User talk:JMSwtlk/FaithAndScience

Context: Baha'i Faith and Science. Focus for this has been moved to: Independent Investigation of the Truth.

==Plan== (this page will evolve into two pages, the main thrust and notes)

Develop outline here (essentially a very high-level view).
Get consensus at that view (implies co-edits).
Then flesh out pieces of the outline (it seems to me that an encyclopedia would never be stagnant - that's the beauty of wiki over paper dumps {except the print does serve the purpose of a point in time snap}.
As apropos (which seems to be almost everywhere) link to Writings and works (research)
Since this is a work in progress, there will be times when it contains incomplete entries
Avoid becoming a wikipediaholic

==Outline== (this is the focus, Writing quotes will point to on-line repository)

From the top:

God is ...
...
Creation has ...
...
Man is ...
...
Earth is ...
...
Knowledge is ...
...

Commentary

See Foundationals and Fundamentals.

Further: (attempt at conveying motivations)

even the strongest empiricist has to have faith in something (like his/her own intellectual and observational capabilities) or as is the want in the modern time (belief in a system)
as we have it by Revelation, there are heirarchies (human systems come to a point represented by a particular person or group of persons, looks like a start)
operational issues (stability, control, ...) are very much honed via feed-back through time (they can be generalized within some limit)
more general issues (beyond reasonable extrapolation) are problematic and require guidance (this is where the whole issue of Progressive Revelation comes to fore - of which the Baha'is believe we are in a 'latter day' stage, so to speak)
some views look to mathematics (and it's uncanning ability to allow axiomatic expansions) for handling the general issues
that brings up quasi-empirical which needs to be considered due to known limits on human perceptions and thought (these limits are there, how do we characterize in a manner that is not entirely meta-physical, etc.)
some argue that the artificial can bolster, augment, or even replace human capabilities (can this be so? the quasi-empirical issues will play there too {virtual vertigo - is a real phenomenon, this is the tendency for n-dimensional (very large n) and strict (quantitative assuming compactness, etc}) algorithms to lose their way (observed via various event types))
do we expect to have super-human perceptual events better honed someday as the basis for expanding the 'empirical' base? (humans can be trained to know/discern truth, the man-in-the-loop approach can help contain computational difficulty, how far can this be taken?)
there are many, more controversies than evolution, life outside earth, infallibility, ether (human soul and its reality, when it starts, ..., 5 spirits, what this means topologically, ..., prayer, its influence, ...)
the 'wiki' thrust could maintain a list and point to discussion/research

Jeff's Comments

I think we need to make sure that every item in the above list is Baha'i belief, and that there is a quote from the writings to back it up; we have to be sure to not state our own belief of the writings, as that is interpretation. Secondly, I think that the word Science has a different conotation in today's world than the general meaning you have used in the outline. I think we need to also talk about Science in the general understanding of the world as well. -- Jeff3000 23:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. About the pointing to S(s)ources, from what I've seen, 'wiki' will support that (hence my remark about the 'axiomatic' nature). Notice that the 4th item in the Plan says just that (in fact, I used 'almost everywhere'). So, I'll not go too far without maintaining pointers (caveat: I'm a native English speaker (trained in other languages but not Arabic or Persian) - hence, I'm relying on the efforts of translators - but will be pointing to established and on-line Baha'i Writing repositories).

All in the outline are from the Writings (38 years of experiment, thought, prayer, ...). I'll keep to the 'wiki' constraints here. If something is deemed 'personal' I'll publish elsewhere and point to it here.

Now, about 'science' (which I will quote - ought we use another term? (like B_Science - as in, Science from a Baha'i ontology)): it's about many things. Science, as you use it, has many connotations, even in today's world (let alone looking at its etymology - by the way, mathematics is the same way).

But, from one viewpoint (that looks at the motivation): 'science' is about study of 1) the observable (now, we don't go too far to where we're looking 'indirectly' through 'artificial' means - our senses have limits - not to mention dynamics like Heisenberg noted) - please note that some trends seriously reduce what phenemona are considered 'okay' for 'science' - yet, does that negate them (cause non-existence) or reduce their potential worth?, 2) the shared (meaning public, not entirely private - though, as we know 'private' does not imply problematic, necessarily) - public, as in, did you see that too?, - (the Writings hold many nuggets that look ahead, such as, in the Gleanings is the basis of 'information theory') 3) the repeatable (not only in time, but in space, and perhaps other ways - say, re-derivable from a general pattern or ...), 4) that which is subject to being subdued by we humans (that's our hope) to a discursive universe, and 5) that which is subject to supporting prediction and control (pure - applied, research - development).

