Hague, Paul Comments

On 29 Jun 2018, at 14:52, Paul Hague <[email protected]> wrote:


Hi David,

Many thanks for telling me about the Galileo Commission, which seems to be the latest manifestation of the Commission for Extended Science. I look forward to studying the documents and participating as well as I am able.
I would probably give my profession as information systems architect, rather than systems architect, but the latter is OK. To explain what I mean by how the modelling methods of information systems architects in business can be extended far beyond materialistic science, last week I uploaded the Prologue and first chapter titled ‘Business Modelling’ of my final book titled Unifying Mysticism and Mathematics: To Reveal the Contextual Foundation and Framework for All Knowledge.
Even my colleagues from the data-processing industry have some difficulty in understanding the revolutionary way that I look at the relationship of humans and computers in the workplace. But the time is right to bring the concept of data to the forefront. As a leader in The Economist said last year, The world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data.
Similarly, IBM had a marketing slogan in the late 1970s ‘Manage data as a corporate resource’. But what on earth is data? And where does it get its power from? Well, as David Bohm and I discussed in a series of meetings during the 1980s, data is synergistically energetic and causal from the structure of meaningful relationships between forms. For me, this notion of structural energy, whether it be physical or psychospiritual, is key to extending science today.
For myself, I would have called the Galileo Commission the Kepler Commission, for Kepler was the real hero of the first scientific revolution spending countless hours seeking patterns in Tycho Brahe’s measurements of the planets, eventually discovering the three mathematical laws of planetary motion. Einstein said in the Foreword to Carola Baumgardt’s 1952 book on Johannes Kepler: Life and Letters that is was ‘pure genius’ in the way that Kepler calculated the Earth’s orbit around the Sun by imagining that he was standing on Mars.
Yet, Galileo did not know any of this, refusing to read Kepler’s more mature New Astronomy and The Harmony of the World, probably because of Kepler’s rather fanciful Mysterium Cosmographicum from the late 1500s, which Galileo did read. But as it seems that the aim of the Galileo Commission is to transform the way that science is conducted today and as traditional scientists relate more to Galileo than Kepler, or indeed Newton, it seems that Galileo Commission is more appropriate.
Interesting times we live in!
Warmest wishes