Image of God

Month, Day: 179, Knowledge, Honour (Perfection) 

My theme is science and religion, principally with respect to computation and its important contributions to the theme. Science is abetted by computation; religion is not so much, except for the various types of suites of organizing systems. Both require humans to be at their best, in all ways. 

So, technical issues have been the center of attention. But, the other day, I talked to a Christian theologian whose study deals with the 'Image of God' from the Old Testament. I would add that the concept is also prominent in the Jewish religious thinking which fact I became more aware of lately due to my reading on Hasidic teachings. To my surprise, the whole of the worldview is quite powerful, allowing me some insight into the long years of patiently enduring the tests of living a Jewish life. 

Now, there had been reviews of the book by the theologian which covered the discussions over the ages, stressing several characters from my past such as Aquinas and Augustine from the past and others who are more recent whom I did not know of due to their being of the Protestant persuasion. Remarkedly, seeing that this work has continued was thrilling, since the pure technical view drains imagination and a lot more. 

But, it turns out that one of the Pontifical Universities of Rome published a view of the book which was even more a bunch of encouragement. In fact, that got me to realize that I need to now include theology (starting with a small 't') in my arguments with respect to science and religion where operational decisions are stressed as being of proper focus. 

Small 't' needs some explanation. Publicly, in the case of science, we cannot bring in big 'T' now and expect reasonable reactions. Let's talk that. We can, though, argue for approaches that will bridge, such as 'psychether' as a proposal,  more axiomatic than hypothetical. Of course, this approach is dealing with the harder views of science. The computer allows the subject to get attention. 

That is easily explained. Take AIn't with its mathematical basis. We would be better off lifting the technical material to public view even if it is altered for consumption. There would be nothing hidden as abstract views can always be wedded with their details (somewhat faithfully). Sufficient examples are extant after our two decades plus of the network-spawned modes. Again, lots to discuss here. 

But, after some pondering, diving into the Christian hermeneutics and other quarrel-raising methods without a safety net would be quite tedious, perhaps even unhealthy. So, what is there in Islam on the subject? Turns out to be lots and lots to consider. 

Example: The Image of God in the Qur'an. There are plenty of other examples, but my take on this is that using 'Image of Adam' would be without any controversy being raised. That is, God created Adam, and we are of Him. Mind you, the small 't' would require that all voices be heard. We have the ability now to do this which is a side-effect of truth engineering which is a natural consequence of taking proper action in this regard. 

But, what of Baha'i? Well, we have this, for an example: Prolegomena to a Bahá’í Theology. Okay. This is from 1992. Myself, I have worked independently for five decades and am ready to write some notes about the necessary studies for the purpose of helping people understand how complex systems (general sense, not that related to the 'butterfly effect' and variants to that theme). 

Which allows me to back up. What started all of this was going back to Kant whom I had not paid attention to since I found out about Baha'u'llah. And, immediately, a meme came up which extended one that I already had leading to this: AIn't can't Kant. Where the reference to Immanuel is multi-faceted. 

I will not apologize for the style that I am using having developed it to allow a spectral notion to be conveyed in the valley of those who like to fight over polarities that might not even be true. It's not poetry, either. Rather, the notion is that when we have computer systems supposedly beating people with word-based tests, something is wrong. Words is one of the attributes of God that are formulated through the means given us by the Bab for managing time-oriented events. 

Cutting this short, for now, but we can address all of the ramifications implied above. I am in my ninth decade and will work this as I can. I have decades of research. Something to note, perhaps, would be the recent discussions that reveal another bit of research over the same timeframe as mine. This has to do with psychedelic-based approaches to therapy. 

Another approach would use insights from working with the above themes with an explicit feed into the decision process, covering the totality of analytic and synthetic modes.  

---

Note: Part of our task is to look at the ways that people have dealt with the 'Image of God" issue. Holy Science is an example of one type of effective method.  

Remarks: 11/01/2022

10/31/2022 -- 

Technical spirit

Month, Day: 166, Names, Speech (Justice)

Earlier, we were a little secular. Now, let's be a little technical; how else to be operational?

The ACM Communication editor-in-chief (Moshe Y. Vardi) reminds us (The Financial Meltdown and Computing) that the current state of affairs in the economy has been heavily influenced by computation. And, computation is a new phenomenon, that is, that which is the manipulation of Light. The prowess has accelerated tremendously over the years with more promised.

As well, we have 'intelligence' emerging from several places. Reports like AI and hive mentality are commonplace. Day to day, the flow, and fruiting, of ideas runs at a fast, and seemingly never-ending, pace.

So, one has to wonder what all this might mean for audacity and more (He is the most accurate Reckoner (6:62)). That is, as we saw with Babel, how far can we go?

Well, a particular bit of theoretics suggests the answer: Not very far, even with the whole universe as the computer.

The ACM Communication also looked at The Status of the P versus NP Problem (P not equal to NP), recently. Suffice it to say, we can check what we know in many cases (forgetting, for the moment, the issues of underdetermination). In fact, our modus operandi assumes that plus several principles, like ergodicity.

However, pushing back the horizon is always hard. If it becomes easy, then watch out. All of this type of reasoning is of interest to discussions about Faith and Science.

The challenge? Finding, within the Writings, the insights for things like how to help resolve issues, such as the P not equal to NP problem and more. After all, is that not what an operational framework would entail?

Too, science carries over to the Kingdom. It is how we know God.

Remarks:

03/25/2016 -- A change in the calendar will have these Twin Holidays, and other days, adjusting. As well, we have a principal vector upon which to contemplate.


