|
'law' |
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.
Doug - 11Oct2005.
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.
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."
: Law
See general.
:
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¤ usæs Quantum Think-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~ihncludæ~mihddle~ass¤ciatihve~quantum~æmærgænce
- radihcahlly
sihmple quantum anihmacy
(See Bergson.)
- radically complex classically objective stability
- etc.
Page top index.
|
| |
'line' |
: 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.
:
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¤usly 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, using
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 using quantonic mæmæ¤tihcs. Wæ can n¤w læave,
jump, læap, fly, swim ¤ut ¤f
classical
science's legacy church
of objective reasonings (COORs). J
Wouldn't Leibnitz love this? Mayhaps he does.
Wæ plan 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¤us~ amd partiahlly~¤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 thinking
ab¤ut p¤ihnts amd
lihnæs. N¤w wæ
have th¤se
mæans! Quantonics amd ihts
n¤vel way ¤f thinking
ab¤ut quantum ræhlihty gave thæm
t¤ us...
W¤wmoM!
J
24May2004 - Doug. Significant emerscenture of memeos added
30May2004 - Doug.
Page top index.
|
|
'locus' |
: Locus
:
L¤cus
Quantonics ch¤¤ses
t¤ c¤¤pt
classical 'locus'
amd remerq
ahll quantum comtextual
¤ccurrænces wihth 'l¤cus.'
In classical contexts we shall use 'locus.'
Ihn Quantonics/quantum comtexts wæ
shahll
usæ 'l¤cus.'
Where classical 'locus' implies a singular, inanimate, classical,
infinitessimal point
location in classical actuality,
quantum 'l¤cus'
lihterahlly
mæans
anihmatæ,
b¤th 'l¤cal'
amd
'n¤nl¤cal'
amd 'co-hæræ' quantons
"waxing amd waning, li-la Planck ratæ dancing"
ihn c¤mplæmæntary
heterogæne¤us tihmæs, spacæs, amd coumtless
¤thær quantum ræhlms (b¤th
quantum ahctualihties
amd n¤nahctualihties).
Quantum 'l¤cus' als¤ ihmpliæs
hætær¤gæneihty ¤f spacæ:
spathial ambiguihty
¤f loci, omniræcti¤nings, etc.
What wæ aræ thinking
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¤cus amd quantum rælatihvistihc l¤cus may bæ vahstly ¤mnihfferænt
mæmæs than naïve
classihcal ¤næs pondæred
by Eihnstein.
Page top index.
|
|
'logic' |
: 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.)
:
L¤gihc,
l¤gihcs, l¤gihcal, l¤gihcahlly, l¤gihcist,
etc.
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.)
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.) 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.
|
|
'loop' |
: 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. J
Can you see how really silly CTMs
are? DIQheads use
CTMs to thingk!
Doug - 14Apr2006.
|
:
L¤¤p
Quantonics ch¤¤ses
t¤ c¤¤pt
classical 'loop'
amd remerq
ahll quantum comtextual
¤ccurrænces wihth 'l¤¤p.'
In classical contexts we shall use 'loop.'
Ihn Quantonics/quantum comtexts wæ
shahll
usæ 'l¤¤p.'
Where classical (SOM)
loops are closed, analytic, monolithic, homogeneous, unilogical,
dichotomous, etc.,
quantum l¤¤ps
aræ ¤pæn, st¤chastihc, ihslandihc, heterogæne¤us,
hetero~prægma~l¤gihcal, c¤mplæmæntary,
etc.
Page top index.
|