TBD in process.

First, see coherence. At bottom of that description is a link back to here.

Here are a few introductory percepts:

In classical reality that which is 'decoherent' is "not meaningful," "confused," "confusing," and other unsavory appellations.

In quantum reality "coherence" is a key percept. In Quantonics we ch¤¤se t¤ c¤¤pt m¤re classical 'coherence/decoherence' with 'c¤herence/dec¤herence.'

In Quantonics we ¤versimply describe f¤ur classes ¤f quantum c¤herence: is¤c¤herence (n¤nactual/unlatched/unfretted/unmeasured is¤flux), c¤herence (actual/latched/fretted/measured b¤s¤nic quantum flux), dec¤herence (actual/latched/fretted/measured fermi¤nic quantum flux), amd c¤-ad-mixtures ¤f all ¤f th¤se. Using our quantonic symb¤ls, we sh¤w is¤c¤herent flux using d¤tted blue lines/circles with is¤canceling arr¤ws. We sh¤w c¤herent, b¤s¤nic flux using d¤tted blue lines/circles with¤ut arr¤ws which implies latched/fretted/measured b¤s¤ns in actuality. We sh¤w dec¤herent, fermi¤nic flux using s¤lid lines amd circles b¤th with amd with¤ut unidirecti¤nal arr¤ws.

Note that in quantum computing, real "measuring" qu-bits, in a quantum computer, are pre-measurement-event unlatched, with both tentative and isocoherent c¤mplements! Via their isocoherent c¤mplements, they are capable of representing qu-bit-by-qu-bit, continuously, omnitemporally, omnilocally, etc., each qu-bit's nonactual, unrealized potential values "(iso)coherently." Quantum computers are very difficult to emerscenture because of this. When we try to "measure" a qu-bit, or a register of qu-bits, it wants to naturally de-isocohere its unmeasured isocoherent "all possible values" c¤mplement into a specific, preferential boson or fermion, and thus actualize into its tentatively "latched or measured" preferential c¤mplement of reality. A major challenge of quantum computing is to learn how to measure large "registers" of qu-bits "coherently," in their tentative "conditionings," until desired quantum conditions are present, without causing those registers to "de(iso)cohere" into a single, preferred solution, an "actual" solution. It is also important to notice that a transition from an tentative (unlatched) to preferred (latched) qu-bit does not permanently "collapse" its isocoherent c¤mplement. It just loses its 'set' of unlimited preconditions used for its most recent "computation." After latching, its isocoherent c¤mplement simply continues on its way with a new 'set' of isononpreferential preconditions which do not affect its latched c¤mplement until another reset-measurement occurs to transition said preferred qu-bit to an unlatched (both tentative and isocoherent c¤mplements) precondition, ready for a next 'computation.'

Quantum c¤herence/dec¤herence memes describe reality's actual quantum c¤mplement. Quantum is¤c¤herence memes describe reality's n¤nactual quantum c¤mplement.

F¤r s¤me practical percepts, comsider a digital c¤mputer's di-gits as fermi¤nically latched int¤ bivalent states. By c¤mparis¤n, comsider a quantum c¤mputer's qu-bits as c¤herently representing all their unlimited p¤ssible Values (i.e., their ¤mnivalence), until they dec¤here. In th¤se few sentences, we achieve a semblance ¤f what quantum c¤mputing is ab¤ut.

See coherence.

Page top index.

'definition'

Etymology: Define

Synonyms - Classical:

• concretely specify (Ockhamistic, formal, analytic minimalism.)

Synonyms - Quantum:

• holographically describe (Quantum~simplicity as more Quantonic interrelationshipings.)

In Other Languages: Arabic (old) - Chinese - Deutch - French - Greek - Hebrew - Japanese - Italian - Latin - Portuguese - Russian - Spanish - Swedish - Swiss -

Classical assess: stability independence excluded-middle EOOOness H5Wness lisrability causation certainty EEMDivity observation : Define, definite, definition, etc.

