One would think that humanity would not have a need for good random number generators until computers and simulations were invented since, for most practical purposes, tossing a coin or throwing a die should suffice us all. So you can imagine my surprise when I saw in this four to five thousand years old Chinese divination book called I Ching a RNG algorithm that reminds modern Linear Congruential Generators! But why the need for such a complex procedure to render random numbers?
The I Ching divination process requires to randomly select two trigrams via a rather convoluted process using either stems of Artemisia or Yarrow. And although I acquired this ancestral book a long, long, time ago, truth is that when reading it as an oracle I always used the simplified version for lazy busy people consisting in simply tossing three coins and checking the combination of heads and tails.
I always thought that the traditional form was just a magical way to do the same thing that we can do by tossing three coins, but today, for no particular reason that having too much free time in my hands, I gave a deeper mathematical look to this traditional form and it turns out that it renders a complete different random result that tossing three coins!
Well, a mathematical curiosity you might think, but does it matter? It might! Millions of people seek advice using the simplified coin version to render the I Ching Yin Yang oracles. In this post I will show how the three coins method yields an equal proportion on Old Yin and Old Yang oracles signs whereas the traditional method yields three times more Old Yang signs than Old Yin!
This means that The I Ching, in its traditional form to draw oracles, promotes Yang behaviour over Yin, that is, it promotes among its users action, imagination, creativity, strength whereas, nowadays, with the simplified three coin version, the active and passive answers are even out.
I am not a sinologist nor a psychologist so I cannot really tell what version would have a better influence among practitioners lives, but I know though that the traditional form promotes Yang among those seeking advice which, at first glance, seems like a positive thing to do and, since this book is used by millions of people, maybe experts in the field should advice to practitioners not to use three coins anymore when using the I Ching. For those interested in having a traditionally sound oracle in terms of probability, I will show a few simple ways to achieve just that at the end of this post.
This book has impressed mathematicians like Leibniz, psychologists like Jung, poets like Jorge Luis Borges and all kind of intellectuals all over the world for centuries. And regardless you believe or not whether it has magical properties, what is certain is that it has deep psychological sapiential ones. This is not only the oldest book in human history, but a beautiful one. So, before we plunge into the mathematical details of the traditional algorithm to draw oracles, let’s share this poem from Borges about the I Ching to break the ice.
For a Version of I Ching | Para una versión del I King |
The future is as immutable As rigid yesterday. There is nothing That is no more than a single, silent letter In the eternal and inscrutable Writing whose book is time. He who walks away From home has already come back. Our life Is a future and well-traveled track. Nothing dismisses us. Nothing leaves us. Do not give up. The prison is dark, Its fabric is made of incessant iron, But in some corner of your cell You might discover a mistake, a cleft. The path is fatal as an arrow But God is in the rifts, waiting. |
El porvenir es tan irrevocable |
Artemisia / Yarrow vs Three Coins
We will now compare the results from the traditional Artemisia / Yarrow method to obtain the two I Ching oracle trigrams as explain by Richard Wilhelm in his The I Ching: The book of changes with those from the simplified coin version described in the same book.
The Three Coins
For the coin version we toss three coins six times and we build an hexagram from bottom up with the following correspondence and probabilities:
- Three heads: Old Yang (9) (Pr = 2/16)
- Two head: Young Yang (8) (Pr = 6/16)
- Two tails: Young Yin (7) (Pr = 6/16)
- Three tails: Old Yin (6) (Pr = 2/16)
Every hexagram has a meaning and if it contains Old Yang or Old Yin lines which meaning is extended by the I Ching with further advises. In this case, the Old Yin / Yang extension is done evenly with the same probability (2/16) when using three coins.
The Artemisia / Yarrow
This ancient method consists in dividing three times into two groups a set of 50 stems of Artemisia or Yarrow. At each division a calculation is done, a number of stems are left out and the process is repeated. For a complete human language explanation of the process I highly recommend you Mr. Richard Wilhelm translation of the I Ching, but next you can see this process in the more precise and concise R language.
The previous R function returns six Yin Yang elements coded from 6 to 9 following the traditional method to obtain I Ching hexagrams as explained by Richard Wilhelm.
