this case a distict possibility, it means that you're either carrying so much personal or cultural freight as to be incapable of basic, elementary reason/logic, or you are just plain unreasonable, which means I have misjudged you entirely, and I just hate to be wrong.

Hi tactilogic! Let me just say that I have absolutely no objection in principle to the idea that the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids. All I am saying is that there is at least some possibility that they did not, for I don't think there is sufficient extant evidence to support this theory. There are just too many things that don't add up. So much of what we know about this question (or think we know) stems from legendary sources. I could, of course, be flat-out wrong. But the question is before us, so let's explore it with an open mind. Stay tuned. Thanks so much for writing!

[forsnax5]

It does not go, however, to the problem of whether Egyptian technology in 2600 BC would be capable of lifting and moving 20-ton blocks.

Indeed, it doesn't. :)

However, it provides counterpoint to your argument from incredulity.

You mentioned common sense in an earlier post. Consider this: the Egyptians built over 60 pyramids. The order in which they were built is fairly well established. The first one was the small, "step pyramid" built around 2700 BC. The last one was built over 1000 years later.

Could the Egyptians of 2700 BC have built the great pyramid at Giza? Doubtful. But after practicing for 1000 years? I think that they had plenty of time to develop the necessary technology, even if it isn't obvious to us today...

[betty boop]

So, we have the archaeologists who think they've discovered the method by which the pyramids were constructed, but the suggestion is that this impossible to do with the technology and manpower of the time. But is it?… For that, we need more evidence. Perhaps we might want to consult professional civil engineers for their expert opinions on whether the methods described by the archaeologists are at all feasible. Fortunately for us, professional civil engineers have rendered their expert opinions, as described in this article from the June '99 issue of "Civil Engineering" magazine. Given their expertise in this area, I am sure you will forgive me if I am prepared to assign a somewhat greater weight to their opinions than others ;)

Yes, the suggestion has been made, general_re, that the construction of the Great Pyramid of Khufu (Cheops) would have required a technological expertise that may not have existed in the Third Millennium B.C. It is a suggestion that IMHO rests on reasonable assumptions.

I’ve studied the article “Program Management B.C.” by Craig B. Smith, P.E. that you so kindly linked me to. It begins:

The construction of the Great Pyramid at Giza is one of the marvels of the ancient world. Originally 481 ft (147 m) high—the top 30 ft (9 m) have been lost to the ravages of time—the pyramid rests on a base that covers an area of 13.1 acres (5.3 ha), incorporates 3.4 million cu yd (2.6 million m3) of material, and is roughly two-thirds the size of Hoover Dam. For centuries mankind has wondered how the early Egyptians were able to accurately level the site, position enormous blocks of limestone and granite—some weighing as much as 20 tons (18 Mg)—and then construct the immense structure with great precision in terms of both its dimensions and orientation.

The article bears a subhead: “A process of forensic analysis that applied modern-day technology to bridge the chasm of time provides some surprising answers to the question of how the Great Pyramid at Giza was built.” I hope you won’t think I’m beating logic to death here; but I wouldn’t have the least problem with this statement, if it had said, instead of “was built,” it had merely said “may have been built.” But it didn’t. What it did was to make a conclusion the first premise of the following argument. And that argument, to my way of thinking, is an excellent example of what I earlier meant by “anachronistic back-loading of personal and cultural freight.”

Translation: We cannot reason from our knowledge of what we can do today to any kind of proof of what was actually done over four millennia ago.

Let me pull out some quotes from the article, and comment:

The Greek historian Herodotus wrote that the construction of the ramp and pyramid occupied 30 years with a workforce of 100,000 men…. Herodotus indicated that a system of levers was used. Long wooden poles were employed to elevate the blocks from one level of the pyramid terrace to the next level. Either multiple levers were used or the levers themselves were moved to each elevation as it became necessary to lift higher and higher. We determined that this approach would have been impractical. There is considerable evidence, however, to support a different approach: that of an inclined ramp…. We know that sloping ramps were constructed for other pyramids…. [citation please?]

Herodotus is considered some kind of authority in regard to the Great Pyramid. In Book II of Herodotus’ History we are told this project took 10 years for site preparation, and an additional 20 years in the actual construction of the Great Pyramid itself. Regarding the site preparation, Herodotus wrote: “…there passed ten years while the causeway was made by which they drew the stones, which causeway they built, and it is a work not much less, as it appears to me, than the pyramid: for the length of it is five furlongs and the breadth ten fathoms and the height, where it is highest, eight fathoms, and it is made of stone smoothed and with figures carved on it. For this they said, the ten years were spent…. For the making of the pyramid itself there passed a period of twenty years…. It is built of stone smoothed and fitted together in the most perfect manner, not one of the stones being less than thirty feet in length. The pyramid was made after the manner of steps which some called ‘rows’ and others ‘bases’: and when they had first made it thus, they raised the remaining stones with machines made of short pieces of timbers….” No mention of sloping ramps.

Herodotus’ History is traditionally dated 440 B.C. This passage refers to events said to have taken place more than two millennia earlier, during the reign of Khufu. Khufu’s reign has most recently been dated to 2585-2566 BC, 19 years.