04/03/2015 -- This is a popular post. See NDEers for a bit of audacity. I remember when I first wrote this; the streets of Teheran were buzzing with a spring-like spirit.
09/30/2013 -- More of a technical nature.

05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.

05/09/2011 -- We need a constructive re-look.

04/04/2011 -- We'll be looking at things like foreknowledge.

09/06/2009 -- Essentially, more is undecidable than we like to admit, basically due to our talent for success (ergodicity, essentially) keeps the hubris refreshed (generation by generation).

Modified: 03/23/2016

Gog and Magog

Month, Day: 179, Perfection, Perfection (Perfection)

This is one of those rare times when we have a triple, of month, day, and day of the week. And, Perfection? We will get back to these. 

For some reason, 'Gog and Magog' has been gnawing at me, from some memory of long ago which had to do with Jewish friends. Of late, I have been reading a book about the Hasidic view of the world. Very interesting, mainly due to my Catholic upbringing which consisted of immersion in the Testaments, mostly the New. For some reason, I had a notion that this dealt with technology. Will track that down. 

In terms of technology, people are infatuated greatly with what I call AIn't which has a technical purpose. We will be getting to that, in terms of truth engineering. As someone mentioned today in a forum, academia has looked at this forever, it seems. So, where are the failings? Are there failings? Well, we see a fantasy, essentially, being the basis for major world views. Wait, that argument can be made from several other angles, as well. 

So, how to proceed? Well, as before, with some commentary plus pointers to material. First, Gog and Magog from three major views. 

• Judeo-Christian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog 
• Islam - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yajuj-and-Majuj 
• References in the Koran (Rodwell): THE CAVE; The Prophets.  
• UC Merced - Center for Shaykh, Babi, and Baha'i Studies 
• ... 

Technical motives will necessitate some changes that are not explicitly covered in the Writings. At the core of the decisions will be a balance twixt the human abilities versus that of the artificial (context more than the AIn't view). 

Psychology will be a central theme, too, with many types of research done over the years will have results coming to fore, such as application of Jung's ideas (several). Too, the merging of a new approach to cognition will be part of the dynamic. Not the least, changes in attitude about mathematics, and computing, will allow hitherto fore ignored discussions and work.  

Throughout all of this, stabilizing influences will come via cultures across the board, and the world, offering their insights gained over time and through locational imperatives. 

Remarks: 08/08/2022

08/08/2022 -- 

Octaves?

Month, Day: 170, Perfection, Perfection (Majesty)

4 Attributes, 5 Groups

By having the yearly congruence, we can see a little closer.  Earlier, I mentioned sevenths (and other groupings) in the sense of chords.  However, the grouping went along only one axis in the discussion. That way, one might see Light/Knowledge/Loftiness, for example.

---

Seven is an interesting number. The week's length gives us work and rest days; of course, we got that from Genesis.

Today, I was thinking of going along the other axis. In that mode, one finds that Perfection would start the second group. As follows:

• Splendour, Glory, Beauty, Grandeur, Light, Mercy, Words
• Perfection, Names, Might, Will, Knowledge, Power, Speech
• Questions, Honour, Sovereignty, Dominion, ??, Loftiness

"??"? Yes, for the year, we have the intercalary period which ought to be of interest to a scientific view (more on this, over time). In the months, is there a "null" between Dominion and Loftiness?

Why ask? Well, we have two mappings, which would depend upon the choice. Light/Knowledge/Loftiness, as mentioned above. And, Light/Knowledge/??. Ah, like that?

You see, audacity would say that the models need to change to allow something like this, Great Undecidable (characterize it, or name it, as you wish -- at least, be respectful of the choice, if not for yourself, for others -- the choice? yes, a fundamental right for everyone to make for themselves).

However GU works, it has already led our technical prowess to a stalemate. That is, the technical, mathematical framework has come back upon itself. Well, as we can argue, people have to be central to a proper working of that framework. For some reason, modern hubris has chosen to throw out intuition and to allow computers to reign (many times).

All arguable, yet the whole issue is whether doing the above-suggested would have operational effects (note, please, that measurability would be subsumed under this, not drive it -- to rephrase, the change would be toward a mode in which mathematics participated but did not own the principle views). The key thing now would be to set up the proper experimentation.

And, that would not be within the context mentioned by the Master (miracles, where the Glory challenged the mullahs to ask for a miracle which, as we know, is only for those there). For such, those not there, either because of space or time, have the right to play the doubting Thomas.

Too, science's basis is public, repeatable, and several other things. It turns out that we do have something emerging that would provide the platform for experimentation (the web, in a very broad sense). This platform would, for one, break the barriers related to elitism that is so rampant in modern thought.  

That last statement? Consider, please, the imperative nature of the autodidact's contributions.

Remarks:

08/08/2013 -- Perfection/Perfection.

Modified: 08/08/2013

Technical and more

Month, Day: 170, Will, Grandeur (Beauty)

I missed the whole month of Might, for several reasons. But, Knowledge (the month of the Bab) is right around the corner, so we'll resume. After that, the Motivational comes to fore.