Seems clear to me that the intention in this procedure is to randomly choose at each step a number from 1 to 4 by applying a modular arithmetic process at each division, but the algorithm does not exactly calculates that since, when expanding all possible solutions, there is a tiny bias towards 4(3) results. So if we ignore this tiny bias the probability tree the algorithm generates for each Yin Yang code sign follows:
The final probabilities in this tree imply the following Yin Yang sign probability distribution
So if we now compare the Artemisia / Yarrow Yin Yang probabilities with those rendered by tossing three coins we have:
- Old Yin Young Yang Young Yin Old Yang
- Artemisia / Yarrow: 1/16 5/16 7/16 3/16
- Three Coins: 2/16 6/16 6/16 2/16
So both methods return equal probabilities for each hexagram since we have a 50/50 chance to have a Yin or a Yang sign, but we don’t have the same probabilities for their interpretations.
The traditional method clearly favors Yang interpretations of the hexagrams which makes the coin procedure a bad alternative for an accurate reading of the I Ching as intended by they ancient Chinese who developed the method and, if we consider how this book is being use all over the world, it might not be a bad idea to stop using the three coins procedure in favor of the traditional one since the later promotes more positive and active interpretations of the hexagrams.
Questions
Now, I wondered a number of questions about why this procedure is the way it is, so unless some sinologist in the room says otherwise I am going to make some “common sense” assumptions.
Why the use of stems instead wood sticks?
The use of stems instead straight wood sticks might be due to avoid getting a feeling of the sticks and getting always a desired result (similar to what might happen with a deck of cards). the gnarled stems with its different widths help to prevent such bias and increase the randomness of the process.
Why 50 stems of Artemisia / Yarrow?
why 50 stems when the first step is to discard one? Well it could be magical reasons but it could also be an algorithmic left over reason since, at each of the three divisions, one stem is discarded. Another reason could be that it also increases the randomness of the process; by discarding a different stem each time it becomes more difficult to get a “feeling” of the stems and unconsciously obtain desired results.
Why Those uneven probabilities?
I would say it has to do with numerology, the proportions for Yin and Yang signs yield by the algorithm are represented by the first four prime numbers, that is, 1, 3, 5 and 7. Ancient Chinese might have noticed that 1+7 = 5+3 and associate this mathematical property with the Yin and Yang equilibrium in the universe. Once this is set the probabilities for the Old Yang and Old Yin are also set and they decided for a higher degree of action among those using the I Ching.
Why 3 COINS as alternative?
Obviously the Artemisia / Yarrow process is overly complicated, but I don’t know why the alternative chosen to simplify the process were the three coins version since they clearly change the I Ching oracles. Did those developing the alternative knew what they were doing? Was is just a way for lay people to use the book without much hassle and they did not care? Any sinologist comment is more than welcome!
Alternatives to Artemisia / Yarrow than render traditional Hexagrams
Anyhow, now I will explain a few alternatives that return proper traditional sign probability hexagrams, let’s begin with my favorite one
The one coin + one 8 sided die
This is my favorite alternative both, for its simplicity and its beauty.
For this alternative we simply need to first toss a coin; if we have tails (0) that means Yin, if we have heads (1) that means Yang.
Then we throw the 8 sided die to determine if the Yin or Yang sign is old or young. If we do so we have the following 16 possible outcomes:
0,1 – Old Yin 0,2 – Yin 0,3 – Yin 0,4 – Yin 0,5 – Yin 0,6 – Yin 0,7 – Yin 0,8 – Yin |
1,1 – Yang 1,2 – Yang 1,3 – Yang 1,4 – Yang 1,5 – Yang 1,6 – Old Yang 1,7 – Old Yang 1,8 – Old Yang |
Now we simply have to throw the die six times, build the hexagram from bottom up and that’s it, enjoy your traditional I Ching oracle hexagram!
The four coins
Okay, let’s say we don’t want to buy a die and we only have coins. Then we can still use coins to render properly traditional probability sound hexagrams. For this alternative we need to toss four coins all at once and read from left to right being heads (1) and tails (0), we have 16 possible outcomes:
0000 – Old Yin 0001 – Yin 0010 – Yin 0011 – Yin 0100 – Yin 0101 – Yin 0110 – Yin 0111 – Yin |
1000 – Yang 1001 – Yang 1010 – Yang 1011 – Yang 1100 – Yang 1101 – Old Yang 1110 – Old Yang 1111 – Old Yang |
As an alternative, instead reading from left to right we can also have 4 different coins and assign each a position from 1 to 4. We could also toss four times one coin for each sign but that would make a grand total of 24 tosses per hexagram which, if you ask me, is a bit of a mood killer, but the choices are out there if we need them.
The one 16 sided die
One simple way to do so would be to use a 16 side die and then associate its side numbers as follow.
