local

rev - 1Dec2015 PDR

Classical assess: stability independence excluded-middle EOOOness H5Wness lisrability causation certainty EEMDivity observation : Latch, latched, latching, latchings, etc.

Classically a door latch holds a door closed, possibly open. Said door is classically held in 'state' open-closed until it is mechanically changed to its opposite state or a mechanically tertium non datur limbo between those two 'states.'

An classical idea in a classical mind can formally latch, similarly. Classicists refer this 'memory,' and 'knowledge.' Classically state-ic memory and knowledge is ideal, concrete and lisr-permanent until it is changed to another classical state.

Classical 'latching' manifests itself linguistically in well-known dialectical phrases like:

• "sample and hold"
• "zero momentum"
• "eigen value," "eigen state," and "projection operators"
• "hold still," and "hold constant"
• "wave function 'collapse' " (Doug - 17Oct2012.)
• "kill it," "kill switch," "turn it off," "I'm going to off you," "make it go away," "make the world go away, get it off of my shoulders," etc.

Biblically-classically 'stability' as death (state) is ideal AKA 'the demiurge,' 'the dead father.' Social religions tend to teach and define (reify) a view that death is hyper life. They believe in YahWeh (YhWh), and they dialectically don't believe in YahSheWeh (YhShWh, YhShWh). Pay close attention next time you are worse-shiping in Satan's (dead father's, yahweh's, demiurge's, analytics', dialectic's, Error's) den. Pirsig calls it ESQ.

Classically works which are finally 'done' are latched in their perpetual, utopian concrete doneness. This classical latching applies to computers, fonts, music, art, poetry, prose, narrative, products, etc.

A latched state is from any classical conspective in ideal formal equilibrium, classical equilibrium. It will always work, and consistently work 'the' same 'way' forever...ideally. An unlatched 'state' can only be chaos, classically. Classically then 'events' which change states are indescribable chaos. So classicists attempt to avoid change, avoid chaos. Classicists revere stability_c, order_c, and concrete equilibrium_c as ideal, unchanging 'state.' Latched 'state.' But keep in mind, state cannot explain, cannot measure anything, even itself. State is stux.

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : Latch, latched, latching, latchings, etc.

Quantum~latching issi n¤t classical 'state,' rather it is patterns aka packets of quantized fluxings. All quanta are flux, living flux, perpetual flux, and quanta scintillate quanta perpetually too. Quantum~self~other measurement is ubiquitous and perpetual...Always choosings, chancings, and changings: quantum~evolution.

Thus quantum~stability, ~equilibrium, and ~chaos are all fluxing. Stability~equilibrium~order are lower quantum~relative (increasing~decreasing and mixtures of both) gradience quantal fluxings. Quantum~relative~chaos is higher quantum~relative gradient fluxings.

Quantum~latching sustains duration of low gradience (lower chaos) quantal fluxings (regardless of energy levels). We call that quantum~equilibrium.

Two exemplars of quantum~latching are change of wave~number (up~down), and Higgs' bosonic creation of fermions which we can script as quanton(boson,boson) => fermionic~quanton (quark). Latched fermions have quantum~equilibrium, but may be chaotically transmuted to novel equilibria via scintillation. Fathom phase change of H₂O in zero latency super cooling.

Page top index.

'law'

Classical Legal Language Features (see 'How to Visit Quantonics'):

• Statemental (gnostically hylic-psychic)
• Bivalent
• Truth as classical state
• Logical and physical stability everywhere AKA objective independence
• Everywhere Excluded-Middle Dissociativity
• Ideal objective negation
• Ideal classical objects may be negated
• Determinism, i.e., classical 'certainty,' borne of assumed cause-effect
• Etc.

Quantum Legal Language (see A Quanton Primer):

• Phasemental (gn¤stically more pneumatic)
• Omnivalent
• Truthings as evolution (quantization of th~ought)
• Quantum change is absolute and ubiquitous
• Everywhere~Included~Middle~Associativity AKA quantum~reality as holographic
• Negation is subjective
• Quantum~flux may be canceled but n¤t negated (quantum~reality is stochastic, i.e., quantum~waves are stochastic, and thus intrinsically positive - Doug)
• Ubiquitous uncertainty borne of (up to) Planck rate changings
• Etc.

Doug - 8Feb2010 due a Edmonton Alberta query, "...quantum language in law?" Thank you for referring Quantonics!

See: absolute, axiom, certain, fact, principle, rule, tautology, truth.