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : Dæfihne, dæfihnihte, dæfihnihti¤n, dæfihnihti¤ning, dæfihnihti¤nings, dæfihnihting, dæfihnihtngs, etc.

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'definition' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'dæfihnihti¤n.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'definition.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'dæfihnihti¤n.'

Classical 'definition' is innately objective, static, state-ic, inanimate, almost pure Static Quality (SQ). Classical 'definitions' are radically formal. I.e., they imply 'definite-ion,' or 'absolute-ion,' or 'certainty-ion.'

Quantum 'dæfihnihti¤n' is intrinsically c¤mplementary, dynamic, stindyanic, anihmatæ, a quanton(DQ,SQ). Quantum dæfihnihti¤ns are radically emerqant, emersible — capable of emerscence and emerscenture. They are animately 'describing' nature.

We call any quantum pr¤cæss (any quanton) which is animately quantum measuring quantum reality, "quantum monitoring." Also see ømnitør.

Page top index.

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'description' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'descrihpti¤n.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'description.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'descrihpti¤n.' Ditto descrihbe amd descrihpt¤r. Ditto descrihbings, descrihpti¤nings, amd descrihpt¤rings.

Classically 'describe' is usually presumed: absolute immutability, axiomaticity, EEMD, EOOO, lisr, state-ic, etc. Classical descriptions are notional and semiotic.

Quantumly, in quantum comtexts, descrihbe, descrihpti¤n, amd descrihpt¤r, amd their plural present-participle memes assume: abs¤lute flux/changæ, memeticity, EIMA, BAWAM, quantonic, stochasticity, etc. Quantum descriptionings are memetic and memeotic.

Where a classical description is independent and holds still, quantum descrihpti¤nings aræ anihmatæ quantum pr¤cesses.

Page top index.

We remediate classical 'deny' to quantum-quantonic dæny.

Classical denial is dialectical. It is objective, inanimate, 1-1 correspondent, causal-effective, EEMD negation.

Quantum dænial issi rhet¤rical. Iht issi quantonic, anihmatæ, EIMA, ensehmble-emergent, c¤mplementati¤n.

See Bergson's negation is subjective. See dichon.

Students of Quantonics should note that Doug has historically used classical 'deny' in quantum comtexts. Th¤se uses sh¤uld bæ comsidered amd ihnterpreted as 'dæny.' Good examples are our dialogues with Henry Osho, where Henry cogently queried, "...deny? What deny?" See our 1st Osho and our Koan Osho dialogues. Chinese Taoism is very quantum and suffers some minor dialectical issues, which is very interesting since it also views "yu in wu and wu in yu." Taoism n¤t ¤nly views yu amd wu as quantum c¤mplementary, i.e., quanton(wu,yu), but iht als¤ views them as quantum pr¤cessings via I Ching's cycles. Taoist negation appears most fundamentally in its trigram semiotics which bear strong resemblances to ancient cuneiform. For example male is — and female is --. Respectively cuneiform is | (male) and V (female). Positive, negative. Hose, reservoir. Etc. Fascinating! Within these most basic of early language semiotics lie affectors of horizontal (e.g., left to right in English, right to left in Hebrew) and vertical (e.g., top to bottom in Mandarin) writing styles and habits.

Page top index.

TBD. (Classicism depends upon an illusion/delusion of one-to-one correspondent causal reality. See cause. Classicism depends upon an illusion/delusion of single cause predicting and thus determining a single effect. Our uses of both illusion and delusion here are classical. Their quantum descriptions remain a TBD. To distinguish our uses of those terms classically, we view illusions as classically 'politically incorrect' viewing of subjects/objects. We view delusions as psychological/mental distress, however, delusions are in a very classically real sense illusions. Classical belief systems tend toward globality of inanimate, EEMD rules and thoughts. Quantum belief systems, like Pirsig's MoQ and Renselle's Quantonics are more hermeneutic, heterogeneous, EIMA quantum stage pr¤cesses. To any classicist nearly all quantum phenomena appear as illusions/delusions. Pirsig, as Phædrus, was committed, like John Forbes Nash, to an insane asylum and had his quantum stages ECS-annihilated. Both were 'suffering' quantum phenomena which classicists deem 'delusions.' Yet now we know those damned classicists are self-deluded. It will take at least a century to evolve them out of Earth's existence.)

