Shortly after noon local time. You were
arthritic this morning and took a good nap after breakfast and the paper then
did your forty minutes of exercises and house chores. Earlier today you had an
inkling of what you had forgot. The Dead in book one are within the Dead of
book two, most of them anyway. How we are going to handle this is from now on
in Grandma’s Story segments a piece of dialogue will be conjured up out of the
‘blue’ of the gene pool. We’ll put it in italics like a whisper to
consciousness. The Asian and Aborigine don’t come in until the sailors find a
stowaway or two. The Indian and African genes are already in the system, as you
will see. The point is the genes of all within the books are connected in some
way to Robert and Connie and Richard and Cyndi. – Amorella
1228 hours. I had thought on this back within the original
Merlyn books but had let it go because I had no idea how to make such
connections and have them sound at least somewhat authentic.
As we are halfway through this series book
wise it is time to issue up the Dead into the consciousness of the Living, be
it ever so lightly. – Amorella
1231 hours. You are not talking about reincarnation?
No, we leave the spirit to the spirit; this
focus is on the physics of the gene pool. Remember, some time ago you had read
that physics wise everyone in the world has probably breathed in at least of
molecule of Caesar’s last breath. Well, this is a similar approach. – Amorella
** **
The
last breath of Caesar
Introduction
Enrico Fermi
(1901-1954) is a very famous modern physicist. Under his guidance, human have
created the first atomic bomb and successfully controlled thermonuclear
reactions, leading the world into an atomic era. His life was very interesting,
and the most well-known events concerned his ability to make order of magnitude
estimation in physical problems. It is said that when first atomic bomb in the
world experimentally exploded, Fermi shed paper debris at a great distance from
the centre of explosion, and carefully observed the drifting distance of the
debris under air pressure; after a few minutes of mental arithmetic, he
estimated that the power of explosion was about several ten thousand tons of
TNT. The estimation corresponds to the correct order produced by precise
instrument available a few weeks later, and this surprised his colleagues a
lot.
Question
Fermi liked
using simplified problems to stimulate his students to make order of estimation
in physical problems. One of the interesting problems is: "When you take a
single breath, how many molecules of gas you intake would have come from the
dying breath of Caesar?" For the sake of simplicity, we can assume that
the molecules, which Caesar exhaled in his last breath have diffused evenly to
the whole atmosphere, and these molecules were not absorbed by the ocean or
plants for thousands of years. Although these are not valid assumptions, they
can help us forget about the complexity of the real world, and to make
elementary estimations in the simplest way. For the convenience of your
calculation, we have given hints and information as follows:
Hints
We shall at
first estimate the ratio of the gas volume exhaled in a single breath to the
volume of the whole atmosphere (for simplicity, you may assume that all gases
are evenly distributed in a layer which has a thickness of 50 km on the surface
of the earth). Then you can estimate, in your single breath, how much volume of
gas would have come from Caesar's last exhalation, and finally, with data on
the density of the atmosphere and the average mass of an air molecule, you can
estimate the no of molecules that the volume contains.
Assume that
Radius of the earth R = 6,400 km Volume of gas in a single breath ~ 1
litre Thickness of the atmosphere ~ 50 km Mass of a proton mass of a neutron Density
of the atmosphere on the surface of the earth =
Reference: The
Fermi Solution, Hans Christian von Baeyer
Answer
First we shall
estimate the volume of the earth's atmosphere V. Since the thickness of
the atmosphere is much less than the radius of the earth, we have
Calculations
on line.
The air intake
in a single breath is about 1 litre, i.e., . Assuming that the gas exhaled from
Caesar's last breath is evenly distributed in the atmosphere, we can deduce
that, in a single breath, the
volume of gas
that one intake from Caesar's last breath
is
Calculations
on line.
Nitrogen is
the major component of the atmosphere of the earth, and oxygen the second.