- 1 : Old Yin
- 2 – 6 : Yang
- 7 – 13 : Yin
- 14 – 16 : Old Yang
Another perhaps more aesthetically pleasant distribution of numbers would be to place all the Yin possibilities (1 + 7) at the top of the bi-pyramid and all the Yang (5 + 3) a the bottom.
The two four sided die
If you happen to have two four sided dies then the procedure is similar to the 4 coins alternative; for the two dice we simply throw the two 4 sided dice and we read the outcomes from left to right. And just like in the case with the coins we could also have two different dice and assign each a position so we don’t have to worry about the order. These are the 16 possible outcomes:
1,1 – Old Yin 1,2 – Yin 1,3 – Yin 1,4 – Yin 2,1 – Yin 2,2 – Yin 2,3 – Yin 2,4 – Yin |
3,1 – Yang 3,2 – Yang 3,3 – Yang 3,4 – Yang 4,1 – Yang 4,2 – Old Yang 4,3 – Old Yang 4,4 – Old Yang |
Looking for dices I found an amazing web page where we can buy dices, coins and many other beautiful designs thanks to the magic of 3D printers. Just for you to know.
Anyhow, happy traditional choice!
Related articles
- the book of changes (chelmsfordtaichi.wordpress.com)
- I-Ching and Carl Jung (holizon.wordpress.com)
- Mad Men and the i-Ching (thestarryeye.typepad.com)
- 10 Historical Books With Far Reaching Effects (listverse.com)
- The I Ching: A Biography (uselesstree.typepad.com)
- Tao Te Ching 17: The Art of Leadership (beyondthedream.co.uk)
- Tai Chi Chuan and Ancient Chinese Philosophy (interactchina.wordpress.com)
- Fortune telling, the hidden side of doing business in China you may have ignored (teabreakchina.wordpress.com)
- Heated Debate Over 5000-year-old Chinese Inscriptions (medindia.net)
Wow, that’s in depth.
yes, i was about to say the same thing! very well done!
Thank you guys. I really like this book and when I found out about the Yin Yang probability imbalance I got all excited. 🙂
Wow fascinating exhaustive article, bookmarked for future reference. I have used the I Ching several times in the past and even have a (don’t laugh) I Ching app on my iphone!
I bet you the app’s got the probabilities wrong too! 😛
Probabilities is maybe too much coincidental outcome versus magical existence..
A worth-reading post. I never thought of the probability associated with each “yao” or “yiao.” (http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/Chinese_Customs/bagua.htm)!
I am not sure what the Artemisia method is. However, I’ve derived a different probability distribution for the yarrow method described here – http://www.eheart.com/yarrow/use.html. The probability of getting 4 or 8 on the second and third “changes” is not 1/2. I might be wrong. I need to double check my reasoning later.
The Yarrow method uses Achillea millefolium, Richard Wilhelm translation mentions Achillea and Artemisia, so basically it is the same traditional method using different stems. Maye I should update the post with both kind of stems, thanks for mentioning.
The link at eheart basically describes the same method found in Richard Wilhelm translation, they also realized that the probability of getting a changing yin line (Old Yin in Whilhem translation) is smaller but they don’t go further.
About you having different probabilities, in the post I mentionted.
So it is not exactly 1/2, maybe this is why you have different results? but if you think about the procedure I would say it is quite obvious that 1/2 was the intention, in fact, if the number of stems grows to infinity the bias disappears and the probability converges to 1/2.
I did not calculate it but perhaps there is a larger number of stems that would remove the tiny bias without going to infinity? In any case ancient Chinese probably considered practical issues and thought that 50 stems was a good enough approximation.
Thanks for your comment JH 🙂
After the first “change,” there will be 40 or 44 sticks left. Removing one stick from one of the piles, there are, e.g., 39 left altogether. The possible remainder combinations are (1,2), (2,1), (3, 4) and (4,3). I made a mistake thin inking the third possibility as (3, 0), temporarily forgetting that four sticks are set aside when the remainder is zero in this case.
Anyway, yes, if we write out all possible ways of dividing the sticks, the probabilities are not exactly 3/4-1/4 and 1/2-1/2.
Thanks for your reply.
The link to Leibniz takes one to Jung. Minor error. Enjoyed your post.
“This book has impressed mathematicians like Leibniz, psychologist like Jung, poets like Jorge Luis Borges and all kind of intellectuals all over the world for centuries. And regardless you believe or not whether it has magical properties, what is certain is that it has deep psychological sapiential ones. This is not only the oldest book in human history, but a beautiful one.”
