Quantum suicide and immortality

But for the first time, quantum physicist Seth Lloyd of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggests that memories of entanglement can survive its destruction. He compares the effect to Emily Brontë’s novel Wuthering Heights: “the spectral Catherine communicates with her quantum Heathcliff as a flash of light from beyond the grave.”Where Susskind leaves off, Seth Lloyd begins

In Max' Tegmark's assessment of Quantum Immortality, "Although quantum immortality is motivated by the quantum suicide thought experiment, Max Tegmark has stated that he does not believe that quantum immortality is a consequence of his work,"I thought to trace some perspective about what happened with the thought experiment of Susskind's versus the telling tale of what happens inside the blackhole based on the idea of something that is left outside the blackhole for consideration.

***

The consequence of sound in analogy serves to help us not only orientate causal action from direct contact, but the realization that such contact has consequences. It is befitting such thought experiments or analogies can help push the mind toward accepting the world in a different light so it understands that there is more to the world in which we see as observers, but also of what we meet through such contact as a manifestation through experiences.

Savas Dimopoulos

Here’s an analogy to understand this: imagine that our universe is a two-dimensional pool table, which you look down on from the third spatial dimension. When the billiard balls collide on the table, they scatter into new trajectories across the surface. But we also hear the click of sound as they impact: that’s collision energy being radiated into a third dimension above and beyond the surface. In this picture, the billiard balls are like protons and neutrons, and the sound wave behaves like the graviton.See Also: The Sound Of Billiard Balls

***

How Quantum Suicide Works

by Josh Clark

***

In quantum mechanics, quantum suicide is a thought experiment. It was originally published independently by Hans Moravec in 1987 and Bruno Marchal in 1988 and was further developed by Max Tegmark in 1998.^[1] It attempts to distinguish between the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Everett many-worlds interpretation by means of a variation of the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. The experiment involves looking at the Schrödinger's cat experiment from the point of view of the cat.

Quantum immortality is a metaphysical speculation derived from the quantum suicide thought experiment. It states that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that conscious beings are immortal.^[2] Hugh Everett is reported to have believed in quantum immortality, although he never published on either quantum suicide or quantum immortality.^[3]

Contents 1 The quantum suicide thought experiment 2 Quantum immortality 3 Surviving the quantum thought experiment 4 Required assumptions 5 Arguments against quantum immortality 5.1 Max Tegmark's work 5.2 David Lewis's work 5.3 Derek Parfit's work 6 Other criticism and controversy 7 In fiction 8 See also 9 References 10 External links

The quantum suicide thought experiment

Unlike Schrödinger's cat-in-a-box thought experiment which used poison gas and a radioactive decay trigger, this human version involves some sort of lethal weapon and a machine which measures the spin value of a photon. Every 10 seconds, the spin value of a randomly passing photon is measured. Depending on the orientation of the spin, either the weapon is deployed and the man is killed, or it is not and he lives.

With each run of the experiment there is a 50-50 chance that the weapon will be triggered and the experimenter will die. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the weapon will (in all likelihood) eventually be triggered and the experimenter will die. If the many-worlds interpretation is correct then at each run of the experiment, the experimenter will be split into several worlds in which he dies and a few worlds in which he survives. In the worlds where the experimenter dies, he will cease to be a conscious entity.

However, from the point of view of the non-dead copies of the experimenter, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the surviving copies of the experimenter will notice that he never seems to die, therefore "proving" himself to be invulnerable to the killing mechanism in question, from his own point of view.

If the many-worlds interpretation is true, the measure (given in the many-worlds interpretation by the squared norm of the wavefunction) of the surviving copies of the experimenter will decrease by 50% with each run of the experiment, but will remain non-zero. So, if the surviving copies become experimenters, those copies will either die during their first attempt, or survive creating duplicates of themselves (copies of copies, that will survive finitely or die).

 Quantum immortality

The idea behind quantum immortality is that, in running the quantum thought experiment, the experimenter may remain alive and, thus, be able to experience at least one of the universes in this set (even though these universes form a tiny subset of all possible universes). Over time, the experimenter would therefore never perceive his or her own death.

Surviving the quantum thought experiment

The small-probability remaining branches are in effect, though unlikely to be experienced by most of the copies of the experimenter that started out. Most of the observer-moments in the universe will not be in such low-measure situations because measure is proportional to the number of copies and therefore the number of that type of observer-moment.

