Item |
English Language Problematic |
Quantonics' Quantum
Remediation
©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2029
|
|
'each'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
TBD. (Classical problematics: objective independence,
lisr, singularity,
monism, homogeneity, inanimacy, dichonicity, analyticity, etc.)
Quantonics ch¤¤ses
t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'each' amd
remerq all
quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'æach.'
In classical contexts we shall use 'each.' In Quantonics/quantum
comtexts we shall use 'æach.'
Page top index.
|
|
'effect'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
Quantonics ch¤¤ses
t¤ c¤¤pt classical singular 'effect' (see
singularity
bel¤w) amd remerq all quantum
comtextual ¤ccurrences with plural '¤utc¤mes.'
In classical contexts we shall use 'effect.' In Quantonics/quantum
comtexts we shall use '¤utc¤mes.'
We shall use single qu¤tes when referring these terms,
respectively, "¤ut ¤f con/comtexts."
Where classical reality is a unitary, analytical, quantitative,
cause-effect reality
quantum reality is many st¤chastic, qualitative, affects-¤utc¤mes
realities.
See cause.
Page top index.
|
|
'either/or'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤
c¤¤pt classical 'either/or' excluded-middle syllogistic
lingual logic amd remerq all quantum
comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'b¤th/and' quantum
lingual included-middle paral¤gic.
In classical contexts we shall use 'either/or.' In Quantonics/quantum
comtexts we shall use 'b¤th/amd.'
Often we use italics to emphasize ¤ur c¤¤pti¤n.
Classical interpretations of reality follow Aristotle's syllogisms.
'Either/or' follows specifically Aristotle's third syllogism
which says classical objects do 'not' have middles which are
included: A 'is' 'not' 'both' A 'and' 'not_A.' See is, not,
both, and.
Quantum hermeneutics of reality claim that reality is b¤th
anihmatæ
amd quantum included-middle complementary.
Quantum reality's included-middle arises from probabilistic nature
amd distributions of all quantons
in reality. Classical 'objects' do n¤t exist in quantum
reality; only quantons amd their progenitors
'exist.' Classical notions of excluded-middle 'either/or' dichonic Pirsigean
EOOO platypi do
n¤t exist in quantum reality; only BAWAM
quantons and their progenitors 'exist.'
See ¤ur Quantonics' Aristotle
Connection, Quantum Connection,
Sophism Connection, amd SOM
Connection.
Page top index.
|
|
'electron'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
Quantonics ch¤¤ses
t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'electron' amd
remerq all
quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'electr¤n.'
In classical contexts we shall use 'electron.' In Quantonics/quantum
comtexts we shall use 'electr¤n.'
Classicists view electrons as particles, and thus see electrons
as classical objects.
Students of Quantonics see electr¤ns as quantons with
everywhere-ass¤ciative asympt¤tic anihmatæ pr¤bability distributi¤ns.
As such electr¤ns are quantum flux, and thus we
view them as anihmatæ and
emerging pr¤cesses.
To exemplify how important and omnifferent
our Quantonics view of electr¤ns is, comsider how classicists
view electrons as stable (by that they mean electrons have infinite
life times) SOM Box, SOM
Loop analytic-motion objects.
In Quantonics, any electr¤n is an example of ¤ne
of at least three of Nature's pærpætual
m¤ti¤n quantons: ph¤t¤ns,
electr¤ns, and pr¤t¤ns.
All three exemplify Nature's own comstituent c¤re pærpætual
pr¤cesses. Classicists deny any notions of nascent or
manufactured/manufacturable 'perpetual motion,' but they are
misguided by their own CTMs.
Electr¤ns are unambigu¤usly pærpætual
m¤ti¤n/anihmatæ
quantum flux pr¤cesses.
See Schweber on
QED.
Page top index.
|
|
'empirical'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
: Empirical
:
Æmpihrihcal, æmpihrihcism, æmpirihcist,
etc.
Classically, empirical means 'common experience.' Classical
empiricism assumes reality is stable and objects in reality are
independent from one another. Classical empiricism assumes reality
is state-ic, and that truth may be embodied in state-ic laws
about 'real' independent objects which 'hold still.'
Quantumly, æmpihrihcal mæans "umc¤mm¤n
epæriænce."
Quantum æmpihrihcism assumæs quantum ræhlihty issi
abs¤lutæly anihmatæ
amd ihts quantons sharæ
EIMA
.
Quantons aræ n¤t
classically
independent.
Why?
They have
arbihtrary lihkælih¤¤d ¤mnistrihbuti¤ns.
See: judgment,
Bases of Judgment, common
sense, EEMD,
EIMA, SQ,
ESQ, ADQ,
QVP, QLO,
peaqlo.
See: real,
absolute, animate,
cohere, coinside,
likelihood.
Page top index.
|
|
'empty'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
classical concept 'empty' an ideal mathematical 'void/zero'
logic (e.g., A-A = void/zero/null/empty), amd
remerq all
quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with quantum 'vacuum flux'
(QVF) as v¤id, absence, ¤r partial presence ¤f
any quantum actual c¤mplement.
A QVF intueme
appears, to classicists, as nonsense until ¤ne realizes
that QVF c¤mpenetrates all quantum reality. Classically
'emptying' a container by pouring its contents in a different
'location' d¤es n¤t 'remove' QVF! This is what
we mean when we say, "We are in It amd
It is in us." QVF's energy density is alm¤st unimaginable.
There is en¤ugh quantum flux energy in a cubic centimeter
¤f QVF t¤ create 1042 ¤f ¤ur
kn¤wn universes! S¤ y¤u may ch¤¤se
t¤ accept this quantum intueme, or be a stubborn SOMwitted
classicist and reject it. But do so at your peril. CTMs
are wh¤lly inadequate f¤r thinking amd
c¤mmunicating ab¤ut an imminent Millennium III
quantum tsunami ¤f changæ
washing ¤ver Earth's p¤pulace.
We need n¤vel heuristics, semi¤tics, languages,
QTMs, etc., t¤
assist ¤ur think-king amd
c¤mmunicati¤ns f¤r Millennium III.
S¤ we see that fr¤m a quantum perspective, just
as there is n¤ classical 'zero,' there is n¤ classical
'empty,' 'void,' ¤r 'null.' Amd
as y¤u may ch¤¤se t¤ infer, we can
say g¤¤dbye t¤ classical mathematical concepts
which depend so heavily on these inept and naïve Platonic
ideas.
Page top index.
|
|
'end'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
: end
End, classically, is an event.
Classical events are 'caused' by some other event.
Question is, "In the ending?"
Of course this begs a sophism:
"What ends the ending?"
State-ic reality, stoppable reality, concrete reality, classical
material, objective, dialectical reality claims "the
beginning," and "the end."
See our state-event diagrams in our review of Dennett's Chapter
3 of his Breaking the Spell.
See thelogos.
: end
No such notions as 'end' and 'begin' exist in quantum reality.
Quantum reality is an animate, semper fluxio, absolute flux,
quantum~processing reality. 'Begin,' 'end,' 'state,' and 'event'
are invalid terms in quantum reality. Quantonics ch¤¤ses
t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'end' and discard all
uses of this term ¤r in cases where we must refer this
classical concept, remerq
all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'ending,' or better,
'endings.'
Classicists attempt to make most ideas and concepts singular
objective monisms.
'End' is, from a classical perspective, absolute. Our known
universe, classically, has one
'end.' Careful thought will demonstrate for you how this leads
to Maxwell's thermodynamic closure of all classical systems,
and an ultimate concomitant analytic demise of all classically
real systems.
We may apply similar classical thing-king methods to 'begin.'
Classically then, most processes have, unitemporally, a single beginning and a
single end. As an example, classicists see 'life' as 'one'
centric. In Quantonics, we say that classicists are "One
life centric." As students of Quantonics know, this is just
another classical biform, like 'either in or out.'
See either/or and out.
Also, consider how a concept of 'classical end' carries an
innate implication of analytic stoppability. Classicists believe
they can start and stop analytic time at will. Classical physicists
and mathematicians do this daily, using their CTMs. So to them,
'end' is just a classical state. To them, classical reality is
state-ic. They manufacture a classical state-ic reality.
