Month, Day: 167, Sovereignty, Words (Grace)
This continues the discussion, started in the last post, about what the Writings might mean for science and whether science has shown anything in the Writings to be false. To wit: evolution and ether. The motivation? Apologetic stances, from certain positions, that are unnecessary.
---
There has to be some attention put upon the context. For instance, the Master (hereinafter, M2) is the son of the Manifestation (hereinafter, M1); the M1 appearance is a cyclic phenomenon of a period of about 1000 years. Hence, M2, by definition and realization, would have cognitive, to use the modern parlance, and other abilities of which we can only imagine.
Too, the whole cyclic theme accompanies increasing abilities (obviously observable - what is controversial? from whence this?). Let's just leave it there, for now.
Now, 'ether' has many connotations, one of which was used by the physicists in their tests. Yet, is not Light an attribute? But, did it play in the scheme? Well, we'll leave that, for now, too.
Consider advances such as those that allow us to know how to 'lift' content (however described, even though geometrically (via algebra) is the state of the art) from one space into another of a higher-order, again we'll use dimensional, for now. As, whatever mathematics lifts out is a metaphor for something, in many cases ('abstract nonsense' may be more than mere diatribe cast'd by the ignorant).
We do have this notion that something needs to be computational (either by offering insight or by being operationally effective), perhaps that relates to the emphasis on action in the Writings of M1. After all, does not the Koran say that God is the most speedy reckoner of all those who reckon (paraphrase, of course)? What M1 brought was the condition, of the current times, that allows us the potential for the artificial reckoner of unknown boundedness (see the 4th Valley: The first is His statement: “O My Servant! Obey Me and I shall make thee like unto Myself. I say ‘Be,’ and it is, and thou shalt say ‘Be,’ and it shall be.” ).
Hint here, folks! Some already point to 'dark energy' and other factors (equation'als) that fudge the system into convergence. And, there are many of these, as that is the key to the technique. The cleverness relates directly to that which allows the lift.
At which point will God (as neither the lifter nor that which is lifted) be accepted so that the insights can grow in the directions that will be required?
As an aside, Lamark was drummed out of town. Know what? Many of the techniques that relate to naturally-framed computational approaches use methods that are not unlike the basic notion of Lamark. Oh course, who cares as it's only within the abstracted, and for the most part unseen, virtual spaces associated with computational states, and the decisions thereof.
Why mention this? There is no means possible for M2 to be thus drummed. Now, does that mean that we can compute anything in the Writings? Well, M1, and M2, did not use mathematics. Ever think of why (hint! quasi-empiricism)?
So, we can continue to attend to M2's comments related to evolution, recapitulation, et al, in a spirit 'lifting' manner.
...
Remarks:
05/26/2011 -- A 'super' position can have merit.
04/04/2011 -- We'll be looking at things like foreknowledge.
03/17/2011 -- Just as St. Patrick carried the message, so too ought we act to bring forth a proper viewpoint.
03/11/2011 -- Teleological (Mercy), Operational (Names)
02/24/2011 -- Continuation of the theme.
01/25/2011 -- Note, please, that the continuances of the discussion will use concepts, such as the above, to illustrate how being (as in, to be) is squished via projections (somewhat, an inverse of the lift), trampled by lifts, and just all around abused. That is problematic and counter to a more full science.
Modified: 05/26/2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
The Master
Month, Day: 167, Honour, Loftiness (Grace)
Month, Day: 167, Sovereignty, Splendour (Justice)
There has been some discussion about what the Writings might mean for science and whether science has shown anything in the writings to be false. To wit: evolution and ether.
The issue, as stated in a paper: The problem of disharmony between scripture and science is rooted in an unwarranted misattribution of scriptural inerrancy.
There is much to discuss here, but the Aqdas sequence from #174 (about Abdu'l-Bahá's role infallibility) through #188 are apropos. Take, for instance, #182: Immerse yourselves in the ocean of My words, that ye may unravel its secrets, and discover all the pearls of wisdom that lie hid in its depths.