However, the rareness of an observer moment has no relation to presence or absence of experience; if the many-worlds interpretation is true, all non-zero observer moments are experienced, even rare ones. Believers in quantum suicide think it gives a recipe for entering into rare observer moments. The experimenter indeed knows that this type of observer moment is rare, which is why it would be unlikely to occur in interpretations of quantum physics that don't have many worlds.

In the branching worlds, the observer has one of two possibilities, live or die. If he is alive, then presumably he does not recall the death. In the other reality, he is dead (and ceases to exist in that reality). If the experiment is repeated over and over, there will always be a reality where the observer never dies. This reality will finally convince the observer that it is impossible to die.

Required assumptions

Proponents of the quantum immortality point out that, although it is highly speculative, the theory does not violate any known laws of physics—but only if certain controversial assumptions are made:

1. That the many-worlds interpretation is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics, as opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation, the latter of which does not involve the existence of parallel universes. Note, though, that parallel universes may be possible through other mechanisms in the Copenhagen interpretation.
2. Not dying some finite number of times (perhaps in parallel universes) constitutes immortality.
3. Permanent cessation of the consciousness, along with the ability to observe, occurs at physical destruction (death).

Arguments against quantum immortality

David Papineau argues against the quantum suicide argument thus: "If one outcome is valuable because it contains my future experiences, surely an alternative outcome which lacks those experiences is of lesser value, simply by comparison with the first outcome. Since expected utility calculations hinge on relative utility values rather than absolute ones, I should be concerned about death as long as the outcome where I die is given less utility than the one where I survive, whatever the absolute value."^[4]

Jacques Mallah expands on this "utility" argument,^[5] suggesting that quantum suicide cannot give a recipe for "entering into" rare or "low measure" observer moments. This is because the amount of consciousness or "measure" of these rare observer moments is exactly as much as it would have been without the quantum suicide; in that case quantum suicide merely removes the other observer-moments. This is equivalent, in Mallah's view, to a single-world situation in which one starts off with many copies of the experimenter, and the number of surviving copies is decreased by 50% with each run. Therefore, according to this argument, the quantum nature of the experiment provides no benefit to the experimenter; in terms of his/her subjective life expectancy or rational decision making, or even in terms of his/her trying to decide whether the many-worlds interpretation is correct, the many-worlds interpretation gives results that are the same as that of a single-world interpretation.^[5]
Mallah also gives a "general argument against immortality" which argues that if people are immortal, then it is vanishingly unlikely to find oneself to be of a normal age rather than abnormally old.

It has been countered that in a many-worlds interpretation, the amplitude of being the living experimenter can be halved repeatedly without ever reaching zero. However, this point is not disputed by opponents of quantum suicide; rather, they claim that it is not the issue, while Mallah claims that the decrease in measure is the issue.

Max Tegmark's work

Using logic similar to that of Greg Egan's Dust Theory, Max Tegmark argues that under any sort of normal conditions, before someone dies they undergo a period of diminishment of consciousness, a non-quantum decline (which can be anywhere from seconds to minutes to years), and hence there is no way of establishing a continuous existence in this world to an alternate one in which the person ceases to exist.^[6] Although quantum immortality is motivated by the quantum suicide thought experiment, Max Tegmark has stated that he does not believe that quantum immortality is a consequence of his work^.

David Lewis's work

The philosopher David Lewis, in "How Many Lives Has Schrödinger's Cat?", remarked that in the vast majority of the worlds in which an immortal observer might find himself (i.e. the subset of quantum-possible worlds in which the observer does not die), he will survive, but will be terribly maimed. This is because in each of the scenarios typically given in thought experiments (nuclear bombing, Russian roulette, etc.), for every world in which the observer survives unscathed, there are likely to be far more worlds in which the observer survives terribly disfigured, badly disabled, and so on. It is for this reason, Lewis concludes, that we ought to hope that the many-worlds interpretation is false.^[7]

Derek Parfit's work

In Reasons and Persons Derek Parfit used thought experiments ranging from teleportation to gradual changes to your psychology to argue that personal identity isn't a deep fact about the world. After quantum suicide there would be worlds with persons that shared your memories and there would be worlds without such persons. There is no Cartesian ego which does or doesn't survive.

Other criticism and controversy

Critics^[who?] contend quantum suicide fails as a thought experiment to achieve its intended purpose. Nonetheless, there are arguments^[specify] involving anthropic considerations among entire universes which do provide evidence^[specify] for the many-worlds interpretation.^[8]
Quantum suicide and quantum immortality remain controversial because a number of thinkers^[who?] disagree on its success or failure and, particularly, its relevance to life expectancy and decision making.