---

When looking at the popular posts, we have the following order:

• Technical spirit (Sept 2, 2009) -- Motivated by articles in the ACM Communications. Turns out that this post has a similar sense (more below).
• We are not idempotent? (May 9, 2012) -- The concept can be applied to many situational themes, especially those related to the strangling mesh of a mathematical/computational origin that is being put over human kind. By whom? Those who have the wherewithal to do so. Now, the concern is not the reality of this type of thing with its being, naturally (and supernaturally), part of human nature. The problem is that Independent Investigation of the Truth applies here, with more connotative emphasis than some might have thought (way beyond the religious-based usages). Too, those doing IIofT must attune their heads and hearts, as needed. Part of this would be to properly filter processing of "residues" (see below).    
• Christopher Hitchens (Jan 21, 2012) -- He was of comprehension, more than most. The lesson is that we don't comprehend (as said von Neumann) many things; yet, those who build constructively (even though they still allow the use of infinity) do not grasp the underlying issue. How can they when the universe seems to  be reflecting right back to them what they are looking for? (see below)
• Audacious comment (Aug 3, 2013) -- Along the line of the prior bullet, on the BF&S page on Wikipedia, there is a listing of notions that seems to have appeared firstly in the Writings. The list ought to be (and will be, at some point) much longer. In fact, creative urges, unfounded otherwise, will result from the Words. However, one discussion, which is an example of how things can go awry, considered whether the Writings could be used logically (as in, from one view, embedded within the Writings, some string being able to support a reasoning chain). Well, given that humans are, in part, rationally based, the answer is yes. However, the modern trend is to discount that which cannot be Turing-based (not as hopeless as it might seem - see below).

 There is a fifth post, Yearly measure, on the list that remains open to discussion.

---

Now, the recent Communications (see first bullet) had an article that applies to the themes behind the blog. The article (by Mark Braverman, of Princeton University, "Computing with Real Numbers, from Archimedes to Turing and Beyond") is considered premium and is not available on-line (so, run down to the nearest library).

Mark uses the progression from the natural numbers upward to illustrate his points. We all have an intuitive sense for these numbers. The rationals may be a little more problematic. Some feel that they ought to be introduced earlier in the educational process. Going further, one gets into the reals and the more involved number systems, such as complex numbers.

As an aside, one thing that we see with the earlier types is a close correspondence between the thing and how we name it. For instance, for any lower-level number, we can easily say it and even demonstrate it with objects. Even with the more complicated numbers, there are times when we see "nice" ways to handle things. Mark uses an example of a simple harmonic oscillator. In fact, one finds closed-form opportunities in many places.  Prior to computation's emergence last century, humans did quite well this way.

The point, so far? Names and Attributes are one thing that we'll continue to bring up. Too, computation brings in complexity; approximations allow us some leeway; yet, at the core, there are the lessons from the Valleys (underdetermination, of sorts).

Mark gets into more complex notions that result from trying to model natural processes (and God's creation). Too, in order to get beyond undecidability and its influence, we have seen many creative schemes applied. For instance, with the spread of computers and systems, all sorts of algorithms exist that allow people to compute, and display, Julia sets which are great for illustrating issues related to convergence and its opposite.

A key notion deals with equivalence which is a very hard problem that has been, in part, conquered. One might say that dropping the whole notion has been the operational mode (it was phrased this way, as, other things have undergone equivalent (yes) parsing - all the way up to ...).

After Mark discusses how bringing in parameters allows further control including the continued existence of problematic issues, he suggests that allowing for noise can help reduce things to a tractable state. In a sense, one might see this as a parallel seen in the success of fuzzy methods.

But, then we get back to probabilistic issues which come from another use of numbers. So, computation is hard; too, though, it ought to be instructive to mathematics in a quasi-empirical sense. Perhaps, that hardness can be, in the long term, indicative of the limits that we need to understand. That is, being cannot be encompassed by this means (or, by any other of our way); but, given its growing usefulness, modelling can be considered essential to our future.

So, we're at a type of cusp. Describing this seems to be in order; perhaps, we'll get there at some point.  
Remarks:

09/30/2013 --


Modified: 09/30/2013

Understanding

Month, Day: 166, Names, Dominion (Beauty)

Some of these posts are place markers for topics that need further study and discussion. Just like evolution is controversial, so too is understanding (which can be related to comprehension).

Now, anyone with aptitude knows about understanding; in fact, we see success all around from this gift's application. Yet, we know, too, that there is more that is undecidable than there is that is not, even for humans.

This applies to our use of technology which can lead to some views that try to demean the human spirit not without counter views, though, whose basis for argument seems to get more limited in the process. Why? The demeaners are fairly effective at adapting.

As asked before, how can the Writings and, Creation-based science, be used to weigh in on the discussion? That question is meant to be rhetorical and audacious.

For instance, can a machine have understanding? Is this like asking whether (SAQ #55) a vegetable can have animal spirit or an animal can have human spirit? Can that question be formalized to the extent of allowing some technical discussion that has operational meaning?

We know that we humans have understanding. We also know that understanding can be obtained by effort or by gift (can we separate intuition?). And, we know that we're to make the effort; that there are the undecidables bring us to the Sisyphus state (yes, it's true).

So, operationally, how far can we go? Consider this. the Fourth Valley: "Obey Me and I will make you like unto Myself. I say Be and it is. You will say Be and it will be."

See any limits implied? "Herein the high heavens are in no conflict with the lowly earth, nor do they seek to excel it, for this is the land of mercy, not the realm of distinction"

Note: Mathematics, with its axiomatic basis, builds mounds or discovers those already there (basic ontological difference). Any effort at understanding a whole theoretic peak is local, though it seems otherwise. That which encompasses peaks (albeit, via surface interaction or, perhaps, a few probes) is intuition. Where mathematics and intuition (albeit, one that is trained - to be defined) differ, we ought to be suspect (topsy-turvy, thanks Chaitin, comes into play). Of course, all this is arguable, though Names is the beginning of the chain of evidence.

Remarks:

02/24/2010 -- Ascendant to Transcendent.

10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.

09/26/2009 -- An issue for the Operational view.

