A Nuclear Identity Re: RanaRansher (about Sufism)

I think there are many views about Sufism and its relation to Islam, many of them, by definition, pure folklore, due to the lack of a doctrinal nature of Sufi thought. However, in all cases, its intimate link to Islam is not deniable. The earliest Sufi or mystical interpretation of the Quran is tracable to Imam Jaffer Sadeq, who was the great-great grandson of Prophet Mohammed. He refers to Imam Ali (prophet`s son-in-law) and to the Prophet as being the first in this chain. (c.f. ``The Mystical Dimension of Islam`` by Anne-Marie Schimmel and the references contained therein). All of this was obviously prior to the crystallization of the present sufi orders.

The questions ``Are there practising Sufis in Pakistan? Are they considered Muslim?`` are invalid in my view. Sufism and Islam are not complementary to each other. Sufism grows within Islamic traditions, in very much the same way as the orthodox schools grow within the same Islamic tradition. I think this confusion is easily removed if you consider that the orthodoxy one sadly associates with Islam is merely one (albeit loudest) interpretation of it. You will find that the greatest Sufis practised Islam and were fully conversant in the legalistic and orthodox interpretations of Islam. Only by knowing a religion intimately could they make the claim that all religions stem from one root and are therefore isomorphic at a fundamental level.

Mysticism itself it not a domain of Islam only, and has never been claimed to be by anyone. Even the most orthodox Muslims would concede that all religions were ``created`` as one, since that is a part of the Islamic doctrine. What is called Islam today, shares connections with other great religions that passed before it.

Re: RanaRansher (about historical perspectives)

Your point about historical perspectives is a very valid one. But I think that any person with a reasonable amount of intelligence possesses the ability to grasp the broad perimeters of a situation, put oneself in the shoes of another and try to decide what decision he/she would make. This simple exercise allows one to read between the lines of all history books, and quickly brings to one`s attention the incongruities in the narration of a particular historical episode.

So, yes, if I try to apply this simple process, then I quickly find myself moving away from one-sided perspectives. And I would agree with you totally that religious affiliation should not be a factor in assigning a priori validity to the motivations of any. I personally think that in the case of Mssrs. Ghaznavi and Ghauri, religion was not even a motivation in the first place. It was a justification of their campaigns after the fact. During these early campaigns, for example. Rana Sanga rises as a heroic figure.

But what I was trying to say was that there is an even deeper level from which these issues can be seen. And that is the level of a historical process. Before Toynbee, Hegel or even Khaldun, people realized the presence of a larger force at work that moulds and gives birth to civilizations. This historical process involves the use of all human faculties, mental and physical. Looked from that point of view, one does not merely see the Frankish invasion of England, the Mongol Invasion of Abbasids, the Timurid excursions into Asia Minor or the Turkish Invasion of India individually as discrete historical incidents that exist on their own but rather them to be specific examples of a deeper historical process at work that makes our civilizations what they are. At that level, if one tries to evaluate in a simplistic manner (i.e as one would for an individual human being living at a given place at a given time) the actions of many that are spread out over a period encompassing decades and possibly centuries, one is, in my opinion, not going to get very far.

Re: Saad

Thanks for your generosity and kindness in reply to what I wrote. I will agree with you that justice is seldom done by us, we tend to get distracted by the flow of our emotions or opinions, or worse, those of others. As they say: ``Aib ha jumla begofti hunarash neez bego!``

Maybe it`s in us to define everything one dimensionally in black and white.

A Nuclear Identity I would readily grant that the Afghan invaders like Mahmud of Ghaznavi or Mohammed Ghauri were not the prototypical gentlemen that we idealize today. I would not condone or support their modus operandi in today`s world. However to try to judge people of yesterday with standards of today would be naive in my view.