In fiction

Main article: Quantum suicide and quantum immortality in fiction

Authors^[who?] of science fiction have used themes involving both quantum suicide and quantum immortality. The idea that authors exploit is that a person who dies in one world may survive in another world or parallel universe.

Quantum suicide

Quantum suicide themes have been explored in the following works:

• Larry Niven's short story "All the Myriad Ways", collected in a collection of the same name (1971)
• Dan Simmons's novel The Hollow Man (1992). Simmons also describes a quantum execution mechanism in his Hyperion Cantos series.
• Greg Egan's novel Quarantine (1992)
• Greg Egan's novel Permutation City (1994), in which one character repeatedly had his mind uploaded and his copy eventually terminated, but found out that he always "ended up" in another world, where his survival was explained by increasingly improbable circumstances.
• Robert Charles Wilson's short story Divided by Infinity (1998)
• Denis Johnson's novel Already Dead (A California Gothic) (1998)
• Jason Shiga's book Meanwhile (2004)
• Greg Bear's short Story "Schrodinger's Plague" found in his book Tangents deals with a doomsday version of this experiment in which instead of a single scientist dying, a deadly virus is released into the populace.

Quantum immortality

Quantum immortality themes have been explored in several works:

Books

• The Greg Egan novel Quarantine explores topics related to quantum immortality.
• In the Greg Egan short story The Infinite Assassin, the title character explicitly defines himself this way: "'I' am those who survive, and succeed. The rest are someone else."
• Other science fiction stories exploring these and related ideas include All the Myriad Ways by Larry Niven, and Divided by Infinity by Robert Charles Wilson.
• Terry Pratchett's short story Death and What Comes Next has a philosopher arguing the principle with Death, who has come for him.
• Steven Hall's novel The Raw Shark Texts contains references to Max Tegmark and the Quantum Machine Gun (an alternate name for the quantum suicide thought experiment) suggesting a possible quantum immortality -related reading of the story.
• In Neal Stephenson's 2008 novel Anathem, the concept of quantum immortality factors significantly, if under different names.

See also

• Final anthropic principle
• Multiverse
• Quantum mind
• Quantum mysticism

References

1. ^ Tegmark, Max The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words?, 1998
2. ^ Goertzel, Ben; Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir (2006). The path to posthumanity: 21st century technology and its radical implications for mind, society and reality. Academica Press, LLC. p. 343. 
3. ^ See Keith Lynch's recollections in Eugene Shikhovtsev's Biography of Everett [1]
4. ^ Papineau, David "Why you don’t want to get in the box with Schrödinger's cat" Analysis 63: 51–58. 2003
5. ^ ^{a b} Mallah, Jacques Many-Worlds Interpretations Can Not Imply 'Quantum Immortality', 2009
6. ^ Tegmark, Max Quantum immortality, November 1998
7. ^ David Lewis. How Many Lives Has Schrödinger's Cat? The Jack Smart Lecture, Canberra, 27 June 2001. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 3–22; March 2004, pp. 21.
8. ^ Observational Consequences of Many-Worlds Quantum Theory, 1999.

External links

• "Does the 'many-worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics imply immortality?" by James Higgo
• The 'Everything' mailing list (and archives), A "discussion of the idea that all possible universes exist".
• How Quantum Suicide Works
• Dying to know

Primum movens

Until all are one! Primus to his children, "Trap"

Primus is the "benevolent" godlike entity in the fictional Transformers comic universe who fought against the Chaos-Bringer Unicron.

 ***

Primum movens (Latin), usually referred to as the First Cause in English, is a term used in the philosophical and theological cosmological argument for the existence of God, and in thinking about cosmogony, the source of the cosmos or "all-being", and spontaneous generation of life.

Contents 1 Aristotle's ontology 2 See also 3 References 4 Bibliography

Aristotle's ontology

In book 12 of his Metaphysics, Aristotle used the phrase τι ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ ("something which moves [other things] without [itself] being moved [by anything]")^[1] -- i.e., the unmoved mover. When applied in his physics, this led to the view that all natural motions are uncaused and therefore self-explanatory.^[2] Causality is linear, so causality or motion must be finally attributed to a first cause, which logically cannot itself be moved, i.e. the unmoved mover. To Aristotle the first cause is energy or energeia (in Greek) or actus (in Latin): energy causes motion. This is the foundation for the theory of actualism, a non-idealist philosophy of nature, science, logic, and mathematics.^[3] Aristotle's actualistic ontology is a denial of "potential ontology" - that Being is the first cause of the cosmos.

*** 

In mathematics, ex nihilo can refer to an answer to a question provided with no working, thus appearing to have developed "out of nothing".