Too, they manufacture classical mathematics and sciences to fit
their contrived, conventional, convenient 'classical reality.'
H¤wever, dear etymologists amd
lexicologists, reality is n¤t static, rather reality is
dynamic, it is quantum abs¤lute flux! Amd
quantum reality 'endlessly' emerscentures
itself.
John Von Neumann was a great quantum mathematician, quantum
logicist, and quantum theoretician. He sought loci and temporalities
where and when quantum measurement special events 'began' and
'ended.' He could not 'find' them! Why? In quantum reality classically
analytic single event beginnings amd
endings d¤ n¤t 'exist.' Every quantum measurement
'event' has multiple, perhaps unc¤untable, b¤th
l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal
prec¤nditi¤ns. Each ¤f th¤se prec¤nditi¤ns
may be in multiple quantum comtexts each with their ¤wn
temp¤ralities, l¤ci, etc.
As a result, we may say that quantum comtexts are Dan Gloveresque
b¤th "beginnings" amd
"endings," but in a quantum real sense, they never
classically either 'begin' (from an analytically stopped 'state')
or 'end' (at an analytically stopped 'state').
See begin.
Page top index.
|
|
'energy'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
: energy
Classical energy is area under a transverse curve. More area,
more energy. Area is mean spatial amplitude times, usually, spatial
increments of 1/2 cycle of classical frequency. Notice here how
frequency is turned into classical space in order to 'compute'
energy. You may want to read Henri Louis Bergson's denigrations
of classical usages of static spatial extensities to do 'science.'
See our reviews of Bergson's Creative
Evolution and his Time
and Free Will.
:
ænærgy, enærgies,
ænærgyings, etc.
Quantum energy is quintessentially quantum flux rate which
is packetized as quanta.
Quanta packets are usually shown as i·h,
where latter is a minimum AKA least quantum of energy. Quantum
uncertainty is expressed in multiples of least quanta. Total
energy of a system is N packets of quanta: System Energy
issi N·i·h·v.
N is number of quanta, i is imaginary 'number,' h is Planck's
'constant,' and v is packet flux rate.
O'gadons may find it obvious that
quantum~ænærgy
is thus a metameme of classical 'energy.'
Page top index.
|
|
'ensemble'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
Quantonics ch¤¤ses
t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'ensemble'
amd remerq
all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'ensehmble,'
'ensehmbling,' and 'ensehmblings.'
In classical contexts we shall use 'ensemble.' In most
Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use plural, present-participle
'ensehmblings.'
In classical reality an/the
ensemble (note singular, active/passive voice) is usually a 'group'
of objects, e.g., a bushel of oranges, an orchestra of musicians,
a set of tires, etc. Mathematically an ensemble may be some concept
as simple as 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=9 where 9 is an ensemble of 9
'axiomatically independent,' individuate but 'identical' 1s of
arbitrary locality (any 1 is the 'same' 1 everywhere,
but all 'ones' are 'independent' of 'one' another context.'
In classical reality an ensemble is always analytically reducible,
with elements of it ideally separable and isolable. Too, those
same elements are ideally synthetic, both producible and reproducible.
Elemental relations of classical ensembles are always classically
interactive and when conceived dyadically are always dichonic. An
ensemble's elements are presumed state-ic
and EEMD. An ensemble's
dichonic functor copula (e.g., +, -, x, ÷, and, or, either,
both, etc.) are always ideally static, dyadic, and EEMD. Classically,
all 'interactions' among ensembles and elements of ensembles
are always objective, analytic, synthetic, Lorentz invariant,
1-1 correspondent, predicable, predictable, determinate, causal,
certain, unitemporal, commutative, distributive, factorable,
etc.
In quantum reality ensehmblings
(note plural, present participle) are quantons of quantons. For
example:
Quantonquantum_bushel_of_orangesRecurse'til_full(quantumadd(quantum_1orange))
Our Quantonics meme of quantum_1, exemplified by our use of
it above, is omnifferent
a classically naïve and inept concept of '1.' For
more Quantonic adept examples see our One
is the Loneliest N¤mbær. See quantum
integers. See a quantum comtextual descripti¤n of
quantum_1.
Our Quantonics memes for ensehmble
copula are omnifferent classical concepts of +, -, x,
÷, and, or , either, both, etc. For some examples see
our Quantonic
Memes vis-à-vis Classical Concepts.
So using our bushel of oranges example we can do a similar
example using quantum_1s, like this:
quantum_9s-qtxRecurse'til_quantum_9(quantumadd(quantum_1s-qtxn))
where s-qtx abstractly represents a specific quantum comtextual
island for emerscenturing
quantonquantum_9s-qtx, and 'n' represents
an abstraction for specific quantonquantum_1s-qtxns
used to emerscenture quantonquantum_9s-qtx.
It may n¤t be obvious yet, but what we have just
shown you is of immense value and importance.
We have shown you that if we have a bushel of oranges and
one of them is becoming mouldy (USA: moldy),
¤ur
quantum mæmæos ¤f ænsehmble
can explain why,
while
classical notions cannot, indeed classical notions are inept
at explaining why,
¤næ ¤hr sæværal ¤hranges ihn
a buhshel
aræ bæc¤ming m¤uldy.
Sihmihlarly
which
cælls ihn a b¤dy aræ
bæc¤ming cancer¤uhs...why ¤nly ¤næ æyæ
has catarahcts...why
two classically identical
twins
aræ ræhlly
quantum~¤mnihffering ¤næ
an¤thær...etc.
Why?
Quantum comtexts aræ sæmpær~fluxio,
anihmatæ, sælf~¤thær~æv¤lving,
REIMAR,
heterogæne¤uhs,
etc., while classical contexts are concrete, stable,
immutable, EEMD,
homogeneous, etc.
Doug - 20Jan2006.
|
It is important to notice here, in our quantum emerscenture
of ensehmblings quantum n¤mbær
quanton, that quantum additi¤n
issi ensehmbling quantum comtextual classings
of quantum emerscenturings. We can offer similar heuristics for
quantum subtracti¤n, integrati¤n, differentiati¤n,
divisi¤n, multiplicati¤n, etc.
In general, in quantum reality, ensehmblings
may be described as:
- quantons/quantonic,
- ensehmble quantum umcærtainty
interrelati¤nships, (see EQU)
- st¤chastic,
- EIMA,
- rhetorically c¤mplementary, (inclusive, c¤hesive)
- self-referent, recursive,
- islandic,
- anihmatæ,
- ensehmble determinate, (see
whatings
happenings nextings)
- etc.
In general, in quantum reality, ensehmblings
aræ n¤t classically:
- dichonic,
- objective,
- analytic,
- EEMD,
- dialectically dichotomous, (exclusive, oppositional)
- other-referent, discursive,
- lisr,
- stable,
- single event determinate, ( causal, 1-1
correspondence, induction, etc.)
- etc.
A superb question you may ask at this juncture: From
whence any arbitrary comtextual quanton_1s-qtxn?
Our heuristic is that this may happen in a vast spectrum of processes,
but two of those may be somewhat familiar to you:
- very similarly to biological cellular division, (which is
relatively easily observable) and
- quanton parthenogenesis via an ontology
which Quantonics describes, but we doubt anyone has seen
this happen except perhaps at a photon/electron QED/QCD virtual 'particle'
level. Assuming RHIC
and other accelerators' 'particle' collisions tap VES
then perhaps we are viewing parthenogenesis in some of those
cases and n¤t just classical, objective, 'particle' 'decomposition.'
More to come...
Page top index.
|
|
'entangle'
'entangleable'
'entangled'
'entanglement'
'entangling'
'entanglings'
'entangler'
'entanglers'
'entangles'
Etymology: entangle
Classical synonyms:
Quantum synonyms:
|
:
In classical reality 'entangle' carries an implicit semantic
of "somehow getting-becoming tangled, entangled in some
physical, possibly metaphoric, web. Classical entanglement is
objective, formal, mechanical, etc. One is localably, isolably,
separably, reducibly entangled in some 'web,' be it life, marriage,
school, job, nation, culture, religion, gang, and so on... Notice
that most of those webs are social institutions. Society, one
way or another, imposes many of those entanglements upon us.
Why? So that society can control individuals and persuade, coerce
individuals to do society's bidding.
