No Islam

[Keenir]

So you think pre-Islamic Indonesia was a primitive culture?

not sure that that's a strawman, but I do know that that's not a thing to answer.

the neighbors of the Pygmies (another group regarded as primitive) aren't Muslim.

so...who do you regard as Primitive, so I know how to answer?

Not in this thread. Plus you asked a question and I gave an answer.

yes you did.

 

[Philip]

I think he was actually saying that anyone could use it. Has the concept of zero been around for that long? I’ll be blunt that I don’t know enough about the history of mathematics.

The oldest known 'complete' concept of zero dates to around AD 450. It was developed by Indians. Jains, I believe.

Yes. I think Philip has tried arguing that you could have an empire/state similar to the Caliphate in the absence of Islam, to meet the Pasha’s demands that only such a state would make the developments the Pasha considers so essential to achieve a modern scientific culture.

Yes. That was my intention. For example, we could pretend that the so-called Satanic Verses are real and accepted. Certainly, the resulting faith is not Islam, but there seems to me to be no reason why this religion could not accomplish everything that OTL Islam did.

 

[Keenir]

The oldest known 'complete' concept of zero dates to around AD 450. It was developed by Indians. Jains, I believe.

the Mayans had the written #0 six hundred years before then...and the Babylonians a millenia prior.

perhaps if you explain your meaning of 'complete'. please?

Yes. That was my intention. For example, we could pretend that the so-called Satanic Verses are real and accepted. Certainly, the resulting faith is not Islam, but there seems to me to be no reason why this religion could not accomplish everything that OTL Islam did.

It could have the same (or vaguely similar) ending point, but the road would be very different...because it would be operating under a different structure -- as would, for example, a Hindu empire in the exact same physical space.

 

[Philip]

without algebra, doesn't a lot of mathmatics go up in smoke?

Sure, but remember that the development of algebra began in Babylonia, continued in Pharaonic Egypt, then Classical Greece, and Hellenistic Egypt. At the same time, it was being developed in Persia, China and India. The work of al-Khwārizmī (a Persian) draws heavily from Indian and Greek works as well as his Persian predecessors. With the possible exception of his work on spherical geometry, I don't see why we should suppose that his work would not have been duplicated in an ATL Persia or India. It just could have occurred at the Academy of Gundishapur rather than the House of Wisdom.

but one reason why some civilizations (Christian Europe being just one example) abandoned the Zero by the wayside was a theological one: Zero means the absence of anything -- which in Christian theology (continuing the example) is an impossibility.

Do you have a citation for this? There seems to be nothing in Christian theology that prevents the correct answer to the question 'I have two sheep. If a wolf eats one on Monday and another on Tuesday, how many sheep do I have left?'

By the way, how does Islamic theology differ from Christian theology in this respect?

 

[Philip]

the Mayans had the written #0 six hundred years before then...and the Babylonians a millenia prior.

perhaps if you explain your meaning of 'complete'. please?

In addition to being a 'place holder' and representing nothing, the complete idea of zero includes such things as the fact that it is the additive identity and the multiplicative kernel. It is these advances that are needed to continue the development of algebra.

Noting that it is the cardinality of the null set is also useful, but I won't include that in my definition.

 

[Keenir]

Sure, but remember that the development of algebra began in Babylonia, continued in Pharaonic Egypt, then Classical Greece, and Hellenistic Egypt. At the same time, it was being developed in Persia, China and India. The work of al-Khwārizmī (a Persian) draws heavily from Indian and Greek works as well as his Persian predecessors. With the possible exception of his work on spherical geometry, I don't see why we should suppose that his work would not have been duplicated in an ATL Persia or India. It just could have occurred at the Academy of Gundishapur rather than the House of Wisdom.

Dar-al-Islam has a major feature you're overlooking:
* ease of transport of information. (your mathematics expert in Persia could pass on information to fellows on the Hajj from Indonesia, Spain, Africa, and Mongolia; with the Academy of Gundishapur, how far could the knowledge travel within a single century?)

let me be perfectly clear: I agree that, eventually, the knowledge will be learned. however, I disagree that there is no difference in how it will be distributed, nor in the timescales involved with either invention or distrobution.

Do you have a citation for this?

book 'Zero: the history of a dangerous idea' by Sefir. (I don't recall his first name)

There seems to be nothing in Christian theology that prevents the correct answer to the question 'I have two sheep. If a wolf eats one on Monday and another on Tuesday, how many sheep do I have left?'

you're blurring "no sheep" with "nothing".

here's why Zero was so scary -- I listen to your question about wolves and sheep, and I say "there is nothing in your field" and I mean literally nothing (an absence of anything).

if you don't find that scary, try "a church" vs "nothing/no church".

By the way, how does Islamic theology differ from Christian theology in this respect?

not sure. I had to return the book before I reached that chapter.