Since the molecular masses of nitrogen and oxygen do not differ much, we will
simply use nitrogen in our estimation. A nitrogen molecule has two atoms, each
with 7 protons and 7 neutrons. Neglecting the mass of an electron, a nitrogen
molecule would have a mass of
Calculations
on line.
Hence in a
single breath, the number of the molecules that comes Caesar's last exhalation
would roughly be
Calculations
on line.
i.e., when we
take a single breath, we would have intake a single molecule which comes from
Caesar's last exhalation.
Note
Some students may notice that I have
only taken one significant figure throughout my calculations. Frankly speaking,
I have not used a calculator in any of the calculations above. From your
letters, I notice that some students have tried to perform very accurate
calculations, and some of them have even made an effort to analyze the
composition of air. In fact, these are not necessary, because under the many
assumptions that we have used to simplify our problem (e.g. we have assumed
that the density of air is uniform, which is obviously not true), it is
virtually impossible to obtain an accurate answer. As a matter of fact, the
spirit of the "Fermi problem" lies on training us to deal with a
problem in which detailed information and calculation techniques are not
available, and yet we can still make a very rough, but barely reliable
estimation to get the right order of magnitude. Just think about it, when the
first atomic bomb exploded in a trial, Fermi did not have a calculator or
precise instrument in hand, his great charm came only from a few pieces of
paper debris and the immense power of imagination!
Selected and edited from -
http://www.hk-phyDOTorg/articles/caesar/caesar_e.html
** **
1258
hours. I haven’t thought about this from some time and there may be a broad
leap from this physics to genetic physics and genetic memory but fiction is
fiction and if this heightens the imagination and even the remote plausibility
then I’m all for it. Should I go back to the Brothers 7 segment and put
something in relating to this as an introduction of concept?
No. The blending begins with Grandma Eight.
Post. – Amorella
1706 hours. I cannot find anything
that would support genetic memory in humans.
That could fall within the spirit, particularly the
correlation of the heart and soul as far as these books are concerned. For
instance, where did your stories come from? – Amorella
1708 hours. Now you are joking. They came from your use of
my brain/mind, memory and imagination.
2208
hours. I have thought about this and cannot find anything even plausible. I
understand Caesar’s Breath but I cannot see genes carrying a bit of
conversation from the ancestor even if it was a heart and soul felt
conversation. This would be like the heart holding the conversation and it
being broadcast in a random manner by a soul, picked up or reflected by another
soul and somehow fed into another’s heart and the words come from heart to mind
and out to the mind and brain for possible receivership into another living
person. It reminds me of Plato’s forms:
** **
Theory of Forms
From
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Plato’s theory
of Forms or theory of Ideas asserts that non-material abstract (but
substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us
through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.
When used in this sense, the word form or idea is often
capitalized. Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters
(primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms
are the only true objects of study that can provide us with genuine knowledge;
thus even apart from the very controversial status of the theory, Plato's own
views are much in doubt. Some believe that true forms represent mathematical
concepts and scientific laws that are discovered while trying to describe
efficient causes and their True Form, or their Final Cause [Considering
Socrates and Aristotle's take on True Forms and Final Cause]. Plato spoke of
Forms in formulating a possible solution to the problem of universals.
Forms
. . . The
pre-Socratic philosophers, starting with Thales, noted that appearances change
quite a bit and began to ask what the thing changing "really" is. The
answer was substance, which stands under the changes and is the actually
existing thing being seen. The status of appearances now came into question.
What is the form really and how is that related to substance?
Thus,
the theory of matter and form (today's hylomorphism) was born. Starting with at
least Plato and possibly germinal in some of the presocratics the forms were
considered as being "in" something else, which Plato called nature (physis).
The latter seemed as "wood", ὕλη (hyle) in Greek,
corresponding to materia in Latin, from which the English word "matter"
is derived, shaped by receiving (or exchanging) forms.