Using Herodotus’ 30-year time estimate for the completion of the pyramid, assuming a 19-year reign, there would not have been enough time to complete the pyramid before Khufu’s death.

But the engineering firm consulted for this article says the project could have been completed in ten years’ time: two to three years for site preparation, five years of actual construction, and two years of “ramp removal, decoration, and other ancillary tasks.” Using their estimate, Khufu would have been able to build the thing within the period of his rulership.

But the engineering firm was basing its time estimate on a “best-guess” of how long it would take them to construct the Great Pyramid today, with all the benefit of current state-of-the-art technology.

Of course, Herodotus – as Dr. Stochastic and PatrickHenry have so kindly pointed out – was as far removed in time from the historical period under examination here, as we today are from him. His information source was Egyptian priests devoted to the cult of Vulcan. Now, the main function of the priestly class, in all historical times, is the preservation and transmission of the people’s myths. So none of the information that Herodotus received from the Vulcanian priests could be regarded by us today as “scientific evidence.”

Quoting from the article, “The first step in construction would have been to lay the ground course. This process would have consisted in placing large blocks with great precision to establish the dimensions of the pyramid. Based on a survey reported in the literature, the base is square and is oriented to the four points of the compass to standards that would be challenging to a builder today.” [Emphasis added] But apparently third-millennia Egyptians didn’t have a problem with it.

The pyramid itself is so brilliantly constructed, with the joins of stones so perfect, that it is said one cannot so much as insert a knife blade between them. However, the reputation of Egyptian construction techniques has been assessed by historians as not being up to this kind of standard. As Chester Starr writes in A History of the Ancient World: “By and large Egyptian architecture always remained most impressive for its size; the qualities of architectural synthesis, finely detailed work, and even honest workmanship, as in making a solid foundation, are rarely present.” On this score, the Great Pyramid must be considered a rare exception.

Getting back to the ten-year time estimate, I’m a little confused by what appear to be conflicting statements in the text itself. Maybe somebody can help me resolve this problem. The consulting engineers “assume an average crew of 20 men.” They also assume a ramp system, whose incline is 15 degrees traveling up the pyramid. “We estimated that a delivery rate of 180 blocks per hour was required from level 50 to level 74 and then used this rate to determine if the ramp size and number of crews were feasible. This seemed possible…. [O]ur stonecutting estimate of two man-days per block is based on our judgment. For the average block [said to weigh anywhere from 2.5 to 6 tons for the limestone blocks] we assumed that a team of 20 laborers was required to pull a sled up the ramp and onto the work area. This would require four hours on average (up to level 50), which meant that a team could move two blocks per day. Ten man-days were required, therefore, to move each block into place.” But then, for levels 51+, these teams could “deliver” 180 blocks per hour??? What am I missing here? Help!!!

Jumping to the concluding paragraph, Dr. Smith states: “While there is uncertainty as to precisely how the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid, there is certainty about the fact that it was done. The pyramid stands today as awesome testimony to the skill and sheer determination of the ancient race that built it.” Well, sure there’s “certainty about the fact that it was done.” Obviously, it is an artifact, meaning there must have been an artificer. He kind of weasels out in his next statement, stating that an “ancient race” built it. Well, sure, an ancient race must have built it, because the pyramids were already ancient by the time of Herodotus. The question that is left begging (to my mind at least, for the foregoing reasons) is: So was that ancient race the Egyptians?

The article states that “No records have been found that relate to the design of the Great Pyramid.” This is rather surprising to me, for the ancient Egyptians were famously meticulous record keepers: They recorded everything that ever happened anywhere in the kingdom. I would be more easily persuaded that they, in fact, built the pyramids if there were any extant inscription, some hieroglyphic, anywhere recording these events. If they did in fact happen, they would have been memorialized somewhere. But I am not aware that anything of this sort has yet been discovered. If anybody knows of any such source, please do let me know.

In sum, I do remain skeptical about who built the pyramids. But I don’t think my skepticism is “unreasonable.” In the end, all I can say is: I don’t know. FWIW.

[betty boop]

The order in which they were built is fairly well established. The first one was the small, "step pyramid" built around 2700 BC. The last one was built over 1000 years later.

forsnax5, what is your source for the statement that "the order in which they were built is fairly well established?" Who established it? On what evidence?

Regarding your second statement, I actually hypothesize that the stepped pyramid of Zosa was the last-built, not the first -- in an attempted emulation of what the Egyptians had already found there (they didn't quite cut it). But at least I have the good sense to say this is only an hypothesis: I'm not selling certainty here, and I'm not even trying to persuade you that my hypothesis is true.

[PatrickHenry]

Herodotus is considered some kind of authority in regard to the Great Pyramid.

Well, he's an authority on the tales that were being told 2,000 years after the building. He probably was very accurate in preserving what was told to him, but by the time he heard such accounts, they were quite possibly unreliable. He doesn't record that he saw any original documents or designs. He recorded hearsay, and he did it well. That's a very different thing from being an authority on the actual methods used.