In their day (and to a great extent it is true even today), military power was the way to resolve conflicts and they won fair and square, against people who out-numbered them and were in their home territory. It`s in fashion today to side with everyone who ended up on the losing side. However, anyone, who has read even a bit of the history of the times of these people, would quickly realize that they were no different from their opponents in India in their ambitions. In addition, they did not enjoy a spectacular advantage in technology, so the battles were won on superior strategy and technique, and in some cases by thin margins. The pattern of attacks from Afghanistan to India itself was due to the military superiority of the Afghans and also motivated by the prevalent conditions throughout Afghanistan and Central Asia. These soldiers were superior to anything they encountered in India.

Also, to condemn these invaders unequivocally without taking into account the role played by ``outsiders`` in the evolution of any culture would be unfair. There is nothing called a pure culture. Even the most romantic adherents to the ideal of a pure Arab, Iranian or Indian culture will have to concede that cross-cultural pollination is in some ways inevitable, and also, perhaps essential in the historical process. Without a contact between different cultures, there is no transmission of knowledge for example, and the contact of two cultures cannot be guaranteed to be totally amicable. The history of all great civilizations, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Indian, Mesopotamian, Persian, Chinese, Mayan, Mongolian etc. etc. is an endless play of dominance and subordination of different ``cultures``. Sometimes a civilization is completely absorbed by another, and sometimes, two civilizations merge to give birth to a new civilization. With the advent of the Muslims, India was to become the home of a rich new civilization, which inherited from its parent civilizations. In my opinion, to deny this basic historical process again would be wrong.

Although ultra-nationalists in India would try very hard to deny the role played by the Islamic civilization in India, they find themselves in a difficult position once they realize that everything that they remember about pre-Islamic India was not beautiful and everything associated to Muslim invaders is not ugly. And the same holds for people in Pakistan, in my opinion, who insist on defining a particular ``non-Indian`` identity for Pakistan.

The question therefore arises on how to deal with this episode of the history of the sub-continent. Should one become a naive romantic, fantasizing about the ``purity`` of an Indian culture or the ``dominance`` of an Islamic culture. Or should one realize it as a part of the shared past of the people of the sub-continent and those who lie further west. I think now there is far more in common between Pakistan and India, than they realize, and perhaps they should focus on that instead on the differences.

A Nobel for Development Studies Re: Safwan and Ashim

Thanks for the references. I could not get hold of the books, but did manage to read through a few of the references. A social scientist`s responsibility is in the understanding of phenomena that are currently (maybe even inherently) non-quantifiable. Therefore, I would tend to think that great economists are more akin to great philosophers than to great scientists. Of what I have read about Sen, I think he has, in the tradition of great philosophers, never allowed himself to forget the ethical dimensions of what he has studied and clarified, and in doing so, has not only presented an alternative view of looking at some economic problems, but has also pointed out the centrality of human issues in them.

I also wonder, if one can consider Sen to be a member of a ``humanistic`` school of economics, who are the other influential names there. I would appreciate the help of people in that, so I can fill this gap in my awareness. There are some names that leap to one`s mind, Bhagwati, Mahbub-ul-Haq??

A Nobel for Development Studies According to the news report he was pleasantly surprised by the fact that the topic of welfare economics had been acknowledged by the prize. I do not know about his work, could someone direct me to a reference which I can read?
thanks

One Hundred Voices Here`re some thoughts on the S.O.U.L ... I shudder, knowing that as I write countless people toss and turn in their graves, but what the heck. Building on Saima and Tahnoon`s earlier postings in chap 1... and on the nightmares of Ahmer later on ...

Synergistic Obfuscation Ultimal Link or S.O.U.L was more than just endless calculations on the energy content of the space-time fabric. Deep within the quantum domain, where the only certainty was uncertainty, and Einstein`s elegant equations were ripped apart by the demons of unpredictable fluctuations of the vaccum energy, lay the greatest reservoir of energy in the universe. It was the source of all the universes that could be, it had the potential to destroy and recreate in an instant everything that ever was or ever could be. This was the beating heart that powered all of nature`s designs. This was the source of what appeared to man`s stunted senses as space and time. And humans had inadvertantly found a path that led to it.