 

[Keenir]

In addition to being a 'place holder' and representing nothing, the complete idea of zero includes such things as the fact that it is the additive identity and the multiplicative kernel. It is these advances that are needed to continue the development of algebra.

Noting that it is the cardinality of the null set is also useful, but I won't include that in my definition.

thank you for clarifying.

(ps: additive identity? I'm not familiar with the word, sadly)

 

[Philip]

(ps: additive identity? I'm not familiar with the word, sadly)

You know the concept, if not the name.

Additive Identity:
x + 0 = x
x keeps its identity when 0 is added.

Multiplicative Kernel:
if x*y = 0 then either x = 0 or y = 0.

 

[Philip]

Dar-al-Islam has a major feature you're overlooking:
* ease of transport of information. (your mathematics expert in Persia could pass on information to fellows on the Hajj from Indonesia, Spain, Africa, and Mongolia; with the Academy of Gundishapur, how far could the knowledge travel within a single century?)

That really depends on the size of Sassanid Persia. When they had the Byzantines on the ropes around 620, they occupied Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, Yemen, Sindh, and Bactria in addition to their core lands. Could they hold this? If there is no Islam and Heraclius's counter attack fails, it seems possible.

In the case of mathematics, these lands give them access to all they need to duplicate the advances made by Islamic scholars.

Their merchants reached throughout India, Central Asia, and China. They also had trade with Axum. The empire was supported by the trade that flowed through it. There is no reason to suppose that they would suddenly shut this trade down. On the contrary, with access to the Mediterranean, they are likely to expand their trade there.

Further, there is no reason to assume that the knowledge would stay bottled up in Persia. For example, when Justinian shut down the Academy of Athens, the Neoplatonics moved to Gundishapur. When they decided they didn't like it there, they were allowed to return to Greece. Of course, they may try to control the spread of some knowledge, just as the Chinese did with gunpowder. However, we all know how well that worked.

let me be perfectly clear: I agree that, eventually, the knowledge will be learned. however, I disagree that there is no difference in how it will be distributed, nor in the timescales involved with either invention or distrobution.

I agree that there could very well be differences in the time it takes for distribution. It could take more or less time. For example, if Persia continues the religious tolerance shown under Khosrau I and does not continue to expand militarily into Europe, there would probably be no Crusades. Without the Crusades to sour relations, Christian Europe might encounter Persia science earlier. Then again, the Göktürks could rage across Persia around AD 700 and destroy all records of Persian science.

 

[Calgacus]

well, they didn't speak Macedonian in Afghanistan fourteen centuries after he died.

*agrees to drop it*



nah, I think the "rescue Constantinople, 1454" will get that.



if you happen to get some Three Musketeers, I'd appreciate one or two, if please.

We call them Milky Ways. What you call a Milky Way is a Mars Bar here.

 

[seancdaug]

That depends - you might argue that the contest with Islam reinvigorated the empire - would it have survived Persia?

My sense is probably. But it would have gone on for generations, and wound up bankrupting both sides. It also ignores what we mean when we talk about "empire": it's possible that the imperial heartland of Anatolia and the Balkans could have persisted even as places like Egypt fell to the Persians. Worst case scenario is that the boundaries never really settle down, and the Middle East and northern Africa keep switching hands every generation or so.

The Mongols?

Harder to say, obviously. I want to say yes, but it'd be close. Like in OTL, even if the heart of the empire falls, I suspect Constantinople could ride most of it out.

From that perspective, things shouldn't really look that much different than OTL. Byzantium is reduced from continent-spanning empire to regional power. It may have a better chance of integrating the Turks, but even if it nominally remains the Roman Empire, it's going to take on a Turkish flavor in a similar way to how the formerly Latin empire became decidedly Greek in language and culture.

 

[stevep]

not sure that that's a strawman, but I do know that that's not a thing to answer.

If a strawman its yours.

the neighbors of the Pygmies (another group regarded as primitive) aren't Muslim.

So?

so...who do you regard as Primitive, so I know how to answer?

Good question. I think it would depend on the reference to the word. I.e. you can have different cultures that are primative or advanced in different ways. A society could be technologically primative but highly advanced in other ways.

In one way its a bit of a mute point. Does it matter if a culture is 'primative' or 'advanced' if its destroyed by another?

Steve

 

[stevep]

It could have the same (or vaguely similar) ending point, but the road would be very different...because it would be operating under a different structure -- as would, for example, a Hindu empire in the exact same physical space.

Isn't that the point were been debating for most of this thread? That you can get to a point by more than one route.

Steve

 

[stevep]

without algebra, doesn't a lot of mathmatics go up in smoke?