As you can see, there isn't much individual magic in classical
social entanglements. For a great and fairly recent film genre
of this issue see Robin Williams as Professor Keating in The
Dead Poet's Society.
All classical entanglement 'magic,' if you could call it that,
is social. Boris Sidis called it "Demos' will."
:
Quantum~entanglement is one of reality's great miracles! A
key to fathoming entanglement's quantum~fullness is that entanglement
is one of quantum~reality's ways of establishing massively plural
(heterogeneous) both local and n¤nlocal comtextings. Entangled
quantons share comtext(ings). It's why we view family as so important:
we as quantum~beings are entangled with our families. How? One
way is mother~child mitochondrial~entanglement. (Compare absence
of quantum~entanglement in photonic multiplexed fiber~optic communications,
and ~ideal unmixing of broadcast channels, until they encounter
any n¤nlinear signal diffractors like large buildings,
mountains, trees, etc. Fiber optic cable can diffract multiplexed
channels if it is bent to too small a radius.)
Another way reality establishes comtext is importance of posentropy
when we compare it to its quantum~complements: negentropy, zeroentropy,
and mixentropy. Fermion ensembles (posentropic quanton ensembles;
individual undisturbed (i.e., absence of QED)
fermions as atoms and protonic~nucleons are perpetually zeroentropic
and adiabatic) establish spatial~comtextings for nature!
Doug doesn't know how many omniffering kinds of quantum~miracles
are comtext~generators, but he is sure entanglement and posentropy
are two of them.
Doug - 7Jun2009.
When Doug reviewed David Bohm's paper entitled, 'Super
Implicate Order Dialogue with Reneé Weber,' Doug attempted
a simple explanation of quantum~reality in terms of quantum~entanglement,
quantum~interference, and quantum~superposition. Essence in that
approach is that without quantum~entanglement...there is n¤
reality. To say that in a better way, a la Feynman, without quantum~flux~entanglement
we cann¤t
explain reality using classical notions. A huge and formidable
paradox here is that classical state-ic notions cann¤t
explain quantum~reality since classically quantum~flux~entanglement
is itself, classically, a paradox (I.e., if one believes in 'state,'
how can there be any flux? Quantumly one believes in flux and
says almost Platonically, "Classical ideal perpetual state
is, as Bergson wrote, only an illusion." Doug - 29Mar2011.).
Most theorists, given that situation, say "Let's do our
best to explain it while realizing that we will never
understand it." Recall Feynman's famous remark in that regard.
Doug would simply say in that regard, "We will never
understand quantum~reality if we continue using dialectic and
its anthropogenic, 'intelligently-designed' classical social
'state' hegemony in our attempts to understand it."
A huge assumption Doug made in his SIOD exegesis of quantum~reality
is that David Bohm is right about quantum~reality being holographic.
Actually Bohm calls reality a "holomovement." Bohm,
at that time, c. 1986, and prior in his Quantum Theory
c. 1951, had said that quantum~reality is n¤n mechanical,
but he unfortunately appeased that we still needed scientific,
and thus mechanical means to describe reality. So Bohm offered
two quantum~complements: implicate order and explicate
order. Former is n¤n mechanical, latter is formal-mechanical.
Bohm's analogue of 'entanglement' he refers "entwinement,"
and "enfoldment." He offers a dialectical 'opposite'
to his "enfoldment" as "unfoldment." Bohm's
physical reality "unfolds" its explicate order actuality
from its non actualized "enfoldment" in his implicate
order. Many of you encouraged Doug to study Bohm, since Doug's
Quantonics sounds so much like Bohm's holomovement. In 1951 Bohm
published his initial ideas on a non mechanical approach to quantum~reality.
Doug only read parts of that work, Quantum Theory. Doug
used that in his development of Quantonics, but only partially.
Doug thought Bohm meant that all of reality had to be non
mechanical and Doug pursued a novel qualogos
which he felt could make that happen. Prior, Pirsig convinced
Doug that dialectic was bogus. Subsequently Doug has robustly,
theoretically, practically, and verbosely shown in spades that
"dialectic is bogus." Bohm's implicate-explicate
order both uses and depends upon dialectic.
So Doug now believes that Bohm is right (has quantumly better
views) about two memeos: quantum~reality is holographic,
and quantum~reality is n¤n mechanical. However, Bohm's
implementation of his holomovement uses dialectic! As a result,
Doug decides here and now n¤t to use Bohm's version
of entanglement.
It is our view that we owe our readers an explanation of why
we are using our own version of quantum~entanglement in this
QELR. Our easiest explanation is that it is viable with Quantonics'
other memes and memeos,
for example: scintillation,
interference, superposition,
etc. Our problem here is "what is it?" To good, quantum~reality
offers us a premier exemplar: gravity. Quantum~gravity
is zero latency (i.e., time independent, isodirectional)
action at a distance applied holographically to all actual (unsure
about n¤nactual) reality. Quantum~gravity entangles all
of fermionic quantum~actuality. It is a quantum~wæb which
"holds spin 1/2 actuality together" in a isoentangling
QVF c¤mplæmæntary~plænum
of n¤n actual quantum~isoflux.
If you want to read Bohm on your own see his Quantum Theory,
see Nichols' The Essential David Bohm, see Bohm's Science,
Order, and Creativity, and his The Undivided Universe.
Classically, if you are entangled in a web, say a 'big' spider's
web, you and web are lisr
one another. Classically you and web are local, only local. Your
middles are excluded. Your touchings are 'interaction' conjoint.
Your situation is an ideal classical 'state.' (Except for your
wiggling, and spider's rush to entomb and liquefy you.) Classical
entanglement is ideally objective, stable, and middle-exclusive.
You and web do 'not' compenetrate one another.
Quantumly any web is quantonic.
(All actuality is quantonic.) Web's atoms are quantonic.
All quantons are quantons(n¤nlocal,local). All atoms in
said web are (issue of heterogeneous~quantum~comtextings:
both directly~ and ~indirectly~) entangled with one-another:
an atomic hologram.
Said hologram can be an "island of c¤hæræncæ,"
whose comstituent, i.e., both l¤cal and
n¤nl¤cal, comtextings may bæings "ihslands of c¤hæræncings."
Web atoms on 'opposite'
and all other sides of you are holographically interrelated as
quanton(atom_one_side,atom_other_side). Just like gravity! They
are also entangled with any n¤nlocal complements
with which they have previously experienced n¤n linear
interrelationshipings (reflection, refraction, beam-splitting,
rectification, parental-common-sourcing, mixing, coherence (e.g.
lasing), collision, collusion, affectation~partiality~coobsfection,
impulse jarring, barrier affectings, burning, rotation, energy
interrelationshipings, microwave heating, lensing, chemical transmutation,
shared biological evolution, etc.). In this example we could
imagine a spider's sibling somehow having been moved far, far
away from our local spider of choice. By birth right all those
spider-siblings are quantum~entangled. Genetically they share
a common Borgian parent at least. So we can view impregnation
as a n¤n linear interrelationshiping. Ditto Borgian assimilation.
At very least, some of their atoms, electrons and bio~photons
are entangled. Just like gravity! Again, we see strong hints
of quantum~partiality.
Quantum~reality shows us empirically that Quantonics
HotMeme "...quantum~entanglement is always partial."
Quantonics HotMeme.
Gravity shows us that ad occulos!
Aside 17-18Jul2008:
What is one phasement we can make re: quantum~entanglement?
Quantonics HotMeme
"Quantum entanglement, per se
and per
intera is quantum~coherent!"
Quantonics HotMeme.
Given our last two HotMemes
above, what further phasements
might we offer, too, as HotMemes
?
We have a pristine opportunity to quantum~ængændær
a n¤vel quantum~partihalihty list:
- Quantonics HotMeme
"Quantum~coherence, too, is quantum~partial."
Quantonics HotMeme,
- Quantonics HotMeme
"Quantum~entanglement establishes
at least one quantum~synæsthetic of quantum~partiality."
Quantonics HotMeme,
- Quantonics HotMeme
"Quantum~gravity, we may say then
enthymemetically, is a quantum~synæsthetic of quantum~reality."
Quantonics HotMeme.
Adepts will ask, "Doug what are synæsthetic examples
of quantum~gravity as quantum~entanglement exhibiting quantum~coherence?"