This was the Jaffery Primordial Vaccum, named after the young physicist who was to play a pivotal role in the unfurling of human destiny.

Simply put, the whole universe was a shadow, a mere reflection of the intense activity of being and not-being in 13 dimensions. Probability had an energy associated with it, and the sheer number of possibilities in the universe entailed an almost infinite amount of energy. It was a misfortune of humans that they were confined to only three spatial and one temporal dimension. Within the cosmic community of beings, they were severely handicapped, almost all other beings could experience all the 13 dimensions. Not only did this confinement of humans to a four dimensional prison keep them from realizing the true face of the universe around them, it also rendered them incapable of sensing all the other conscious beings around them that filled each and every corner of the universe. What appears empty in four dimensions is not necessarily empty in all 13 dimensions!

But nature had generously compensated humans for their shortcoming. They were four dimensional because they were completely connected with the Primordial Vaccum in all the other dimensions. They had the greatest potential of all beings to harness the incredible power of the Primordial Vaccum. They could travel in and out of this infinite sea of possibilities. At will. Only if they could connect the remaining parts of their beings with the Vaccum. And they would be immortal just like the Vaccum.

Over the millions of years of their evolution, they had unknowingly acquired a partial ability to tap into this power. No doubt it was stronger in some than others, but all had it. Only with the complete failure of all attempts at Artificial Intelligence was it realized that humans have intuition and dreams not because of the way their brain behaved as a computer, but because of the ways it was unlike any computer. Humans, unknowingly, tapped into the Primordial Vaccum and sampled possibilities. They knew and saw things as possibilities, before they knew or saw them physically.

Each man, woman and child, since the dawn of humanity had taken a dip in this sea of possibilities. Everytime a human closed his or her eyes and dreamt, a temporary bond would be made with the Vaccum. The bond was tenuous and those with acute abilities would gather more than others. Occasionally there would appear exceptional individuals who, through mere moments of perception, would change the course of human civilization. These people were the teachers, artists and scientists who lived immortally in human history books.

The discovery of the Vaccum had inevitably led to human attempts at establishing a connection with it. No doubt the attempts were feeble at best, but with every successive experiment of increased intensity, the effects on the Vaccum were more and more pronounced. Every time the giant superconducting magnets of the Synergizer dumped millions of watts of power, ripples were created in the Vaccum. Like tiny waves that race across the surface of a lake, they would travel far and wide. And they would be perceived by those humans whose senses were sharp enough.

The dreams generated by these ripples were not guaranteed to be sweet. And neither were they guaranteed to remain what they were, merely dreams.

A Nuclear Identity Very interesting and well-written article. I think you are correct to point out that Pakistan`s identity in the world rests on few things, not necessarily all that we are proud of. Although there is a profound ignorance, lack of interest and a tendency for generalizations regarding Pakistan in the media, I think the fault lies equally with us Pakistanis. In my opinion we have failed in two important respects:

First, we have failed to invest in our people and our land so that we have achievements that we can be proud of. And second, we have failed to convey to the people of the world what we are proud of.

In the absence of both of these things, no wonder that we are considered to be just another ``third world`` country, with no identity of its own.

In a way, the Nuclear Identity that you mention is a result of a significant investment in its pursuit. If we could have spent an equal amount of money on education, social services, infrastructure and research (combined), we could have established another, more glorious, identity for us, the identity of an Asian tiger.

Global Economy in a Swirling Freefall The present state of international economic planning, and its unfortunate consequences is the result of out-dated institutional policies. The IMF`s policies have not changed since its inception. It is a continuation of the Breton Woods conference and its decisions to restore order in post World War 2 world. That was fifty years ago, no wonder the implementation of those policies does not work miracles in today`s world.

