|
'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_oranges Recurse'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.
|
|
'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.
We have a major challenge here in our attempts to remediate
'equilibrium.'
Classical 'equilibrium' assumes immutable, perpetual, absolute,
concrete 'state.' Classical equilibrium assumes reality
can be stopped and analyzed mechanically in 'zero momentum reference
frames,' which themselves have 'equilibrium' of an ideal classical
formality.
Begin a
Doug 26Jul2011 Equilibrium vav Reversibility Aside:
Doug has written, many timings in many placings, a quantum~parable~fable
that, paraphrased,
HotMeme™ "Movement (quantum:
wolf eating said lamb) is radically quantum~absolute,
and Rest
(classical: wolf and lamb as concrete objects) is only a classical
apparition."™ HotMeme™.
In general movement
is absolute, quantumly. Classically and specifically,
when viewed locally
and naïvely, concrete rest only appears 'real.'
Classicists are "Earth Chauvinists." They believe
Earth is 'reality.' They objectively and concretely
deny evolution as absolute. Why? A static and concrete
reality may be conveniently-conventionally described
completely by dialectic.
Trouble is, that's (status quo is) just bogus!
Here is a graphic which shows cosmic proportions and scale
of absolute cosmic movement:
When we view that graphic's absolute cycloidal movement as
a m¤dal of Earth's solar system orbit in its milky-way
orbital travels, we have to admit to absolute
motion of all on Earth from any cosmic perspective as moving
in excess of 200 miles per second. Doug believes total motion
is much greater than that, perhaps thousands of miles per second.
As you may choose to surmise then, no 'anything' can be said
to have "zero momentum," period. Too, no anything can
ever return to its 'original locus.' Further, all 'anythingings'
are self~other~evolving at up to Planck rates.
That implies, at least to Doug, that reality in general is
absolute change. Change borne of absolute quantum~flux. A great
quantum~miracle is that quantum~flux may be viewed stochastically:
uncertainty
reigns and chance
reigns. Being stochastic, though, implies that chance and uncertainty
aren't absolute: their frequencies,
changes, and gradients near to
and far from equilibrium are quantum~guessable.
"But Doug, what about reversibility?"
In general, absolute movement~motion cannot be 'reversed.'
Most processes cannot be reversed! Earth can never 'return' to
where it was. Ditto Milky-Way. Ditto galactic clusters. Classical
reversibility is an apparition. We can never 'reestablish initial
conditions,' especially cartesian locus. Our comtexts
are always changing, perpetually evolving,
absolutely.
'Stability' is a wet dream of Keynesian, Marxian, Socialist,
and classically retarded hylic
minds.
Clearly then, a huge issue in omniscussing classical vav quantum~equilibria
is that we must no longer view classical-equilibrium as 'state.'
We must adapt quantumly to viewing equilibria as absolute 'change.'
Those are two cosmic views vastly omniffering one another.
More to come...
Doug - 26Jul2011.
End a Doug 26Jul2011 Equilibrium vav Reversibility Aside.
Now we know...classical notions of 'state'
as equilibrium are a totally bogus way of thing-king
about reality. It is contrived, convenient, provincial,
parochial, patriarchal, polemic, proscriptive ("thou shalt
'nots'..." spewing forth abundantly), unitemporal, bivalent
(essence of classical opposition and contradiction), and
literally unwise...it
is classical binary, either-or dialectical stupidity at its most
glaring manifestation of Error.
Classical notions of 'equilibrium' are just plain bogus.
All of classical 'science' is like that, however. That
must change! It is imperative to change it and to remediate it.
To do so, Doug has to invoke some quantum~n¤nmechanical
assumptions. Two big assumptions are that:
- quantum~reality is absolute change born of absolute flux
as its core memeo
of reality, and that
- all change involves heterotemporal
and heterostochastic quantized
quantum~phase~encodings
of all absolutely changing flux.
Omniqueness(ings) emerge(s) here (thus denying classical notions
of, for example, 'identity') which declares all phase~encodings
complementarily omniffer all other phase~encodings in
quantum~reality.
Autsimilarity
'exists,' but there are n¤ identities
in quantum~reality!
So Doug's challenge here is to remediate static and objective
classical 'equilibrium' notions with stindyanic
and quantonic quantum~equilibrium memeos.
Now, reader, please realize how 'equilibrium' of 'state' appears
simple.
Comparatively, and these are wholly novel memes we are encountering,
æquihlihbria
of absolute change
may appear complex. There are enormous challenges here. That
means our efforts will be incomplete, i.e., quantumly~partial.
We only need rudiments of omniscrimination
twixt classical and quantum, however. Doug can do that!
Begin a Doug
16Jul2011 Equilibrium vav Stability Aside:
Classically, equilibrium and 'state' are close kin. Classical
equilibrium is Keynesian 'stable,' it holds still and One Equilibrium
Fits All (OEFA). Worse, classicists assume that Keynesian 'stability'
can be controlled (TQC
of a fiscal sort) and planned-made perpetually stable. If you
grasp essentials of quantum~reality you also fathom how incredibly
retarded a notion of Keynesian 'stability' is.
This is a core issue of Quantonics' position on FEP
equilibria notions (classical) and memeos (quantum), and
how perpetually evolving quantum equilibria are hyper
a classical notion of Keynesian 'planned' and perpetually static-stable,
ideally status quo, OEFA equilibrium.
Doug can make this more clear and apparently easy to grasp
using two bullets:
- Keynesian classical 'equilibrium' is 'planned,' 'ideal,'
and perpetually stable, vis-à-vis
- Quantonics' quantum equilibria are tentative and perpetually
evolving from one (previous) equilibrium to another evolved and
newer one.
If you concur with those con(m)clusions by Doug, then you
may grasp how impossible it is for Keynesians to achieve FEP
'stability' using 'planning.' Classical dialectical
'reality' is a ruse, a 'ç a t h o l i ç' (universal)
'equilibrium' Keynesian Ponzi
of unbelievable proportions. See wikipedia on Ponzi.
Hayek and von Mises have warned us about this. Their warnings
are about to bear actualization, and most of us (alive today)
are fortunate enough to be living in a time of huge change from
an old and worn Keynesian equilibrium to many n¤væl~but~only~tentative
and quantum~ensemble of vicissitudinal
evolving quantum equilibria.