Does it not make a suggestion to us? As said before, science is never about infallibility. Too, what bit of textual material, constructed by humans (oh yes, that includes mathematics), subsumes creation?
Granted, some worldviews seem to think that they are complete. That is, the manner of expression seems to convey authoritative (pontificate) assurance. Yet do we not know that we cannot have completeness and consistency concurrently? There are many ways to describe this.
So, for now, putting evolution aside, we saw this remark by the Master in the SAQ (#48): If we wish to deny everything that is not sensible, then we must deny the realities which unquestionably exist. For example, ethereal matter is not sensible, though it has an undoubted existence. The power of attraction is not sensible, though it certainly exists. From what do we affirm these existences? From their signs. Thus this light is the vibration of that ethereal matter, and from this vibration we infer the existence of ether.
As mentioned in an earlier post, the Master knew what he was talking about. Light is more than a physical phenomenon. It is one of the Attributes which are celebrated through the year.
The Master was the son of the Manifestation, thereby inheriting insights for which we have no understanding. Too, the Master knew that his audience was going to persist through time.
...
Remarks:
08/01/2012 --Ether, in a manner that is unavoidably true. Our task? Show how to handle the matter from a scientific (the wise interpretation, okay?) framework. And, audacity is not necessary.
03/17/2011 -- Just as St. Patrick carried the message, so too ought we act to bring forth a proper viewpoint.
01/25/2011 -- Continued in the next post.
Modified: 08/01/2012
Month, Day: 167, Sovereignty, Splendour (Justice)
There has been some discussion about what the Writings might mean for science and whether science has shown anything in the writings to be false. To wit: evolution and ether.
The issue, as stated in a paper: The problem of disharmony between scripture and science is rooted in an unwarranted misattribution of scriptural inerrancy.
There is much to discuss here, but the Aqdas sequence from #174 (about Abdu'l-Bahá's role infallibility) through #188 are apropos. Take, for instance, #182: Immerse yourselves in the ocean of My words, that ye may unravel its secrets, and discover all the pearls of wisdom that lie hid in its depths.
Does it not make a suggestion to us? As said before, science is never about infallibility. Too, what bit of textual material, constructed by humans (oh yes, that includes mathematics), subsumes creation?
Granted, some worldviews seem to think that they are complete. That is, the manner of expression seems to convey authoritative (pontificate) assurance. Yet do we not know that we cannot have completeness and consistency concurrently? There are many ways to describe this.
So, for now, putting evolution aside, we saw this remark by the Master in the SAQ (#48): If we wish to deny everything that is not sensible, then we must deny the realities which unquestionably exist. For example, ethereal matter is not sensible, though it has an undoubted existence. The power of attraction is not sensible, though it certainly exists. From what do we affirm these existences? From their signs. Thus this light is the vibration of that ethereal matter, and from this vibration we infer the existence of ether.
As mentioned in an earlier post, the Master knew what he was talking about. Light is more than a physical phenomenon. It is one of the Attributes which are celebrated through the year.
The Master was the son of the Manifestation, thereby inheriting insights for which we have no understanding. Too, the Master knew that his audience was going to persist through time.
...
Remarks:
08/01/2012 --Ether, in a manner that is unavoidably true. Our task? Show how to handle the matter from a scientific (the wise interpretation, okay?) framework. And, audacity is not necessary.
03/17/2011 -- Just as St. Patrick carried the message, so too ought we act to bring forth a proper viewpoint.
01/25/2011 -- Continued in the next post.
Modified: 08/01/2012
Thursday, January 6, 2011
All of the king's men (er, Drs)
Month, Day: 167, Honour, Words (Majesty)
Continuing with the theme of enlightenment, one focus has been on the Manifestation, what the realization of this might bring to an operational stance (read, science), and how much we can attempt to know of the Living Book (see Aqdas Notes #155).
In this regard, the Faith & Science page seems a little hesitant. But, audacity worries not about appearing stupid. Remember, the role of the autodidact does not require recognition of the elite minds (naturally, there will be some of the brights who might have some resonance with the message) in order to be truthful and useful (not arguing a strictly utilitarian stance, either).