"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

Courtrooms are SOM Boxes. That query demonstrates our claim as valid.

Court rooms, judges, and attorneys mechanically idealize interrogation and testimony! What's wr¤ng with that? Reality is n¤t mechanically ideal! Interrogation is n¤t mechanically ideal! Testimony cann¤t be mechanically ideal!!! Why? Humans and their quantum stages are n¤n mechanical!

A court room attempts to establish a single mechanical context, AKA OGC, for all testimony. But it cann¤t!

When you are asked to declare said oath, respond, "I swear to affirm my interpretations." If you are forced, say, "I believe classical notions of absolute truth are oxymora." Further, "Law is n¤t, cann¤t be ideal: law is but opinion, socially positive, tragedy of commons sense opinion."

From our QELR of 'consensus:'

Thomas Digges, 16th century English Astronomer said "Vulgi opinio Error."

Digges wrote that in his copy of Copernicus' De revolutionibus, 1543, cover book margin near page top.

Thanks to Peter Barker's 30Apr2004 Science book review of The Book Nobody Read, by Owen Gingrich.

Translated, "Vulgi opinio Error," means "the common opinion errs."

We agree with Digges.

Added text from our TQS 2002 News...

Classical law - bivalency of judgment: guilt or innocence. Bivalency of legal interrogation. Bivalency of query: Thou shalt answer either "Yes" or "No." Bivalency of meting as either acquittal or punishment. Bivalency of legal language, "The people versus..." and "Roe vs. Wade."

From our September, 2002 TQS News:

What is 'law' today at Millennium III's beginning? In our view, 'laws' are naught but local-time, classical context-specific, non-general opinion: jury opinion, courtroom opinion, appellate opinion, state supreme court opinion, and ultimately US supreme court opinion. 'Law' is local opinion.

Do 'laws' work? If 'laws' work, should we not at least expect them to produce con(m)sistent results? A good test of this query is to perform a statistical experiment. Assume that our courts can only choose among three outcomes for any court decision: guilty, innocent, and uncertain/hung. Imagine if we could take an 'identical' case and court test it in 99 (or any number of) different locations in USA. Further assume that all 99 cases can be run in parallel without knowledge of each other. What results can we expect? Will all 99 court results be identical? Legal 'experts' tell us they should, or perhaps more realistically expect a general US public to believe that they will come out identically.

Were we to actually perform this gedankenment, our US 'law' courts would probably decide statistically that 1/3 of cases should be guilty, 1/3 innocent, and 1/3 hung. 'Law' is not consistent! 'Law' is innately, by classical, moronic, anthropocentric Aristotelian/Newtonian 'design,' incapable of consistency!

Whenever we try one of those 99 cases, we introduce a n¤vel legal con(m)text and its own local conditions. We are always unsure to what extent any con(m)text corresponds other legal con(m)texts and their separate and omnifferent local conditions (i.e., different: local cultures, court rooms, judges, juries ("...it's not what did happen, it's what juries believe happened..." CSI ~21:25 CDT, 4Oct2002), etc.). So, statistically our results will vary roughly as we describe.

Some real wisdom about law added by Doug 10Apr2010:

From NT's third synoptic: "Woe to you experts in the law; because you have taken away the key to wisdom." Luke, 11:52.

What is YHShWH saying? Doug assumes hæ is saying, "Dialectic is Error. Law presumes dialectic. Dialectic kills what is alive. Wisdom grasps an essene~tial: What is genuinely alive and self~other~aware itself is wisdom." In other words dialectical law is about classical state AKA death. Wisdom is about absolute life, quantum~evolution: Essene-tial change itself.

One more Essene~tial: All light is quantum! Dialectical 'law' is anti-quantum state. Quantum~Gn¤sis says, "Principle (i.e., 'law') rules something not itself. Ergo, 'law' is anti-gn¤stic!

Doug - 10Apr2010.

From Bergson's Creative Evolution Topic 13, our page 68 comments:

"Bergson just described a SOMite switching contexts for convenience while assuming that said SOMite thought her/himself in but one global context (OGC). Humans do this often. It is a great advantage in debate as long as one's opponent adopts a one global truth (OGT) system, and does n¤t understand quantum reality's "many truths." Lawyers use this technique to great advantage in court rooms. They impose pure or convenient dialectic on witnesses, and then use their own paralogical rhetoric to bend witnesses' yes/no, true/false dichotomized answers into any contrived local truth system they wish to construct. Most juries do not understand this aspect of dialectic and rhetoric and how lawyers can manipulate and contrive any outcome they choose. Unfortunately judges do not warn juries of this technique. (We are not even sure judges know what we just said. After reading some 'Supreme' Court opinions (e.g., A. Scalia on Nebraska's 'anti-abortion' law) we are almost certain they don't. ) We see a result, that, what lay folk perceive as justice and law is no more than legal convenience for hegemonists to manufacture outcomes they desire. Someday lay folk will understand this, and our current legal system will have to adopt a n¤vel ethics, whether Struan likes it or not. We hope it is sooner than later. However, as long as lay folk stay in their SOM/OGT/OGC boxes, lawyers and court systems will be able to manipulate them as we have described."