More narrative imminent here during next week or two...
End a Doug 16Jul2011 Equilibrium vav Stability Aside.
. . . 25-30Mar2011...
Doug is using Prigogine's and Stengers' (P&S') text titled
Order Out of Chaos, Bantam, paperback, 1984 as a reference
for most of his work here. Their opus now, in that text's regard
is over 27 years ancient. They are classical mechanics broaching
quasi~quantum memeos using dialectic's problematic French (translated
from their native tongues) and English languages. Their work
needs quantum~remediation, in Doug's opinion. However, their
minds are superb and Doug wants to extend their opus in areas
surrounding memes and memeos of 'equilibrium,' both classical
and quantum. As a result, Doug finds it valuable to review that
text in parallel with his efforts here and in his own new textbook.
It will slow us down, but long term results will be extremely
valuable and inimitable as quantonics' novelty. Far From Equilibrium,
FFE-work in and of itself. Apropos!
To assist Doug's efficiency, he wants to introduce some new
intra quantonics acronyms: FFE (Far From Equilibrium),
NTE (Near To Equilibrium), and SAE (Stoppability AKA Atemporality
At Equilibrium). We need to omniscuss
FFE and NTE both classically and quantumly. Just now it appears
to Doug that SAE only applies in classical contexts.
P&S' opus associates many other memes with 'equilibrium.'
A key meme is one of reversibility. Their version of reversibility
is classical. Their view of time is classical too. Time to them
is a monism: One Time Fits All (OTFA). Their non classical
notions and ideas are yet unitemporal. But for them that
is a big leap forward since they claim that classical hard 'science'
is actually atemporal:
Doug calls this "stoppability." (This is a large part
of Einstein's total failure in his construction of mechanical
Special- and General-Relativity Theories.) They also claim that
soft sciences have made most progress in temporal views of reality,
so in that sense they are far ahead of hard science itself. Of
course hard sciences simply do not 'work' (are not viable) without
assumptions of atemporality and stoppability. Their laws
and analytic (i.e., formal decomposition) tools fail when applied
to quantum~evolving systems! P&S refer Henri Louis Bergson,
however, they miss what Mae-wan Ho observed: Bergson's
metaphysics
calls for heterotemporalityings.
That's quantum! See Doug's review of Bergson's Creative
Evolution.
If equilibrium is omnifficult to explain...well, I'm unsure
whether explaining 'reversibility' is as omnifficult, perhaps
more, perhaps less so. Doug has done a QELR of 'reversibility,'
but it is inadequate for issues which arise here. Since these
two memes are so 'intertwined' with one another, Doug senses
he should keep them together here until most unsaids have been
desnoured to our own satisfaction.
P&S only speak of unitime as ideally reversible near classical
equilibrium. They claim that unitemporal irreversibility (again,
classical) only appears under FFE contexts. Most of their
reasoning is spawn of classical thermodynamic theories. Classical
thermodynamics assume unitime and single gradient posentropy,
i.e. an arrow of time which inevitably carries actuality to an
imminent and certain 'heat death.' In their text, though, they
well convince readers that posentropy has two gradients:
a 'negative' one which generates actuality itself, and a 'positive'
one which conservatively degenerates ('reverses') actuality
back to ultimate chaos. Issues born of these last five or so
paragraphs are horrendous.
You may recall that Pirsig used a notion of 'latching.' Reality's
creative evolution, to Pirsig, latched novelty. We may choose
to see latching as irreversibility. And for this local work effort,
it simply explains what P&S are calling 'irreversibility.'
We can hermeneut this in agreement by saying, "Novel creation
AKA latching occurs
at FFE." Placing that in currency's lime light, "Death
of Keynesianism is a FFE process of countless ensemble affectings."
And that is happening now as we watch! Doug - 30Mar2011.
Allow Doug to start a list of issues for further omniscussion
(Doug is showing main issues first, then will go more specific
on reversibility vis-à-vis irreversibility next):
- State vis-à-vis flux,
- Basic classical theory assumes 'state.'
- This has immense bogus (low 'value') implications for classical
notions of equilibrium and reversibility (and all other classical
thing-king).
- N¤n mechanical quantum empiritheory
assumes ubiquitous up to Planck rate flux (isonic n¤n~spins,
plus bosonic zero, integer, and fermionic 0.5 spins).
- This puts Value back into all human thinkqing
about reality, including memeos of equilibrium and reversibility.
- Ubiquitous quantum~flux, hyper classical notions of
state, offers many notable implications for classical vis-à-vis
quantum hermeneutics of equilibrium and reversibility.
- Classical reversibility implications:
- Quantum reversibility implications:
- Classical atemporality
implications:
- Quantum atemporality implications:
- Classical equilibrium implications:
- Quantum equilibrium implications:
- Certainty vis-à-vis uncertainty (see Doug's quantum
vis-à-vis classical measurement),
- Basic classical mechanical theory assumes ubiquitous certainty.
- Basic classical mechanical quantum theory assumes microscopic
uncertainty and macroscopic classical certainty.
- N¤n classical quantum~empiritheory assumes EIMA
holographic Ensemble~Quantum~Uncertainty (EQU):
quantum~uncertainty reigns
all scales of quantum~reality.
- Ubiquitous quantum~uncertainty, hyper classical notions
of certainty, offers many notable implications for classical
vis-à-vis quantum hermeneutics of equilibrium and reversibility.
- Classical reversibility implications:
- Quantum reversibility implications:
- Classical atemporality implications:
- Quantum atemporality implications:
- Classical equilibrium implications:
- Quantum equilibrium implications:
- Monism vis-à-vis pluralism,
- Classical continuous 'state' informs and immanates all
monistic classical thought with dialectical bivalency.
- Quantum~flux, with up to Planck rate complementary quantization,
emerqs, pluralizes, and holografies all heterogeneous
quantum~thinkqing with quantonic~omnivalencyings.
- Ubiquitous quantum~pluralism, hyper classical notions
of monism, offers many notable implications for classical vis-à-vis
quantum hermeneutics of equilibrium and reversibility.
- Classical reversibility implications:
- Quantum reversibility implications:
- Classical atemporality implications:
- Quantum atemporality implications:
- Classical equilibrium implications:
- Quantum equilibrium implications:
- Classes of time,
- classical time as temporal monism, time as homogeneous, ideal
absence of quantization, Planck's clock intentionally turned
off, etc.