See our August, 2001 QQA on cause-effect.

Page top index.

'determine,' continued

A crucial quote for students of quantonics:

"In a determinate system, where the calculations have already occurred, we know which points along a curve connect with independent dimensions. In our indeterminate system we never know just which points will suddenly sprout new axes or discard old ones. Indeterminacy is the principal feature of intelligence!" By Paul Pietsch, p. 223, Shufflebrain, Houghton-Mifflin Co., Boston, 1981.

Another, from Dirac:

On page 4 of Dirac's The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Dirac's genius re-erupts, "...we must revise our ideas of causality. Causality applies only to a system which is left undisturbed." Our interpretation of what Dirac just said is that there is n¤ classical causality in quantum reality. Why? Quantum absolute semper flux changes all and always changes. Thus n¤ actual system is ever left "undisturbed." And, indeed, that is just what we observe in our own Millennium III notions of reality. Reality offers us n¤ notions of classical 'zer¤ momentum.' N¤ classical 'reference frame' has 'zer¤ momentum,' n¤r may it have/acquire by any means 'zer¤ momentum.' Crux: there is n¤ classical causality in quantum reality. (There are classical apparitions of causality (rocks, classical sinusoidal 'orbits,' classical self-delusions of unicontextual 'repeatability,' etc.) which classicists interpret as absolute, radically mechanical 'causality.' See OGC and OGT regarding our usage here of "unicontextual.")

Classical assess: stability independence excluded-middle EOOOness H5Wness lisrability causation certainty EEMDivity observation : Determine

Classicists confuse tentative self-similarity repetition as classical determinism. They confuse QVP with absolute determinism.

To classicists cause is 1 to 1 correspondently effective:

To adhere this "cause is 1 to 1 correspondently effective" putative they must assume reality is a monism: one global context (OGC) and one global truth (OGT) and all of that globality marching to a drummer ticking one global time which synchronously harmonizes all reality 'determinately,' as a one size fits all clockwork mechanism. Doesn't "causes" pluralize that global time, though? What do classicists mean?

Classicists view this ideal "cause(s)-effect" determinism based upon ideal 'enlightened' AKA 'bright' classical reason as a freedom foundation. However, if reality is determined is anyone 'free' to choose, 'free' to practice 'heretical' acts, 'free' to change reality? This is why existentialists view classical determinate reality as "absurd."

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : St¤chastihcahlly ænsehmble dætærmihnæ, st¤chastihcahlly ænsehmble dætærminatæ, st¤chastihc ænsehmble dætærminati¤n

Sææ ¤ur QELR ¤f umcærtain.

Quantum ræhlihty issi ihndætærminatæ ihn any classical single event measurement. Quantum ræhlihty ¤nly ¤ffers a m¤dihcum ¤f "ænsehmble dætærminism" whæn ~classical serial (~pastistic and possibly ~futuristic), parallel (~nowistic), etc. ænsehmble ¤mniht¤rmæntings can bæ made. Single events have no probability and repeatable events are determinate (always probability one), thus from any classical view reality cannot be probabilistic. So, classicists assume reality is determinate. From this classical self-delusion arise notions of cause-effect, 1-1 correspondence, induction, proof, history as absolute, monism, formal 'laws,' etc.