In Quantonics, classical notions of 'law' are only locally, specifically and nongenerally, classically "bivalent" and at best "uninspired" ways of thing-king. See our more quantum perspectives of "inspired" think-king here. Also to compare two valuedness and many valuedness see our ancient What are Sophisms? and our more recent review of Jammer's Quantum Logic.

From our dialogue with AH on Buddhism:

"It is important for you to know that we also see balancing of quanton(DQ,intellect) and quanton(DQ,society) as a quantum uncertainty interrelationship. AH and Doug probably should 'not' decide what to do about UbL or Saddam Hussein, but it probably is appropriate for us to decide about drunk drivers, pedophiles, rapists, and burglars in our community. In our opinion, society has virtually naught to say about micro issues inside family contexts, e.g., abortion and euthanasia. But, in our view, our quanton(DQ,intellect) has a lot to say about whether government level con(m)texts can/should control, support, and pay for abortion and euthanasia. To put it simply, there are some areas/con(m)texts where government has n¤ authority. Only quanton(DQ,intellect) can draw that ~line, from whence society subserviently affines. If we allow quanton(DQ,society) to do it, society will opt for total systemic authority. And thence society, as ESQ, becomes an evil almost beyond imagination. Neandertalibanic Islam is a perfect exemplar in this discussion."

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

See general.

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : Law - Thæræ issi n¤ quantum anahlogue ¤f ideal classical 'law.'

 Ideally, to any classicist who uses Classical Thingk-king Methods (CTMs), 'law' is:

• self-evident immutable 'truth'
  • radically final
  • radically general, and radically absolute
    • always works
    • works in all con(m)texts
  • tautologous
  • radically persistent
    • radically state-ic ("radical stateism")
    • radically inert and inertial ("radical immutability," "status quo is the way to go," "radical stux is crux," "intelligent 'design,'" etc.)
  • radically simple objective stability
  • radically complex quantum animacy

T¤ any quantumihst wh¤ uhsæs Quantum Think_q-king M¤dæs ¤ur cl¤sest hærmænæutihcs aræ:

• quanton
• qualihty
• Valuæ
• mæmæ
• mætaph¤r
• mæmæo
• flux
• anahl¤gy
• ræcursihve~frahctal~sælf~referænt~s¤phism
• æværywhere~ihncludæd~mihddle~ass¤ciatihve~quantum~æmærgænce (See quantum~holographic~evolution. Compare issues of classical 'social law' with quantum~individual quantization of free will. Doug - 8Feb2010.)
• radihcahlly sihmple quantum anihmacy (See Bergson.)
• radically complex classically objective stability
• etc.

Page top index.

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

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : Lihkælih¤¤d

See probability.

See our Bases of Judgment and our What is Wrong with Probability as Value?

Page top index.

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

Classically a 'line' depends in which geometrical context said line 'exists.' Classical geometries include, as examples, Euclidean, spherical, parabolic, hyperbolic, Riemannian, etc. Classical geometries are not quantum due their founding axioms which demand implicitly notions of stability, independence, identity, freeness and monasticity of context (OGT in OGC), etc.

A classical line is a continuous, indivisible (to maintain classical lineness), series of points, like this:

If only one point is removed from said line, anywhere intra said line, said line becomes two lines, like this:

This is a foundational classical notion which is kin of notions: material, physical, substance, localability, isolability, separability, reducibility, and countless others.

We see here, SOM's knife, its schism. We see, classically, 'the case of the missing point.' There are boundless philosophical, metaphysical, ontological issues and problematics here.

This is at heart of classical dialectic. Dialectic fails without these foundational classical notions.

This lurks at SOM's predicate logic foundation, stuff of Aristotle's three syllogisms, including identity, contradiction and excluded-middle.

All classicists believe this is real in any sense that we can model reality with (and cannot model reality without) these notions. See not and Bergson's "Negation is subjective."