- quantum~time as radical and stochastic quantized~timings
as spawn of quantum flux enabled by Plancks clock's perpetual
ticking
- Ubiquitous quantum~timings, hyper classical notions
of monistic time, offer many notable implications for classical
vis-à-vis quantum hermeneutics of equilibrium and reversibility.
- Classical reversibility implications:
- Quantum reversibility implications:
- Classical atemporality implications:
- Quantum atemporality implications:
- Classical equilibrium implications:
- Quantum equilibrium implications:
- quantization of time (all flux is quantized so then too are
mass, space, and gravity, etc.)
- etc.
- What about phase?,
- quantum~phase~interrelationshipings are quintessence of all
quantum~evolution, thus all emergent quantum~creation and novelty
- spontaneous (free will; n¤n inert) phase~interrelationshipings
depend intrinsically upon massively plural and ensemble
quantization of all quantum~flux
- gravityings now may be viewed as one quantum~stochastic~holographic
kind of quantum~phase~interrelationshipings
- massings now may be viewed as one quantum~stochastic~holographic
kind of quantum~phase~interrelationshipings
- spacings now may be viewed as one quantum~stochastic~holographic
kind of quantum~phase~interrelationshipings
- timings now may be viewed as one quantum~stochastic~holographic
kind of quantum~phase~interrelationshipings
- entanglement and its partial
presence~absence is key to quantum~scintillation's creative changings,
e.g., Higgs boson and creatio ex nihilo aperio and QED
and QCD
- classical absence of quantization leaves all flux unquantized
(as closed, static-tautological transverse y=f(t) classical sinus
flux) and Bergsonian 'inert,' not spontaneous (absence of free
will: causally determinate; ideal absence of quantum~chance and ~uncertainty)
- Ubiquitous quantum~phase~quantization, hyper classical
notions of scalar phase, offers many notable implications for
classical vis-à-vis quantum hermeneutics of equilibrium
and reversibility.
- Classical reversibility implications:
- Quantum reversibility implications:
- Classical atemporality implications:
- Quantum atemporality implications:
- Classical equilibrium implications:
- Quantum equilibrium implications:
- etc.
- Thermodynamics,
- As Doug has vociferously explained in Quantonics, classical
thermodynamics theories are mostly and simply bogus:
- single class of entropy: posentropy
- assumes a single degenerative gradient to posentropy
- entropy as a static scalar classical dialectical concept
- assumption of classical 2nd 'law' as general to
all reality (it is only partially specific to material, posentropic
reality)
- assumes conservation and closure of universality
- assumes that mathematics are adequate to describe entropy
- assumes that English, French, German, and other dialectical
languages systems are adequate to describe entropy
- etc.
- Analyticity,
- Positive,
- Negative,
- Entropa,
- Cohera,
- Conservation,
- Closure,
- Scalars of measurables,
- Newton's atemporality
as a primrose lane,
- Etc.
Doug - 24-30Mar2011.
Chapter 2 Review Summary of P&S' Order Out of Chaos
- 1Apr2011 - Doug:
Classical dynamics theory is based in Galileo and Newton,
plus a few others' classical notions. That is essence of what
P&S narrate in Chapter 2.
Doug's assessment re: classical dynamics is...that
is what current Keynesian thought uses. So we can express a strong
opinion that Keynesianism is doomed. At this juncture that opine
is essentially cliché, and Doug acknowledges such. What
is important is that we cannot use classical dynamics notions
to extract valid memes of real equilibrium. We have to move past-passed classical dynamics in order to
provide a Quantonics QELR of 'equilibrium' which is at least
potentially more valid than what most currently use now.
"Doug, what's wrong with classical dynamics?" Doug's
list should seem familiar, and it emerges from his draft review
of Chapter 2 of OOoC:
- objectivity,
- stoppability,
- lisrability,
- quantity,
- negation implying unitemporal reversibility (more important
here, though, is an intrinsic that quantum~reality is only positive),
- predication,
- unitemporality implying continuous y=f(t) (big issue with
Keynesianism),
- time as homogeneous delta-space/space proxy (no valid 'concept,'
no valid understanding of time),
- change as temporal 'motion,' (no valid 'concept,' no valid
understanding of change),
- static 'completeness' as easily achievable and assessable
under canonic classical dynamics theory,
- closure,
- conservation,
- commutability, commutativity,
- equivalence- and other -relations,
(i.e., identity, reflexivity, symmetry, inequalities, associativity,
distributivity, normative assignment, signification, etc., re:
classical identities 'should be' 'classically Aristotelian-tautologously'
'reversible-commutative,' but they are n¤t due quantum
reality's real and absolute change)
- etc.
Classical dynamics canonically assumes all of those. Many
of those list items involve even other implicit assumptions too.
What is crucial to grasp is that Quantonically and quantumly
all of those are "simply and demonstrably bogus."
'Modern Keynesianism' assumes all of those and more. Keynesianism
is bogus! Indubitably, Keynesianism is bogus. We may say then,
Keynesianism is in its death throes as Doug writes this. It is
only a matter of timings.
"Doug, can you list quantum~memeotic complementaries
of those classical notions?" Yes, but we must not treat
them as classically bivalent 'opposites:'
- subjectivity,
- absolute change, perpetual change, plural changings,
- holographicity, middle~inclusion, everywhereings~everywhenings~associativityings,
- quality,
- cancellation of positive only fluxings,
- evolution,
- perpetual and ubiquitous quantization of all reality,
- all quanta and all of their ensembles have their own local~n¤nlocal
omnique massively heterogeneous timings,
- all quanta and all of their ensembles have their own local~n¤nlocal
omnique massively heterogeneous omnivalently evolving changings,
- any quantum~assessment of systemic completeness is always
quantum~partial,
- perpetual and ubiquitous openness,
- quantum~reality's potentia are unbounded,
- autsimilarity of quantum~EWings,
- autsimilarity of EWings' EIMAssociativityings,
- etc.
Neither of those lists is even close to being 'complete,'
and they likely never will be. What we have though are
lists which can be compared in our assessments of valid views
of a more innovative approach to systemic equilibrium and transitions
among equilibrial quantum~modalityings.