Moore’s Law Redux Actually I think the editor is barfing on the use of certain symbols, so here it goes again ... :-)

Now where is this headed to, let me ask you this: what do you think will be the constraint on the growth of cpu power given that signals cannot exceed the speed of light. If the minimum distance that a signal needs to travel is x, then the fastest possible cpu cannot be more than c/x Hz. Let me put some numbers here: Let x be of the order of one nanometer. Then the time taken for the signal to traverse this distance will be 3 billionths of a nanosecond. This corresponds to a rate of 300 million GHz. If I accept 300M GHz to be the fastest possible computer, then according to Moore`s law, I should get there in about 30 lifetimes of 18 months each, or about 45 years. After that everything should start to flatten out.

Moore’s Law Redux My previous message got chopped off by the replies editor, so here is the last paragraph again ...


Now where is this headed to, let me ask you this: what do you think will be the constraint on the growth of cpu power given that signals cannot exceed the speed of light. If the minimum distance that a signal needs to travel is x, then the fastest possible cpu cannot be more than c/x Hz. Let me put some numbers here: Let x be of the order of one nanometer. Then the time taken for the signal to traverse this distance will be 3x10

Moore’s Law Redux It was a very interesting article, but somehow I think that Moore`s law is not as mysterious or fundamental as some people say. May I suggest that it is not a coded message at the end of pi, neither is it an indication of some undiscovered order in the universe. I think it is derived very easily by a college freshman who knows elementary calculus:

Let N be the measure of the level of whatever technology one is interested in at time t, then I can simply say that the rate of change of the level of a technology is directly proportional its level at that time. i.e the more advanced the technology, the faster its growth. This translates into a simple ODE:

dN/dt = kN

which yields the Moore`s law:

log2(N/N0) = t/T

(where T=1/k, and N0 is the level at starting time. The choice of log base 2 is of course equivalent to that of a natural base through appropriate scaling of T)

The choice of the lifetime T, is dependent on what technology one is interested in. This simple analysis also shows why other technologies may also follow the same behavior. The choice of T may be directly related to the amount of work being done in a field.

I`m very intrigued by the notion of a fundamental universal law residing somewhere in the scaling of a particular techonology. I`m also very curious about where this scaling is headed off to.

About the first issue, Moore`s ``law`` is probably as fundamental as Hooke`s ``law``, which related the extension of a spring to the tension applied to it, i.e. an empirical observation that fits the data very well, but is not fundamental. Other such laws include Rydberg`s law for explaining the emission spectra of hydrogen. In the latter two cases, the observed data were found to follow a given trend quite well, but no explanation was given about the reason for the trend. In the case of Hooke`s law, in the regions that it is applicable, it is the form of inter-molecular potential. In the case of Rydberg`s law, it was the energy splitting of a quantum mechanical oscillator in a potential well. This probably offers a hint on what could possibly define a physical law. Feynman, in his classic book, ``The Character of Physical Law``, suggests that one should look at the comprehensiveness of a hypothesis and its verifiability before characterizing it as a law. The laws of quantum mechanics, for example, are comprehensive, because they apply to an enormous range of phenomena, and are uniquely predictable and verifiable in every domain. This is not the case of either Moore`s Law, Hooke`s law or Rydberg`s Law. (In fact, as you state it, it is not even clear what exactly is doubling every 18 months!)

Now if one were to take the issue that Moore;s law is an approximate mathematical model of the growth of a complex system then one has to pose the problem in terms of the dymanics of a complex system. Even there, although there are a lot of issue relating to the dynamics of an abstract complex system, I do not think that Moore;s law teaches us anything about the fundamental laws of the universe. The scaling of a particular system is dependent on many factors which are not universally determined but a result of a convention or a historical accident. What is so fundamental in the way one technology developed before another? Didn`t the Nazis almost come to the threshold of making an atomic weapon, but why is it that the Allies did that first? Interesting question, but in my view, sheer random chance explains it well enough without invoking extra mysterious reasons.