For a great example of paradice which arise from classical dialectic and notions based upon it, study Chrysippus' and Democritus' debates on sectioning cones. At most basic issue here: classical atoms are axiomatically not quantum anihmatæ EIMA Quantonic fuzz¤ns.

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : Lihnæ

However, recent (since about 1870) progress in quantum theory, quantum mechanics — and more recently still, quantum science and philosophy — shows that SOM's modeling and predicate logical systems do not model, nor does SOM's dialectic adequately describe, reality.

T¤ assist a quantum climb ¤ut ¤f this classical morass, wæ ¤ffer a quantum mæmæo ¤f 'lihnæ' ihn a spiriht ¤f assisting basihc math the¤hretihcians dævelop a n¤vel f¤umdati¤n f¤r an ihnnovatihvæ quantum mathæmatihcs.

Quantum lihnæs (lihnæ-ings) aræ quantum ænsehmblings ¤f quantonic p¤ihntings' ihnterrelati¤nshipings. Any quantum lihnæ (lihnæ-ing) issi ænsehmblings ¤f p¤ihntings' quantons.

Sææ als¤ p¤ihnt.

A quantum lihnæ, an æmærscænture ¤f quantum p¤ihnts, l¤¤ks lihkæ this:

That little bottom right 'hash' is our Quantonics mark.

Læt's ræpeat what wæ dihd f¤r ¤ur classical line amd ræm¤ve ¤næ quantum p¤ihnt, lihkæ this:

This sh¤ws ¤ur quantum lihnæ wihth¤ut 'healing.' Wæ aræ ¤nly sh¤wing this t¤ ahll¤w y¤u t¤ sææ an apparihti¤n ¤f a mihssing quantum p¤ihnt. Ævæn sh¤wn lihkæ this iht issi stihll a lihnæ! But ihn ræhlihty iht w¤uld heal amd wæ w¤uld sææ a wh¤le lihnæ slightly grayer than ihts predæcess¤r duæ a 'mihssing' p¤ihnt.

Our ræm¤ved fuzz¤n, quantum p¤ihnt, issi quantum~mihssing, n¤t classically 'missing.' Mihssing takæs ¤n a wh¤le quantum n¤vel sæmantihc hæræ wh¤se quantum æssænce amd quintæssænce excææd human ihmaginati¤n!

Ahll p¤ihnts ihn this lihnæ ihncluding mihssing p¤ihnt aræ amd 'f¤rævær' quantum~æntangled duæ their having bææn prævi¤uhsly æmærscæntured.

This dæm¤nstratæs supærbly quantum ræhlihty's ihncludæd-mihddle!

That ræhl quantum ihncludæd-mihddle devastates classical dialectic, predicate logic, mathematics, science, philosophy, etc. based upon a classical presumption of an Aristotelian excluded-middle.

Studænts ¤f Quantonics amd ræhdærs~visiht¤rs sh¤uld n¤w bæ kæænly apprised that wæ aræ n¤w, f¤r fihrst tihmæ ihn Quantonics' hist¤ry, uhsing pr¤t¤pr¤æmial quantum anahlogues ¤f lihnæ amd p¤ihnt, amd, gihven that, wæ n¤w have mæans t¤ ahctuahlly d¤ physial quantum~scihæntihfihc w¤rk uhsing quantonic mæmæ¤tihcs. Wæ can n¤w læave, jump, læap, fly, swim ¤ut ¤f classical science's legacy church of objective reasonings (COORs).

Wouldn't Leibnitz love this? Mayhaps he does.

Wæ plahn t¤ d¤ this f¤r y¤u, but umtil wæ d¤, ihmagine ¤ur quantonic~fuzz¤n~lihnæ anahlogies appliæd t¤:

• tihmæ (Bergson's [quantum] hætær¤gæneihty amd duhrati¤n aræ ihmplihciht n¤w, aræn't they?),
• mahss (macroscaling ¤f Heisenberg's quantum umcærtainty issi ihmplihciht n¤w, issi iht n¤t?), amd
• gravihty (heterogæne¤uhs~ amd partihahlly~¤hrdæred amd ~c¤herænt gravihty [i.e., quantum fuzz¤n~basæd mahss ihnterrelati¤nships] issi ihmplihciht n¤w, issi iht n¤t?).

A wh¤le n¤vel quantum dawn issi glimmæring, n¤ — glaring!