As in this, the whole collection of Drs (who approximate the state (SAQ #45, pg 174: Therefore, the skilled doctor does what he wishes, and the patients have no share in this right.) from an acquisition, not gift, framework) across all time and space (Hidden Words #40, Arabic)) do not (cannot) equal Revelation. However, how are we to know given our limits?
Well, one might consider that a good quasi-empirical stance would allow that conjectures, currently labeled as quack, may have some basis. Methinks that the growing prowess of whatever is behind the web will support many types of experiments that were hitherto without any hope of attention.
Now, it was mentioned, in one paper, that the Guardian said that he was not infallible in regard to science. One way to look at that is this: science is not ever to be infallible, even if the viewer/observer may think themselves so. Science may try to know and understand being, and the scientist is a being; BUT, science is not 'being' except as it may reflect on some state of knowing of a sentient being.
Of course, there are, too, the issues dealt with by information theory.
So, yes, too much emphasis on the inerrant nature of the Writings is not correct. Too, any limits on the writing and the reading reflects naught on the Living Book's message, but does say something about the media and ourselves.
We know that we have had the Book (several, in fact), always. For many reasons, the Living Book's influence has not been allowed into the discussions dealing with philosophy of science.
There are many unsupported claims held by scientists, though they will not admit this. That is, any intelligent human has metaphysical rumblings. It is human nature to be thusly opinion'd, despite that underdetermination lurks. Are these, by necessity, of no use to the practice?
That our whole worldview is so computationally framed ought to make this obvious. Yet, we see grand pronouncements about what is and about the various schemes involved that it is no wonder that the general public might be confused.
So, as said before, the UHJ has a role in this. We'll conjecture on that, in the near future.
Remarks:
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/09/2011 -- We need a constructive re-look.
Modified: 05/17/2011
Continuing with the theme of enlightenment, one focus has been on the Manifestation, what the realization of this might bring to an operational stance (read, science), and how much we can attempt to know of the Living Book (see Aqdas Notes #155).
In this regard, the Faith & Science page seems a little hesitant. But, audacity worries not about appearing stupid. Remember, the role of the autodidact does not require recognition of the elite minds (naturally, there will be some of the brights who might have some resonance with the message) in order to be truthful and useful (not arguing a strictly utilitarian stance, either).
As in this, the whole collection of Drs (who approximate the state (SAQ #45, pg 174: Therefore, the skilled doctor does what he wishes, and the patients have no share in this right.) from an acquisition, not gift, framework) across all time and space (Hidden Words #40, Arabic)) do not (cannot) equal Revelation. However, how are we to know given our limits?
Well, one might consider that a good quasi-empirical stance would allow that conjectures, currently labeled as quack, may have some basis. Methinks that the growing prowess of whatever is behind the web will support many types of experiments that were hitherto without any hope of attention.
Now, it was mentioned, in one paper, that the Guardian said that he was not infallible in regard to science. One way to look at that is this: science is not ever to be infallible, even if the viewer/observer may think themselves so. Science may try to know and understand being, and the scientist is a being; BUT, science is not 'being' except as it may reflect on some state of knowing of a sentient being.
Of course, there are, too, the issues dealt with by information theory.
So, yes, too much emphasis on the inerrant nature of the Writings is not correct. Too, any limits on the writing and the reading reflects naught on the Living Book's message, but does say something about the media and ourselves.
We know that we have had the Book (several, in fact), always. For many reasons, the Living Book's influence has not been allowed into the discussions dealing with philosophy of science.
There are many unsupported claims held by scientists, though they will not admit this. That is, any intelligent human has metaphysical rumblings. It is human nature to be thusly opinion'd, despite that underdetermination lurks. Are these, by necessity, of no use to the practice?
That our whole worldview is so computationally framed ought to make this obvious. Yet, we see grand pronouncements about what is and about the various schemes involved that it is no wonder that the general public might be confused.
So, as said before, the UHJ has a role in this. We'll conjecture on that, in the near future.
Remarks:
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/09/2011 -- We need a constructive re-look.
Modified: 05/17/2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
