: 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
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
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
- "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
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,
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 stabilityc,
and concrete equilibriumc
as ideal, unchanging 'state.' Latched 'state.'
But keep in mind, state cannot explain, cannot measure anything,
even itself. State is stux.
Doug's classical state-event graphic offers countless
insights. Classicism, JC Maxwell's kind, denies adiabaticity.
But 'no time' action is adiabatic, is adiabaticity,
is zero entropy, zero entropic! Another tell how
classicism is bogus.
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
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~latching sustains duration of low gradience (lower
chaos) quantal fluxings (regardless of energy levels). We call
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.
Classical Legal Language Features (see 'How
to Visit Quantonics'):
- Statemental (gnostically hylic-psychic)
- Truth as classical state
- Logical and physical stability everywhere AKA objective independence
- Everywhere Excluded-Middle
- Ideal objective negation
- Ideal classical objects
may be negated
- Determinism, i.e., classical 'certainty,' borne
of assumed cause-effect
Quantum Legal Language (see A
Doug - 8Feb2010 due a Edmonton Alberta query, "...quantum
language in law?" Thank you for referring Quantonics!
"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
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
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,
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."
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
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
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
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 - Thæræ
issi n¤ quantum anahlogue
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
- 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
Quantum Thinkq-king M¤dæs
¤ur cl¤sest hærmænæutihcs aræ:
Page top index.
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),
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
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
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
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
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
T¤ assist a quantum climb ¤ut
this classical morass,
¤ffer a quantum mæmæo ¤f 'lihnæ'
ihn a spiriht
¤f assisting basihc math the¤hretihcians
dævelop a n¤vel f¤umdati¤n f¤r
Quantum lihnæs (lihnæ-ings) aræ quantum ænsehmblings ¤f quantonic p¤ihntings' ihnterrelati¤nshipings. Any quantum lihnæ
(lihnæ-ing) issi ænsehmblings ¤f p¤ihntings'
A quantum lihnæ,
an æmærscænture ¤f quantum p¤ihnts, l¤¤ks lihkæ
That little bottom right 'hash' is our Quantonics
Læt's ræpeat what
wæ dihd f¤r ¤ur
¤næ quantum p¤ihnt,
¤ur quantum lihnæ wihth¤ut
'healing.' Wæ aræ ¤nly
t¤ ahll¤w y¤u
t¤ sææ an apparihti¤n
¤f a mihssing quantum p¤ihnt. Ævæn sh¤wn
iht issi stihll
a lihnæ! But ihn
iht w¤uld heal
amd wæ w¤uld sææ a wh¤le
grayer than ihts
predæcess¤r duæ a 'mihssing'
Our ræm¤ved fuzz¤n, quantum p¤ihnt, issi quantum~mihssing,
Mihssing takæs ¤n a wh¤le quantum n¤vel sæmantihc hæræ
wh¤se quantum æssænce
amd quintæssænce excææd human
aræ amd 'f¤rævær' quantum~æntangled
duæ their having
supærbly quantum ræhlihty's ihncludæd-mihddle!
dialectic, predicate logic, mathematics, science, philosophy,
etc. based upon a classical presumption of an Aristotelian
Studænts ¤f Quantonics amd ræhdærs~visiht¤rs sh¤uld n¤w
bæ kæænly apprised that
wæ aræ n¤w, f¤r fihrst
Quantonics' hist¤ry, uhsing pr¤t¤pr¤æmial
quantum anahlogues ¤f lihnæ amd p¤ihnt,
amd, gihven that,
wæ n¤w have mæans
d¤ physial quantum~scihæntihfihc w¤rk uhsing
Wæ can n¤w læave, jump, læap, fly, swim
classical science's legacy
church of objective
Wouldn't Leibnitz love this? Mayhaps he does.
t¤ d¤ this f¤r
y¤u, but umtil wæ d¤, ihmagine
anahlogies appliæd t¤:
hætær¤gæneihty amd duhrati¤n
aræ ihmplihciht n¤w, aræn't they?),
issi ihmplihciht n¤w, issi iht
amd partihahlly~¤hrdæred amd ~c¤herænt
gravihty [i.e., quantum fuzz¤n~basæd
mahss ihnterrelati¤nships] issi ihmplihciht n¤w,
issi iht n¤t?).
n¤vel quantum dawn issi glimmæring, n¤
næædæd wære s¤mæ n¤vel
quantum ways ¤f thinkqing
ab¤ut p¤ihnts amd
lihnæs. N¤w wæ
mæans! Quantonics amd ihts
n¤vel way ¤f thinkqing
ab¤ut quantum ræhlihty gave thæm
24May2004 - Doug. Significant emerscenture of memeos added
30May2004 - Doug.
Page top index.
ahll quantum comtextual
¤ccurræncæs wihth 'l¤cuhs.'
In classical contexts we shall use 'locus.'
Ihn Quantonics/quantum comtexts wæ
Where classical 'locus' implies a singular, inanimate, classical,
location in classical actuality,
quantum 'l¤cuhs' lihterahlly mæans
'n¤nl¤cal' amd 'co-hæræ'
quantons "waxing amd waning, li-la Plahnck
ratæ dancing" ihn c¤mplæmæntary
tihmæs, spacæs, amd
coumtless ¤thær quantum
Quantum 'l¤cuhs' als¤
ihmpliæs hætær¤gæneihty ¤f spacæ:
¤f loci, omniræcti¤nings, etc.
What wæ aræ thinkqing
hæræ issi t¤
ihmagine a largæ bl¤ck
lætter, sahy 'A.' Ask where issi 'A?'
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
Quantumly, sh¤uldn't wæ
have at læast ¤næ
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...?
may n¤w sææ h¤w
quantum l¤cuhs amd quantum
l¤cuhs may bæ vahstly ¤mnihfferænt
mæmæs than naïve
classihcal ¤næs pondæred
Page top index.
: Logic, logics, logical, logically, logicist,
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¤gihcs, l¤gihcal, l¤gihcahlly, l¤gihcist,
To grasp Doug's quintessentials here one must learn to fathom
a memeo that quantum~energy
issi hyper classical logic. Doug - 6May2011.
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
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
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
and their quantonic interrelationshipings.
Quantum l¤gic issi animate, ¤mnivalent, and
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 Max Jammer on Quantum
See Doug's List of Explicit
Assumptions re: Buridan's Sophismata.
See quantum, subjective, objective logic metaphors at MoQ, CR, and
See our 2004 What
is Wrong with Probability as Value?
Page top index.