Thanks John!
I use a simple method to maintain the probabilities.
I have 16 marbles 1 Red (Old Yin) 3 Yellow (Old Yang) 5 Green (Yang) and 7 Blue (Yin)
Pick them one at a time and return to dish and pick the next etc etc. for the 6 lines.
You can of course vary the colours provided you keep to the ratios.
That one works too! Thanks for sharing Michael.
Hi,
I run http://www.iching.pl website based on 3 coin method algoritm. It’s been 9 years and I have collected over 3.000.000 questions and answers in form of 678967. Your article surprised me and I’d like to change my algoritm to yarrow to see how the results will change … thanks for inspiration!!!
Cheers
Wojtek
Oh wow! I am very happy you found my article useful. Thank you very much Wojtek for letting us know!
Great article. Where can I get one of those 8 sided dice? Many thanks.
Thanks Peter. I found my examples here: http://www.shapeways.com/search?q=dice
Have fun!
Nice! The study of the I Ching, and its methods is quite interesting
Maybe interetsed in a survey of various methods to generate pseudo-random numbers and their quality. Take a look here http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/d.jones/GoodPracticeRNG.pdf for an example
Another reference i came up recently since this is part of some studies i do as well, by physicist-biologist S. Petoukhov, which relates the DNA bases and biological symbolic alphabet to the trigrams and hexagrams of the I Ching, and the dualities of Yin/Yang. Quite interesting, and not only for random generation!
GENETIC CODE AND THE ANCIENT CHINESE BOOK OF CHANGES
Sergei V. Petoukhov (1999) (http://jean-yves.boulay.pagesperso-orange.fr/rap/eng/pagepetoukhov.html)
https://urbanshakedowns.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/pethoukhov.pdf
Specificaly i quote:
Cool!
Thanks for the interesting article. A couple of things I would like to add:
1) We don’t know for sure what exact yarrow stalk method was used by divination officials in late Shang and Early Zhou times. It is quite possible it was much different then the 12th century Zhu Xi explanation which is official today (please see more about that here: http://www.biroco.com/yijing/prob.htm).
2) It is very likely coin method has been in use much longer and has been used much more frequently than the yarrow stalk method.
3) But the most important question is: does it really matter? I think it does not really matter too much because even though we call it a random selection of the lines/hexagrams the basic idea is that cast hexagram IS NOT RANDOM because it must give meaningful answer to the question asked. Otherwise we would accept basic premise that any given hexagram and any given moving line would equally well “answer” the question. Which I do not believe is true.
4) Probability in favour of more yang lines would not imply inherent logic of Yi Jing oracle is towards action. it just means that one would (on average, when used in the context of large numbers) get more yang moving lines which in turn may mean anything.
5) If you toss a coin 5 million times on average you will get 2.5 million heads and 2.5 million tails however if you flip the coin only one time this coin will act as if no coin was ever flipped before and no coin will be flipped after. In my opinion traditional statistical probabilities make sense only in the context of large numbers. As we know we do not cast Yi Jing hexagrams 5 million times for one question therefore all those probabilities have very relative meaning.
Cheers!
Thank you very much for your points, they are really interesting! Let me comment them briefly here:
1) Even if we don’t know the original method at least we know that the scholars in the Zhou dynasty decided to hold the yarrow stalk method as official.
2) According to the author of the link you posted “Although yarrow divination is mentioned in the Zuozhuan, a chronicle of the period 722–468 BCE, the actual procedure is not described in that text.” also “Tradition holds that Wang Xu, a Daoist recluse, invented the coin tossing method in the 4th century BCE.”
So we have a chronicle vs a tradition holds, you can make your source choice. What I can believe and I would agree with you is that the average person would not want to use the yarrow stalk for being overly complicated and that they would use the simplest tossing coin procedure.
3) I will disagree on this point with you. It is random, if it wasn’t you would always get the same anagram for the same question which is not the case, or opposite answers for opposite questions which is not the case either. What is not random is our interpretation.
4) Well, again, the Zhou scholars decided that the yarrow stalk procedure was a sound logic for the Oracle, I am not a scholar myself so I can’t really tell otherwise. Also, if the practitioner associates Yang with action and Yin with caution, which I would say is a reasonable association, then yes, having a larger proportion of moving Yang means something in my opinion.
5) The inference process that goes from the general to the particular is called deduction, and this is precisely the inference process Probability Theory is good for. Tossing a coin is one of this particular cases.