This 1Apr2011 narrative of OOoC's Chapter 2 is only
intended as a brief summary of classical vis-à-vis quantum
dynamics' comparative issues.
End Chapter 2 Review Summary of OOoChaos - 1Apr2011
- Doug.
. . .
Chapter 3 Review Summary of P&S' Order Out of Chaos
- 5Apr2011 - Doug:
P&S' OOoC Chapter 3 is a kind of brief history
of people of interest who participated in 'developing' classical
dynamics theory. Included as transitionals from classical to
quantum dynamics are a select few others.
This chapter is a blunt indictment of classical science. It
repeatedly narrates importance of ditching classical science
and moving on to something better: a whole new way of
thinking about non classical dynamics. P&S appear to miss
classicists' core satan of classical dynamics:
dialectic. However, they narrate much of what falls in a category
of 'dialectical thing-king' as what is wrong with classical dynamics.
They do us a great service! They name names. Those most in error
include:
- Kant (a dialectician; Kant bivalently split Subject and Object,
noumenal and phenomenal, philosophy and science...Kant is an
epic failure: "scientific choice is heresy"),
- Hegel (a dialectician),
- Diderot (though Doug would put him in both lists, for a variety
of reasons),
- Descartes (a dialectician),
- Newton (a materialist dialectician mechanist),
- Lagrange,
- Hamilton,
- Duhem,
- Poincaré,
- Kirchoff,
- Mach (minimalism as economy of thought),
- Plus positivists, in general, e.g., Reichenbach (mathematical
physics as a last resort of understanding time and reality and
denial of nature as our partner since man is above god, rather
"there is no god," and man is above nature...this is
simply incompetent humanism gone awry, gone amok...),
- etc.
These 'people' shared a common flaw in their thing-king: "Preserve
science at all costs. Control nature using 'science.' Humans
are above nature and god."
Doug loves Prigogine and Stengers mostly since they defy and
deny said views for what they really are: intrinsically flawed.
They challenge classical science as essentially bogus, and they
narrate how classical 'science' is mostly just humanly-convenient
lies. Doug agrees both in spirit and belief. It may be clear
to readers that this old human 'mindset' is an agent of those
classical humans' imminent self-extinction.
Comparatively we may juxtapose a few transitionals, those
commencing a quantum~journey:
- Bergson (he understands vast problematics of classical science.
he understands: the account, AKA the logos, and he appears to
say "one must find one's inner before one can even begin
to understand nature; Bergson somewhat like James appears as
a gnostic; for Doug that is a prerequisite for grasping a modal
of reality as quantum~holographic),
- Stahl (Doug lacks familiarity with Stahl),
- Whitehead (essentially process as natural which is implicitly
quantum if we view all processings as quantized),
- Diderot (he straddled classical and quantum which puts him
in both camps, for a variety of reasons...)
- Plus all quantumists (non dialectical ones) whom Doug attempts
to uncloak in Quantonics (most of these, like Diderot, tend to
straddle(new_quantum,old_classical) so it isn't trivial to assess
them as pure...we may, only as a reference, consider Quantonics,
Gnosis, the logos, and Autiot as nearer 'purety'),
- etc.
I highly recommend OOoC as Quantonics student "must reading."
Read it over and over and over until you commence grasping much
deeper issues here.
End Chapter 3 Review Summary of OOoChaos - 5Apr2011
- Doug.
. . .
10,12-13April2011: Begin - A comment on classical vis-à-vis
quantum 'reasoning.'
I do n¤t enjoy saying this, but I feel have n¤
alternative...it must be said. In Doug's opinion, anyone who
thingks we can use
classical logic to
understand economics and equilibrium (in terms of inflation,
deflation, and hyperinflation) is just plain retarded.
Just to set our tone and tenor for what follows...
Prior Doug's continuing his review of Chapter 4 of OOoChaos,
he wants to offer some novel memeos regarding classical 'logic'
vis-à-vis quantum coquecigrues.
If you read current pundits' descriptions of inflation vis-à-vis
deflation and hyperinflation, you will hear them talking and
writing about those comparisons using logic, using rational reason.
Doug wants to reiterate: we will never understand inflation
vis-à-vis deflation and hyperinflation as long as we continue
using classical models of reality and classical logic to describe
them. Regardless what Lira and Ferguson say, classical dialectical
logic and reason are simply bogus. They are bogus to their very
core. Dialectical and dialethic logics are demonstrably bogus
when we leave SOM's Box and enter
quantum~reality.
Doug has another new graphic to help explain why. He calls
it, "Equilibria (Equilibrium) as Many Interrelationshipings."
All equilibria are quantum~ephemeral. Their comtextings
are multiplicate, quantized
and evolving. Let's take a look:
"Evanescent neural organizations take place as each neural aggregate recodes
its input[s]."
Karl Pribram in his languages of the brain, Prentice-Hall,
1971.
See Chapter 4, p. 82 'synopsis.'
 |
Details of that graphic need more description here.
Circular shaped portion represents 'equilibrium' as
an energy~wellings.
Essentially it is a 'nest,' a network of interrelationshipings.
Those interrelationshipings appear as
o,~ quanton(o,~)
also quantized as this:
¤,~ quanton(¤,~)
So EWings
are networks of interrelationshipings each of which may be a
network of interrelationshipings.
'Quantum logic,' thus has to ¤mnit¤r
energy~wellings' networks of interrelationshipings.
N¤ classical bivalent 'logic' can do this, period, which
is why Doug
calls classical logics' pundits "retarded." To claim
that classical logic can is to declare
oneself, literally,"a moron." I.e., "I...said
classical logician...am a moron!"
We may choose to see ad
occulos that quantum~coquecigrues is a
n¤n dialectical 'logic' of dynamic~evolving network interrelationshipings.
We may choose to squeeze essence here as quantum~omnivalence
vis-à-vis classical-bivalence.
However, it isn't that simple. More squeezing juices quantum~spontaneity
vis-à-vis classical-state.
Again, more squeezing extracts quantum~quantization vis-à-vis
classical linear continuous thing-king.
And so on...
Ferguson and Lira use classical logic's static bivalence
to 'reason.'
Their versions of inflation, deflation, and hyperinflation are
impotent.
Quantum~gn¤stics use evolutionary~omnivalencings
to understand.
Thæir quantum~versions of
inflation, deflation, and hyperinflation are p¤tænt.