Ahll wæ næædæd wære s¤mæ n¤vel quantum ways ¤f think_qing ab¤ut p¤ihnts amd lihnæs. N¤w wæ have th¤se mæans! Quantonics amd ihts n¤vel way ¤f think_qing ab¤ut quantum ræhlihty gave thæm t¤ uhs...

W¤wmoM!

24May2004 - Doug. Significant emerscenture of memeos added 30May2004 - Doug.

Page top index.

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

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : L¤cal

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'local' amd remerq ahll quantum comtextual ¤ccurræncæs wihth 'l¤cal.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'local.' Ihn Quantonics/quantum comtexts wæ shahll uhsæ 'l¤cal.'

In classical contexts objects are either local or nonlocal. At best, classical contexts offer a fuzzy analytic continuum of classical locality. Classical localities and nonlocalities are also classically separate from each other, dogmatically independent and isolated from one another. We can illustrate this classical lisr-ability by dichon(nonlocal, local) and also via EOOO(nonlocal, local). See Aristotle's silly-gisms.

Ihn quantum comtexts quantons aræ BAWAM(n¤nl¤cal,l¤cal), which issi anahlog¤uhs t¤ wrihting quanton(n¤nl¤cal,l¤cal). Ahll quantum l¤calihties amd n¤nl¤calihties c¤mpænetratæ ¤næ an¤thær m¤re amd less via quantonics' versions of quantum likelihood omnistributions (spatially and isospatially arbitrary omnistributions) cowithin quatr¤t¤m¤uhsly c¤hesihve quantum æntanglæmænt amd VES.

		Bobby Knight as his local 'self.'
		IU B-Ball-Team decoherently playing B-ball since Knight is classically-imposing his 'local' dialectical dogma
		Quantum Coherent IU B-Ball-Team playing B-ball absent outside direction

See cohera. See entropa.

Page top index.

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

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : L¤cuhs

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'locus' amd remerq ahll quantum comtextual ¤ccurræncæs wihth 'l¤cuhs.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'locus.' Ihn Quantonics/quantum comtexts wæ shahll uhsæ 'l¤cuhs.'

Where classical 'locus' implies a singular, inanimate, classical, infinitessimal point location in classical actuality, quantum 'l¤cuhs' lihterahlly mæans anihmatæ, b¤th 'l¤cal' amd 'n¤nl¤cal' amd 'co-hæræ' quantons "waxing amd waning, li-la Plahnck ratæ dancing" ihn c¤mplæmæntary heterogæne¤uhs tihmæs, spacæs, amd coumtless ¤thær quantum ræhlms (b¤th quantum ahctualihties amd n¤nahctualihties).

Quantum 'l¤cuhs' als¤ ihmpliæs hætær¤gæneihty ¤f spacæ: spathial ambiguihty ¤f loci, omniræcti¤nings, etc. What wæ aræ think_qing hæræ issi t¤ ihmagine a largæ bl¤ck lætter, sahy 'A.' Ask where issi 'A?' Classically we cannot specify a single locus for 'A' can we? I.e., when we classically say 'A' is here, that semantic is locus ambiguous, right? Why? Letter 'A's' 'locus' is classically heterogeneous.

Now imagine 'A' moving classically-relativistically near light speed, while adhering Einstein's Leibnitzian 4-D model: 3-space; 1-time. Any dawning for you here? Why 3-space and 1-time? Why is Leibnitz' classical model heterogeneous in space and homogeneous in time? Quantumly, sh¤uldn't wæ have at læast ¤næ tihmæ '¤mnimænsi¤n' f¤r each spacæ ¤mnimænsi¤n? Why did Einstein classically assume only linear length (i.e., unitemporal) contraction? What if a particle or letter, while contracting in its 'direction' of travel, spreads out in other dimensions (with their own temporalities) as an entity approaches light speed? Latter meme comcurs with quantum umcærtainty bætter, d¤esn't iht? Note how mass density might not approach infinity as Einstein supposed...hmmm...?

Ræhdærs may n¤w sææ h¤w quantum l¤cuhs amd quantum rælatihvistihc l¤cuhs may bæ vahstly ¤mnihfferænt mæmæs than naïve classihcal ¤næs pondæred by Eihnstein.

Page top index.

Classical assess: stability independence excluded-middle EOOOness H5Wness lisrability causation certainty EEMDivity observation : Logic, logics, logical, logically, logicist, etc.

Classical_logic = dichons(inanimacy, independence). E.g., Aristotle's syllogisms = dichons(A, A).

Classical reality holds still, is stoppably stable and objects in classical reality are independent of one another: Bergson.