Two exemplars are acceleration and libration, OK? A benefit of
those, especially an example of latter (i.e., libration), is
quasi~adiabatic intra and inter~stellar travel in Milky-Way via
existing librationings' dynamic pathways...a little like an automobile
drafting a class-8 truck on an interstate, but much, much, much
more efficient...note that both acceleration and
libration are symptoms of gravity and ihn
n¤ way having qua
to stand for, 'objectively represent,' their quantum~metameme
gravity...a question for you super Ogadons: "How
can a spacecraft become librative?"...,
- Quantonics HotMeme
"Bohm's holomovement hermeneuted
as Quantonics' version of Quantum~holography, too, is EIMA
vastly multiplicate quantum~ensemblings of quantum~partialings."
Quantonics HotMeme,
- Quantonics HotMeme
"All photons (QED) are coherent holomovement quantum partialityings."
Quantonics HotMeme,
- Quantonics HotMeme
"All gluons (QCD) are coherent (is¤)holomovement quantum partialityings."
Quantonics HotMeme,
- Quantonics HotMeme
"Quantum~tsunamis, too, are quantum~partial."
Quantonics HotMeme,
- Quantonics HotMeme
"Gamma ray bursts, too, are quantum~partial."
Quantonics HotMeme,
- Quantonics HotMeme
"Any mother's mitochondrial DNA,
too, is quantum~partial." Quantonics
HotMeme,
- Quantonics HotMeme
"Any sentient quantum stage (colloquially,
'mind,' and nous), too, is quantum~partial."
Quantonics HotMeme,
- Etc. Our list here is long since we can write similar HotMemes for every quanton
ihn quantum~reality.
End aside 17-18Jul2008.
Bullet three above, begs that we engender a comprehensive
list of quantum~synæsthetics. (Note to Doug: this
is a required TBD - 17Jul2008.)
Thank you for reading. Doug - 17-18Jul2008.
Easiest way to describe quantum~entanglement is to issue a
phasement
similar this: "Entangled quantons zero~latency affect
their complements independent of spatial separation." Einstein
called this "action at a distance" and disclaimed it
as "absurd" and "illegal" in his theories
of relativity. Einstein's SR and GR depend upon state-ic "invariant
geometrical intervals" with spatial-temporal dependencies.
Yes, as Prigogine and Stenger point out in their 1984 Order
Out of Chaos, Einstein's SR and GR are temporal. And yes,
as P&S point out, this is violation of classical ideal 'science's'
atemporality.
But his 'time' is universal and worse it is still a space proxy.
What is unique about Einstein's notion of 'time' is that it is
'relative to individual views of it.' Note that his 'time' is
still universal AKA çatholiç but observably relative.
However, Einstein's insistence that 'geometrical space' must
be ideally and objectively geometrically invariant puts invariance
back into time as a delta-t/t space proxy! Doug's criticism
piece de resistance is that his 'invariant geometrical interval'
denies quantum memes of flux evolution of fermionic entities
per se. Again, he violates quantum~reality! Doug - 29Mar2011.
Doug's entanglement description still has some issues which
he cann¤t yet, lacks qua
yet, to offer. A big one is an old classical vicious circle,
"which came first." Doug needs this QELR now, so we
offer it as-is. Doug will eventually fathom flux compatibilities
of entanglement and its hierarchical interrelations with other
quantum phenomena...and he will offer them here when that happens.
"Can you give us an 'issue' example Doug?" Sure!
Fathom hierarchical
interrelationships among interference, superposition, and
entanglement. Now ask, "How does entanglement emerge?"
Compare how gravity emerges as network interrelationshipings
among all actual fermions in reality. That one is easier since
we have provided a description of how
reality births fermions. Yet that description is incomplete,
in its inability to describe how gravity emerges as a symptom
of fermionic wobbling presence, as of c. 2008 too! Why, how,
does fermionic wobble educe gravity?
Answering those questions, Doug senses will help us explain
entanglement better and more completely too.
You may grasp apparency that an explanation of how wobble
educe's gravity would help us invent n¤væl mæmæ¤s
of anti~gravity!
And that leads us to similar entanglement queries...
"What process might happen to undo entanglement?"
In general, entanglement is thought to be 'stable.' "May
we assume quantum~entanglement is stable?" "What role
does quantum~coherence play in entanglement? Is it a symptom?
Vice versa? Ditto superposition. Is superposition limited to
fermions? Coherence appears limited to bosons and fermions pretending
to be bosons. Boson spins are zero and one. Gravity's spin is
2. Does coherence apply only to integer spins?" As you may
choose to perceive, entanglement begs a plenty~horn of challenging
technical, physial, physical, metaphysical, pragmaphysical,
and philosophical challenges. Quantonics
HotMeme "Dialectic cann¤t cut quantum fabric!"
Quantonics HotMeme.
We must switch from CTMs
to QTMs, from logic to coquecigrues.
Consider two atoms which are unentangled. In what ways may
they become entangled? Now do similarly for ensemble systems
of atoms and molecules. May some of an ensemble be | become entangled
while other of an ensemble remain unentangled? Is quantum~coherence
a symptom of entanglement? Doug wants to say, "Yes!"
Gravity as an exemplar encourages Doug's "Yes!" Similarly
a bar magnet. Its iron domains cohere. But now it gets really
interesting. We can decohere iron domains, but did we disentangle
them? Dunno, but guess they, having cohered, are still entangled
after decoherence.
Latter puts us on an excellent path of having qua to
explicate rogue waves,
doesn't it? For now let's do our best, realizing we have lots
of room for evolutionary improvement. Quantons usually do n¤t
interfere,
but they do interfere with themselves. Quantons, too.
interfere with others with whom they have become entangled. Interference
of actualized quantons attempts coherence, but some entangled
quantons in some quantum~comditions will n¤t cohere. They
experience a n¤n coherent superposition. Self~other~recursive
n¤n coherent superposition of incompressible liquids like
water may result in phenomena similar what we call "rogue
waves," and ''tsunamis." Ocean con(m)ditions are fairly
omnique, occurring
near unusually shaped coast lines with high water flow rates,
exceptional depth, and tendencies to force water back upon (recurse)
itself. Fathom how lava can do similar! Fathom how earthquake-liquefied
soil can do similar! Perhaps even more important than those examples,
fathom how hurricanes, cylindrically, do something similar! Quantonics
quantum~enabled modes of thought can accomplish miracles (magic)
classicists only can call "foolish," and "absurd."
Their bad. Doug - 26Jan2008. More later...
You see, there are a plethora of quantum~entanglement issues
and interrelationshipings to ponder. You will observe and obtain,
there is naught classical about them; only quantum remediated
language and thinkqing modes can even, just, only,
barely begin to explain them.
Doug - 26Jan2008.
Doug struggled similarly with 'scintillation' for years until
it finally holomentally energy~well jelled. Doug's con(m)fidence
finds its major source in experiences like that. You should too.
Quantonics HotMeme
"Your mind too is a hologram. If
you want it to grow, you must relentlessly feed it quantons."
Quantonics HotMeme.
Page top index.
|
|
'entropy'
Etymology: entropy
Classical synonyms:
Quantum synonyms:
|
Quantonics ch¤¤ses
t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation
of 'entropy' amd remerq all quantum
comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'entr¤py.'
In classical contexts we shall use 'entropy.' In Quantonics/quantum
comtexts we shall use 'entr¤py.'
In classical reality entropy has several notions: for
any classically global system one concept of entropy
fits that entire system. This is SOM's
OGT in OGC. To say
it specifically, "one global entropy concept classically
fits one global context.
An implication of this classical entropy notion is that one
entropy gradient applies everywhere within a global classical
system. From this "one gradient fits all" assumption
classicists say that for whichever gradient is currently in effect
(usually presumed to be a global positive entropy gradient),
one global arrow of time flows asymmetrically (unidirectionally)
within that particular global entropy gradient. (For a superb
example of this misguided classical notion of global entropy
see Huw Price's description of temporal classical symmetry versus
classical asymmetry in his Time's Arrow and Archimedes Point,
in particular page 34, of 306 total pages including index.)