Pick up on this at 12Apr2011...
Regular readers know that Doug compares Quantonics
to Autiot frequently.
Why?
A quantum~feature of Autiot is holographic cosmic~energy self~other
fractal recursion.
Doug uses an acronym for that: sorso. Sorso means "self~other
referent sophism."
That is what quantum~holograms do.
Any 'logic' applied to any sorso reality must be a 'quantum logic.'
Classical logic doesn't assume sorso. Coquecigrues
assumes and presumes sorso.
Quantum~reality has many non classically logical 'features,'
including:
- sophism,
- self~reference,
- other~reference,
- fractal recursion,
- quantization,
- choice(ings)~chance(ings)~change(ings)~spontaneity,
thence,
- scintillation, thence,
- evolution,
- every~H5Wings~included~middlings~associativityings,
- holographicityings,
- Balmer Ladder ensemble EWings' networkings interrelationshipings
(full quantum spectral coverage),
- etc.
|
Classical dialectical logic cann¤t apply its
invalid 'reason' to those quantum~realisms,
without imposing anti~quantum classical 'state,' independence,'
'objective negation,' etc.
I have a lot more to say here. I will work on this
most of next week...
Doug - 10,12-13Apr2011.
10,12-13April2011: End - A comment on classical vis-à-vis
quantum 'reasoning.'
. . .
15-16April2011: Begin - A comment on classical vis-à-vis
quantum 'gradience.'
Doug had another of those immense epiphanies last evening.
Allow me to attempt a reconstruction of events...
I had just finished my evening snack of ripe olives, cattiatore,
and mozzarella with champagne. I decided to restart my rereading
of Chapter 4 of P&S' OOoC. This is about my third
possibly fourth pass at this chapter. My epiphany arose when
I read this:
"...As for the birth of the 'science
of complexity,' we propose to date it in 1811, the year Baron
Jean-Joseph Fourier, the
prefect of Isère, won the
prize of the French Academy
of Sciences for his mathematical
description of the [mechanical,
formal, analytic] propagation of [classical] heat in [classical]
solids.
"The result stated
by Fourier was surprisingly simple and elegant: heat flow is proportional to the gradient
of temperature. It is remarkable that this simple
law applies to matter, whether
its state is solid, liquid,
or gaseous. Moreover, it remains valid whatever the
chemical composition of the
body is, whether it is iron
or gold. It is only the coefficient of proportionality between heat flow and gradient
of temperature
that is specific to each substance.
"Obviously, the universal character of Fourier's
law is not
directly related to [classically] dynamic interactions as expressed
by Newton's law, and its formulation may thus be considered
the starting
point of a new type of science. Indeed, the
simplicity of Fourier's mathematical
description of heat propagation stands in sharp contrast
to the complexity of matter
considered from a molecular
point of view..."
Transcribed from p. 104, Chapter 4, OOoC by Doug. Doug's
brackets. Doug's bold violet [classical problematics] and green
[quantum precursors] highlights.
In spite of its bold violet objective dialectics this segment
of text is prescient, to say a least. Prescience is available
to us, at a very least, in dark green bold text Doug highlighted.
A key surmise by P&S in that text which might easily be
overlooked is their claim of "simplicity." Our nexus
here is Bergson's, paraphrased by Doug, "...state is complex
and flux is simple, since state cannot explain flux but flux
can explain state." We see Bergson's implicit claim that
exegesis is a hallmark of simplicity in terms of one's being
enabled to understand.
That nexus becomes a fulcrum for Doug's epiphany!
Do you recall Doug's more than a decade-old epiphany which
he described in his web page titled, Have
a DQ Moment?
Essence of that page is this: mass, length (space),
and time as plural participling quantons are all quantum manifestations
of quantum~flux!
If that is so, What about temperature, and temperature gradience?
Yes, temperature and its gradients as plural participling quantons
are all quantum manifestations of quantum~flux! All measureables
(ømnihtørables
in quantumese) as plural participling quantons are all quantum
manifestations of quantum~flux!
Flux simplicity, as Bergson instructed, rears itself and sparkles
in its majesty over (hyper) classical 'state.'
"What is such a big deal here, Doug?" P&S describe
all physical measurables above as 'classical scalars:'
temperature, heat flow, gradience, etc. They describe classical
dynamics as an event-state
ontology. Fourier did too. Why? That is what mathematics do!
Bergson instructed us well on that issue too. Ditto Keynesianism.
Ditto Ferguson and Lira's classical 'logic' and 'reason.' Ditto
all classical 'economics pundits.' Ditto classical notions
of equilibrium and reversibility.
Implications of what Doug has written in this 'gradience commentary'
are astonishing! Doug will spend several days here showing you
that.
16Apr2011...continue...
In our quotes from beginning of Chapter 4 above, P&S (like
all classicists) treat physical measurables conventionally as
scalars and at best as Newtonian formal motion of stoppable (atemporal) 'state-events.'
Allow Doug to requote those bold green text segments and cipher
them both classically and quantumly:
- classical ciphers:
- "...classical scalar heat flow is scalar-proportional to the
scalar gradient
of scalar temperature..."
- "...the classical scalar coefficient
of classical scalar proportionality between scalar
heat flow
and scalar gradient
of scalar
temperature
that is specific to each substance..."
- "...the starting point of a new type of science..."
- quantum ciphers:
- "...quantum~evolving heat as flux flow is quantum~relatively~phasemental to fluxing
gradientings of temperaturings as flux..."
- "...flux phasemental relativityings
among heat
as flux
flow and gradient of temperature as
flux that is specific to each energy wellings' ephemeral fluxings comtextings..."
- "...the starting point of a new type of quantum~flux thinkqing..."
Yes reader, "There is a new philosophy in town."
Quantum~philosophy hyper classical-philosophy.
Doug's essence here is that classical thought and language
always ciphers reality as 'scalar state.' However, quantum~thinkqing
always ciphers reality as fluxings' interrelationshipings. As
Bergson wrote, in Dougese, "flux hyper state."
If we apply that to Economics Theory, "Equilibria as
flux is hyper equilibrium as state." Doug believes
we may then bootstrap "flux hyper state" to
most aspects of economic theory. For example, "Reversibility
as flux is hyper reversibility as state." And "Inflation,
Deflation, and Hyperinflation as fluxings are hyper inflation,
deflation, and hyperinflation as states."