The
Forms are expounded upon in Plato's dialogues and general speech, in that every
object or quality in reality has a form: dogs, human beings, mountains, colors,
courage, love, and goodness. Form answers the question, "What is
that?" Plato was going a step further and asking what Form itself is. He
supposed that the object was essentially or "really" the Form and
that the phenomena were mere shadows mimicking the Form; that is, momentary
portrayals of the Form under different circumstances. The problem of universals
– how can one thing in general be many things in particular – was solved by
presuming that Form was a distinct singular thing but caused plural
representations of itself in particular objects. For example, Parmenides
states, "Nor, again, if a person were to show that all is one by partaking
of one, and at the same time many by partaking of many, would that be very
astonishing. But if he were to show me that the absolute one was many, or the
absolute many one, I should be truly amazed." Matter is considered
particular in itself.
These
Forms are the essences of various objects: they are that without which a thing
would not be the kind of thing it is. For example, there are countless tables
in the world but the Form of tableness is at the core; it is the essence of all
of them. Plato's Socrates held that the world of Forms is transcendent to our
own world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality.
Super-ordinate to matter, Forms are the most pure of all things. Furthermore,
he believed that true knowledge/intelligence is the ability to grasp the world
of Forms with one's mind.
A Form
is aspatial (transcendent to space) and atemporal (transcendent
to time). Atemporal means that it does not exist within any time period, rather
it provides the formal basis for time. It therefore formally grounds beginning,
persisting and ending. It is neither eternal in the sense of existing forever,
nor mortal, of limited duration. It exists transcendent to time altogether.
Forms are aspatial in that they have no spatial dimensions, and thus no
orientation in space, nor do they even (like the point) have a location. They
are non-physical, but they are not in the mind. Forms are extra-mental (i.e.
real in the strictest sense of the word).
A Form
is an objective "blueprint" of perfection. The Forms are perfect
themselves because they are unchanging. For example, say we have a triangle
drawn on a blackboard. A triangle is a polygon with 3 sides. The triangle as it
is on the blackboard is far from perfect. However, it is only the
intelligibility of the Form "triangle" that allows us to know the
drawing on the chalkboard is a triangle, and the Form "triangle" is
perfect and unchanging. It is exactly the same whenever anyone chooses to
consider it; however, the time is that of the observer and not of the triangle.
Terminology
In the Allegory of the Cave,
the objects that are seen are not real, according to Plato, but literally mimic
the real Forms.
The
English word "form" may be used to translate two distinct concepts
that concerned Plato—the outward "form" or appearance of something,
and "Form" in a new, technical nature, that never ... assumes a form
like that of any of the things which enter into her; ... But the forms which
enter into and go out of her are the likenesses of real existences modelled
after their patterns in a wonderful and inexplicable manner....
The
objects that are seen, according to Plato, are not real, but literally mimic
the real Forms. In the Allegory of the Cave expressed in Republic, the things that are ordinarily perceived in the world are
characterized as shadows of the real things, which are not perceived directly.
That which the observer understands when he views the world mimics the
archetypes of the many types and properties (that is, of universals) of things observed.
Intelligible
realm and separation of the Forms
Plato
often invokes, particularly in the Phaedo,
Republic and Phaedrus, poetic
language to illustrate the mode in which the Forms are said to exist. Near the
end of the Phaedo, for example, Plato describes the world of Forms as a
pristine region of the physical universe located above the surface of the Earth
(Phd. 109a-111c). In the Phaedrus the Forms are in a "place
beyond heaven" (huperouranios topos) (Phdr. 247c ff); and in
the Republic the sensible world is contrasted with the intelligible
realm (noēton topon) in the famous Allegory of the Cave.
It would
be a mistake to take Plato's imagery as positing the intelligible world as a
literal physical space apart from this one. Plato emphasizes that the Forms are not beings that extend in
space (or time), but subsist apart from any physical space whatsoever. That is, they are abstract
objects. Thus we read in the Symposium of the Form of Beauty: "It
is not anywhere in another thing, as in an animal, or in earth, or in heaven,
or in anything else, but itself by itself with itself," (211b). And in the
Timaeus Plato writes: "Since these things are so, we must agree
that that which keeps its own form unchangingly, which has not been brought
into being and is not destroyed, which neither receives into itself anything
else from anywhere else, nor itself enters into anything anywhere, is
one thing," (52a, emphasis added).