Any biologist, especially quantum
biologists, will tell you that these classical notions of global
entropy and global entropy gradient run counter to what they
see in living systems. Take any mammal and many mammals, for
example. A mammal's whole body has a positive entropy gradient
of years. But every mammal has an omnifferent whole body positive
entropy gradient when compared among other mammals' whole body
positive entropy gradients! Too, cowithin a mammal's body, cellular
birth-apoptosis has a positive entropy gradient of about 170
days. Assuming in a human body there are approximately 1021
cells [During our review of Daniel C. Dennett's Breaking the
Spell, Chapter
5, we discovered that our estimate is way too high. We need
to change 1021 to approximately 1014. See
OEDC for more detail.
Doug - 9Mar2006.] which asynchronously, apparently stochastically,
undergo at least one entropy cycle per half year, it should become
clear that any classical notions of global entropy and global
entropy gradients in complex systems are at best misguided. Within
every mammal and among all mammals are vastly multiversal and
omnifferent
positive entropy gradients. All positive entropy gradients do
not march to a classical OGC entropy gradient!
We can use biology to help us understand what we mean in that
last sentence. Apoptosis is a quanton(cell_dying,cell_living).
It is quantum~metabolisis. Anabolisis is biological growth~generation.
Catabolisis is biological degeneration. Catabolisis corresponds
what physical science means by positive entropy: posentropy
with a negative gradient of degeneration. Maxwell said that posentropy
has only one gradient: degeneration. But biology shows
us otherwise. Posentropy can be productive, generative. We call
it anabolisis: posentropy with a positive gradient! Omniffering
cells in a living system have omniffering ensembles of subsystems
with omniffering rates and gradients of both cohera
and entropa.
Doug - 1Apr2007.
In Quantonics we ¤ffer expanded n¤vel and inn¤vative
n¤ti¤ns ¤f entr¤py. Entr¤py
t¤ us carries vast arrays ¤f semantics and hermeneutics
including quantum: animacy, heter¤geneity, c¤mplementarity,
and quatr¤t¤my.
All quantum system entr¤pies are heter¤gene¤us
and in abs¤lute quantum flux ¤n all scales ¤f
reality and acr¤ss all scales ¤f any particular
quantum system (e.g., anihmatæ cellular ap¤pt¤sis
and b¤dy level entr¤pies in a mammal).
All quantum system entr¤pies are pr¤babilistically
everywhere ass¤ciative and l¤cally amd n¤nl¤cally
included-middle c¤mplementary acr¤ss all quantum
systems.
N¤t ¤nly are quantum entr¤pies asynchr¤n¤usly
heter¤gene¤us acr¤ss all scales ¤f
systems, but they are als¤ heter¤gene¤us
in 'classes' ¤f quantum entr¤pies.
Currently, we have ¤nly identified a quatr¤t¤my
of anihmatæ classes of quantum
entr¤pies:
- posentr¤pies,
- zer¤entropies,
- negentr¤pies, and
- mixentr¤pies.
These may ¤ccur/emerq
'singularly' and in all p¤ssible quantum c¤mbinati¤ns.
See EQEG. See
OEDC. See entropa.
Page top index.
|
|
'equals'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
classical 'equals' amd
remerq all
quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'issi'
¤r ¤ur Quantonics equals semi¤tic:
.
In classical reality a notion of 'equals' is valid. E.g.,
Aristotle's first syllogism,
A=A.
In quantum reality 'equals' is an invalid notion. Simply,
there are n¤ state-ic equalities in quantum reality. See
identity.
As a result, we use present-participle remediation on classical
'equals.'
For a very simple view of quantum reality and our use of 'issi'
to replace classical 'equals,' it is good to think of quantum
reality grammatically as a present participle reality, i.e.:
quantum_realitya_present_participle_reality.
A present participle's infinitive c¤mplement is an
omniadic quanton.
A present participle's -ing c¤mplement issi an action/pragma
quanton. In this grammatical guise we capture quantum c¤mplementarity,
quantum omniadicy, and quantum animacy. What is missing? Quantum
plurality! We can simply make our present participle (classically,
nongrammatically) plural.
Here are some examples:
- believings
- watchings
- beings
- becomings
- understandings
- etc.
Classically, to believe, watch, be, become, understand, etc.
all imply classical lisr
(i.e., absence of c¤mplementarity), stability (i.e., absence
of an absolute quantum flux mandate), state-icity (i.e., impossible
analytic stoppability of an absolutely fluxing quantum reality),
etc
Just by using an English language plural present participle
grammar, you can commence a most fundamental grasp of essences
and quintessences of quantum reality. As another example, please
see our "whatings
happenings nextings." (Doug - 17Jan2002)
Page top index.
|
|
'equilibria'
'equilibrium'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
This QELR
of equilibria and equilibrium is in progress until further
notice - Doug - 20,22,24-30Mar2011 and 1,5,10,12-13,15-16,20-21,24Apr2011,1-13Sep2011.
See separate web page for this very large remediation of 'equilibrium.'
Page top index.
|
|
'event'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
: Event, events, etc.
: Ævænt, ævænts, ævænting,
ævæntings, etc.
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
classical 'event' with m¤re general quantum 'ævæntings.'
Classical issues: stoppability, analyticity, state,
absolute certainty, etc. Event.
Classical events are extremely problematic, especially in
their core assumptions surrounding formal mechanics and analyticity.
A huge problem is that classical events are 'zero' latency. That
assumption creates a 'finite discontinuity' which has no way
of being analyzed by formal mathematics. Why? Actually we should
ask why do classically presumed 'zero latency events' 'exist,'
i.e., why are they assumed from any getgo? Classical mechanics
have 'no' means to describe real, animate, emerging process!
Classical mechanics can describe cinematic stoppability
as series of 'states' and 'events,' but it cannot describe, let
alone define, emerging pr¤cess.
When it attempts to 'model' 'process' classical mechanics can
only do so determinately, using say least squares extrapolation.
But nature isn't least squares extrapolable! Whatings
happenings nextings are always to some affectings more or
less quantum uncertain (radically stochastic)...at all scales
of reality.
That paragraph shows why classical mechanics will become extinct
during Earth's Millennium III. Core affector, and classicism's
hugest problematic here is dialectic. Simply, dialectic is bogus!
When we examine a 'zero latency' classical event, we find
that it must change from one state to another in 'no' time. For
that to happen, said process must be ideally adiabatic. To do
that requires unlimited bandwidth or what we call "tunneling
in and through an is¤flux c¤mplæmænt"
whose entropy is wholly quantum~negative.
(Quantum~nægati¤n does n¤t 'subtract'
classically, rather it flux~cancæls
quantumly; to grasp subtleties here see Bergson's "negation
is subjective;" simply, quantum flux (i.e., is¤flux'
quantum~c¤mplæmænt) is all p¤sitive:
n¤n classically 'negative.')
That means 'zero' entropy must 'exist.' But classical mechanics
may only be, again by 'expert' presumption, posentropic. J. C.
Maxwell's 'laws' of thermodynamics disallow, preclude 'zero,'
and 'negative' entropies. Maxwell didn't get it. Quantum theory
(n¤t quantum 'mechanics,' rather a n¤væl
Bohmian quantum n¤nmechanics which Quantonics proselytizes
and adheres) has offered us a way of emerscitecting
means and ways of "getting it."
We need to say a lot more here, probably more than a textbook's
worth of effort, but you have enough now to see why classical
'event-state' models are plainly naïve. We have done some
of that work, now, CeodE
2009. We have finally QELRed 'occur,'
which is much similar 'event.' Serious students should also be
aware that 'occurrencings,'
and 'ævæntings' have high affectational quantum~Value
re: Doug's recent QELR
of classical 'discriminate' as quantum~omniscriminationings.
Doug - 17Mar2009.
Doug - 15Dec2006.
Quantum issues: apparent m¤mentum persistence
¤f macr¤ quant¤ns, abs¤lute flux,
quantum uncertainty, macroscopic quantum uncertainty, etc.
In comtexts use: Ævænts (plural),
ævænting (dynamis), ævæntings
(plural dynamis) vis-à-vis classical 'event.' Quantum
ævænts aræ
anihmatæ
processes!
Simply, in summary, distinguish:
Also see instant.
See Aristotle's
Apple. See Zeno's Paradice.