Thanks again Zhouoracle!
We use two coins:
We throw first and then the other coin out system:
HH Yin (old)
HT Yin
TH Yang
TT Yang (old)
1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 = 1
Equally and fairly.
i think the whole point of the discussion here is whether these probabilities, faithfuly represent the sample space. Based on the analysis by Fran on the yarrow-stalk method vs 3-coins method (or 2-coins method), this would not be so. In other words, the sample space may indeed have more old yin or old yang items than new yin / new yang. This is the whole point, and in this sense the yarrow-stalk method would indeed faithfuly sample and represent the event space, than the other methods.
One possible justification for that would be that since things change (after all this IS the book of changes), it would mean that under any circumstamces changing lines should appear more frequently than non-changing lines and so on. So I Ching places a (justified) emphasis on changing lines, more than non-changing lines (this coupled with the fact that we are talking about trigrams/hexagrams and so on)
Sorry, minor correction, the rationale of having more new yin / new yang than old yin / old yang, is related to being a faithful reperesentation of the underlying event space. A possible justification for this distribution has to do with the whole theory behind the I Ching and how changes happen and what they represent.
Hi, Nikosmos!
Why not 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 1/4
instead of 3/16 + 5/16 + 5/16 + 3/16.
Tell me, why not!
It may very well be 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4. The I Ching has a theory behind it which relates trigrams, hexagrams and the like into a representation. Associated to this theory, which we do not know very well (inspite some “new-agers” claiming otherwise), is the method to sample the event space in order to generate hexagrams for a given situation.
In this sense and given Fran’s analysis in this post, it is plausible the yarrow-stalk method (given the theory of the I Ching), indeed faithfuly represents and samples the event space. One may choose to sample the event space differently, it does not guarantee faithful sampling though (unbiased sampling if you like), unless one can justify it based on the (theory of the) I Ching itself. And since this theory is not exactly known, one can say that based on the I Ching and the documented yarrow-stalk method, this most probably matches the (largely unknown) theory of the I Ching itself on the event space and how to sample it correctly.
Also note that ancient Chinese were very good number-theorists among other things (e.g the chinese remainder theorem), and probably knew enough methods of sampling. Using a method for a specific purpose, should have a meaning (assuming the yarrow-stalk method was indeed used as documented) This was my comment.
Additionaly have in mind that the I Ching, like other (sacred) books of the east, has in its writing and content, a codified multiplexed context. This in simple terms means that the same text can represent multiple (note, simultaneously compatible and valid) associations which unfold based on external data and stimuli. This extra data (or decipher code if you like, what i refered to as the theory behind the I Ching in the previous comment) are usualy provided on initiation, which further unlocks the whole meaning that has been codified (if this is the case of course) into the text.
So, one thing the article glosses over is that, when taking a reading, you look at your old lines as changing and they flip to the other line. If you have moving lines, the hexagram you pick is supposed to represent the current situation. The moving lines each have an interpretation associated with them that reflects the things changing in the situation and how to get to the solution. This leads to an end-state hexagram that represents where things are going.
The yarrow stalk method gives you the same number of ying (passive, feminine, receptive) & yang (active, masculine, creative) lines. This means that the chance of finding a *starting* hexagram to describe the situation is equal. It gives you more old ying lines than old yang lines – lines that flip – so the *ending* situation and the steps to get there favor a more active approach to problems.
Hi Fran nikosms,
thank you for your comments – all of them make sense and you might be right on all points, I do not claim monopoly on the truth when it comes to Yi Jing or anything else for that matter 🙂 However since I enjoy civilized and intelligent discussions I will add a few more lines:
1) Even though Yi Jing (as a text and way of thinking) pre-dates yin-yang theory for many years I still believe yin yang paradigm is inseparable from the Yi Jing logic. In this context one can see randomness as yin and deliberate/intentional choice as yang. They form a pair as any other yin and yang pair (such as for example fate/destiny vs free will). One of the axioms of yin-yang theory is that those two (yin and yang) always come in pairs, they are inseparable, one may be dominant but the other one is always there. For that reason I believe that any method we choose (coin method, yarrow stalk method or any other method) must have an element of randomness just to “immobilize” our ego/mind (yang) and unleash what I would call subconscious faculties (yin) which basically lead us to the answers however I would have REALLY hard time accepting that answers we get are totally random because that would imply that yin exists without yang which is not possible.