Objective classical logic must be classically consistent: always states the truth. Objective classical logic is inanimate, single-valued, everywhere-independent. (Corresponds SOM.)

Subjective classical logic must be both classically, radically consistent and classically, radically coheren[o]t. Subjective classical logic is inanimate, hetero-valent, everywhere-independent. (Corresponds CR.)

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : L¤gihc, l¤gihcs, l¤gihcal, l¤gihcahlly, l¤gihcist, etc.

To grasp Doug's quintessentials here one must learn to fathom a memeo that quantum~energy issi hyper classical logic. Doug - 6May2011.

Quantum_l¤gic quantons(absolute_animacy,included_middlings). E.g., you quantons(mind,body).

Quantum_l¤gic coquecigrues! What is coquecigrues? Coquecigrues is what we have chosen to refer quantonically as quantum rhetorical sophism (a classical 'monster' of 'n¤nl¤gic'), quantum l¤gic which emerges in quantum~wave~flux~probability~likelihood and for now culminates in emergent g¤¤d. To understand what we mean by that quantum~emergence pr¤cess see our quantum truth hierarchy inverted.

Quantum reality issi semper fluxio, and all quantons may potentially c¤~inside and c¤~here all other quantons. (Corresponds MoQ.)

In order to understand quantum~reality, in order to understand the logos AKA the account, we must learn to embrace cosmic~energy as hyper classical dialectical logic. Quantum~l¤gic AKA coquecigrues is a cosmic language of energy similar Autiot. Doug - 6May2011.

Quantum l¤gic issi both quantum comsistent: always changes and quantum coherent. Quantum l¤gic issi only viable via quantum qubital (ohr equivalent: biononit, atomit, nucleonit, electronit, photonit, etc.) gradience~monitorings whose quantum~ensemblings emerq quantum~partially~¤rdering fuzzonic attractionings and their quantonic interrelationshipings.

Quantum l¤gic issi animate, ¤mnivalent, and everywherings quantum~c¤mplementary.

Quantum reality issi n¤n classically 'logical,' due primarily its animate, heterogeneous, c¤mplementary EIMA, n¤n stoppable n¤n analyticity. In a real sense any n¤n subjective, n¤n qualitative, n¤n affectational 'logic' issi an oxymoron in quantum reality, thus classical logic is an oxymoron in quantum reality.

Perhaps, most easily of all, we can explain why quantum reality is n¤t classically logical. Classical logic must be, if any notion at all, consistent. Classical consistency means "always, validly and verifiably states the truth." This is essence of classical science itself!

But quantum comsistency means always changing, never holding classically, absolutely, stoppably still. That which is always changing, faster and slower, is incapable of classical consistency. Classical mechanical formal dichonic logic is valueless in quantum reality. Quantum Value is outside 'the classical mythos.'

See absolute. See subjectiv and subjective. See probability. See Max Jammer on Quantum Logic.

See Doug's List of Explicit Assumptions re: Buridan's Sophismata.

See quantum, subjective, objective logic metaphors at MoQ, CR, and SOM.

See our 2004 What is Wrong with Probability as Value?

Page top index.

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

What does scientific 'law' depend upon? Verification, right? How do classicists 'verify?' Repetition of experiment: looping on an experiment to 'prove' that a 'law' is still valid. Inference? Verifiable classical 'scientific' 'law' is perpetual, right? A real classical 'law' holds forever. Perpetual abstraction? How close is that to perpetual motion, which classicists deny? If scientific proof requires a perpetual loop of verification as conditional evidence of real 'law,' isn't that saying perpetuity of 'law' is a requisite of any notion of 'law?' In our view denial of perpetual motion refutes any expectation for any notions of 'legal perpetuity.' Ponder what we have said, now, in light of Maxwell's 2nd 'law' of thermodynamics which demands that 'no' reality can be perpetually 'ordered' in any classical sense. Can you see how really silly CTMs are? DIQheads use CTMs to thingk!

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : L¤¤p

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'loop' amd remerq ahll quantum comtextual ¤ccurræncæs wihth 'l¤¤p.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'loop.' Ihn Quantonics/quantum comtexts wæ shahll uhsæ 'l¤¤p.'

Where classical (SOM) loops are closed, analytic, monolithic, homogeneous, unilogical, dichotomous, etc., quantum l¤¤ps aræ ¤pæn, st¤chastihc, ihslandihc, heterogæne¤uhs, hetero~prægma~l¤gihcal, c¤mplæmæntary, etc.

Page top index.