Now where is this headed to, let me ask you this: what do you think will be the constraint on the growth of cpu power given that signals cannot exceed the speed of light. If the minimum distance that a signal needs to travel is x, then the fastest possible cpu cannot be more than c/x Hz. Let me put some numbers here: Let x be of the order of one nanometer. Then the time taken for the signal to traverse this distance will be 3x10

The Unedited Fairy Tale of Safina and Zordar Very enjoyable and impressive. Loved it despite knowing where it was going, that`s a compliment to your skill BG. Mixed with the babble of the politically correct era, and told in a manner befitting a cross between Marquez and a generic news anchor, it was a story of life.

A Heavy Price to Pay Since we are on this topic, I would like you to read an article on mine, published on Chowk, which deals with the same issue, ``Women`s rights in Pakistan``, (University Ave) and let me know what you think.
regards
Wasiq

A Heavy Price to Pay I really enjoyed reading this. As long as there are aware, empathetic and vocal Pakistani women and men around, I am sure Pakistan will not be another Afghanistan.

I think beyond discussions of gender stereotypes, and their roots, lies the simple fact, that one`s life is what one makes it to be. Not everyone has the best of opportunities, but those who do, and those who wish for a better world, should always keep the faith, and do their little part, no matter how insignificant apparently, to change today into a better tomorrow.

The thoughts and sentiments expressed in this article and in the responses to it, I think, are a testimony to the fact that Pakistan is indeed lucky to have such people around.

p.s I also saw the Handmaid`s Tale (incidentally also at mit) and in some respects the story has interesting parallels with the sentiments expressed in this article. I would actually like to see the movie again (preferably on a large screen ... but sadly, I do not know of a movie theater in Philadelphia that would show it).

The Short-Circuiting of Democracy Re: Saad

Actually I was talking precisely about the Gaussian (the bell curve), since you mentioned it in your reply. The Gaussian, as you well know, is characterized by its mean and its standard deviation. You state that the majority of the human population CANNOT qualify, absolutely, the basic requirements for the functioning of a democratic society. There are two reasons that you give. First, that the average person is not ``smart`` enough (let me call this the problem of ignorant masses). The second reason that you give is that the smartest people in the world are many time smarter than the average people (let me call it the problem of intellectual disparity). Now what I am saying is simply this:

Let`s say that at a given time a minimal ``intelligence`` (let`s call it A) is required by the society in order to have a ``successful`` implementation of democracy. Following your assertion, the ``intelligence`` of the society will be profiled by a Gaussian, say of mean B and standard deviation, dB.

It`s obvious, if B is greater than A, then, by definition, we should have a successful democratic society. What I am saying is that education pushes the mean of the population higher and higher. Universal education in a society, therefore, is the solution to the problem of ``ignorant masses``.

In addition, I think, that this also solves the problem of ``intellectual disparity``. This is so, because societies implement selection, and the inevitable outcome of a selection process is the emergence of a class of fit individuals. Sure, some are fitter than others, but they are all progressively fitter than their predecessors. Using the Gaussian analogy, this leads to a reduction in the standard deviation, dB.

In a society with universal education and awareness, not only will people be, on average, more intelligent, there will also be less disparity between the intelligence of an average person and the most intelligent people.

This is the process that I referred to as ``bunching``. In a limited sense we see it everyday in areas where the selection rules are clearly defined. Consider baseball for example. Babe Ruth was a great player, who towered above his peers. His batting average was, say, five standard deviations above the mean. For convenience let`s say that the mean batting average was 0.23 and the standard deviation was 0.02. This implies that Babe Ruth`s batting average was 0.23 plus 5 times 0.02, or 0.33. However, as one follows the evolution of baseball statistics over the years, one finds that not only do the batting averages increase with time, their spread also decreases. So the batting average today is say 0.28, and the standard deviation is 0.01. What that translates into is that the best baseball players of today, may still be, say five standard deviations away from the mean (with a batting average of 0.33), but the averages of their peers are not 10 points lower but only 5 points lower.