2) Statement “It is random, if it wasn’t you would always get the same anagram for the same question which is not the case” and “it is plausible the yarrow-stalk method (given the theory of the I Ching), indeed faithfuly represents and samples the event space” totally make sense and may very well be true however they sound an awful lot like a children of the scientific paradigm where repeatability (of an experiment) is the only valid proof of objective truth and existence of the phenomenon being investigated. As already stated Yi Jing is the book of CHANGES, expectations that we confirm validity of the given answer by drawing the same hexagram two (or more) times in a row comes from a different (scientific) “cognitive space”. Yes, “sample of events space” as nikosms put it does play a role, I would agree, however I must repeat my original statement – I do not believe one or the other sample of event space would critically affect efficacy of any given method. Why? because it is not all about randomness as I elaborated in the previous point.
3) Concept that one method may “more faithfully represent sample space” then any other given method leads us again to the same dilemma: are those methods themselves random (yin) or they are carefully and deliberately selected by someone (yang)? Again I think they are both at the same time but I think yang is dominant – they are not totally random methods. For example it is well know that ancient Chinese knew about magic squares (3×3 and others) and probability of 1/16, 3/16, 5/16, 7/16 in Yi Jing numerology can be seen as 1/7, 3/7, 5/7, 7/7 somehow “make more sense” to me than coin method probabilities and it is quite possible that what Nikosms said is true however one thing I know about Chinese people is that they are and they have always been pragmatic: if coin method was inferior to yarrowstalk method they would not use it for so long which leads me to believe it is not all about the method.
And in conclusion I want to say this: although Yi Jing to most science-minded persons sounds like a pile of hocus-pocus nonsense Yi Jing is as scientific as it can get: ever since oracle bone times people asked important questions, oracle provided them with the answers and with the passage of times those answers were validated by the actual events. In other words everyone can test it: if you have an important question you are not sure about, ask the question, get the answer, wait, and see if the answer was correct or not. If answers you receive are nothing but random nonsense then don’t waste your time on Yi Jing. If however it turns out answers were highly insightful and useful and validated by the upcoming events then pay closer attention to it.
Cheers!
Bug, or oddity, in the R code there: when you start off with 48 in the left hand & 1 in the right you still end up moving 4 from the right hand to the middle finger. Your calculation does, however, preserve the 5,5,5,9 pattern for the total between your fingers as you increment the no. straws in the left-hand division. Still, no-one divides the straws so unevenly, do they? This engenders the reflection that the uniform distribution given by sample(1:(48-hand),1) is unrealistic: owing to the patterns 5,5,5,9 at the first division, & 4,4,8,8 at subsequent divisions, the probability model you’ve shown, rather than exhibiting a “tiny bias” compared to the true model, might be seen as a reasonable approximation to a range of plausible models for how real people divide real bunches of straws.
Or to put it another way, if the intent is, as you suggest, to obtain probabilities of 1/16, 3/16, 5/16, & 7/16, the yarrow-stalk method will be fairly robust to how different people divide different bunches of stalks; considering the exact probabilities when every possible division is assumed equally likely is something of a red herring.
I love the dice explanations! Thank you for this article!
Thanks for this explanation of the probabilities. I have been playing with the I Ching for thirty years and this was the m out complete and cogent discussion on the topic I have seen.
One method not mentioned here was recommended to me because though it is two coin based, it claims to reproduce the same probabilities as the yarrow stalk method. (I will leave it to the more statistically minded to confirm that claim.) Don’t be thrown off by the 2-coins aspect, as it also requires twelve tosses, two per line.
The method is described here, among other places: https://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/learn/ways-to-consult-the-i-ching/2-coins/
Thank you again.
I believe you are correct Andy; they way you do it is a clever way to travel with two coins the probability tree that you can find in this post.
A bit convoluted for my taste since you’re forced to do some calculations but, hey, it renders the correct yarrow stalk probabilities all right. Thank you very much for sharing!
Your randomness theory fits well with ‘The Bicameral Mind’ by Julian Jaynes.
It’s a while since I read it, but Jaynes suggests various forms of Divination (including the iChing) were taken seriously for thousands of years in all spheres of life in nearly every culture from Ancient Greece to China.
The common thread seem to involve some random pattern that allows a ‘Eureka’ moment of creative interpretation that relates to whatever your particular problem is.
The iChings answers are often vague or metaphorical, but your brain instantly applies them to your own situation. Similarly if you opened a Bible or Koran (or any significantly weighty text) while thinking of a current problem and pointed at a random stanza, your (bicameral) brain switches into gear to interpret it to your situation.