More essence
here is that, Quantonics
HotMeme™ "All changes in Value, in quantum~reality, may
be assessed using quantum~gradience of energy~welling ensembles of quantum~fluxings'
interrelationshipings."™ Quantonics
HotMeme™.
Valueq issi gradience(EWingsx,EWingsz)
gradience issi quanton(fluxings1,fluxingsN)
Notice that quantum~gradience is an evolutionary Value
assessment process
ømnihtøring evolving interrelationshipings among
evolving~energy~wellings.
We may view changes
in quantum equilibria, then, as evolving changings in evolving
Value. Quantum~Value evolves.
Equilibriumq issi gradience(EWingsx,EWingsz)
Classical 'value' seeks state-ic 'stability,' AKA 'state'
as 'absence of evolutionary change,' as 'immutability of forms
except for linear motional-state-event analytics as change in
scalar value.'
'equilibrium' is dichon(static_scalar1,
static_scalar2)
Flux is Value. State is 'value.' Evolving flux Value "middle~includes."
Static immutable 'value' 'middle-excludes.' Quantum coquecigrues
hyper Aristotelian
sillygisms.
This appears a good time to check our 'equilibrium' QELR progress.
What did Doug write at beginning of this QELR? This:
"Classical notions of 'equilibrium' are just plain bogus.
"All of classical 'science' is like that, however. That
must change! It is imperative to change it and to remediate it.
"To do so, Doug has to invoke some quantum~n¤nmechanical
assumptions. Two big assumptions
are that:
- quantum~reality is absolute change born of absolute flux
as its core memeo of reality, and that
- all change involves heterotemporal
and heterostochastic quantized
quantum~phase~encodings of all absolutely changing flux.
"Omniqueness(ings) emerge(s) here (thus denying classical
notions of, for example, 'identity') which declares all
phase~encodings complementarily
omniffer all other phase~encodings
in quantum~reality.
"Autsimilarity
'exists,' but there are n¤ identities in quantum~reality!
"So Doug's challenge here is to remediate static and
objective classical 'equilibrium' notions with stindyanic
and quantonic quantum~equilibrium memeos."
How are we doing? Doug is confident we have a partial QELR
of equilibrium. This 16Apr2011 segment has taken us a long way
toward remediation of classical 'equilibrium' notions.
Doug...
...16Apr2011...end
. . .
20-21,24Apr2011: Begin - Chapter 4's title is 'Energy
and the Industrial Age.' Its subtitle is 'Heat, the Rival of
Gravitation.' Commentary.
Doug ignored said titles when he first started reading P&S'
OOoChaos. It just didn't seem important then. But now
it does!
Why did P&S' use those titles for Chapter 4?
An easy answer is Gravity is Newtonian and also any 'then-new'
theories of heat, entropy, and thermodynamics were 'not' Newtonian.
To a casual reader, that may seem unimportant. However, it is
a tell. P&S declare said 'tell.' A tell of
a new science, perhaps a n¤væl n¤n 'scientific'
way of thinking, a new — perhaps Bohmian — n¤n
mechanical psychic~pneumatic quantum~pragmadigm
emerging in an evolutionary manner. (That is what Doug
believes, and that is H5Wings
Doug sees what is happening k~now~ings.)
Essence here is crucial to Quantonics' New Way of Thinkqing.
Grasping this isn't so tough if you accept a quantum meme of
energy as quantum~flux...and
very key to this...quantum~flux is n¤t
classically mechanical. Newtonian (similar Einsteinian)
thought and theory is classically mechanical. Naïvely Newton
treated energy as mechanical, 'not' quantum. Quantum~flux is
n¤t mechanically 'objective,' rather quantum~flux is n¤n
mechanically quantonic, i.e., quantum. Fourier, similar Balmer,
happened upon one tiny essence of quantum reality. P&S
recognized this happenstance.
- Balmer happened upon quantization
as a wave~flux ladder in 1855, and
- Fourier happened upon heat flow based upon temperature gradience
just prior 1811 (date taken from P&S' OOoC text).
Quantum~flux nissin
ænærgy, n¤n classically mechanical 'energy.'
Very basically said quantum~flux expresses itself as bosons and
fermions. Heat is gradient bosonic flux. Fourier partially 'got'
that. Gravity isn't heat, just like Doug has shown that
gravity
isn't Einsteinian acceleration either. Gravity is co~fermionic
attraction. Note two other omnifferencings twixt heat and gravity.
Gravity is atemporal
and its gradience is atemporal. Heat gradience, similar acceleration
due gravity is temporal and its gradience is temporal. So,
to be more correct, P&S might have shown their Chapter 4
subtitle as 'Heat, the Rival of Acceleration.'
But we can generalize more than that. We can say that, Quantonics HotMeme™
"All quantum~omnitorables are gradient
interrelationshipings among various kinds of quantum~fluxings."™
Quantonics HotMeme™.
So 'gradient' as used in this section of our review, is both
temporal and atemporal,
depending. Some aspects of quantum~reality are atemporal. Let's
summarize some quantum~fahcts about
what we have written thus far:
- heat flow is temporal,
- heat (temperature) gradience is temporal,
- acceleration is temporal,
- acceleration gradience is temporal,
- gravity is atemporal (i.e., zero latency 'action at a distance'),
and
- gravity gradience is atemporal.
Notice how classical notions of atemporality imply stoppability,
zero-momentum, state, reference frames, etc. Quantum~atemporality
has to do with memeos of superluminality (zero latency regardless
distance of separation) of communications (quantum~correlation)
at a distance and action (e.g., gravity) at a distance.
Gravity is superluminal, in this case though we say and write,
"atemporal." Heat isn't. So heat isn't a rival of gravitation.
Doug...
...20-21,24Apr2011...end
More...over next several days...Doug.
15-16April2011: End - A comment on classical vis-à-vis
quantum 'gradience.'
. . .
Minor rev's to this section 13Apr2011:
This graphic's title isn't generic enough, but Doug
wants it to show you a step ladder
metaphor of increasing energy levelings which we 'classically
count' as wave number.
Here, Doug is using this graphic relevant Finance,
Economics, and Politics.
However, it is generic all quantum~holographic EWing systems.