Modified: 02/24/2010

Reckoner II

Month, Day: 168, Loftiness, Might (Glory)

We're into the Operational of the Groups. It is nice, since the whole thing implies doing something (action). Except, it starts out with Names which relates to structure (does it not?). Also, we're heading to the new release of our measure.

---

Gosh, we've been about three years away from the technical, so it's time. For instance, Reckoner was used in the context of some ACM work. Now, thanks to it being the 100th (ACM's coverage) of Alan M. Turing, we can get back to this and be a little more serious (and audacious).

One of the articles is by Leeds' professor S. Barry Cooper and is titled (1912 focus): Turing's Titanic Machine? (fortunately, the article is open to public use)  In this article, Prof Cooper runs through the issues related to incomputable which we'll look at in detail. Too, he points to areas that will be of importance.

---

As a reminder, the whole audacious theme is a railing against several  viewpoints, such as reductionism as it applies to computing. What we see has developed is a framework that is shaky at its core; yet, it shines so much like a chimera as to draw the highly intelligent into its grasp. To paraphrase what I've written elsewhere: with the advance of computation, we have let the genie out of the bottle in an irreversible manner.

One approach here seemed to be a relook at some issues that relate to topology (loosely used).

---

Now, this discussion is within the context of Faith & Science. One proposal would be that there be another bullet dealing with computation and nature (however phrased). Surely, there has been some type of study in this area; if not, the fact that we could provide support for the quasi-empirical view from the Writings for fostering a middle-out approach (to wit, blind/delusional polarity) might be a motivation.

---

Turing is quoted as saying (see Prof Cooper's article): ...if a machine is expected to be infallible, it cannot also be intelligent. There are several theorems which say almost exactly that.

The discussion page of the Faith & Science article (Wiki) had a go-around about inerrancy (related to infallibility, in part). Consider that the information transfer (you see, all sorts of scientific progress related to computation is useful) implied by instruments, such as the Writings, can be put into a 'machine' concept.Yet, not. That gap is amenable to some type of rectification, albeit limited, which will allow for a better foundational view (why else the emphasis on Science in the Faith?).

Remarks:

08/08/2013 -- Perfection/Perfection.

10/17/2012 -- There is a lot to reflect on, about the trip, especially the western loop.

04/14/2012 -- Thornton Chase is an example of several things that will be discussed this year.

03/30/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence. Pay attention to the last three minutes.

03/11/2012 -- Must mention that psychether will be a central theme. The intuition has been emboldened by the passing of an older brother. I haven't characterized the experience yet, but looking at the CH dreams serves as a proxy until such is attempted. 

Modified: 08/08/2013

Only in California (left coast)

Month, Day: 169, Might, Loftiness (Justice)

Actually, could say, only in the West.

We'll collect some of Mahmud's quotes here.

• Donner party mentioned. Crossing that pass in the winter reminds us that the elements can, easily, outdo us. Our engineering prowess saves (or can save) the day.
• Speaking of which (engineering), the grandeur found in the western realm are noteworthy. Yet, man-produced marvels abound, to boot. My ancestors were involved with the technical (ah, I know. one can't do anything without funds and money --- yet, it's know how, and ability, that is the key) aspects of the transcontinental railroad.    
• Message, again. We saw this before, in Boston, just before the western trip.
• Alfresco dining. One can just think of those 'prominent' ones strutting about, in their finery, within structures, with little regard for the natural world outside of the walls. Now, any rational person would prefer the outdoor situation which can be as elegantly set up.
• Thornton Chase (of the West).  
• We'll close the list with Chapter XIX of God Passes By. We're still in the period of the western loop which was followed by a period in New York and DC. Then, there was a return to Europe. After looking, again, at the visit to this continent, it'll be interesting to get familiar with the other parts of the trip. Are there diaries such as we found with the US tour?  

Remarks:

10/31/2012 -- It's interesting that the Master spent less than a month in California which is small compared to the total US time. In California, there was less time spent in LA than in SF. So, is it that the less time denotes better spirituality and being? LA reminded the Master of the Holy Land.

10/17/2012 -- Spirit and matter. Did they listen? He used 'electricity' (its spiritual reality, why not ether?). There was one mention by Mahmud that seemed awful close to (analogous to) thermodynamics (the understanding, and definition, of which was coincidental with the Master's time).

10/13/2012 -- Mahmud's diary on-line. Stops December, 1912.

10/09/2012 -- Talks to students (such as, at Stanford) have special meaning for us.

Modified: 10/31/2012

Posts of interest - 2011

Month, Day: 168, Honour, Glory (Beauty)

It's interesting that the last day of Questions, our favorite month, lands on the day before the end of the year. Then, the first day of Honour lands on the last day of the year. We have more of a congruence with the first day of Perfection which is August 1.

With the year change, it might be good to list the most read posts as of today.

• -- Technical spirit -- From 2009. If one starts from a simple binary question (Anselm's idea), then one can build from either side. Now, problems come from comparative analysis done in a non-charitable manner. In the context of Independence (a weekly occurrence), would not having the ability to know the foundation to the core (at least, as far a logical structure may allow) be of assistance? Also, would not knowing the pitfalls on each side reinforce the need for taking the middle way?

• -- Yearly measure -- From 2009. Yes, there are things that we could be looking at more rigorously, in order to firm up the quasi-empirical basis. This is one of those. Why a sun-centric view? That is part of the plan of Creation (footstool, et al).

• -- The autodidact -- From 2009. This whole theme needs some improvement. In short, the Principle of Independent Investigation of the Truth provides the over-arching motivation.

• -- The Key -- From 2010. There is a Key that is being ignored. Arguments seem to gravitate toward older viewpoints that are easily discarded by modern views. Yet, dynamics are there; that is, these are cloaked, for good reason (as in Teleological motivations), and difficult to understand in the public sense that is required for certain frameworks of science.

