Eva,

My point (well, Godel's, really!) is that there's absolutely nothing clearly written that limits the possibility of the development of a dictatorship.

Godel also said that there was a personal God and an afterlife that could be perceived by pure reason and that it is fully consistent with known facts!  But, ignoring that, I'd say that something written is at least some of a limiting factor, whereas nothing written saying what the government can or can't do would be less of a limitation. And that the more clearly written it is, the better it will function.

There are, of course, other factors involved. Like the beliefs of the average citizen, along his and her education. The degree to which they experience themselves as sovereign and worthy of freedom.  And the freedom (and inclination) of the media.  Etc.

I am not opposed to a dictatorship just because of it's structure as one-man-rule. I am opposed because it is more likely to be a violator of individual rights, and because it is harder to control so that it doesn't violate individual rights.  I'm opposed to rule by whim, rather than rule by law because of the value of having the use of force against others codified in law so that it can be known in advance (and to be of real value, good and objective law must be applied equally, fairly and predictably).  

The protection of individual rights is the only descent measure of the value of a given government since that is the purpose for having a government.

We agree that a new constitution could be better than what we have now. What are examples of what you'd put in your new constitution?

Steve,

Duly noted: Godel believed in god. So did Einstein, Dirac, Wigner, Heisenberg....

So along with Incompletenesses #1&2, let's just give both Relativities, Negative Particles, D-Matrix, S-Matrix, and the 'Uncertainty' equation the heave-ho, shall we?

After all, Feyman, atheist, could have done all of this by himself, yes?

On a more optimistic note, the later-memoirs of Heisenberg makes it clear that his belief in a supreme being guided his decision to sabotage the nazi nuclear project.

I'm categorically opposed to one-man rule.

My disagreement with your use of 'individual rights' is that you write of this as if it were, in content a natural state of affairs. In other words, you're badly reifying an agreed-upon principle.

In other words, yes, I'm for all constitutions offering a written assurance of individual rights and liberties. but these cannot be absolute and unqualified because, as Godel wrote, even arithmetic isn't a closed system. And if the simplest of maths lack 'completeness', how can language not?

Eva 

(Edited by Matthews on 2/03, 6:06pm)

Steve,

Although  disagree with Godel, Einstein, Wigner, and Heisenberg on the existence of god, I would say, yes, I 'm arguing from authority when I say that their works are incredably important in Physics, Math, and Logic.

We accept 'individual rights' as a principle, but as to what they are, specifically, varies greatly in time and space. In other words, for example, even if we expand the definition and say, 'It means you can do anything you want if it harms no one else', you'll still be arguing as to what that sentence means in practice.

Do I want to own a home next to someone who paints his/her house purple? do I wnat to drive on I-400 along side crackheads? Why are students permitted to go to class with bad colds?

My point (Godel's, really) is that there is no way to write an 'unqualified' document. Godel's point was that the FF's, knowing this, didn't even try, rather opting for pure immanence.

Eva

The most important facet that was totally omitted from 'Copenhagen' was that Heisenberg knew of the exact # of enriched U-235 necessary (43.5 lbs), perhaps as far back as 1939. This he intentionally exagerated by a factor of 1000 as written, only to be taken as 'true' by the allies--led by Bethe, of course.

Much to their amazement, a week after Hiroshima Heisenberg, in voluntary internment, gave an impromptu three-hour lecture --the famous 'pineapple' story-- describing with great precision how the bomb should be made. Bethe was quickly made aware of the lecture, but continued to chortle on how the 'great' Heisenberg blundered with the math!

The Copenhagen story is told from the pov of Bohr, his son, and his wife. As such, it's a justification for Bohr's personal decision to help the allies as best he could with the Manhattan Project. As he knew little of the real dynamics of fission, his job, per the pleading of Bethe, was to influence Heisenberg (ex student) to come over.

With, Heisenberg, the allies could have had the bomb in '43. For him, S-matrix was far more important, Bomb stuff was what you padoodled on the back of a napkin at lunchtime.

The most imortant fact,by far, is that all three developers of the real chain (238>235 sequences & potentials) --Heisenberg, Meitner, and Hahn, were passionately anti-bomb. Even had there been a non-Heisenberg development in Germany of the fission chain at bomb speed ( a slow-down, actually!), the physical testing would have been sabotaged by Hahn.

In essence, although I enjoyed Copenhagen, it somewhat disorients history by front-loading philosophical questions with statements assumed as true from a semi-blind pov. Again, Bohr would not have understood that Heisenberg already knew how to build a bomb because he lacked the requisite knowledge of various fissile speeds, etc. 

There is no evidence that Heisenberg told him. Despite the constant chattering of the Bohr family (ostensibly to justify dad's pro-bomb position), Heisenberg remained silent; it's this silence which hovers over the play.

Eva