Imam al-Awzai rahimullah (157H)
"When we were, and the tabi'in were still many, we said: Verily Allah is above His Arsy, and we believe in His Attributes that come in the sunnah."
"All the ummah, both Arab and non-Arab, they say that Allah is in the sky as long as they have their fitrah and their fitrah aren't removed from their fitrah by other teachings (influenced by deviant creeds)."
"And it has been agreed that the words from the Muslims and even the disbelievers state that Allah is in the sky, and they have explained Allah that Allah is above the sky, except Bisyr Al-Marrisi and his friends who are misguided.
"As Allah has told us in the Qur'an and through the saying of His Prophet Shallallahu Alaiyhi Wasaalam, and as it was understood in the fitrah of the Muslims, from among the scholars and the ignorant people, (1)
"The Hadith experts believe and testify that Allah is above the seven heavens above His' Arsy as stated in the Al Qur'an
.... (1)
Imam Adz-Dzahabi said (Siyar A'laam An-Nubalaa '17/656):
"As for our imams such as Sufyan Ats Tsauri, Imam Malik, Sufyan Ibn Uyainah, Hammaad bin Salamah, Hammaad Ibn Zaid, Abdullah bin Mubarak, Fudhoil Ibnu 'Iyyadh, Ahmad bin Hanbal
In al Itiqod, "Our path is the path of the salaf, namely followers of the Qur'an and Sunnah and the consensus of the ummat. Among the things they believe is that Allah is always the Most Perfect with all His qualities that are qodiimmah
...
Ibn Abu Hatim said: "I asked my father (Abu Hatim) and Abu Zur'ah about the madzhab of ahlussunnah on ushuluddin (aqeedah) and the scholars throughout the country whom he met and what he both believed about it
Faith is in the form of words and practices, increasing and decreasing
...
More from For later read
Nice to discover Judea Pearl ask a fundamental question. What's an 'inductive bias'?
I crucial step on the road towards AGI is a richer vocabulary for reasoning about inductive biases.
explores the apparent impedance mismatch between inductive biases and causal reasoning. But isn't the logical thinking required for good causal reasoning also not an inductive bias?
An inductive bias is what C.S. Peirce would call a habit. It is a habit of reasoning. Logical thinking is like a Platonic solid of the many kinds of heuristics that are discovered.
The kind of black and white logic that is found in digital computers is critical to the emergence of today's information economy. This of course is not the same logic that drives the general intelligence that lives in the same economy.
Help! What precisely is "inductive bias"? Some ML researchers are in the opinion that the machine learning category of \u2018inductive biases\u2019 can allow us to build a causal understanding of the world. My Ladder of Causation says: "This is mathematically impossible". Who is right? 1/
— Judea Pearl (@yudapearl) February 14, 2021
I crucial step on the road towards AGI is a richer vocabulary for reasoning about inductive biases.
explores the apparent impedance mismatch between inductive biases and causal reasoning. But isn't the logical thinking required for good causal reasoning also not an inductive bias?
An inductive bias is what C.S. Peirce would call a habit. It is a habit of reasoning. Logical thinking is like a Platonic solid of the many kinds of heuristics that are discovered.
The kind of black and white logic that is found in digital computers is critical to the emergence of today's information economy. This of course is not the same logic that drives the general intelligence that lives in the same economy.
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
This is an excellent report, and I'm glad to have joined the study group. The central focus on avoiding war is understandable--a US-China war would be catastrophic and should be avoided. But protecting Taiwan's security and prosperity requires doing more. 1/x https://t.co/P0Sg4LJcpV
— Bonnie Glaser / \u845b\u4f86\u5100 (@BonnieGlaser) February 12, 2021
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