So wave number, (energy level) of EWings
in a larger EWing, is quantized, and
thus so is many EWings emerqing
a larger EWing quantized. Quantization scales and we can show
(classically rendered Planck) systemic energy as EsNih.
Where Es is System Energy, N is essentially
wave number, i is square root of minus one, and h is Planck's
constant.
All energy~wellings in our graphic are fluxing perpetually.
All energy~wellings in our graphic are H5Wings~EIMA their comtextings'
quantum~complementary
EWings.
All EWings in our graphic are H5Wings~coobsfecting
all of their complementary EWings in their comtext.
All EWings in our graphic are selectively
(EWing by EWing) adapting
to their
neighbors and their quantum~complementary comtextings.
Doug labeled each with flux~vavings
of 'flux~wavings.' That is their local energy Value,
itself perpetually
adapting selectively to changes in its local and nonlocal environmentings.
Allow Doug to put all of that into a quantum~equilibrium
hermeneutic set of heuristics:
- quantum~equilibral quiescence emerges when EWings' Valuings
are changing 'minimally,'
- quantum~equilibral 'near equilibrium' emerges when EWings
Valuings are changing 'moderately,'
- 'quantum~equilibral 'far from equilibrium' emerges when EWings
Valuings are changing 'maximally.'
|
We ask you to further imagine Inflation, Deflation,
Hyperinflation, and Hypoinflation
as quantum~EWings (quantons) in their various m¤dæs
of H5Wings~quantum~equilibra.
Graphic and narrative are new 22Mar2011 - Doug. Revisions too on 13Apr2011 - Doug.
Doug's Quantonics QELR
of
Equilibrium
©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2020
|
| Issue |
Classical Equilibrium Issues |
Doug's Classical-Concision |
Quantum~Equilibrium Issues |
Doug's Quantum~Comcision |
| perpetual state as 'stability' |
state not flux |
|
quantumly there is n¤ne |
|
| perpetual evolving equilibria |
classically no such notion
'exists' |
|
flux n¤t state
flux may n¤t be negated
flux may be canceled
by other ideally out of phase positive flux
all quantum flux is positive
|
|
| middle-exclusion |
SOM's Wall |
|
quantumly there is n¤ne |
|
| middle~inclusion |
classically no such notion
'exists' |
|
we are ihn iht
and iht issi ihn
us |
|
| linear change |
all classical change is y=f(t) motion |
|
quantumly there is n¤ne; all motional change
is at least compound cycloidal, e.g., planets; all planet
systems are ihn their planet's cycloidal
changings |
|
| quantized change |
classically no such notion
'exists' |
|
All actual quantum reality
change is quantized. |
Smallest quantum of change is a tiny packet of Planck rate
fluxings which we may choose to thinkq about as h~bar
and (h~bar)/2. See Planck
quantum. So all real change occurs
at Planck's frequency and subharmonics of that frequency. There
is a problem, though: it likely isn't classically sinusoidal
transverse flux. Packetization almost assures that. Too it is
absolutely adiabatic: 100% energy efficient. Now, what
is interesting is that superatomic nucleonic ensembles of protons
and neutrons are n¤t adiabatic as ensembles. See quanta.
Also see quantization
as and of free will. See Doug on "instability
issi measurement." Doug - 30Dec2011.
Quantization explains directly reality's edict of volitional
vicissitudinality everywhere, everywhen. This is a quantum~miracle
currently and widely unrecognized. Doug - 20Mar2011.
|
| open |
classically no such notion
'exists' |
|
quantum~reality is open
naught in quantum~reality is classically conserved
n¤r closed
|
|
| closed |
classical reality must canonically conserve
and therefore must assume ideal systemic closure |
|
quantumly there is n¤ closure; islandicity and coherence,
but n¤ closure |
|
| entropy |
classical posentropy is the only entropy and it only has
a single gradient: positive |
|
quantum~entropy is an complex ensemble of memeos; at least
four classes of entropy all evolving at up to Planck rates |
See entropa. |
| far conditions |
far removed from previous classical 'state' |
|
when a quantum~system evolves into a radically n¤væl
system we may call it "far from its former equilibrium"
heart sinus fibrillation is a good exemplar; death is a permanent
far from equilibrium condition;
if defibrillation is possible then heart may (only apparently)
'return' to near normal sinus rhythm 'condition'
|
|
| near conditions |
close to but not at ideal classical 'state' |
|
see above |
|
| quiescent conditions |
ideal classical state |
|
this is what Doug means by quantum~equilibrium
key here is to realize all evolution evolves both gradually
and n¤t from its former quiescence; quiescence though,
is subject to evolution which may not be apparent until it is
viewed over long periods of timings; our hologramic minds do
this when we sleep; see Bohm and Pribram, et al.
|
|
| initial conditions |
classical systems can be reset to initial conditions |
|
quantumly there is n¤ne
fathom quantum~reality as unstoppable and unresetable
|
|
| productive gradience |
classically no such notion
'exists' |
|
all quantum~classes of entropy except classical single gradient
posentropy are productive |
See entropa.
See Doug's fuzzon to
fermion ontology.
See Doug's Gen III Quantum
Reality Loop.
Read Ilya Prigogine and Isabel Stengers' Order Out of Chaos.;
they show that posentropy has two gradients: classically positive
(heat death), and generative. Doug - 22Mar2011.
|
| dissipative gradience |
classical thermodynamics and entropy theory canonically prescribe
posentropy's perpetual dissipation of high entropy systems (systems
which have used up much energy flow and thus entropy in their
'creation') |
|
|
See classical
vis-à-vis
quantum dissipation. 13Sep2011 - Doug. |
| emergence role |
classically no such notion
'exists' |
|
OEDC is real
in quantum~reality |
|
| deemergence role |
systemic death AKA eschaton |
|
OEDC is real in quantum~reality |
|
| energy wells |
mechanical and formal versions only |
|
all EWings in quantum~reality are quantonic |
|
| attraction |
mechanical and formal versions only |
|
quantum~attraction takes many subjective, qualitative, fluxic
guises:
- fermionic,
- bosonic,
- quarkic,
- gluonic,
- coherence,
- gravity,
- similarity,
- selection,
- ontic,
- energy~welling,
- holographic,
- interference,
- entanglement,
- cognition,
- recognition,
- awareness,
- etc.
|
|
| logic |
bivalent either-or only allowed AKA bivalent alternative
denial; ideal paired opposition of all concepts |
|
quantumly there is n¤ne ideally classical |
|
| coquecigrues |
classically no such notion
'exists' except in Voltaire's Gargantua and Pantagruel |
|
quantum~logic is naught at all like classical logic |
See Doug's coquecigrues. |
Doug's Quantonics QELR
of
Equilibrium
©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2020
|
As you may choose to see, Doug has a huge amount of work here
to lay foundation for understanding equilibrium in systems theories
both from classical and quantum~systems viewpoints.