Eværy quantum pr¤cæss has ihts ¤wn ch³ sensory bandwidth limihted quantum v¤ting rights which ¤mniminish wihth ihncræhsing sc¤pe ¤f l¤cal comtext amd plurahlihty ¤f ¤thær ihnterrelating l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal comtexts (cl¤se t¤ bæing a quantum 'definition' ¤f dæmocracy). Each pr¤cæss' sub_qpr¤cæsses have their ¤wn ch³ quantum v¤ting rights. Ph¤t¤ns v¤te. Quarks amd ¤thær fermi¤ns v¤te. Gluons amd b¤s¤ns v¤te. Nuclæi v¤te. At¤ms as systæms v¤te. R¤cks v¤te. Bi¤l¤gihcals v¤te. Oceans amd lakes amd ahll their at¤ms v¤te. Planets v¤te. Galaxies v¤te. Omnihværses v¤te, etc. Whæn wæings aræ v¤tings, p¤tæntiahlly ahll ¤f naturings aræ v¤tings t¤¤: quantum dæmocracy. Ahlways Planck ratæ amd sub_qharmonihcahlly amd ihncræmæntahlly v¤ting f¤r bættær, t¤gether.

Aside:

These coumtless umst¤ppable, rælæntless quantum ænsehmble lihkælih¤¤d assæssmænt pr¤cæssings ¤f quantum l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal bættærings aræ what Robert M. Pirsig calls "Value."

Value is natural, moral, evolute empirical emergence. Value is SQ emerging from DQ based upon nature's moral Value judgmentings. Nature's judgment (that is a human's limited quantum perspective of how our anthropological judgmentings might fit into Nature's vastly larger ways and means) says if you are here, you are Value, you have Value, you are in Value and Value is in you, and Nature emerqed you to be here.

If societies are at war, it is our and we believe Pirsig's view that Nature wants them to learn from that process how to evolve better societal interrelationships. If we cannot get along societally on Earth, how can we get along societally in our local universe?

Again, we use a child learning to play a violin metaphor: noise precedes harmony. Learning anything is a quantum process of ch³ betterings. Birth, living, and dying are quantum processings of betterings. If we stop improving and do not improve further, Nature selects us out of local processings.

End aside.

Quantum ræhlihty issi a mahssihvely prægmahllel ('parallel'), anihmatæ, EIMA ænsehmble ¤f quantum~dæm¤cratihc v¤ting pr¤cæsses, each wihth their ¤wn l¤cal tehmp¤ralihties amd sæns¤ry bamdwihdths. That issi why wæ sahy quantum ræhlihty issi a BAWAM ¤f apparænt quantum ænsehmble dætærminism amd apparænt ænsehmble ihndætærminism. QVP can l¤¤k lihkæ, from a classical view appears as, classical determinism, but iht issi n¤t classical determinism! Action at a distance, effectless cause, and causeless effect, from a classical view appear as, absurd phenomena (classically impossible indeterminism), but they aræ ræhl quantum affæctings amd sh¤w why wæ sahy quantum ræhlihty may manihfest apparænt (ræhl) ihndætærminism.

Ahll quantum ænsehmble dæm¤cratihc v¤ting pr¤cæssings aræ umst¤ppable~flux~impæratihvæ (vis-à-vis direction-, scalar magnitude-, amplitude-, etc.-irrelevant) hetero~tehmp¤ralings. A much sihmpler way t¤ sahy this issi that they aræ ænsehmble quantum ~fuzz¤nihc ihnterrelati¤nshipings pr¤cæssings. As læast ahcti¤n they aræ alm¤st æmbarrassingly sihmple. As human bæings, planets, galaxies they aræ ast¤nishingly c¤mplex. Sææ st¤p.

Page top index.

This remediation is original text from our review of Clifford Geertz' Available Light. Look near end of Chapter IX.

We have yet to establish specific quantum semiotic fonts for select characters in 'difference.' Watch for changes here soon. Our intent is to treat all classical 'di' prefixes uniquely as Quantonic semiotic heuristics (i.e., memeotics) which have future animation and emergence/emerscence potential. 10Oct2001 - Doug.