I set up this blog post "as to an extreme," the  idea of Aristotle's ontology toward the question of science in it's math and science,  as to where one should position them self from riding that slippery slope. I mean for what is to come next,  we set up the point for information to enter?

 At 9:54 AM, September 29, 2010,  Plato said...

So as if one thing can lead to another,  I wondered about that Infinite Regress.


In concert with the question of Bee's Poll on Discovery and Invention, it raised the question for me of where one educated as a "theorist or mathematician" may start from?

I mean, in order for Steinhardt or Turok to go further with the Universe, they had to consider the universe in some "previous form?" Veneziano, of what came before? So perspective about the universe has been pushed back to the microseconds? Ideas about the QGP, as to the timing of that look at the universe?

I mean "where do you go" to find the answers for what is to come next or what existed before?

My question to Len raised the place where "all is to begin," and whether such a "foundational perspective" can arise from nothing? Emergence cannot come from nothing?

The mind, leads the way neurologically?
Infinite regress in consciousness is the formation of an infinite series of "inner observers" as we ask the question of who is observing the output of the neural correlates of consciousness in the study of subjective consciousness.Infinite Regress

I do not think these questions to be, too alien?:)

***

The Elements

Plato assumes that the minute particle of each element had a special geometric shape: tetrahedron (fire), octahedron (air), icosahedron (water), and cube (earth).

Tetrahedron (fire)	Octahedron (air)	Icosahedron (water)	Cube (earth)

The Timaeus conjectures on the composition of the four elements which the ancient GreeksPlatonic solid: the element of earth would be a cube, of air an octahedron, of water an icosahedron, and of fire a tetrahedron^[3]. Each of these perfect polyhedra would be in turn composed of triangles. Only certain triangular shapes would be allowed, such as the 30-60-90 and the 45-45-90 triangles. Each element could be broken down into its component triangles, which could then be put back together to form the other elements. Thus, the elements would be interconvertible, so this idea was a precursor to alchemy. thought made up the universe: earth, water, air, and fire. Plato conjectured each of these elements to be made up of a certain

Further, Plato posits the existence of a fifth element (corresponding to the fifth remaining Platonic solid, the dodecahedron) called aether, of which the cosmos itself is made. Timaeusmusic theory: e.g. construction of the Pythagorean scale. The last part of the dialogue addresses the creation of humans, including the soul, anatomy, perception, and transmigration of the soul. also discusses

To move from the Myth of the Metals, to the understanding of "character and merit," the Noble Lie, was the understanding that Merit could exist "as a potential coming from all sorts of people in society." Not that any Oligarchy(chosen by the Guardians as to Merit) governed society could have ever been based on Merit, determined as the case in Myth of the Metals to be anything other then, those qualities that are measured according to a metallurgy of discovery about those "qualities" within ourselves?

See Also:

Justice, Open to Interpretation While Reducible to Logic?

Science and Hypothesis

Whole Item	Format	Size
science_and_hypothesis_librivox_128kb.m3u	128kbps M3U	StreamB
science_and_hypothesis_librivox_64kb.m3u	64Kbps M3U	StreamB
science_and_hypothesis_librivox_64kb_mp3.zip	64Kbps MP3 ZIP	193.4 MB

Audio Files	128Kbps MP3	Ogg Vorbis	64Kbps MP3
01 - Introduction by Judd Larmor	12.4 MB	6.9 MB	6.2 MB
02 - Author's Preface	10.0 MB	5.3 MB	5.0 MB
03 - On the Nature of Mathematical Reasoning	27.9 MB	16.3 MB	14.0 MB
04 - Mathematical Magnitude and Experiment	24.9 MB	13.5 MB	12.4 MB
05 - Non-Euclidean Geometries	25.5 MB	12.9 MB	12.8 MB
06 - Space and Geometry	29.3 MB	19.4 MB	14.7 MB
07 - Experiment and Geometry	24.7 MB	16.9 MB	12.3 MB
08 - Classical Mechanics	28.0 MB	14.6 MB	14.0 MB
09 - Relative and Absolute Motion	18.2 MB	13.0 MB	9.1 MB
10 - Energy and Thermo-dynamics	22.0 MB	12.5 MB	11.0 MB
11 - Hypotheses in Physics	26.6 MB	14.7 MB	13.3 MB
12 - The Theories of Modern Physics	30.4 MB	17.3 MB	15.2 MB
13 - The Calculus of Probability	46.4 MB	33.3 MB	23.2 MB
14 - Optics and Electricity	20.8 MB	11.5 MB	10.4 MB
15 - Electro-Dynamics	39.4 MB	23.0 MB	19.7 MB

Information	Format	Size
science_and_hypothesis_librivox_files.xml	Metadata	20.8 KB
science_and_hypothesis_librivox_meta.xml	Metadata	2.2 KB
science_and_hypothesis_librivox_reviews.xml	Metadata	195.0 B

***

See Also:

A Model for Thought?