Perhaps, there ought to be more emphasis on Audacity in 2012. The Writings as Source for creative imagination that has an operational power? You bet!!! To do so means to stand up to arguments from the brights, many of which will be ad hominen.

Remarks:

08/08/2013 -- Perfection/Perfection.

05/30/2012 -- Hitch will be a regular topic.
 
Modified: 08/08/2013

The spirit of the people

Month, Day: 168, Will, Speech (Perfection)

Following up on the Technical Spirit, the following statement (and many others of the same type) is very much apropos to the OWS and other protests in which the spirit rises to the occasion.

Aqdas: Erelong will God raise up within thee men endued with mighty valour, who will magnify My Name with such constancy that neither will they be deterred by the evil suggestions of the divines, nor will they be kept back by the insinuations of the sowers of doubt.

Suppression from the top seems to have been the norm throughout history. Of course, internally, that is how we learn, train ourselves, and follow the proper way. Somehow, it works, too, in the world of humanity. However, those who try to be 'sovereign' over more than themselves always manifest that which John noted.

Remarks:

10/10/2011 --

Modified: 10/10/2011

Technicalities

Month, Day: 178, Dominion, Speech (Glory)

We will be getting back to technical issues. 

Pointer to work to extend: Foundations of Mathematics (An Overview at the Close of the Second Millennium by William S. Hatcher). Hatcher (1935 - 2005) at Wikipedia. 

Proof of the Truthful (Avicenna) - thrown here to confuse issues. 

Partly motivated by this: Institute of Pure and Applied Mathematics (at UCLA). 

Remarks: 02/19/2022

02/19/2022 --  

Operational III

Month, Day: 166, Might, Loftiness (Glory)

Earlier mentions touched upon topics of concern (The Operational, Ontology from Honour, Operational I, Operational II, Understanding, to name a few).

A particular juxtaposition is very much apropos, yet problematic. For instance, we know that the Manifestations have influenced Creation, including us, periodically through time. Related to that is a Viewpoint that knows. Yet, at the same time, we're to discover our own knowledge.

To a certain extent, that is. As, from the twin duties framework, it's clear how to obtain the proper basis. But, that approach has no hint about things operationally specific, such as that required for technical knowledge.

So, we have seen an increasingly robust set of knowledge, named science, that has no end point and that, to those who are honest, leaves a lot of holes all around. How one fills those holes is very much of interest here, not so much from a judgmental sense as from comparative analysis.

Say what? Some ways are more effective toward achieving goals than are others. For that matter, some are better at stating what is known and at describing goals, in the sense that many solution attempts are strengthened by adequate statement of the problem that is being solved.

So, do we find ourselves at a point where an accumulative set, that is very large, of knowledge diverges from what it might be with some insight into Creation? How many times do we see some model become the focus rather than the reality behind it?

That latter is an example map-territory problem that seems to be rampant nowadays, exacerbated by the success with computational approaches.

SAQ #35: The foreknowledge of a thing is not the cause of its realization ... For example, tonight everyone knows that after seven hours the sun will rise, but this general foreknowledge does not cause the rising and appearance of the sun ...

Firstly, knowing in advance is possible, yet somehow limited. No one gets that free ride. Secondly, many things can be modeled, yet the model can never approach the reality. How do we characterize, and utilize, what is suggested there?

Remarks:

11/21/2010 -- What motivates, indeed.

10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.

Modified: 11/21/2010

Eighth day of Sovereignty

Month, Day: 170, Sovereignty, Perfection (Beauty)

How is it that we don't see a mathematical flavor in the Writings? That is, any, and all, can know God (see the short prayer). Whereas, mathematics has reduced itself to an arena of the few (many of whom have no concept, feeling for, of quasi-empirical issues). Now, if we could incorporate something from the knowing of God into the technical framework for science (from the queen being encapsulated), there ought to be some type of measurable benefit (we're approaching the new energy point - from a sense, exogenous, though not).

Remarks:

02/28/2014 -- We're to the intercalary period. The time of the new energy is closer.

01/31/2014 -- This applies (Aqdas #94): Blessed the day on which the banners of the divine Names shall be upraised in the kingdom of creation in My Name, the All-Glorious. On that day the faithful shall rejoice in the victory of God, and the disbelievers shall lament.

Modified: 02/28/2014

Audacious comment

Month, Day: 170, Perfection, Beauty (Glory)

I did not expect to be back to this until 8/8 (Perfection squared; here's another type), however a comment left on the Baha'i Faith and Science Talk page provided an unexpected motivation. Rather than respond to the comment on the Talk page, I decided to do so here.

Firstly, the comment (in part - see discussion, below) from Anonymous (from Texas): ... But I also believe in prophecy. I have my own interpretations of Baha'i prophecies on science. I believe that what this page says about creation and nuclear power is true.... As for ether, I believe that Abdul Baha was referring to the Higgs boson. Transmutation of elements? I believe that refers to picotechnology and femtotechnology which are orders of magnitude smaller than nanotechnology. ...

Secondly, there are many things to discuss, in an audacious mode. Whether or not the topic gets attention by those doing "scholarly" work can be immaterial. I can put my finger on several examples where the peers did not understand some person who turned out to be right. But, more, it's a matter of concern for the individual (no group will stand in your stead when it's your time). This is brief, but we can say this: science, and knowledge, are far beyond what the current-day cohorts (of talent, drive -- in other words, on the largely-gifted side -- see the little thing about gallons, cups, handfuls) have wrapped within their mathematically-flavored sense of reality.

