Frank Plumpton in his 1926 Truth and Probability Essay
on Keynesian anti probability notions (Doug compares that to
von Mises' pro subjective probability memes) writes:
"...The second view of probability as depending on logical
relations but not itself a new logical relation seems to me more
plausible than Mr. Keynes' usual theory;..." See Kyburg
and Smokler, Studies in Subjective Probability, Wiley,
Doug interprets Plumpton saying, "Probability does not
depend upon 'logical relations,' rather it depends upon transemerqant
From a Doug note 24May2011.
Of course Quantum~Relativity issi quantum~flux~interrelationshipings
and thus implicitly subjective. Too, those interrelationshipings
represent evolving real Value
Doug - 7Jun2011.
"...primary and irreducible assumptions are grounded
on a basis as much of the aesthetic as of the logical order."
Ending clause of Bernard O. Koopman, 1940, in his The Bases
of Probability. Koopman concludes with a quanton(aesthetic,logical).
Classically, probability theory founds itself on many archaic
beliefs, which we call CTMs,
- probability is a theory about a material, objective, logical,
rational, reasonable reality
- probability theory is, like all science, mechanical
- mathematics is a valid tool for expressing classical probability
Most classical probability theorists believe that classical
probability is purely objective.
A few theorists believe that probability theory has mostly
subjective aspects, but can still be expressed mechanically using
objective tools like mathematics. Perhaps more prominent subjective
probabilists include: Thomas Bayes, Emile Borel, Bruno
de Finetti, Bernard O. Koopman, Frank Ramsey, Leonard J. Savage,
and John Venn.
If you have studied Quantonics well you know that quantum
reality exhibits some very n¤nclassical and to any classicist
some very queer, strange, and paradoxical phenomena, including:
||in place of
||in place of
||in place of
||in place of
||in place of
||classical ideal separation
|quantum ensehmble chaotic
||in place of
||ideal unit measurement repeatability ("scalarbation")
||in place of
||ideal classical negation
||in place of
||ideal Newtonian object theory
||in place of
||Aristotelian stoppable states and events as
||in place of
||ideal classical addition
and so forth...(this list appears, at YE 2004, as unbounded).
Adepts will note absence of a substitution for uncertainty.
This is a huge tell for what we are attempting to explain here.
Probability is uncertainty! Ramifications of that simple
declarative phrase are enormous! You may recall John
Forbes Nash's, "Probability is everything!" Everyone
else at Princeton ~50+ years ago thought he was crazy when he
said that. Allow us to say it a tad more profoundly:
Quantum reality is probability! (Elsewhere and prior
we have said, "Quantum reality is radically stochastic.")
"How can that be?"
Let's make a short list
of phenomena which quantum probability and heterogeneous animate
Allow us to offer an example
of probability (quantum likelihood) omnistributions as both a
monism (distribution) and then as a quantum~coherent~pluralism
What we see here is, say some quantum uncertainty shown first
as a monistic quantum likelihood distribution, and then as same
distribution as attracting a pluralism of 51 other QLOs.
Should we show latter without its monism, since our ensemble
of 51 attractors emerqs it? Let us know what you think, ohr perhaps, thingk. Also fathom how our
51 attractors are neatly ordered for graphic convenience. Imagine
them, starting from right, rotated incrementally say five degrees
each increment. Imagine them all animated, asynchronously, yet
retaining their quasi~monistic quantum physial (n¤t
And here is a QLO with each quantum point shown as a 2D fuzzon,
each of which is an ensemble attractor of ~unlimited fuzzon QLOs!
You cann¤t see it (click on graphic
to see detail; there is n¤ monistic distribution shown
for this ensemble), and this fuzzon's monism is actually absent,
since its ensemble emerqs
it. Is that better? Why?
- Are you a monism classically omnistinct
- Are you your QLOs with/without your monism?
- Are you a BAWAM of your actual ensemble and its monism?
Your ensemble and its monist emerqancy?
- Where[ings] issings your monism?
- When[ings] issings your monism?
- If you cut your finger and lose (quantum subtract) some blood,
are you still you? Why? Why not? Estimate how many QLOs are in
a gram of your blood. (Assume, swag, you are a googol
of QLOs. Assume you weigh, say 70 kilograms. Surprising, eh?)
- Can someone make a ~copy of you from your blood? (Recall
Molly, a sheep.)
- If you give (quantum subtract) one of your kidneys to save
a relative, are you still you? Why? Why not?