What is the Noble Lie?

"Plato made clear that merit and not heredity defined the gold man and that gold could be found in all parts of society."

What is the "Noble lie" in Economics??

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The Guardians were to be men of Gold....while the "stratification of society" was to assigned their metal attributes?

The Noble lie would be to uncover that Lincoln meant "something more" as to the use of "crucibles mentally used,"  were to find that perfection could be more then the guardians of society, but more the search for the truth of character?

“ Man is the most composite of all creatures.... Well, as in the old burning of the Temple at Corinth, by the melting and intermixture of silver and gold and other metals a new compound more precious than any, called Corinthian brass, was formed; so in this continent,--asylum of all nations,--the energy of Irish, Germans, Swedes, Poles, and Cossacks, and all the European tribes,--of the Africans, and of the Polynesians,--will construct a new race, a new religion, a new state, a new literature, which will be as vigorous as the new Europe which came out of the smelting-pot of the Dark Ages, or that which earlier emerged from the Pelasgic and Etruscan barbarism.”


—Ralph Waldo Emerson, describing American Culture as a melting pot in a journal entry, 1845

The oligarchical society is the demise of democracy gone to far. An unruly mob?

How shall a gold standard used by position, in politics or economics,  advantage the course set by the Guardians of that society? It will announce the provisions toward a police state in order to keep democracy ruled, while this perpetuation seeks to remain covered by an extremism manufacture by opposition in that society?

A just society must be governed by men of reason.Inventing a new social myth to replace the old. Socrates calls those who rule for the benefit of the whole society and not to it's detriment golden men: in his myth they rightfully govern the men of silver and bronze.
This is the myth of metals(415a ff.) the centrepiece of a second accusation that has dogged Plato through the centuries. Plato made clear that merit and not heredity defined the gold man and that gold could be found in all parts of society. Nonetheless, Plato has never escaped the charge that he imposes upon society an elitist and authoritarian rule. The charge is pressed even though in Book IV Plato makes justice in the individual the condition of justice in society.--Pg 16, Para 2 and 3, of Plato the Republic Introduction by Richard W. Sterling and William C. Scott.

So "extremism can exist" in both perspectives about which a society has extended itself? Capitalism's one form of that extremism  toward this stratification of society maintained. It said nothing "about the character" because it does not want to encourage a "subjective look" at what it can do by "using numbers" in which to propel advantage, by consumers buying into.

They know what you need, yet they do not realize that once it has become common knowledge, the shift in society can be as little as "choosing a competitor"  whose moral backbone is devised on character building rather then seeking to use this stratification in society to maintain the "metal standard?"

***

Update:

Phil, in his Odd and Sods comment to my blog entry here because of "spam filtering" thought to link his response, "Will Artificial Intelligence Ever be Able to Discern the Truth?" and the evolution of reason to what perceptions Plato may have formed about him in regards to views on society? Does Computerization somehow destroy or "create issues around the Noble Lie?"

Republic, Book III, 415a: 


"...hear the rest of the story. While all of you in the city are brothers, we will say in our tale, yet God in fashioning those of you who are fitted to hold rule mingled gold in their generation,1 for which reason they are the most precious—but in the helpers silver, and iron and brass in the farmers and other craftsmen. And as you are all akin, though for the most part you will breed after your kinds,2 415b it may sometimes happen that a golden father would beget a silver son and that a golden offspring would come from a silver sire and that the rest would in like manner be born of one another. So that the first and chief injunction that the god lays upon the rulers is that of nothing else3 are they to be such careful guardians and so intently observant as of the intermixture of these metals in the souls of their offspring, and if sons are born to them with an infusion of brass or iron 415c they shall by no means give way to pity in their treatment of them, but shall assign to each the status due to his nature and thrust them out4 among the artisans or the farmers. And again, if from these there is born a son with unexpected gold or silver in his composition they shall honor such and bid them go up higher, some to the office of guardian, some to the assistanceship, alleging that there is an oracle5 that the state shall then be overthrown when the man of iron or brass is its guardian. Do you see any way of getting them to believe this tale?” 415d “No, not these themselves,” he said, “but I do, their sons and successors and the rest of mankind who come after.6” “Well,” said I, “even that would have a good effect making them more inclined to care for the state and one another. For I think I apprehend your meaning. XXII. And this shall fall out as tradition7 guides.”