Classical 'difference' assumes reality is: 1) stable, and 2) objects in it are independent. Canonically then, classical difference is radically mechanical static difference twixt two or more independent objects. Classical 'difference' also assumes that some independent objects may be identical to one another, in which case their difference is absolutely, certainly, verifiably and ideally 'zero.' Classical 'difference' defines and mandates that classical negation be objective.

Classical objective 'difference' can 'reproduce,' and 'manufacture' 'negative' results. Classical objects can be ideally positive. Classical objects can be ideally negative. This is essence of classical thinking methods: stability, independence, negation, contradiction, falsifiability, proof, and finally absolute truth. See our SOM's Bases of Judgment table yellow background cells. Notice that dialectic's negation demands that 'not' be classically, objectively ideal: classically negation is objective so that classical 'differences' may be objective.

'Quantum difference'

(use 'omnifference, omnifferencings, etc.')

assumes reality is: b¤th 1) anihmatæ-emerscenturing, and 2) quantons in it are c¤-here-nt (i.e., all entanglements c¤mpenetrate b¤th l¤cally amd n¤nl¤cally as included-middles, amd all previ¤usly unentangled quantons ubiquit¤usly b¤th c¤mpenetrate amd are c¤mpenetrated by quantum pragmabsolute is¤flux). Quantum differences are always radically st¤chastic-uncertain due t¤ b¤th quantum pragmatic flux and quantum c¤mpenetration. In quantum reality, n¤ two quantons are ever identical, s¤ physically n¤ ideal concept of 'zero' exists. Quantum 'difference' is active, pragmabsolutely changing, s¤ we might prefer t¤ say "quantum differencing," and "omnifferencing." See Ensemble Attractors. Imagine omnifferencing two of those QLOs.

(Comsider h¤w SOMites reverse-engineered ¤r re-engineered 'pragmatic' t¤ mean useful, practical, causal-effective — they call its ¤riginal acti¤n (quantum semper flux) definiti¤n "archaic." In Quantonics we intend 'pragma' as acti¤n, indeed we intend pragmabs¤lute quantum flux. T¤¤ essentially, then, pragmatism is quantum reality. In his last w¤rk, Some Problems of Philosophy, William James comsidered pragma/flux amd pluralism essential phil¤s¤phical ingredients ¤f his depicti¤ns ¤f reality.)

Omnifferencing is always anihmatæ-ensehmble st¤chastic, thus we might als¤ insist ¤n it being plural. It is imp¤ssible, in quantum reality, t¤ ever is¤late a single, wh¤lly dec¤herent, inanimate 'difference.' All this demands that we, using classical terminology, declare quantum difference, just as we d¤ quantum negati¤n, as subjective. See subjectiv, subjective, negation is subjective.

Quantum ræhlihty issi pr¤babilistihc, thus quantum p¤sihtihvæ, s¤ any ¤mnihfferæncings may ¤nly æmærse n¤vel QLOs amd peaqlos. N¤ quantum ¤mnihfferænce can ævær bæ classically negative! Sææ ¤ur What is Wrong with Probability as Value? Sææ ¤ur QTMs.

Page top index.

See difference.

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'differentiation' and remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'differentiati¤n.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'differentiation.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'omnifferentiati¤n.'

Classical differentiation assumes reality is stable and objects in reality are independent. Classical differentiation further assumes reality is inanimate/stoppable, excluded-middle, analytic, etc.

Quantum omnifferentiati¤n assumes reality is anihmatæ and quantons in reality have quantum ensehmble, EIMA, c¤mplementary, unstoppable interrelationships.

For application, and descriptions of relative importances of these terms, see our 7Jun2002 Möbius 3-Primæ Fermion.

See addition, differentiation, division, integration, multiplication, prime, recursion, square, square root, and subtraction.