Ideal
state
According
to Plato, Socrates postulated a world of ideal Forms, which he admitted were
impossible to know. Nevertheless he formulated a very specific description of
that world, which did not match his metaphysical principles. Corresponding to
the world of Forms is our world, that of the mimes, a corruption of the real
one. This world was created by the Good according to the patterns of the Forms.
Man's proper service to the Good is cooperation in the implementation of the
ideal in the world of shadows; that is, in miming the Good.
To this
end Plato wrote Republic detailing the proper imitation of the Good,
despite his admission that Justice, Beauty, Courage, Temperance, etc., cannot
be known. Apparently they can be known to some degree through the copies with
great difficulty and to varying degrees by persons of varying ability.
The
republic is a greater imitation of Justice:
Our aim
in founding the state was not the disproportional happiness of any one class,
but the greatest happiness of the whole; we thought that in a state ordered
with a view to the good of the whole we should be most likely to find justice.
The key
to not know how such a state might come into existence is the word
"founding" (oikidzomen), which is used of colonization. It was
customary in such instances to receive a constitution from an elected or
appointed lawgiver; however in Athens, lawgivers were appointed to reform the
constitution from time to time. In speaking of reform, Socrates uses the word
"purge" (diakathairountes) in the same sense that Forms exist
purged of matter.
The
purged society is a regulated one presided over by academics created by means of
state education, who maintain three non-hereditary classes as required: the
tradesmen (including merchants and professionals), the guardians (militia and
police) and the philosophers (legislators, administrators and the
philosopher-king). Class is assigned at the end of education, when the state
institutes individuals in their occupation. Socrates expects class to be
hereditary but he allows for mobility according to natural ability. The
criteria for selection by the academics is ability to perceive forms (the
analog of English "intelligence") and martial spirit as well as
predisposition or aptitude.
The
views of Socrates on the proper order of society are certainly contrary to
Athenian values of the time and must have produced a shock effect, intentional
or not, accounting for the animosity against him. For example, reproduction is
much too important to be left in the hands of untrained individuals: "...
the possession of women and the procreation of children ... will ... follow the
general principle that friends have all things in common, ...." The family
is therefore to be abolished and the children – whatever their parentage – to
be raised by the appointed mentors of the state.
Their
genetic fitness is to be monitored by the physicians: "... he (Asclepius,
a culture hero) did not want to lengthen out good-for-nothing lives, or have
weak fathers begetting weaker sons – if a man was not able to live in the
ordinary way he had no business to cure him ...." Physicians minister to
the healthy rather than cure the sick: "... (Physicians) will minister to
better natures, giving health both of soul and of body; but those who are
diseased in their bodies they will leave to die, and the corrupt and incurable
souls they will put an end to themselves." Nothing at all in Greek
medicine so far as can be known supports the airy (in the Athenian view)
propositions of Socrates. Yet it is hard to be sure of Socrates' real views
considering that there are no works written by Socrates himself. There are two
common ideas pertaining to the beliefs and character of Socrates: the first
being the Mouthpiece Theory where writers use Socrates in dialogue as a
mouthpiece to get their own views across. However, since most of what we know
about Socrates comes from plays, most of the Platonic plays are accepted as the
more accurate Socrates since Plato was a direct student of Socrates.
Many
other principles of the ideal state are expressed: the activities of the
populace are to be confined to their occupation and only one occupation is allowed
(only the philosophers may be generalists). The citizens must not meddle in
affairs that are not their business, such as legislation and administration (a
hit at democracy). Wealth is to be allowed to the tradesmen only. The
marketplace must not be regulated but left up to them. The guardians and the
philosophers are not to own fine homes or cash reserves but receive a pension
from the state. None of these items are consistent with an unknowable Good.