This is going to take awhile. Please be patient. I want to
finish it, but...more...I want to get it as close to better
as is possible for limited~me to do. We do have some emergent
progress, however!
Doug - 20Mar2011.
Begin 22-24Sep2011 Equilibrium
Update:
An issue of order...
Classical order is stable-state-ic cartesian-locality. This
is reference-frame (contextually-free) referred "classical
physics' absolute 'order.' "
Quantum~¤rdær issi fluxing complementary n¤nl¤cality.
This is comtextually dependent quantized~¤rdær.
It is dynamic, evolving order borne of two quantum miracles:
quantization and scintillation at up to Planck rates.
Doug has been reviewing selected texts from his private library
for index references to 'equilibrium.' Doug's first choice under
Bohm is his and B. J. Hiley's The Undivided Universe.
Doug could find no index item for 'equilibrium.' That seemed
strange to me. Alternatively I looked at their Chapter summaries.
Chapter 15's title is 'Quantum Theory and the Implicate Order.'
In that chapter they omnistinguish classical Cartesian static
'order' from a much needed, and newer dynamic and evolving quantum~order.
As I was reading, it dawned on me (something as simple as this
prior escaped my attention) that Prigogine and Stenger's book's
title is Order Out of Chaos. Then I tried substitution
as my usual intuitive habit as Equilibrium Out of Chaos.
More... Quantum Theory of the Implicate Equilibrium. Those
substitutions appear quasi relevant in Doug's search for new
ways to ponder quantum vav classical issues of equilibrium.
Some huge philosophical issues emerge here. Is quantum~order
hyper quantum~equilibrium. Does order have higher Value
than equilibrium? Is high~rate change of equilibrium analogous
disorder? Is that classical 'di'sorder? Is that quantum~disorder?
Could we better describe it as high rate evolution of
equilibrium? See? 'Disorder' is a dichon.
Quantum remediation requires that we QELR
it as omnisorder, perhaps omnisorderings. If we make 'order'
hyper 'equilibrium' it appears to Doug that our memes
of order must encompass equilibrium, equilibria, and all their
unlimited and vast ephemeral variations. Should we allow quantum~equilibria
to encompass semantically and heuristically all its potential
holographic manifesta?
Then, what would we mean by "quantum~order?" Until
now, Doug had tended to keep 'order' and 'equilibrium' autsimilar
one another. Does that make any sense? Why? What do we mean by
'disequilibrium?' Should we QELR it "omnisequilibria?"
Now similarly use your noodle to ponder issues surrounding 'stability,'
'coherence,' 'quiescence,' 'stochastic modality,' 'chaotic attractors,'
etc. (Read Gleick's Chaos on 'chaotic attraction.') Doug
- 24Sep2011.
Bohm and Hiley agree with Doug's approach that a Cartesian
model of order (and apparently of equilibrium) is simply bogus
and no longer adequate.
They seek a new way of m¤daling both quantum~¤rdær
and (via Doug's inference) quantum~equilibrium (compare quantum~omnisequilibrium).
We see Doug's previously claimed need for omniscrimination
(classical vis-à-vis quantum) rearing its head right here
in Bohm and Hiley's (quantum~cosmic) River City.
Doug had another glimmer earlier: equilibrium issi
quanton(FFE,NTE). Try as I might, I cann¤t find anything
proemially inadequate with that script except its incompleteness
which I take as a given. But one meme stands out: dichon(FFE,
NTE) radically omniffers quanton(FFE,NTE)! What makes this fascinating
for Doug is how classical FFE
and NTE omniffer
quantum FFE and NTE. And we may choose to take that further:
classical quiescence omniffers quantum~quiescence. See NTQ.
So what is going on here?
What do classicists mean by 'order?' If a system has 'order,'
what does that mean classically? One answer is, "It is stable."
Classically order has stability and stability implies state under
classical assumptions of reality's linear motion as stoppable.
So a classical system which possesses order and stability as
canonic properties is linear and stoppable (both
necessary to do valid and verifiable classical analysis
and measurement of said system).
Hopefully you are keeping pace here. Quantum~systems are n¤t
canonically linear n¤r stoppable! Quantization and scintillation
are perpetually stochastic nonlinear processings: positive
wave energyings!
What Doug has just accomplished is to show that when we talk
about classical terms like order, stability, and equilibrium
our interpretations vastly omniffer what we can say and write
about quantum~order, ~stability, and ~equilibrium.
You may choose to see here how classicists have oversimplified
their models of reality by assuming (conventionally and conveniently)
reality is state-ic and stoppable.
Classical 'order' is already, by assumption, static. Ditto
stability and equilibrium.
When we talk and write about quantum~order, ~stability, and
~equilibria, we are assuming a wave~based perpetually changing
and evolving reality.
So we assess quantum~FFE, ~NTE, and NTQ using gradience of
flux autsimilarity evolutionings. See Doug's Assess
Resemblance HotMeme™. We assume absolute change,
selective choice at up to Planck rates, and chance as stochastics
borne of uncertaintyings of quantization and scintillation of
all quantum reality.
Our apparently remaining challenge is to describe quantum~order,
~stability, and ~equilibria using those assumptions as a radical
departure from classical approaches.
Doug will attempt that under a separate web page titled accordingly.
End 22-24Sep2011 Equilibrium Update.
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.
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.
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. Doug - 26Jul2009.
8Dec2011 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 8Dec2011 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 extent—other 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 nonactuality—we
say "rough" because Stein treats nonspace as a quantum
symmetrical conjugate (which magically, somehow, still offers
"unlimited possibilities") of his space—our nonactuality
is not a symmetrical conjugate of our actuality—where Stein's
space-nonspace appears classically conservative and thus closed—our
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 quantons—via and including nonactuality—to
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.
|