Yes but why is Islam an essential pre-request for algebra? Rather than it being the cultural sphere where much of its development occurred? The examples I gave after this point were to point out the flaw in that uniqueness argument. Strangely you accepted them but not the same argument here.

not disputing that...otherwise I'd have to reply to two dozen (at least) other threads.

Then why dispute a parallel point.

the Mayans had the most sophisticated astronomical knowledge on Earth...did they have a theory of gravity? (I'm honestly asking - I haven't been reading much about them lately)

Pass. Don't know either. However a lot to ancient and later cultures had sophisticated astronomical knowledge. Why do you presume only one culture could develop a theory of gravity? [Which is the parallel with your argument for the uniqueness of Islam in seeding a scientific revolution].

someone did, once, actually...the reply was that human rights exist in Islam, along with a form of democracy.

Would be interested to know what definition of human rights that was? Democracy is rather a vague term. Many states have had some aspects that could be called democratic. Most, including classical Islam would definitely not qualify under the current western meaning of the word. [I.e. religious, racial, sexual etc discrimination. Not to mention the excessive authority of certain figures based on either their family or their position. But again you accept my point on this so why insist on uniqueness elsewhere?

the concept did indeed exist in ancient Babylonia and Sumeria (which used Base 60) and Classical and Ancient India.

Just out of curiosity was that the full concept that Philip takes about?

but one reason why some civilizations (Christian Europe being just one example) abandoned the Zero by the wayside was a theological one: Zero means the absence of anything -- which in Christian theology (continuing the example) is an impossibility.

So? Europe could and did change its viewpoint. Or someone else without such a limitation could make the steps. I've not been arguing that the full scientific revolution could only occur in Europe. That's why I find it so strange that you insist only OTL Islam could generate the precursor.

analogy -
if I cut and cook a steak (only I use pig rather than cow), how many kosher- and halal-eating men and women can I serve at a restaurant?
non-analogy -

And if those people, through hunger, ignorance or whatever, ate the food would they be any less fed by the meal? They could refuse to eat if they knew what it was but that would be their choice. The fact they followed a certain dietary path means they are unwilling to eat the food not that they can not. [A different matter with people with allergies of course].

once the Roman Empire collapsed, western Europe didn't re-invent concrete for over a thousand years, despite being surrounded by many Roman-era things made from concrete.

heck, there are still things nowadays that we still have no idea how the original builders managed it.

Not sure I see the relevance of this? Knowledge can be lost, then possibly rediscovered in part or whole much later or elsewhere. That doesn't mean that only one particular culture can ever discover/develop a particular field of knowledge.

Steve

 

[Atom]

the Mayans had the written #0 six hundred years before then...and the Babylonians a millenia prior.

No the Babylonians had a placeholder, not a # zero. The Mayans started every month off with a 0 day, not a first day and viewed the nothing that is zero as a full number.

 

[Philip]

Pass. Don't know either. However a lot to ancient and later cultures had sophisticated astronomical knowledge. Why do you presume only one culture could develop a theory of gravity?

I don't know if the Mayans did or did not, but I would be surprised if they did. Newton's genius was that he supposed that objects interacted according to certain universal laws. Prior to this, the intellectual descendants of the Classical Greeks assumed that the motion of the planets was either caused by beings (God, angels, what have you) or by the nature of the object (the planet 'wants' to orbit). I don't know if the Mayan had the philosophical sophistication (for want of a better term) to do this. Of course, that doesn't mean the couldn't develop it given enough time.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I actually think a fully armed, operational Byzantium would be one of the few powers that could take on the Mongols and win. The empire was more or less designed to deal with threats of that sort.

My sense is probably. But it would have gone on for generations, and wound up bankrupting both sides. It also ignores what we mean when we talk about "empire": it's possible that the imperial heartland of Anatolia and the Balkans could have persisted even as places like Egypt fell to the Persians. Worst case scenario is that the boundaries never really settle down, and the Middle East and northern Africa keep switching hands every generation or so.

Harder to say, obviously. I want to say yes, but it'd be close. Like in OTL, even if the heart of the empire falls, I suspect Constantinople could ride most of it out.

From that perspective, things shouldn't really look that much different than OTL. Byzantium is reduced from continent-spanning empire to regional power. It may have a better chance of integrating the Turks, but even if it nominally remains the Roman Empire, it's going to take on a Turkish flavor in a similar way to how the formerly Latin empire became decidedly Greek in language and culture.

 

[Analytical Engine]

What would the Frankish Empire look like in such a scenario? Perhaps more of Spain?

 

[Calgacus]

I actually think a fully armed, operational Byzantium would be one of the few powers that could take on the Mongols and win. The empire was more or less designed to deal with threats of that sort.

You make it sound like the Death Star. "That's no moon - that's Constantinople"....

 

[Superdude]

"Many Persian spies died to give us this information"