Perhaps
the most important principle is that just as the Good must be supreme so must
its image, the state, take precedence over individuals in everything. For
example, guardians "... will have to be watched at every age in order that
we may see whether they preserve their resolution and never, under the
influence either of force or enchantment, forget or cast off their sense of
duty to the state." This concept of requiring guardians of guardians
perhaps suffers from the Third Man weakness (see below): guardians require
guardians require guardians, ad infinitum. The ultimate trusty guardian is
missing. Socrates does not hesitate to face governmental issues many later
governors have found formidable: "Then if anyone at all is to have the
privilege of lying, the rulers of the state should be the persons, and they ...
may be allowed to lie for the public good."
Evidence of Forms
Plato's
main evidence for the existence of Forms is intuitive only and is as follows.
Human
perception
We call
both the sky and blue jeans by the same color, blue. However, clearly a pair of
jeans and the sky are not the same color; moreover, the wavelengths of light
reflected by the sky at every location and all the millions of blue jeans in
every state of fading constantly change, and yet we somehow have a consensus of
the basic form Blueness as it applies to them. Says Plato:
But if
the very nature of knowledge changes, at the time when the change occurs there
will be no knowledge, and, according to this view, there will be no one to know
and nothing to be known: but if that which knows and that which is known exist
ever, and the beautiful and the good and every other thing also exist, then I
do not think that they can resemble a process of flux, as we were just now
supposing.
Perfection
No one
has ever seen a perfect circle, nor a perfectly straight line, yet everyone
knows what a circle and a straight line are. Plato utilizes the tool-maker's
blueprint as evidence that Forms are real:
... when
a man has discovered the instrument which is naturally adapted to each work, he
must express this natural form, and not others which he fancies, in the
material ....
Perceived
circles or lines are not exactly circular or straight, and true circles and
lines could never be detected since by definition they are sets of infinitely
small points. But if the perfect ones were not real, how could they direct the
manufacturer?
Criticisms of Platonic Forms
Self-criticism
Plato
was well aware of the limitations of the theory, as he offered his own
criticisms of it in his dialogue Parmenides.
There, Socrates is portrayed as a young philosopher acting as junior
counterfoil to aged Parmenides. To a certain extent it is tongue-in-cheek as
the older Socrates will have solutions to some of the problems that are made to
puzzle the younger.
The
dialogue does present a very real difficulty with the Theory of Forms, which
Plato most likely only viewed as problems for later thought. These criticisms
were later emphasized by Aristotle in rejecting an independently existing world
of Forms. It is worth noting that Aristotle was a pupil and then a junior
colleague of Plato; it is entirely possible that the presentation of Parmenides
"sets up" for Aristotle; that is, they agreed to disagree.
One
difficulty lies in the conceptualization of the "participation" of an
object in a form (or Form). The young Socrates conceives of his solution to the
problem of the universals in another metaphor, which though wonderfully apt,
remains to be elucidated:
Nay, but
the idea may be like the day which is one and the same in many places at once,
and yet continuous with itself; in this way each idea may be one and the same
in all at the same time.
But
exactly how is a Form like the day in being everywhere at once? The solution
calls for a distinct form, in which the particular instances, which are not
identical to the form, participate; i.e., the form is shared out somehow like
the day to many places. The concept of "participate", represented in
Greek by more than one word, is as obscure in Greek as it is in English. Plato
hypothesized that distinctness meant existence as an independent being, thus
opening himself to the famous third man argument of Parmenides, which proves
that forms cannot independently exist and be participated.
If
universal and particulars – say man or greatness – all exist and are the same
then the Form is not one but is multiple. If they are only like each other then
they contain a form that is the same and others that are different. Thus if we
presume that the Form and a particular are alike then there must be another, or
third Form, man or greatness by possession of which they are alike. An infinite
regression would then result; that is, an endless series of third men. The
ultimate participant, greatness, rendering the entire series great, is missing.
Moreover, any Form is not unitary but is composed of infinite parts, none of
which is the proper Form.