- How can you perform such miraculous walking, running, working,
athletic and dance physical pragma and still retain your quantum
- How can you whistle and still retain a tune's quantum physial
- How do your attractors change when you ad lib? Improvise?
Innovate? Invent? Imagine? Dream?
- What would light's monism and its color attractors look like
as we quantum~recursively recapitulate those attractors from
- What impact on quantum~phase 'resolution' does your choice
of color attractor 'increment' have? Is our question classical?
- Is light durational?
Is it analytic? Can we really analyze light?
- Does a prism 'analyze' light? Why? Why n¤t? A rainbow?
- Is a prism a quantum~c¤mputer? Your eye? Does it quantum~m¤nitor
light ihn real heter¤~tihmings?
- What are red's quantum likelihood omnistributionings? Is
red analytic? Do classicists assume red is analytic? Should they?
- Does it make any omnifferencings?
Doug - 7-8nov2004.
Classical probability theory appears to be evolving. Its ontology
might be viewed like this: purely objective, subjective,
either-or objective-subjective, both-and objective-subjective,...
We believe quantum probability theory is next.
Current quantum mechanical theory would not even exist as
it is and be incredibly viable as it is were it not for subjective
probability theory! Simply, quantum mechanics does not work without
probability theory, where less objective and more subjective
appear better! For us, this is just more evidence for
our own beliefs that quantum reality is mostly subjective and
only apparently~apparitionally objective.
What are some examples of this claim?
We offer at least two which show a trial commencement yellow
brick road Chautauqua from classical to quantum:
- classical probability is a non negative,
additive set function, with
a maximum probability value normalized to unity, and
- classical probability as a limit of relative frequency.
(See first couple of pages of Introduction, Studies in Subjective
Probability, Kyburg & Smokler.)
We call number 2 a frequentist AKA empirical view of probability.
It is quantumly comtextual, which, to a classicist, is
subjective. A logical view denies probability as empirical. A
quantum view requires probability to be empirical, explicitly
evolute empirical (due heterogeneity, animacy, EIMA, and subjectivity
of quantum reality). Logical probability demands EOOO.
Quantum empirical probability demands BAWAMings.
So we can say quantum
reality is non classically logical,
and it is both evolute
and subjective. We assert then, quantum probability theories
must be quantum real too. See wisdom,
We say, then, number 1, perceived quantumly, is subjective.
See our One is Onliest Number.
Quantum reality is n¤t negational!
It is quantum c¤mplementary!
(Re: number 1.)
Quantum reality is n¤t objectively particulate!
It is quantum wave-ic
and phase-ic! (Re:
number 2.) Also see point.
Our two classical exemplars of probability offer proto-notions
of a beginning classical re-cognition of a more quantumesque
reality. See omniscriminate.
As you study quantum science, especially if you study it here
in Quantonics, you will learn that, metaphorically, probabilities
are waves and waves are probabilities and quantum realities are
waves (we say, "quantum fluxings and isofluxings")
which can and do act (AKA pragma) as immaterial n¤nactuality,
immaterial actuality, and material actuality! Quantum reality
is quantum pr¤babilihstic!
Further, classical 'zero' and 'one' are ideal, inanimate,
immutable classical concepts. In quantum reality, classically
ideal '0' and '1' probabilities do n¤t 'exist.' Quantum
probabilities are animate, absolute flux. This looms quite profoundly
when one realizes that zeroness and oneness themselves are quantum
animate, EIMA stochasticities!
So classical probability theory has preliminarily intuited
some protoproemial quantum memeos,
just as Dr. Stein innovated
with his random walk quantum object model.
Trouble is, classical theory is mechanical and objective.
Quantum reality is neither 'mechanical'
n¤r 'objective.' To us, that means that a viable theory
of probability, a quantum theory of probability must give
up classical notions of reality.
Classical probability distributions are mechanically numeric.
Allow us to readily
classical notions of
amd quantum mæmæos ¤f
Classical probability assessment depends upon mechanical ensembles
of tautological recurrences.
ænsehmble pattærns ¤f
As an example, we can ask a question, "What is the
probability of a single, unique event?" Both classically
issi n¤ way ¤f k~n¤wing!
assessments require repetition
¤hr apparænt ræpætihti¤n ¤f pattærns.
some pattern only occurs once, (see Doug's CeodE 14Dec2008 QELR of 'occur')
it can be said to "not repeat
¤hr appæar t¤ n¤t
Let's discuss classical notions of repetition
quantum mæmæos ¤f ræpætihti¤n.