This leads me to another issue, which is of the application of mathematical models to societies. While the application of Gaussian statistics may seem to be reasonable, too much reliance on them and/or not understanding their limits, leads to inevitable fiascos like the book ``The Bell Curve``. That book, which also propogated the idea of a ``mathematical impossibility``, was absurd in its assumptions and conclusions, as any undergraduate conversant in the basics of statistics could have verified. However, in their eagerness to come to a certain conclusion, which it seemed they had arrived at before they started writing the book, they opened themselves to criticisms of the most basic level.

The Short-Circuiting of Democracy Re: Kafir

Actually the Baha`i system sounds very interesting. Please correct me if I am wrong in understanding how it works:

First, the people (let`s call them Voters) elect a set of people (let`s call them Electors) who represent the ideals of the society. Then these elected people, i.e. the Electors elect the Representatives to the assembly. Finally, the Representatives elect the members of the international governing body (let`s call them Governers).

In current democracy, step two is missing, and Voters directly elect the Representatives. My questions are the following:

(a) Can the Electors elect themselves to be the Representatives?

(b) Who defines the spiritual, ethical and other ideals of the society?

(c) Are there any basic scholastic or institutional requirements in order to qualify as a potential Elector i.e. does a person need to have a degree in religion?

(d) How does such a system respond to new ideas, especially if it involves a change in the religious dimensions of the society?

regards
Wasiq

The Short-Circuiting of Democracy Re: Saad

You`re right. I did not want to bring up the issue of implementation as an excuse though, just wanted to suggest that perhaps one could overhaul the implementation of democracy as it is to ensure a better resonance with its ideals. Anita has pointed out some good examples in her reply.

Also, you mentioned the infamous Gaussian ... as we all know, the Big-G is described by two parameters, the mean and the standard deviation. By uniformly educating the public, one may not only raise the mean, but also lower the standard deviation. Surely, we will always have outliers, but at least they would not be so far apart from the average.

This ``bunching`` must occur in the natural world because of competition and selection. With the appropriate selection criteria in a society, I see no reason why this should not happen also to the people....

Re: Kafir

I am sorry for not being clear in my reply.

What I meant by the first question was that democracy aims to establish a government that is in close accordance to the wishes of the people. I identified that to be the goal of democracy, i.e. to set up a people`s government. Now what I was asking was whether it can deliver on that goal in a real world?

The second question, is really contained in the first, but I was being too wordy... I think you have identified the principal goals, let me elaborate on them... I am just raising questions and not necessarily giving any answers.

1) ``citizens have the right and ability to make decisions that affect their welfare;``

I think the key words here are ``ability`` and ``welfare``. No person can be an ``expert`` in all fields, and therefore cannot make an informed decision/choice on the pros and cons of every particular policy. Also, what does one mean by the term ``citizens``? Are they perfect beings or are they real fallible human beings, who are driven by a medley of base as well as sublime motivations? For example, how can one expect a society of robbers to elect anyone but a robber? Is it correct to say that a democratic society is necessarily the most just etc. or even the most survivable society?

2) ``elected leaders should represent the will of their constituents;``

In a realistic world how does one prevent the influence of one lobby or another? Elected leaders are humans, just like the people who are electing them, and therefore are susceptible to influence. Moreover, no person running for election can do so without support, material and moral. How does one dissociate the effects of that support on the views of the leader?

3) ``citizens have a right to replace their representatives through due process;``

This ties in with the first two (all of them are interconnected I think). On what basis do the people decide whether the representatives are no longer serving their purpose? A bizzare exception could be: Is it better to have the current chaos in Pakistan or to have a stable government of a ``benevolent dictator`` who has the ability to lead Pakistan out of its morass? By this example, I am not condoning any undemocratic method, but just illustrating the complexity of issues involved.