So, B_Science (or whatever the tag) needs to be an inclusive affair. Are we at the point in time to really define such a thing? (It appears so to me).

As an aside, 'intuition' has come under the guns from everywhere that is secular - yet, we've seen evidence that 'intuition' can be trained - in fact, in a sense, the epitome of this type of training is the regimen that leads to the Medical degree and practice.

But, I've seen it in computer gaming, etc. What we have here is the element that the artificial and the non-human do not bring to the 'learning' experience (Something to do with 'being'; oops - personal comment here - methinks that the web is going to help found a whole new look at 'science' (especially, that with the non-elite potential). There is quote (originally in the Qu'ran but in Iqan, too - I've loaned my Iqan so this is from memory) saying that God wouldn't have allowed tests without the resource to meet the test - so, even those on the bottom of the cognitive heirarchy can grasp B_Science if it is done right).

Now that leads to the emphasis on listening to the Dr in terms of health (see Compilation on Scholarship - in fact, the metaphor of the Manifestation as the Physician is an exemple). In the interest of 'truth' maintenance, we have problems with tradition, logic, etc. (there were 4 mentioned in SAQ). Logic's limits have been studied via incompletness/undecidability (see quasi-empiricism). At some point in any chain, there needs to be an end node that is 'true'. The Dr example allows us a concrete example. That is one type. In others, there is the 'infallible' aspect of the Writings and also the Universal House of Justice's continuing role (ontology, ..., and operational). In other realms, we still have a similar sort of thing.

Who is the final expert or authority? There are all sorts of ways that this is resolved operationally by situation. However, from a computational sense, we really need this too in that 'virtual vertigo' is real. Will we actually use biologic sensors, calculators for low-order purposes? At the upper end, somehow we need to get the trained human into the decisional loop? Well, I see B_Science playing a major role in these issues. Who else but Baha'is can step up to the challenges? My goal (in part): get the necessity stated and start a dialog on just what those challenges are. jmswtlk 22:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've started to add some quotes from the writings which I think is great. Before I'm able to contribute I think you should write the intro to the article in the style of Bahá'í Faith and the unity of humanity, Bahá'í Faith and the unity of religion, Bahá'í Faith and gender equality, or Bahá'í Faith and Education. Then I'll have a better idea of the structure, and I'll pitch right in. -- Jeff3000 23:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff3000, Thank you for pointing me to examples. I was wondering about style issues, etc. So, let me get the page started (that is, restructured again). Yes, participative development would be fantastic. I'm going to start an off-site to work out the non-encyclopedic, at least until it can be rewritten or determined to be not suitable for the 'wiki'. jmswtlk 13:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reflection, I think that I see the Light. This page ought to be titled Baha'i Faith and Independent Investigation of the Truth. It would be referenced from Baha'i Faith and Science as well as from the Baha'i menu (Principal Teachings) and elsewhere. Baha'i Faith and Science will require only slight modification (unless we put in more categories related to how a Baha'i Ontology might agree with or differ from the predominate views currently in vogue). I've started the page. jmswtlk 20:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LambaJan's Comment

Excuse my boldness, but this sounds like it's turning into something, so I thought I'd spur it along a little. I simply moved everything over here and turned the outline into a list of headings to be reorganized and fleshed out. I'm really interested in how this article will turn out.

JMS, since this is your brainchild I'll wait till you have a go at it until I add anything. I think right now though, the best thing to do is reorganize the headers so that they make more sense and then put quotes from the Writings into them. I can go looking around for quotes if you want, but it sounds like you already have a lot of them. Just let me know if there's a task that you would like me to do on this. And again, excuse me if this action was too bold. LambaJan 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LambaJan, Thank you. No, not bold at all. (You're being as expected on 'wiki' :- ) Actually, I had thought about doing this myself. So, please, add. 'wiki' allows traces of changes (repeatable :' ).

Now, as an aside, there is an order to the flow of the statements starting with "God is" where if graphed there might actually be a tree. If we can make some progress here, I'll try to graph this once it's filled in more.

<snip> Will use on-line SAQ

This core piece says several things to me, but it relates to a lot of thought on topology that has developed since the mid-1800s (and things built upon this discipline). Also, it cuts to the quick on several troublesome areas (which I hope to categorize through time). Now, Baha’u’llah is the latest of the “Places”. But, we have a whole cluster of Writings that are apropos, including the Qu’ran. So, this task seems to be large. I’m trying just to get it started and see if others can follow.