Thirdly, we have the Wiki policies to consider. That is not the platform for discussion or creatively expressed ideas. So, where is there such? Well, we could have a page off the BF&S to allow such. The Talk page has gotten a lot of use. 

---

I like the use of "prophecy" and am assuming some notion of other ways of knowing. One onus for those of the BF'ers (or any who honor spirituality) would be to counter yokes that are all the time trying to encompass being (restrain it) into a bounded state. Mind you, an individual very well may constrain itself; that is a matter of choice (actually, it is counseled - but, against whose judgment is one to reflect for value?). It's more than a matter of constraints; any autodidact would easily show something to his/her peers, if they would listen (unfortunately, that is not the way of the world whose principle value resides within a committee who offers prizes -- we can discuss this, at length).

Yes, the BF&S page mentions a lot more than it did in 2005. That denotes progress. But, some of the words seem to dance around (almost tautological view of minerals being everywhere - as if this were life in the larger connotations), so as to not get dinged (?) by those who are virulently supportive of their modern views (some of which are more scientism than not - sometimes noted as Brights, here). So, the comment's take on the items is nice to see. We'll get back to this.

Ether? Yes, that is a problematic area; it's almost a litmus test to see if someone falls into hubris with their knowledge. Consider, too, psyche-ether's use, to boot. One thing that grates, frankly, on the BF&S page was the almost apologetic explanation of what the Master meant. Granted, language is temporal and situational. Yet, that to which the Master alluded did not fade away (just as God did not die). So, see the next item, please.

Higgs? Yes, a lot of money has been (is being) spent to find out what we already know (there is something from the Bab about the new-born babe today knowing more than all of the scholars of His time --- applies today, given time, I'll explain). Again, it gets back to private versus public knowledge. The former is not illusory, by nature (in fact, it's more real than the latter). The latter is artifact-based (including language being used as a tool), as in, does not deal with essence.

And, the models that motivate the money being spent get re-inforced by the intelligent cosmos (small "c" used purposely). That is, what was found out was precisely what we were led to find out. Yet, the large truth is still there, ready for grasping. The main question is how this might come about. Consider: a future model, where the Great Undecidable nestles within and surrounds the computational - essentially, a wisely attuned quasi-empirical framework as the operational basis. Again, just a brief statement here; can discuss this ad infinitum. 

Now, two paragraphs above, I suggested that we already know. Yes, that pertains to bringing back intuition into the equation. How this might be done will be a whole area of study and practice in itself. Perhaps, our main hope is that the BF, using the Master and more, can demonstrate efficacy (such as we will need) in establishing such (more than cognition).

---

So, considering that futurists can be listened to (with a grain of salt and more), why not have a section on the BF&S page dealing with the future. After all, the cosmologists have run amok already far beyond what their model can support (ah, how to explain this to them?). Perhaps, a more tempered viewpoint deserves some attention. 

Remarks:

04/03/2015 -- This is a popular post. See NDEers for a bit of audacity.

09/30/2013 -- More of a technical nature.

08/08/2013 -- Perfection/Perfection.

08/04/2013 -- This is not to be construed as an off-site area for discussion of Wikipedia content. Rather, it's a blog with a Science/Religion flavor within the contexts mentioned in the Title written and maintained by the blogger representing only his viewpoint.  There just happened to be a recent overlap of interest with an entry on a particular Talk page. Hey. In truth, this blog started since Wikipedia is not the platform for the content that this blog attempts to bring forth for discussion. 

08/04/2013 -- Forgot to mention the Great Ether. Incidentally, the list of things to discuss is very long. Here is one thrown out in good spirit: Virgin Mary. But, once opening the door, it's hard to stop: Apple of the Eye of the Bab.

Modified: 04/03/2015

We are not idempotent?

Month, Day: 169, Beauty, Knowledge (Justice)

There are many ways to discuss this, however let's just consider a few thoughts, for now.

• Masses? Indistinguishable faces in a large crowd? One could go on about humanity in a non-flattering way. History does this [sort of thing]. We have the few who leave some record, are written about, seem to make a splash, and more. Then, we have the innumerable others [6B, more or less]. Well, Christ did talk about several juxtapositions, such as first will be last, and so forth. When we look at bifurcations, though, such as the 1% (or less) and the 99% (or more), this type of thing is evident [measurable deltas and their epsilons]. Yet, put your hand into a crowd, pull one [person] out, and apply a proper measure (we'll get to this later). Everyone [from such sampling] the same? No [many differences, as we all know]. Yet, we can argue that the differences are insignificant [close enough]. So much to pursue in this vein.
• Workers, following the above [bullet]. Are these not mere resources for the exploitation by those with the 'bread' whose collective being is just a bunch of mass? Yes, are these not replaceable entities whose source seems to never dry up, especially when national borders can be breached in order to enlarge the availability (ala the colonization of capitalism)? Put your hand in a bucket of workers? See any difference? [though, we all consider ourselves irreplaceable, in some way]
• Hours, days. Don't they seem to roll into one another? For many, they're the same from day to day, at least during the work week. That is, given the prior bullet, many are in a form of servitude that seems to be interminable [worse than slavehood, in a sense]. Too, somehow, the game as defined (again, by those who have the wherewithal to do so) works toward increasing the bonds [bindings], in other words, the ball and chain of indebtedness. But, we know that each moment is different if only we could see. But, 'exigencies' demand the attentions and the energies, seemingly ad infinitum. Where, O Lord, is the deliverance (or, how to show Valley Four's importance?)?