“But let us arm these sons of earth and conduct them under the leadership of their rulers. And when they have arrived they must look out for the fairest site in the city for their encampment,8 415e a position from which they could best hold down rebellion against the laws from within and repel aggression from without as of a wolf against the fold. And after they have encamped and sacrificed to the proper gods9 they must make their lairs, must they not?” “Yes,” he said. “And these must be of a character keep out the cold in winter and be sufficient in summer?” “Of course. For I presume you are speaking of their houses.” “Yes,” said I, “the houses of soldiers10 not of money-makers.”

416a “What distinction do you intend by that?” he said. “I will try to tell you,” I said. “It is surely the most monstrous and shameful thing in the world for shepherds to breed the dogs who are to help them with their flocks in such wise and of such a nature that from indiscipline or hunger or some other evil condition the dogs themselves shall attack the sheep and injure them and be likened to wolves1 instead of dogs.” “A terrible thing, indeed,” he said. 416b “Must we not then guard by every means in our power against our helpers treating the citizens in any such way and, because they are the stronger, converting themselves from benign assistants into savage masters?” “We must,” he said. “And would they not have been provided with the chief safeguard if their education has really been a good one?” “But it surely has,” he said. “That,” said I, “dear Glaucon, we may not properly affirm,2 but what we were just now saying we may, 416c that they must have the right education, whatever it is, if they are to have what will do most to make them gentle to one another and to their charges.” “That is right,” he said. “In addition, moreover, to such an education a thoughtful man would affirm that their houses and the possessions provided for them ought to be such as not to interfere with the best performance of their own work as guardians and not to incite them to wrong the other citizens.” 416d “He will rightly affirm that.” “Consider then,” said I, “whether, if that is to be their character, their habitations and ways of life must not be something after this fashion. In the first place, none must possess any private property3 save the indispensable. Secondly, none must have any habitation or treasure-house which is not open for all to enter at will. Their food, in such quantities as are needful for athletes of war4 sober and brave, 416e they must receive as an agreed5 stipend6 from the other citizens as the wages of their guardianship, so measured that there shall be neither superfluity at the end of the year nor any lack.7 And resorting to a common mess8 like soldiers on campaign they will live together. Gold and silver, we will tell them, they have of the divine quality from the gods always in their souls, and they have no need of the metal of men nor does holiness suffer them to mingle and contaminate that heavenly possession with the acquisition of mortal gold, since many impious deeds have been done about 417a the coin of the multitude, while that which dwells within them is unsullied. But for these only of all the dwellers in the city it is not lawful to handle gold and silver and to touch them nor yet to come under the same roof1 with them, nor to hang them as ornaments on their limbs nor to drink from silver and gold. So living they would save themselves and save their city.2 But whenever they shall acquire for themselves land of their own and houses and coin, they will be house-holders and farmers instead of guardians, and will be transformed 417b from the helpers of their fellow citizens to their enemies and masters,3 and so in hating and being hated,4 plotting and being plotted against they will pass their days fearing far more and rather5 the townsmen within than the foemen without—and then even then laying the course6 of near shipwreck for themselves and the state. For all these reasons,” said I, “let us declare that such must be the provision for our guardians in lodging and other respects and so legislate. Shall we not?” “By all means,” said Glaucon. See: Myth of Metals

***

Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and no artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature.

Plato's Concept Of Justice: An Analysis Bold was added by me for emphasis.

***

See Also:The Myth of Mettle

Old News Can Still Be New Information

Getting a handle on Symmetries is an always work in progress for me, so as to keep abreast of the science and the theoretic involved.

Why has Physics Today's news coverage of string theory been so sparse?

Given string theory's high ambition to account for all nature's forces and particles, given the number of string theorists working to achieve that ambition, and given the general public's interest in string theory, two stories in seven years might seem low. But is it? (See above link)

So traveling back in time,  one can move forward.

Nambu	Kobayashi	Maskawa

Spontaneous symmetry breaking

Introduced into particle physics by Nambu in 1960, spontaneous symmetry breaking was to become a pillar of the field’s standard model, which since its completion in the mid-1970s has survived every experimental challenge. When a physical state does not exhibit all the symmetries of the dynamical laws that govern it, the violated symmetries are said to be spontaneously broken.