Page top index.

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'distinguish' and remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'omnistinguish.'

In classical reality 'distinguish' means to assess verity or falsity 'between' or 'among' two or more EEMD classical objects, states, or concepts. Those classical measurables are presumed to hold still and to be independent of one another. Distinguish is a classical assessment of one versus another or one versus many.

In quantum reality 'omnistinguish' means to be selectings amd ch¤¤sings quantonic islands of better interrelati¤nships. As islands of EIMA interrelati¤nships, quantons c¤mmingle amd c¤inside their l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal quantum comtexts c¤¤bsfecting their interrelati¤nship ensehmbles amd making ch¤¤sings amd selectings.

See choice.

Page top index.

See difference.

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'division' and remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'divisi¤n,' and its lingual derivatives of
divide. (Both classical 'i' characters replaced with quantum 'i' patterns which represent normalized quantum noncommutativity of Poisson's bracket.)

In classical contexts we shall use 'division.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'divisi¤n,' amd divide and its lingual derivatives. Also use omnivision which unfortunately has too many other hermeneutics at Millennium III's commencement.

Classical division assumes reality is stable and objects in reality are independent. Classical division further assumes reality is inanimate/stoppable, excluded-middle, analytic, etc. Classical division assumes reality is ideally reductive.

Notice how a classical division functor is often shown as a solid horizontal and sometimes diagonal line separating dividend and divisor (both of which are classical numbers). This line is essentially SOM's wall created by application of SOM's analytic knife, much as a Sheffer stroke functor in Dirac's bra-ket notation: < *y | y >. What becomes clear in all these classical symbolic EOOO delusions (i.e., by "delusions" we intend "binary 'truth' functor for alternative denial," AKA SOM) is that we need quantum anihmatæ EIMA semi¤tic remediati¤n n¤t just in language but in symbols t¤¤.

Quantum divisi¤n assumes reality is anihmatæ and quantons in reality have quantum c¤mplementary, included-middle, unst¤ppable interrelati¤nships. Quantum divisi¤n assumes reality is irreducibly wholistic.

For application, and descriptions of relative importances of these terms, see our 7Jun2002 Möbius 3-Primæ Fermion. More recently see our 13Feb2003 Hamilton's Hypercomplex Quaternion Remediation.

See addition, differentiation, division, integration, multiplication, prime, recursion, square, square root, and subtraction.

Page top index.

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'do' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'd¤.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'do.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'd¤.'

In classical reality radically formal analytic reason assumes one may, "...either do or not do..." I.e., "...to do or not to do..."

In quantum reality ¤ne is always 'd¤ing,' rather ¤ne is always a quanton(d¤ing,n¤t_d¤ing), quanton(active,passive). If ¤ne h¤lds very still, ¤ne is (classically apparently) 'not doing' on a local perceptual level; h¤wever ¤ne is 'd¤ing' ¤n a macr¤ level, mes¤ level and micr¤ level. E.g.,

• macr¤ level - ¤ne is ¤n a r¤tating Earth, ¤rbiting ar¤und ¤ur Sun, c¤within a s¤lar system ¤rbiting ar¤und ¤ur galaxy, and s¤ ¤n... (it is imp¤ssible f¤r us t¤ have "zer¤ m¤mentum."
• mes¤ level - ¤ne's b¤dy's ¤rgans and multicellular quantonic subsystems are functi¤ning, and s¤ ¤n...
• micr¤ level - ¤ne's cells are being, birthing, and dying — amd all th¤se cell's at¤ms and subat¤mic comstituents are in endless quantum flux.

See 'be.'

Page top index.

'duration'
'durational'
'durationing'
'durationings'
'durations'

In Other Languages: Arabic (old) - Chinese - Deutsch - dauern, bleiben French - état, rester Greek - Hebrew - Japanese - Italian - Latin - temporis spatium Portugese - Russian - Spanish - duración Swedish - Swiss -

Synonyms - classical:

• permanence
• stability
• time as a space proxy
• law
• common sense
• routine
• static quality simplified as classically-measurable quantity
• etc.