So, each of those is an example of how the modern world might like to tell us all that we are idempotent [as in, nothing special about you, guy/gal]. That is, most of us [seem to fall in that set]. Somehow, there are classes that seem to rise [aerate, even]. In the Aqdas, we see a lot about kings and their role. We'll go into the history of kings [at some point]. It is easy for that class to begin to think of their 'Divine right' to their order [as in, their loftiness, note the small 'l']. Charles I was thinking that prior to his beheading.

Ever observe how some of the upper classes (to be described, but of many ilks and origins) seem to favor this idea [of specialness]. Abilities are not all the same. We know this, and we know there is good reason [see the Master on economic justice, for instance]. But, too, God especially loves the poor man who doesn't bewail (again, Aqdas, Middle way) [there are many ways to serve; gigantic remuneration is not a necessary attribute of the contributive value].

---

In essence, all work is worship. Those who are in the upper crusts ought to respect those who serve them. Those whose lot is to [be a] server ought to do so graciously (perhaps, pondering about kings) [where are the devotional attitudes about work - at its lowest -- written by one who has worked at ALL levels].

---

So, where does idempotent come in? As we've learned to abstract better (one of the gifts of the Revelation), we've built up modeling prowess. Of course, that involves definitions and more. We know that stability can be observed in many parts of nature, though it is puzzling just how quickly things can go awry given the right conditions (ever been under a tornado?). Irreversible processes abound. [So, we've discovered several forces that limit:: central tendencies, fixed points, ...]

In human affairs, if the lower ones keep their peace about being exploited, things can go smoothly [ah, think of the afterlife was one counsel by the priestly class].  Those did [keep their peace], for a long while (all sorts of things kept the truth from arising [-- the growing ball and chain of indebtedness camouflaged by supposedly the never-ending ATM of the house]). This last downturn was an example of a house of cards falling down. Those who were most hurt were the ones least responsible for the idiocy (tell it like it is -- and, lessons to be learned were ignored, setting us up for other go-rounds). Those who were responsible, many times, were bailed out [the rogues' mischievous ways continue].  And, they seem to be ready for another bit of games. Again, O Lord, where is the relief from the idiots?

---

But, being reflective, we're all individuals, created in the Image (in fact, we're to exhibit the conditions of maturity -- one of which is neither a follower nor leader be). So, things like Independent Investigation of the Truth need attention; how are we to be autodidact, for instance?

In the grand scheme (or, perhaps, from a certain view), we are all 'idempotent' (yet, I suspect not - mind you, we're not talking being non-humble, rather trying to be audacious in opening doors that have been left too long closed) in a sense. Within Their Realm, we're told that They are Idempotent (is not it counseled to consider each [of the Manifestations] as the same Sun[, different place on the horizon of rise]?).

---

From another view, we ought to be talking 'residue' (as in, by what degree not idempotent?) which raises the question, against what? Now, that is a Key issue (one role of the Manifestation).

Remarks:

07/20/2015 -- See post Susan Gamage's blog (... Elders find a place ...?). Old or young (makes me think of Cat Stevens - oh sorry - Yusuf)? It was 50 years ago, in May, that I first heard of the Faith (declared 48 years ago, SF). At that time, I was a "youth" (still am, at heart - cannot think that I'm over 18 until I look in a mirror - we're all Children of God, no matter the age). Too, I was iconoclastic; still am (whether that is fortunate or not is an open issue). What I have seen in the past few decades is, up close, that generational dynamics continually swirl (there is the bit (in the Writing) about the sword that makes a cut - one of the later Tablets). Yet, this must be (otherwise, we would have been given means to remove the elders); so, the Faith needs to get with it (actually, the Catholics are ahead of us in that sense -- BTW, my heritage with priests, nuns, what have you -- apple of the Bab's eye). ... This is cursory, mainly meant to leave a pointer to future discussion.

04/03/2015 -- This is a popular post. See NDEers for a bit of audacity.

09/30/2013 -- More of a technical nature.

05/11/2012 -- We can use abstractions; they are never close to the Writings, though, from which we can pull lessons for ourselves and our practices, including science.

Modified: 07/20/2015

Christopher Hitchens

Month, Day: 168, Sovereignty, Beauty (Glory)

[note: 11/2/2019 - haven't looked at this, for a while; however, reading today, I see that some links are stale, or downright missing, will be editing -- when done this will disappear]

Prior to passing of Christopher Hitchens (CH), I mainly was distant from those types of discussions that he loved and at which he was so good. It was at that time [12/16 onward] that I started to read some of his material and to watch some of the videos in which he was the focal point (no matter the forum, CH seemed to come to the fore).

My first reaction was that he was funny. As well, he was right on a lot of matters (who would not agree with his railing against clerics - the bane of the common man, in a sense -- oops, that was a CH-ism, state a challenge such that it cannot be answered without due thought). Hence, I was motivated, from time to time, to comment (richarddawkins.net "saying Merry Christmas worse than killing someone" by M-eme-tic, but see below) and intend to do more (Ian Kluge had an interesting response to the book (and modern philosophy) -- I've just become familiar with the Common Ground site -- I put a comment here -- symmetry tames polarity, in short).

CH was known for developing quotable remarks, in the contexts of his challenges. Such as, "what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof" (see Daily Hitchens). Well, "are not axioms stated thusly?" would be one of my retorts if I could think of it in time. 

---

In this blog, I have referenced the group who likes to include CH in their mix as "brights" and indirectly mentioned Richard (who I have read - I've been watching the evolution (if you would) of his argument). But, I was repelled by CH's manner (see the Four Horsemen) and stayed away. Shame on me, as CH would say (see below).