The idea had been around for a long time in classical mechanics, fluid dynamics, and condensed-matter physics. An oft-cited example is ferromagne­tism. Its underlying laws of atomic physics are absolutely invariant under rotation. Nonetheless, below a critical temperature the atomic spins spontaneously line up in some arbitrary direction to create a state that is not rotationally symmetric. Similarly, the cylindrical symmetry of a state in which a pencil is perfectly poised on its tip is spontaneously broken when the pencil inevitably falls over. But such examples give little hint of the subtlety and power of the notion once Nambu began exploiting it in quantum field theory.

It began with a paper Nambu wrote in 1959 about gauge invariance in superconductivity.¹ The paper exhibits his virtuosity in two disparate specialties—quantum field theory and condensed-matter theory. He became conversant with both as a graduate student at the University of Tokyo after he was mustered out of the army in 1945. Eventually he began working with the group around Sin-itiro Tomonaga, one of the creators of modern quantum electrodynamics (QED). Tomonaga was actually based at another university in Tokyo. But the University of Tokyo was strong in condensed-matter physics. So Nambu started out working on the Ising model of ferromagnetism.

After two years at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, Nambu came to the University of Chicago in 1954, just before the untimely death of Enrico Fermi. When John Bardeen, Leon Cooper, and Robert Schrieffer published their theory of superconductivity in 1957, Nambu and others noted that the BCS superconducting ground state lacked the gauge invariance of the underlying electromagnetic theory. In classical electrodynamics, gauge invariance refers to the freedom one has in choosing the vector and scalar potentials. In QED that freedom is linked to the freedom to change the phase of the electron wavefunction arbitrarily from point to point in space. Did the gauge-symmetry violation mean that the BCS theory was simply wrong? Or perhaps superconductivity was a manifestation of some yet unknown force beyond electromagnetism and atomic physics.

Having heard Schrieffer give a talk about the new theory in 1957 without mentioning gauge invariance, Nambu spent the next two years thinking about its role in the theory. He recast the BCS theory into the perturbative quantum-field-theoretic formalism with which Richard Feynman had solved—independently of Tomonaga—the problem of the intractable infinities in QED. From that reformulation, Nambu concluded that the superconducting ground state results from the spontaneous breaking of the underlying gauge symmetry. He showed that all the characteristic manifestations of superconductivity—including the expulsion of magnetic flux and the energy gap that assures lossless current flow—follow simply from that spontaneous symmetry breaking.

See:Physics Nobel Prize to Nambu, Kobayashi, and Maskawa for theories of symmetry breaking by Bertram Schwarzschild Physics Today and references cited in article below.

1. 1. Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. 117, 648 (1960) [SPIN].
2. 2. Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 380 (1960) [SPIN].
3. 3. Y. Nambu, G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961) [SPIN]; 124, 246 (1961) [SPIN].
4. 4. P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 130, 439 (1963) [SPIN].
5. 5. F. Englert, R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 321 (1964) [SPIN]; P. W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 508 (1964) [SPIN]; G. S. Guralelnik, C. R. Hagen, T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 585 (1964) [SPIN].
6. 6. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1264 (1967) [SPIN].
7. 7. M. Kobayashi, T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652 (1973) .
8. 8. S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, L. Maiani, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1285 (1970) [SPIN].

Utopia

Woodcut by Ambrosius Holbein for a 1518 edition of Utopia. The lower left-hand corner shows the traveler Raphael Hythlodaeus, describing the island.

Utopia (pronounced /juːˈtoʊpiə/) is a name for an ideal community or society possessing a seemingly perfect socio-politico-legal system.^[1] The word was invented by Sir Thomas More for his 1516 book Utopia, describing a fictional island in the Atlantic Ocean. The term has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempted to create an ideal society, and fictional societies portrayed in literature. It has spawned other concepts, most prominently dystopia.

The word comes from the Greek: οὐ, "not", and τόπος, "place", indicating that More was utilizing the concept as allegory and did not consider such an ideal place to be realistically possible. The English homophone Eutopia, derived from the Greek εὖ, "good" or "well", and τόπος, "place", signifies a double meaning.

It got my historical dithers up so as to pin down points of views that may have inspired cultures to look for new lands beyond the realms of thought each society was used too, and "hoped for" in some better form.