Synonyms - quantum:

• evolving processings
• absolute change~flux
• dynamic quality simplified as quantumly~monitorable ensemble processings

Classical assess: stability independence excluded-middle EOOOness H5Wness lisrability causation certainty EEMDivity observation : Duration, durational, etc.

Classically, duration is 'perpetual state,' and 'perpetual state-icity.' Classical reality, except for unitemporal objective mechanical motion, "holds still," and is "analytically, dialectically, objectively, materially, substantially immutable."

Ponder well and fathom deeply how classical 'state' makes 'state-ments' about reality literally, orthodox 'psychically' valid.

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : Duhrati¤n, duhrati¤nal, duhrati¤ning, duhrati¤nings, duhrati¤ns, etc.

Quantumly, duhrati¤n issi 'pærpætual flux.' Ph¤t¤ns, electr¤ns, pr¤t¤ns, neutrons amd ahll their aggrægati¤ns aræ ihn pærpætual flux: fr¤m a classical quantum~antithetical conspective "perpetual motion."

Alter your memes slightly and noodle how quantum duration mandates use of 'phase~ments' to describe absolutely durational, changing quantum reality.

See our perpetual motion, Bergsonian duration, compare classical vis-à-vis quantum inertia, etc.

Just a heads up for students. This QELR combined with classical notions of and quantum memeos of: simultaneity, succession, identity, equals as an Aristotelian tautology (e.g. 1=1 and A=A), state, common sense, etc., carry huge affects for an understanding of what we mean when we say "quantum reality." We shall do much expansion here in futurings. Watch for them. To get off to a good start at understanding issues involved here, start reading very carefully at Bergson's Creative Evolution Topic 30.

Examples:

• What do we mean when we say "Classical measurement can be accomplished 'at one time?'"
• What do we mean when we say "Classical measurement can be accomplished 'at one location?'"
• What do we mean when we say "Classical measurement can stop reality, conveniently invoke 'zero momentum?''"
• What do we mean when we say "We can conventionally place measurables in stopped 'reference frames?'"
• What did Banesh Hoffmann mean when he said, "We cannot measure frequency [flux, change] in an instant [at a classical point]?" Page 153, The Strange Story of the Quantum. Our intraquote brackets.
• What did Henri Louis Bergson mean when he said, "For we can analyse a thing, but not a process;?" Page 219, Time and Free Will.
• What are implications for 'envirnomental scientists,' 'global warming,' and 'global cooling,' and accords re: Earth's climate processes?
• Is space classically durational? How? Is space quantumly durational? Why? Exemplify your answers.
• Can we classically measure space? Why not?
• Can we classically measure time? Why not?
• Can we classically measure change? Why not?
• Can we classically measure energy? Why not?
• Can we classically measure mass? Why not?
• Can we classically measure gravity? Why not?
• Can we classically measure temperature? Why not?
• Can we classically measure entropa and their gradients? Why not?
• Can we classically measure cohera and their gradients? Why not?
• Can we quantumly monitor spacings? Why? How?
• Can we quantumly monitor timings? Why? How?
• Can we quantumly monitor changings? Why? How?
• Can we quantumly monitor energyings? Why? How?
• Can we quantumly monitor massings? Why? How?
• Can we quantumly monitor gravityings? Why? How?
• Can we quantumly monitor temperaturings? Why? How?
• Can we quantumly monitor entropa(ings) and their gradientings? Why? How?
• Can we quantumly monitor cohera(ings) and their gradientings? Why? How?
• Why are quantum ensemble probability and QLOs also quantum uncertain?
• Etc.

See H5W. See What is Wrong with Probability as Value? See Quantum Essence.

Doug - 3Mar2005.

Page top index.