See excellent graphics of classical event-state models compared
to quantum~processings here.
Doug - 17Mar2009.
Page top index.
|
|
'ever'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
<ayvair>
Quantonics ch¤¤ses
t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'ever'
amd remerq
all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'ævær.'
In classical contexts we shall use 'ever.' In Quantonics/quantum
comtexts we shall use 'ævær.'
Classical 'ever' is classically "opposite" classical
'never,' e.g., dichon(never,
ever).
Classically there is a strong connection with both logic and
space-time when 'ever' is used. For 'ever's' logic connections
see 'stop,' 'end,'
and 'begin.' As students
of Quantonics it may be clear to you now how CTMs
view reality as stoppable and potentially restartable. You may
also make a prescient connection that this is what Zeno's
discrete motion paradox is about. See William
Jame's Some Problems of Philosophy Chapter X page 157.
Keep reminding yourself that classical analytic methods, including
calculus, depend upon this discrete motion concept. This concept
misleads students of CTMs by deluding them that they can know
a zero dimensional place and time where 'ever' begins or ends.
Zeno showed us how it is an "impossible" concept. John
von Neumann empirically discovered its impossibility when he
failed in his efforts to find when and where a quantum measurement
event occurs. Quantum measurement loci are always uncertain.
Classical 'ever' usually elicits a sense of one, monolithic
'forever,' and a concomitant notion of one classical temporal
infinity. Classical 'ever' has one
past and one future. Classical 'ever' is enclosed by one
radically formal 'begin' and its one radically final 'end,' i.e.,
one alpha and one omega.
Notice how this classical assumption of begin and end create
a SOM dichotomy, a Pirsigean platypus, a dichon(begin, end) very
similar to dichon(on, off).
Quantum reality depends up¤n n¤ discrete m¤ti¤n
meme. Quantum reality sh¤ws us that there are, rather,
many unst¤ppable 'æværs' each ¤f which
is a new pattern ¤f Value (new quanton ensemble ¤f
quantons: i.e., ensembles ¤f flux pr¤babilities).
These n¤vel 'ævær' patterns ¤f Value
emerge fr¤m st¤chastic/qualitative affects ¤f
many ¤ther ensembles and subsequent interrelati¤nship
ch¤ices. N¤ 'classically absolute measurable dichotomous'
beginnings ¤r endings may be seen! Only ensembles emerging
fr¤m many qualitative affects.
|
|
'evil' |
Doug wishes to do an essay here on 'evil.' He is prompted
by William James' use of it in his Varieties of Religious
Experience, pages 130-133, and pages 526-527, of 534 total
pages, Longmans Green and Co., New York, London, Bombay, 1902,
first edition. Most of text in those pages has been transcribed
by Doug here for
y~our convenience of review and commentary.
Again, evil as perceived in Quantonics, manifests itself classically,
state-icly, objectively, as either-or. Doug will show that in
this essay as evilc.
Doug's strawman of evilc claims that classicists
viewc evilc as an idealc, formalc
'oppositec' of 'goodc.' In other words,
classicists believec negationc is objectivec,
and that negationc applies generallyc and
specificallyc to all linguisticc
and thoughtc comparativesc: dichons(comparativec,
comparativec). To any extent those comparativesc
failc, tertium non datur, said comparativesc
are declaredc, "absurdc," "falsec,"
"sophistc," "oxymorac,"
and so on...
Generally speaking classical thing-king faux pas embraces
notionsc: stability, objective independence
[lisr], objective
monism, objective dualism, certainty, determination, temporal
linearity, closure, conservation,
middle-exclusion, identity, contradiction,
dialectical comparison as basis for decision making, etc. See
Doug's rather long list titled Bogus
Classical Notions.
In Quantonics 'evil' manifests itself as a both~and, middle~including
quantum~flux phenomenon. Doug shows~writes that as evilq.
Doug's evolved quantum~memeo of evil offers a quantum~holograview
of evil as quantum~flux based phenomena. Our entire world view
changes when we move from classical-dialectic notions to quantum~holographic
memeos.
Quantum~phenomena are all positive [classical-negation is
displaced and disposed in quantum~reality by a memeo of flux
cancellation], flux~dynamic, perpetually and ubiquitously
quantum~evolving quantum~processes of both chaos and equilibria
transmuting at up to Planck rates of chance~choice~change interrelationshipings
among quanta as packets of flux~energyings. Doug refers those
ubiquitous and perpetual stindyanic interrelationshipings "quantons."
Doug assumes that quantons
are hyper dichons
by direct experienceq of realityq. That
direct experienceq of realityq is a basis
for an empiritheoretical m¤daling of quantum~reality.
Doug assumes that quantum~empiritheoretical~m¤daling
of realityq is hyper classical-scientific-mathematical-modelingc
of realityc.
Given those classical vis-à-vis quantum worldview comparisons,
Doug can offer similar comparisons of evilc and evilq.
A most simple comparison of classical-evil and quantum~evil
involves comparison of pairs of linguistics (platonic ideas
(immutable objects as static dichons) vis-à-vis quantonic
memes (quantum~transmutable~evolving quantons):
Doug - 31Nov2014.
Page top index.
|
|
'evolution'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
: Evolve, evolution,
etc.
Over simply, classicists attempt to describe classical evolution
using bogus 'scientific' terms: formal, formality, objective,
concrete, substantial, material, mechanical, determinate, predicable,
predictable, and so on...
All of those classical 'descriptors' are bogus due their intrinsic
and mundane, lite-real, naïve-local, socially-positive realism.
:
Ev¤lutæ, æv¤lutable,
æv¤luti¤n, æv¤luti¤ning,
æv¤luti¤nings, æv¤lve, æv¤lved,
æv¤lves, æv¤lving, æv¤lvings,
etc.
"Imagine the problems introduced by Darwin and his followers!
For evolution, far from pointing towards reduced organization
and diversity, points in the opposite direction." Quote
of Alvin Toffler in his forward to Prigogine and Stengers' Order
Out of Chaos, p. xx, Bantam Paperback, 1984.
Darwin obliterated J. C. Maxwell's retarded classical-dialectical
'laws' of thermodynamics. Especially Maxwell's second 'law.'
Dialectic the Destroyer: destroyer of minds.
Before you read this quantum~remediation of 'evolution,' set
your quantum~comtext in a
superb way. Read Doug's QELR of 'solve.'
Pay close attention to what Doug writes under his quantum section's
QELR of 'solve.' What manifests is how evolution is always partial,
quantum~partial, and that leads us to see that no 'solve,' no
'solution' is final, rather always partial (classically 'incomplete')
and classical notions of state-ic, final facts based upon final
solutions are simply bogus...always bogus...evolution is real...dialectical
state is bogus.
Aside:
Doug wrote that previous paragraph one year prior his beloved
Beth's passing...
Lots of water under our bridgings since then. Doug has survived
bereavement! Too, Doug (ihn quantum~complementary~agency
of Iht AKA We) has a QELR of 'equilibrium' in progress. We have QELRed
transmute. We
have invented A Quantum~Value
Hierarchy Table. We have invented a n¤væl Quantonics'
Quantum~Politics.
And so on...
In our innovative efforts there, Doug has invented some n¤væl
ways of thinkqing about quantum~evolution. Those ways
involve answering questions Peircean~abductively
like: "What are key agencies of quantum~evolution?"
Here's a list of answers which have complementary~holographic
affectings on our complementarospectivings of quantum~evolution:
- quantons(scintillation,quantization) as creation~discreation
itself,
- quantons(evolution,devolution) as creatio ex nihilo
and nihilo ex creatio,
- quantons(grail,EWings)
as quantum~transmutation,
- quantons(chaos,equilibrium),
- quantons(movement,rest),
- quantons(DQ,SQ),
- quantons(flux,apparent_state),
- etc.
Doug asks you to view each quanton's interrelationshipings
as quantum~complementary,
e.g., scintillation is quantum~complementary quantization,
and chaos is quantum~complementary equilibrium.
These are exceptionally powerful quantum~scripts. They enable
those who at least partially understand the logos, the
account, to write equilibrium issi quantons(chaos,equilibrium)
and chaos issi quantons(chaos,equilibrium).