Utopia (book)

Utopia
Illustration for the 1516 first edition of Utopia.
Author	Thomas More
Translator	Ralph Robinson Gilbert Burnet
Country	Seventeen Provinces, Leuven
Language	Latin
Publication date	1516
Published in English	1551
Pages	134
ISBN	978-1-907727-28-3

Utopia (in full: Libellus vere aureus, nec minus salutaris quam festivus, de optimo rei publicae statu deque nova insula Utopia) is a work of fiction by Thomas More published in 1516. English translations of the title include A Truly Golden Little Book, No Less Beneficial Than Entertaining, of the Best State of a Republic, and of the New Island Utopia (literal) and A Fruitful and Pleasant Work of the Best State of a Public Weal, and of the New Isle Called Utopia (traditional).^[1] (See "title" below.) The book, written in Latin, is a frame narrative primarily depicting a fictional island society and its religious, social and political customs.

Despite modern connotations of the word "utopia," it is widely accepted that the society More describes in this work was not actually his own "perfect society." Rather he wished to use the contrast between the imaginary land's unusual political ideas and the chaotic politics of his own day as a platform from which to discuss social issues in Europe.

Why quest for new lands, planets for living?

Bacon's Utopia: The New Atlantis

Quote:

In 1623 Bacon expressed his aspirations and ideals in The New Atlantis. Released in 1627, this was his creation of an ideal land where "generosity and enlightenment, dignity and splendor, piety and public spirit" were the commonly held qualities of the inhabitants of Bensalem. In this work, he portrayed a vision of the future of human discovery and knowledge. The plan and organization of his ideal college, "Solomon's House", envisioned the modern research university in both applied and pure science.

Tommaso Campanella- See also:The City of the Sun

What contributions were idealistic set before those who signed the documents that one would have found reference from Raphael toward the Stanza's of the signatore's room in Rome?

The Room of the Segnatura contains Raphael's most famous frescoes. Besides being the first work executed by the great artist in the Vatican they mark the beginning of the high Renaissance. The room takes its name from the highest court of the Holy See, the "Segnatura Gratiae et Iustitiae", which was presided over by the pontiff and used to meet in this room around the middle of the 16th century. Originally the room was used by Julius II (pontiff from 1503 to 1513) as a library and private office. The iconographic programme of the frescoes, which were painted between 1508 and 1511, is related to this function. See Raphael Rooms

You had to understand the setting and the historical drama set forth?



School of Athens by Raphael

Quote:

In center, while Plato - with the philosophy of the ideas and theoretical models, he indicates the sky, Aristotle - considered the father of Science, with the philosophy of the forms and the observation of the nature indicates the Earth. Many historians of the Art in the face correspondence of Plato with Leonardo, Heraclitus with Miguel Angel, and Euclides with Twine agree.

So to set this up some background was needed?

Quote:

Plato and Aristotle, Up and Down by Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. 

Rafael has Plato pointing up and Aristotle gesturing down to indicate the difference in their metaphysics. For Plato, true existence is in the World of Forms, in relation to which this world (of Becoming) is a kind of shadow or image of the higher reality. Aristotle, on the other hand, regards individual objects in this world as "primary substance" and dismisses Plato's Forms -- except for God as a pure actuality, without matter.

However, when it comes to ethics and politics, the gestures should be reversed. Plato, like Socrates, believed that to do the good without error, one must know what the good is. Thus, we get the dramatic moment in the Republic where Plato says that philosophers, who have escaped from the Cave and come to understand the higher reality, must be forced to return to this world and rule, so that their wisdom can benefit the state. Aristotle, on the other hand, says that the "good" is simply the goal of various particular activities, without one meaning in Plato's sense. The particular activities of most human affairs involve phronésis, "practical wisdom." This is not sophía, true wisdom, for Aristotle, which involves the theoretical knowledge of the highest things, i.e. the gods, the heavens, and God.

Thus, for philosophy, Aristotle should point up and would represent a contemplative attitude that was certainly more congenial to religious practices in the Middle Ages. By the same token, Aristotle's contribution to what we now think of as science was hampered by his lack of interest in mathematics. Although Aristotle in general had a more empirical and experimental attitude than Plato, modern science did not come into its own until Plato's Pythagorean confidence in the mathematical nature of the world returned with Kepler, Galileo, and Newton. For instance, Aristotle, relying on a theory of opposites that is now only of historical interest, rejected Plato's attempt to match the Platonic Solids with the elements -- while Plato's expectations are realized in mineralogy and crystallography, where the Platonic Solids occur naturally.

Therefore, caution is in order when comparing the meaning of the metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle with its significance for their attitudes towards ethics, politics, and science. Indeed, if the opposite of wisdom is, not ignorance, but folly, then Socrates and Plato certainly started off with the better insight.

Hope I didn't bore you with precursors of "new thoughts of how differing societies were formed?  How one may of attained such insight by helping one to realize the choice we have about how those new societies may have inspired?

Of course, "a science" evolved from it all?