Classical reality is formal. Classicists both assume and presume
putatively that formal process repeats exactly, over and over
and over. This is their basis for experimentation, observation,
verification, and validation of classical 'laws.' It makes an
assumption that 'initial conditions' may be restored over and
over as needed to perform 'scientific' experiments.
Quantum ræhlihty issi abs¤lutæly anihmatæ, amd ihts
mihddle issi ihncludæd
any classical notions of ideal formality and
repetitive, tautological mechanicity.
classically, 'repeat identically.'
issi frahctal, s¤ ihts anihmatæ
pattærns tændings t¤ sharæ
modihca ¤f sælf~sihmihlarihty. Quantum pr¤babilihty
anihmatæ, EIMA, frahctal~ræcursi¤n
pattærns am¤ng quantum æmærgænce,
bæc¤ming, bæing, changing,
is¤bæc¤ming, is¤bæing, is¤changing, bæc¤ming... Studænts
caræfully ¤ur quantum sæmantihcs
f¤r quantum æmærgænce amd quantum bæc¤ming.
F¤rmær, ihn Quantonics
issi ¤mnihquæ, ¤ur
quantum mæans ¤f n¤vel quantum æmærgænce
(classically 'known' as a single one time 'unique
Lattær issi quantum pr¤cæssings
¤f frahctal ræcursi¤n
sælf-sihmihlarihty, which issi a quantum bæing~ihn~ahctualihty
'subqset' ¤f a m¤re gænæral
quantum ¤nt¤l¤gy. As an
quantum~æmærgæd ~50q th¤uhsamd yæars ag¤, amd they have
bææn quantum bæc¤ming since." That
a fihrst ¤ccurræncæ
¤f a Homo sapiæns sapiæns gænomæ.
H¤wævær, wæ muhst
kææp ihn ¤ur
"¤ccurræncæ" as uhsæd
t¤¤, issi a quantum pr¤cæss. Iht issi n¤t, was n¤t,
ideal classically lisrable-stoppable classical 'event.'
Quantum ¤nt¤l¤gy scalæs. Thuhs wæ
can sahy quantum æmærgænce
scalæs. A supærb ræhl~lihfe
what wæ mæan by quantum
æmærgænce issi appæarances ¤f
n¤vel n-s¤mias ¤n næarly ahll
23q paihrs ¤f
ihn ræhlihty's human
gænomæ. At a human scalæ
¤f awaræness, wæ d¤ n¤t ævæn
sænse these n-s¤mias,
yæt at cællular amd chr¤mos¤mal
lævæls ¤f awaræness, they
aræ ihndææd pr¤f¤umd!
Doug - 11May2004.
What issi m¤st
key hæræ issi a quantum
mæmæo that quantum æmærgænces,
duæ their ¤mnihquæness, d¤ n¤t
ræpeat. Why issi that
may n¤t bæ assæssed! This
issi why y¤u hæar D¤ug
issi a quanton(ihndætærminacy,only_apparænt_dætærminacy).
Oftæn y¤u wihll hæar
D¤ug ræfer this quantum
mæmæo as "radihcahlly st¤chastihc."
As you may be able to surmise, these two kinds of probability
is ideally mechanical while its
quantum anahlogue issi ræhlly
Classical probability drives out any notions of novel emergence.
It drives out notions of choice,
and change. A serious
error of classical
judgment arises here when classicists assume their quantum
mechanics can assess probability 'mechanically.'
admihts ¤f ch¤¤sings,
amd changings amd p¤tæntial f¤r
ræhl n¤vel æmærgænce
amd umpræcædænted ræhlihties. Duhring
fihrst dæcade ¤f Millænnium
III, wæ have, as yæt,
n¤ mæans ¤f ømniht¤ring
gænuine quantum pr¤babilihty.
Why? Wæ d¤ n¤t
have gænæral quantum
computers wh¤se qubihts aræ gænæral quantum
qubihts. But nature alræhdy has
amd mæ amd ahll ¤thær bi¤~'l¤gihcal' æmærqs. Nature's bi¤æmærqs
aræ quantum computers.
See our subjectiv
See our Bases of Judgment
and our What is Wrong
with Probability as Value. See our 2004 Quantum
Reality Loop Generation III.
See our recent Quantonics' How
Classicists View Reality.
Page top index.