"But what do those 'issi phasementings'
mean Doug?" They mean, for example, that chaos
issi ihn equilibrium and equilibrium
issi ihn chaos. Doug is describing
EIMA of hologra
and what Mae wan Ho meant by, "quantum~coherent~indivisibility."
Latter is a kind of quantum~holism (wholism as coinsidence
and cowithinitness possible only among EWings as flux hologra).
Biblically, movement
issi ihn rest and rest issi ihn movement. (Key, as Heraclitus
demonstrated, to "...understanding the logos...")
Politically, state issi ihn flux
and flux issi ihn state. ('Stability'
and attempts to achieve it are enormous Errors
of classical-social dialectical 'judgment.')
If those exemplars don't show you power of gn¤stic
wisdom, ad occulos, you are wasting your time in Quantonics.
Thank you for reading,
Doug.
End Aside.
Following text is Doug's commentary in Bergson's Creative
Evolution Topic 15 titled, 'Variation and Heredity,' page 78:
"It is worthwhile to note that neo-Darwinian evolution,
also called "synthetic theory" of evolution has retained
prominence among many biologists at least until Millennium II's
end. Sadly, it is a classical and objective theory of evolution,
extremely limited by terms serially listed just above under 'classical
evolution.' In other words, it retains much radical mechanism
and radical finalism which Bergson considers problematic (so
do we). But quantum
biology is arising, even growing with such amazing robustness,
that we do not know just what its current theory of evolution
is. Indeed, Doug has coined empiritheory
as a label for just such an imminent general appellation covering
novel disciplines including a quantum theory of biology.
"We can tell you what we, in Quantonics, think. In a
sense, we already have been telling you that in this review.
We think reality is quantum. We think all constituents of reality
are quantons. Thus, for example, humans are quantons.
"Bergson speaks as though acquired heredity must come
either from external affects or internal affects. At this early
stage of his book, he may just be using that as a classical
pretender. We will know for sure by book's end. At this stage,
we must assume he adheres that particular classical either
internal or external hereditary acquisition as his theory
of hereditary evolution."
We see Bergson's either internal or external as dichon(external,
internal). Classicists view internal-external as ideal classical
'opposites.' But
if reality is emerging,
absolutely changing,
evolving at up to Planck rates, how can 'classical stability'
be retained to assess 'opposition?' It can't! We see another
flaw in classical 'reasoning' which finds its bases in dialectic.
Quantum reality is n¤t dialectical! A classical, formal,
static, ideal, stoppable reality cann¤t
evolve. We see, again, that classicists' attempts to describe
evolution formally, as running on rote recall automatic are simply
wasting their 'professional' time and wasted presence in reality.
See Doug's QELR of judge.
See our Bases of Judgment.
"In Quantonics, our quanton middle~included (EIMA)
interrelates (via dynamic associationings of ensembles
of quantons) both
its internals and externals, so both affect acquired heritable
evolute changes in humans. Where Bergson speaks of a somatic
envelope objectively separating interior from exterior, we see
a quantum commingling and compenetration of our quantons' actuality
and n¤nactuality with other quantons' actualities and
n¤nactualities. You may experience a more vivid explanation
of our view of us commingling both actualities and
nonactualities at our previously referenced link to Our
Minds as Quantum Stages Perceiving Illusory Stairways. If
we were to con(m)jecture on what aspects of reality we think
con(m)tribute to acquired heritable traits we would list:
- our own personal local actuality,
- to a lesser extentother both local and nonlocal actualities,
and
- nonactuality itself.
"So you may ask, "Doug, how do these nonpersonal
actualities and nonactualities affect an individual?" That
is a superb question. If you read Dr. Irving
Stein's description of a Schrödinger quantum object's
isometric walk in nonspace (his rough metaphor of our nonactualitywe
say "rough" because Stein treats nonspace as a quantum
symmetrical conjugate (which magically, somehow, still offers
"unlimited possibilities") of his spaceour nonactuality
is not a symmetrical conjugate of our actualitywhere Stein's
space-nonspace appears classically conservative and thus closedour
realty's actuality-nonactuality is quantumly nonconservative
and thus open) you may begin to grasp an analogue of what we
think happens at Planck rate special (i.e., Quality) events or
measurements. Each event where our quantons (all or any subset(s))
participate in a quantum measurement, they take a very brief
partially coherent hiatus into nonactuality. At some point all
quantons involved in a given measurement make a choice for what
happens next (See our classical
homogeneous time vis-a-vis quantum heterogeneous time graph.).
If their choice affects a change our personal quanton absorbs,
or latches, or frets AKA cognizes
that change. This process repeats over and over in vast, parallel,
omnimensional, omniadic,
unending Planck rate driven choice,
chance, change ontological loops. Each of countless loops'
measurement hiatuses offers opportunity for entangled
local and nonlocal quantonsvia and including nonactualityto
coobsfect
one another and affect pluralistic/heterogeneous, incremental,
quantal changes. All of that is what we call our Quantonic view
of quantum evolution. We halfway expect Bergson to arrive somewhere
close to that view by his Creative Evolution book's end.
In about a month from now (6Nov2000), we should know."
We suggest our readers also see Doug's QELRs
of discrimination
(update), occur (update),
quanta, selection
and wisdom (update).
Our QELR of 'selection' covers further ground on quantum~evolution.
Page top index.
|
|
'excluded-middle'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
TBD. See Aristotle.
(Classicism depends upon an illusion/delusion of excluded-middle.
Excluded-middle as a classical concept depends upon objective
lisrability. In
classical reality, no object may be both itself and not itself.
Quantum reality's middle is included! All quantons have abs¤lutely
anihmatæ
pr¤bability distributi¤ns which aræ
spatially asympt¤tic.)
This is what Pirsig calls "SOM's
knife." It chops dialectical reality up into
objects, parts, and particles. It assumes reality is ideally
lisr. It assumes
a smallest part has no limit to its smallness: infinite
regress, analytic regression, analytic reduction ad infinitum.
This thing-king is what creates SOM's (we call them Rools is
Tools for Fools) Rule-Tule-Fule-Box containing mechanical and
formal analytics and synthetics.
All this depends upon Parmenidean, Platonic, Aristotelian
notions in this order of precedence:
- stability (most basic assumption)
- independence
- objective negation
- formal contradiction
- falsifiability
- proof
- truth (crown jewel of classical 'science' and 'philosophy')
It began with Parmenides. Plato
bought into it and extended it. Aristotle
made it 'physical.' Classicists today call it "logical,"
and "scientific."
It's wr¤ng!!! It's bogus! In spades, it's bogus...
Why?
Reality's middle
is included!!! Reality is heterogeneous.
Reality is absolutely animate
(instable). Negation
is subjective.
See our comparison table at Jammer's
Quantum Logic. See Quantonics' coquecigrues.
See our SOM's
Bases of Judgment.
Doug - 17Sep2005.
|
Page top index.
|
|
'exist'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
To remediate classical 'exist,' we need a novel Quantonic
symbol for classical 'x.' We want to use a character which looks
like our quantum uncertainty
symbol, but none is available from existing font sets. In
our own pending Quantonics font set we will use our quantum uncertainty
symbol, however for our work here, we choose Qtx_Proto_001 font
(to remediate classical
'x.' It is a simple Quantonics uncertainty
quanton. Our first use occurs here in our novel remediation
of classical 'exist' on 28Apr2001 - Doug.
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
classical 'exist' amd
remerq all
quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with
'æist.'
Where classical 'x' evokes an absolutely certain objective
stasis, quantum
'' elicits an
absolutely changing (radically stochastic) fecund wayve dynamis.
In classical contexts we shall use 'exist.' In Quantonics/quantum
comtexts we shall use
'æisting.'
Page top index.
|
|
'exodus'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
TBD.
Page top index.
|
|
'explain'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms:
- affinity
- apologize
- clarify
- demonstrate
- elaborate
- elucidate
- excuse
- exegesis
- exemplify
- explicate
- interpret
- justify
- reason
- reveal
- theorize
- think
- typify
Synonyms - Quantum
|
TBD. (need symbol font to see Greek: exhgw)
: Explain, explained, explains, explaining, explanation,
etc.