CH said that he didn't know, in lots of situations. Good for him. Of course, he would then follow up with something that seemed to be mockingly clever [actually, inspired, in some cases]. But, now I just attribute that to his being Brit (will explain in time) [heritage, and more -- for the past two year, I've been doing an in-depth reading of what got the U.S. started -- including those things across the pond that were motivational enough to cause the mass migrations].

---

So, as said above, I did not know Christopher. I did not pay much attention to his career and to the fact of the growing interest in his performances. Now, he succumbed to health issues related to life style, one might say. We all have this battle to carry on, as we attempt to do it right (given our one chance). In looking at all of the remarks about him, I noticed one familiar name. It was a journalist [whom I do not know except by reading] who interviewed CH and who had worked with my roommate from college (my roommate died in 2011, to boot, from conditions similar to CH's - same origins (in more ways than one)). So, in the phenomenal world, there was a thread that connected, albeit somewhat tenuously.

I'm only mentioning that connection to set the stage for writing about two dreams that I have had about Christopher. Now, again as a foreword, think of the Valley of Wonderment's remark about dreams. Of late, I've run across more material that I'll use. In short, though, I'm an old guy and have been dreaming since I was in my twenties. And, I've learned lots from these departed. Being autodidact, I don't know how all this will unfold, but dreams can be an operational assist. How? Is it okay? All sorts of questions.

---

In the first dream, CH was scrunched down, while life flowed around him (of course, people & things are in the scene -- I'm being brief here to get to the gist). He looked at some notes that I was carrying (aside: one of my regular dreams involves a high school classmate who died [in the] early [60s] - Naval plane crash -- I characterize the whole matter as some type of coordinated affair in which they (those there) help us here (in this case, a lot had to do with technology) -- in fact, the parallels were uncanny). I wondered why CH was so withdrawn.

In the second dream, CH comes into my work area with my [college] roommate [who passed away in July, 2011 and] who introduces us. Of course, the workplace I mention has been the scene of encounters with several souls [think foundational work, including AE - how many want to come back with what they learn at the moments following the dropping of the bodily limitations?]. In this case, though, there was the notion (and a work crew to effect the thing) that things were being updated. It seemed as if the building of a school was the emphasis [all sorts of possible topics come to mind]. Now, CH was in his prime (as in, healthy, full of energy, ..., not so ornery) [as in, full maturity -- some claim that a 30-year old's (or thereabouts) visage is taken up]. 

---

[Note, in the following, reference to time is ours; the spiritual world is beyond space-time] The second dream was remarkable to me because I had a recurrent interaction with a departed Catholic who first went into some form of swaddling clothes, then to young person, and lately upward to a mature adult (over a period of several years). CH, on the other hand, seems to have originally cringed at the reality about which he scoffed. Yet, he did not retire. Then, in a matter of a couple of weeks, he is full of purpose. And, he does not seem the least nonplussed about the whole thing (as I've noticed, he, on many occasions, said that he did not know - before the devilish grin came and he started to ding the questioner).

---

Have I taken meaning from these two dreams? Of course. I've written much more about these in my notes. The whole thought of a school is intriguing in that the focus of the school could be many things. One thing that CH did do was cut to the chase; given his genetic background, the way things unfolded in [h]is life was almost a given (people talk memes, our ancestral selves are much large factor than has been allowed, anyone want to be audacious here? -- of course, I have already). [yes, do they help us via memes? - we ought to thank Richard for this concept that may be seen as pseudo-metaphysical, yet more or less]

---

Of course, I may have my interpretations of meaning (after all, folks, I have for decades been an autodidact in the study of the mind, its evolution, and such -- with the necessary ventures into computational mathematics and cybernetics, bioengineering, and related --- what is an autodidact? Well, look at what might be behind Independent Investigation of the Truth, essentially without mentor [this I agree with Christopher on, there is no embodied person on this planet that ought to tell me how to think, act, or otherwise (except the spouse) - we, now, have the bounty of being post-Guardian (as in, no inspired characters to whom to listen to without scrutiny, except those things that are under the scope of the UHJ)] is how I see it) of the dreams that I have. That they have included all of the Principals of the Faith after I declared was, of course, confirmation enough. Are there other interpretations? I would hope so, as despite notions of what we can know, please remember that all Valleys above that of Contentment and the 3rd mention limitations on knowledge (4th blackest night, fathomless sea).

Without these constraints, how can there be limits? Besides, the issues raised by Godel, et al, are very much on the table, Certitude notwithstanding. 

The crux of the matter is whether someone gets operational effectiveness from their dreams. That, I think, is something inherently measurable.

---

Final note, as this is only the beginning. My sole focus is on proving that Science and Religion need each other in the same sense that symmetry has proven to be so useful. Of course, it was only after listening to CH and his buddies that I had more insight into what I've been trying to put together all of these years (by the way, one lesson that I learned from my Naval friend was that our work carries on -- why all the angst at proving to be the best here -- oh, I know, the Master counseled such -- but, to the extreme that I see leading to ego boosting extremes?) from quiet study.

---

A new way to think of CH: angel in disguise?

Remarks:

04/03/2015 -- He was off to something that excited him. Corrections for a stale pointer.

09/30/2013 -- More of a technical nature.

06/13/2012 -- On second thought, I hope that my little dabbling was instrumental to the guy's grasp. As said, he was of comprehension (more ways than one).

05/30/2012 -- Hitch will be a regular topic.

03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence.

03/11/2012 -- Passing of a brother emboldens the imagination.

01/26/2012 -- See Remarks, this day, reference to AE. Thanks, Christopher.

01/25/2012 -- Margaret Kimberley's take (quoted several places: example).

01/23/2012 -- We need to work about (around) the middle.

01/21/2012 -- Another comment.
 
Modified: 11/02/2019