But the engineering firm was basing its time estimate on a “best-guess” of how long it would take them to construct the Great Pyramid today, with all the benefit of current state-of-the-art technology.

I read it differently. They were making estimates based on technology available to the pyramid-builders.

[forsnax5]

forsnax5, what is your source for the statement that "the order in which they were built is fairly well established?" Who established it? On what evidence?

The Egyptian kings had the pyramids built as their personal monuments. The kings reigned in a known sequence, and each pyramid had a burial chamber with indications of who was buried there.

I actually hypothesize that the stepped pyramid of Zosa was the last-built, not the first -- in an attempted emulation of what the Egyptians had already found there (they didn't quite cut it).

From a Smithsonian Institution site, here:

Tombs of early Egyptian kings were bench-shaped mounds called mastabas. Around 2780 B.C., King Djoser's architect, Imhotep, built the first pyramid by placing six mastabas, each smaller than the one beneath, in a stack to form a pyramid rising in steps. This Step Pyramid stands on the west bank of the Nile River at Sakkara near Memphis. Like later pyramids, it contains various rooms and passages, including the burial chamber of the king.

[betty boop]

They were making estimates based on technology available to the pyramid-builders.

How would they know that?

[betty boop]

They were making estimates based on technology available to the pyramid-builders.

How would they know that?

[betty boop]

Ah, I see. You are making an appeal to authority. Which may suggest you haven't grasped the point I was trying to make.

[Alamo-Girl]

What an excellent analysis, betty boop! Thank you!!!

[PatrickHenry]

How would they know that [technology available to the pyramid-builders]?

Ancient texts, illustrations, tomb and temple paintings, old tools and artifacts that have been dug up, examimation of their buildings for tool marks, etc. There are people who specialize in such things. I'm not one of them.

[forsnax5]

Ah, I see. You are making an appeal to authority.

What other choice do I have? I'm a programmer, not an Egyptologist. I've not seen or studied the pyramids, myself.

Which may suggest you haven't grasped the point I was trying to make.

The point you seem to be trying to make is that you don't think it's possible to say who built the pyramids, when they were built, or even if they were built by Egyptians at all.

There's such a thing as keeping an open mind, but you have to accept certain things in order to make sense of the world. The pyramids were designed and built by humans in historical times. The methods and timing are speculation, but dismissal of hundreds of years of research and documentation by archaeologists is irrational...

[Condorman]

Permit me one brief sanity diversion with an excerpt from the book, The Honey Bee, by James L. Gould and Carol Grant Gould. Though it is written from an evolutionary perspective, the authors frequently cannot help but use the language of design in attempting to describe the phenonenon.

Certainly the honeycomb is a fascinating structure. But I still don't see where you are adequately supporting the design conclusion. If a resource is as biologically expensive to produce as beeswax and honey, does it not follow that the most successful colonies would be the ones to make most efficient use of said resource?

I don't see believe you are suggesting that the bees themselves designed the honeycomb. They are merely reproducing a pattern within an available space. Unless you are saying that the bees are designed, and therefore the comb is designed. Unfortunately, that method of classification requires that one must first identify the creator of an object in order to arrive at the design conclusion.

I think PatrickHenry summed it up when he asked (paraphrased), "Can naturally occuring artifacts give the appearance designed?" On the flip side, can an intelligent agent create an artifact that is not designed? And just to throw a third monkeywrench into the works, what would you say of the following two paintings? Are either of them designed? Would it surprise you to learn that the creator of one of them is not human? Can you tell which one?

Abstract oil painting

Abstract watercolor painting

On a personal note, best wishes to you and your family. Get some sleep.

[Diamond]

First, and foremost I thank you for the personal note. That means a lot to me. Although it might seem trivial to some, I really do take tremendous comfort in the encouragement of my FRiends here. Thank you so much for your encouraging words.

But I still don't see where you are adequately supporting the design conclusion. If a resource is as biologically expensive to produce as beeswax and honey, does it not follow that the most successful colonies would be the ones to make most efficient use of said resource?

Perhaps I have not adequately supported it. It just seems interesting to me that very distinguished experts on bees, writing from an evolutionary perspective, cannot help but lapse into the language of design when describing the architecture of bees. Of course I agree with you that it does make sense that the most successful colonies would be the ones to make most efficient use of certain resources, but I don't see how that truism necessarily mitigates either for or against a design inference.

Unless you are saying that the bees are designed, and therefore the comb is designed. Unfortunately, that method of classification requires that one must first identify the creator of an object in order to arrive at the design conclusion.

Most respectfully, not so. For example, detective Columbo illustates very well a process of historical science wherein he invariably (otherwise there would be no tv show) discovers that a death is not accidental, but the result of design, even though he does not yet know the identity of the murderer.

With regard to the paintings, I think they both are example of design, in part because algorithims are probabilty amplifiers, not attenuators. One painting is simply the direct result of design, the other is an indirect reult of design, much like bees or floppy disks. The fascinating question is whether or not there is a criterion that can help tell the difference.

btw Patrick, when I was a kid my older sisters, much like Iraqi officals, would often reply to a question of mine they thought impertinent with; "NONE OF YOUR BEESWAX!"