Criterion |
Dialectical Assessment |
Ideal Classical Reality |
stability |
Classical objective explanations exist |
Classical explanations are stable. |
independence |
Classical objective explanations exist |
Objects in classical reality may be explained
independently in terms of scalar metrics. |
excluded-middle |
Classical objective explanations exist |
No object | explanation in classical reality
can be both itself and not itself. |
EOOOness |
Classical objective explanations exist |
Classical predicate logical explanations
are absolutely dialectical. |
H5Wness |
Classical objective explanations exist |
H5W
explanations are all always lisr, stoppable, stable, analytic,
etc. |
lisrability |
Classical objective explanations exist |
Explanations are ideally, Classical lisr.
Explanations are analytic. |
causation |
Classical objective explanations exist |
Classical explanations are 1:1
correspondently unitemporally event-state... causal-effective. |
certainty |
Classical objective explanations exist |
All classical explanations are determinately
and determinably absolute. |
EEMDivity |
Classical objective explanations exist |
Due independence & excluded-middle
explanations are everywhere-dissociative. |
observation |
Classical objective explanations exist |
Classical explanations may be verified
and validated via classical unilateral observation. |
:
Explain, explained, explains,
explainings, explahnati¤nings,
etc.
Criterion |
Vis-à-vis Assessment |
anihmacy
|
Quantum explahnati¤nings
aræ abs¤lutæly anihmatæ
pr¤cæss.
|
c¤mplæmæntarihty
|
Explahnati¤nings
c¤mplæmænt ahll
ahctualihty.
Ræhlihty
issi a quanton(explahnati¤nings,ahctualihty).
|
ihncludæd~mihddlings
|
Quantum explahnati¤nings
mædiatæs ahll ahctualihty
as ræhlihty's
ihncludæd~mihddle.
|
BAWAMings |
Explahnati¤nings
quantum c¤here~c¤mpænetratæ
ahll ahctualihty.
|
H5Wings |
Explahnati¤nings
¤ffer m¤dalings f¤r ahll
ahctual h¤wings,
whyings, whænings,
whereings, whatings,
wh¤ings
|
lisrings |
Quantum explahnati¤nings
aræ ahlways quantons(n¤n_lisr,apparæntly_lisr).
|
affæctati¤nings
|
Explahnati¤nings
aræ is¤~qualihtatihvæ, ~affæctihve,
~subqjæctihvæ,
~sælf~referænt, ~frahctal,
~s¤phist, etc.
|
umcærtainty
|
Explahnati¤ns
aræ umcærtain ihnterrelati¤nshippings
quantons(explahnati¤nings(quantons(n¤nahctualihty,ahctualihty)).
|
EIMAivityings |
Explahnati¤nings
aræ
is¤h¤l¤graphic
amd
thuhs
æværywhere~ihncludæd~mihddle~ass¤ciatihve.
|
c¤¤bsfæcti¤n
|
Explahnati¤nings
c¤¤bsfæct p¤tæntiahlly
ahll ræhlihty.
|
See understand.
Page top index.
|
|
'extend'
'extensible'
'extensibility'
'extension'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Synonyms - Classical
Synonyms - Quantum
|
TBD.
(Classical Problematics: Classicism
depends upon a concept of what Bergson calls "spatial
extensibility." CTMs
require us to think in space-time. Classicism manufactures state-ic space-time as
a formal concept based upon an excluded-middle
objective reality which is quantitatively lisrable,
countable, numerable,
measurable, and
thus mechanically extensible in space.
Classical space may be represented using Descartesian n-tuples,
e.g., <x,y,z,...>, and classical time may be represented
using Peanoean modularly inductive and static subscripts, e.g.,
t1, t2, t3, ... tn.
Both conventions assume, as Bergson has so eloquently
exposed for us, that classical reality is both stable (i.e.,
zero momentum 'exists;' objects will conveniently hold still
for us) and that objects in classical reality are independent
of one another (any classical object may be arbitrarily isolated/separated
from any other classical object). All this classical twaddle
denies quantum reality!)
Page top index.
|
|
'external'
Etymology - Classical
Etymology - Quantum
Classical synonyms:
- outside,
- consceptively and conspectively 'not' internal
- objectively separate and removed from inside,
- middle-exclusion of external from internal,
- etc.
Quantum synonyms:
|
: External, etc.
Classical usage of 'external' exemplifies what Quantonics
means when it says "classical reality is: objectively-inanimate,
dissociative, excluded-middle,
and lisr."
Classicists view either 'external' or 'internal' as ideally,
dialectically EOOO and as dichon(external,
internal). Classicists see
and conceive an ideal
SOM's wall separation
of external and internal. To any classicist, one is either inside
or outside some box or container or center of detention. For
example, classical white people, those who are bigots, see blacks
as 'external' to white culture while some whites are 'internal'
white culture. That is only one of countless examples
of dialectics' evils.
To any classicist 'external' is objectively
opposite 'internal.'
Classically 'external' negates 'internal.' How can that
happen? Classicists view 'externality' and 'internality' as 'objective,
measurable, quantitative properties.' I.e., properties of ideal
classical 'objects.'
: We ask you to learn to thinkq quanton(externality,internality),
etc.
Quantonics' QELR
of classical 'external' and 'internal,' is n¤t as a dialectical
either-or, rather as as a quantum~c¤mplæmæntary
both~all~while~and~many, BAWAM.
We show that as quanton(external,internal).
What does that mean? It means quantum~memes similar 'external'
and 'internal' complement one another: memes of 'externality'
are in memes of 'internality.' Using our race example again,
we say "white issi ihn black
and black issi ihn white."
In quantum~reality that quoted phrase is real, a real quantum~truthing.
To any quantumist memes of c¤mplæmæntarihty, like quanton(externality,internality),
can miscibly phase~encode
one another and quite miraculously can also superpositionally
ignore one another. A classically 'general' term for this quantum
phenomena is interference, both its presence, its
absence and its partial
presence and partial absence. It is impossible for quantum flux
(AKA the logos, Light) to classically 'oppose'
quantum flux as ideal classical negation.
Quantum flux never classically 'negates;' it always superpositionally
phase~encodes
self-other quantum~fluxings as: SOrONs.
Page top index.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'extinction'
'extinct' |
: Extinct, extinction, extinctions, etc.
Classical extinction is an objective, ideal, state.
Death is final. Death is eschaton. Death is Mawt~Ha~Mawt:
dead the dead.
Death is zero of life, of living things. A classical, dialectical
radical-finalism which denies all memes of perpetual and ubiquitous
livings and dyings.
:
Extihnct,
extihncti¤n, extihncti¤ns,
extihncti¤nings, etc.
Quantumly one may n¤t usec classical maths
to 'negate' anything. Classical objective 'thingsc'
simply do not 'existc' in quantum~reality. All of
realityq issi positive fluxq. Flux may
be canceledq,
but n¤t classically-negated.
However, people in actuality may choose several alternatives
two of which Doug embellishes here:
If people choosec dialecticc sux as
their methodc of beingc, thingkingc,
writingc, sayingc and doingc,
their livesc are static, deadc.
If people chooseq quantonic flux as their modalityingsq
of beingq, thinkqing, writingq,
sayingq and doingq, their livesq
are fluxic, evolvingq, livingq.
Dead classicists are already extinct in their denialsc
of subjunctiveq livingq. So they choosec
finalityc in deathc as their eschaton.
They dialectically choosec 'extinctionc.'
Living quantumists evolveq via their acceptanceq
of subjunctiveq living. So they chooseq
dying as a n¤væl beginningq, a n¤væl
livingq empiricalq experienceq.
"Why is deadc statec so bad, Doug?"
Statec doesn't change. Statec doesn't evolve.
Its goal is ideal stabilityc in all "One World
Order" 'things.' Absence of change in any thing, says that
thing leaves n¤ signature of its living.
"Why issi livingq fluxq so G¤¤d,
Doug?" Livingq fluxq evolvesq.
It k~n¤w~ings changeq issi absoluteq
and unstoppable. It leaves a signatureq of self in
all processesq selfq
endeavorsq and enduresq. That signatureq
records selfq ihn IsoV.
Dead state leaves naught of its being. That is what Doug means
by 'extinction.' It is intentional self-extinction!
Doug - 10-11 Mar2015.
Page top index.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2029 |