The
young Socrates (some may say the young Plato) did not give up the Theory of
Forms over the Third Man but took another tack, that the particulars do not exist
as such. Whatever they are, they "mime" the Forms, appearing to be
particulars. This is a clear dip into representationalism, that we cannot
observe the objects as they are in themselves but only their representations.
That view has the weakness that if only the mimes can be observed then the real
Forms cannot be known at all and the observer can have no idea of what the
representations are supposed to represent or that they are representations.
Socrates'
later answer would be that men already know the Forms because they were in the
world of Forms before birth. The mimes only recall these Forms to memory. Science would certainly
reject the unverifiable and in ancient times investigative men such as
Aristotle mistrusted the whole idea. The comedian Aristophanes wrote a play, The Clouds, poking fun of Socrates with
his head in the clouds.
Aristotelian
criticism
The
topic of Aristotle's criticism of Plato's Theory of Forms is a large one and
continues to expand. Rather than quote Plato, Aristotle often summarized.
Classical commentaries thus recommended Aristotle as an introduction to Plato.
As a historian of prior thought, Aristotle was invaluable, however this was
secondary to his own dialectic and in some cases he treats purported
implications as if Plato had actually mentioned them, or even defended them. In
examining Aristotle's criticism of The Forms, it is helpful to understand
Aristotle's own hylomorphic forms, by which he intends to salvage much of
Plato's theory.
In the
summary passage quoted above Plato distinguishes between real and non-real
"existing things", where the latter term is used of substance. The
figures, which the artificer places in the gold, are not substance, but gold
is. Aristotle, stated that for Plato, all things studied by the sciences have
Form and asserted that Plato considered only substance to have Form.
Uncharitably, this leads him to something like a contradiction: Forms existing
as the objects of science, but not-existing as non-substance. Ross objects to
this as a mischaracterization of Plato.
Plato
did not claim to know where the line between Form and non-Form is to be drawn.
As Cornford points out, those things about which the young Socrates (and Plato)
asserted "I have often been puzzled about these things" (in reference
to Man, Fire and Water), appear as Forms in later works. However, others do
not, such as Hair, Mud, Dirt. Of these, Socrates is made to assert, "it
would be too absurd to suppose that they have a Form."
Ross
also objects to Aristotle's criticism that Form Otherness accounts for the
differences between Forms and purportedly leads to contradictory forms: the
Not-tall, the Not-beautiful, etc. That particulars participate in a Form is for
Aristotle much too vague to permit analysis. By one way in which he unpacks the
concept, the Forms would cease to be of one essence due to any multiple
participation. As Ross indicates, Plato didn't make that leap from "A is
not B" to "A is Not-B." Otherness would only apply to its own
particulars and not to those of other Forms. For example, there is no Form
Not-Greek, only particulars of Form Otherness that somehow suppress
Form Greek.
Regardless
of whether Socrates meant the particulars of Otherness yield Not-Greek,
Not-tall, Not-beautiful, etc., the particulars would operate specifically
rather than generally, each somehow yielding only one exclusion.
Plato had postulated that we know
Forms through a remembrance of the soul's past lives and Aristotle's arguments
against this treatment of epistemology are compelling. For Plato, particulars
somehow do not exist, and, on the face of it, "that which is non-existent
cannot be known".
Selected and edited from
Wikipedia – Theory of Forms
** **
2246
hours. I like the concept of Forms. How else could an Angel exist, or G---D, if
we did not have such a concept? It is a human trait or at least a cultural
trait learned to accept or to not or to doubt. There may be room here for ‘out
of the blue’ experience with ‘ghostly’ thoughts or ideas morphing from an
ancient language into a modern one out of intuition without proof because ‘it
cannot be known’.
It takes you time to absorb things
consciously that you already ‘understand’, i.e. that is, you accept as
plausibility. This comes after left over chili for supper and “Revenge”, “Blue
Bloods”, “Modern Family” and NBC News. Post. - Amorella