Now, we can look at the ‘’’Writings’’’ using those attributes (observables, shared, public, …) of Science. One of the Principles talked about the Science of the Love of God (or something like that). I haven't really found any modern endeavor that cannot be related to something in the ‘’’Writings’’’ like this. And, it isn’t really as big a stretch as some might claim.

Now, what kinds of new developments (in all types of science – covering all the possible connotations) do you think that it could help inspire to have a framework based upon the ‘’’Writings’’’ coupled with modern interpretations? Such a mapping could be maintained through time. Is it worthwhile to try this endeavor?

Back to ‘wiki’ and its constraints. The initial thrust would just be a brief capture with hints perhaps on how to proceed. jmswtlk 00:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a cool notion with the tree, but it seems to me that it would go creation, then earth, then man. no?

And the modern mapping. Do you mean, for instance, "Love Me that I may Love thee..." in terms of the science of magnetics, and these sorts of things?

I noticed the topic is changing to IIOP, but I had to ask these questions anyway. -LambaJan 00:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could go God > Creation > Earth > Man in the usual sense of thinking that we evolved solely on the planet. But, we know that this planet has an age. The chain could also go the other way (like I had trying to be general), God>Creation>Man>Earth implying that we always were (SAQ). So, what was there prior to the Earth? Were there other forms of ‘man’ (perhaps not as developed due to limitations of resources, environment). Was it that Earth was a start-over? It was called the ‘footstool’ which gets me thinking that Man is everywhere. Those earth-bound ones ought not think they’re superior <grin>. I don’t know. There are many interesting discussions like this that bringing in a Baha’I Epistemology and Ontology would enable.

In my original note, I referenced the UHJ as the final arbiter in that I can see mathematical systems whose axiomatic framework would then change according to what’s more proper. In the above case, it would take either order and then expand out all the implications. Of course, there are the cautions to not take discourse too far (beginning and ending with words). Actually, I’m trying to show value; look at all the books that describe by various metaphors (and leaving people either behind or confused) the cosmos (macro) and the particles (micro). I’m of the mind that a Baha’i inspired metaphor would be of real benefit.

The reason that I switched to IIOT is that I learned from discussion with you and Jeff that I better get the basis for discourse established. Before suggesting changes to Baha'i Faith and Science, we need to expand the most ‘foundational and fundamental’ items (hence epistemology leading to ontology and cosmology). I say ‘we’ in that I’m hoping that there’ll be a bunch of volunteers weighing in (Baha’is ought not to be afraid to use their insights – balancing, of course, that it ought to be for the better of mankind (however many planets this kind may be on). Since IIOT is a Principle that hasn’t a page, I thought that we ought to put one. Of course, it would support BF&S.

BF&S could add a few more of the larger issues - mind/soul, epistemology, .... Also, there are some of the more clear mappings/agreements - what you suggested is an example – that it would be nice to discuss, itemize, describe. On reading it, someone would think “Ah, such reasoned thought. I need to look closer at that!!”

Incidentally under all this is my goal of actually putting into practice a framework based upon these insights (assuming that I have time enough on this planet). And, the particular domain is critical in my view. At some point (that is, when the basis is further along), I’ll describe further this business/engineering requirement that will require Baha’i insights (it’s my belief).

’wiki’ being encyclopedic, allows a particular type of platform for this type of work. Also, I’m setting up a site as required by ‘wiki’ for those things not encyclopedic. jmswtlk 19:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "... the Bahá'í writings describe all of existence as having various levels, which are arranged in a spiritual hierarchy: first God; then the Holy Spirit; then the Manifestations; then the individual imbued with the spirit of faith; then the human kingdom; then the animal kingdom; then the vegetable (plant) kingdom; and finally the mineral kingdom." from 16. Creation: Its Origin and Purpose.

In terms of the order of Creation, was 'mineral' prior to 'man' (in that a physcial body, requires the aggregation of material (SAQ))? Or 'Man' prior to 'mineral' in that the Manifestation is Reality? Of course, that latter implies that the Manifestation ought to be a piece of the equation (I'll have a pointer to a paper from 1991 shortly) jmswtlk 15:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes (Log)

1. Started the page (from a blank page, need to quickly get links to existing material :- )
2. Keep the Wikipedia:Five_Pillars in mind.
3. This page could be titled 'Cosmology (Baha'i Perspective)' and be bare-boned
4. My hope is that the flow would be intuitively appealling and have everyday applicability
5. Started to use Gleanings, SAQ
6. Started rewrite using Independent Investigation of the Truth

JMSwtlk