'rational'
'rationale'

In Other Languages: Arabic (old) - Chinese - Deutch - French - Greek - Hebrew - Japanese - Italian - Latin - Portuguese - Russian - Spanish - Swedish - Swiss -

Etymology: "Before 1398,..., meaning able to reason,..." See Barnhart's Dictionary of Etymology.

Synonyms - classical:

• analytic,
• cerebral,
• logic,
• ratiocimetric,
• reason,
• thought,
• etc.

Synonyms - quantum:

• coquecigrues,
• quantum~stagic,
• think_q~king,
• enthymemetic,
• etc.

Classical assess: stability independence excluded-middle EOOOness H5Wness lisrability causation certainty EEMDivity observation : Rational, rationale, ratiocinate, ratiocination, ratio, etc.

Rational usually means classical patterns of thought which adhere objective, substantial, material, physical Aristotelian syllogisms.

Rational means we can reason, syllogistically ratiocinate (measure by comparison) assess physical reality through state-ic measurement principles whose essence is in classical indefinables mass, length, and time. You may wish to add gravity (though bogus, as Einsteinian acceleration) to that list.

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : No existing classical words (of which Doug is aware, though enthymeme comes close,) carry a quantum semantic for 'rational.' We can just remediate like this, rati¤nal, rati¤nale, etc.

An immediate query arises when we compare classical CTMs and quantum QTMs, and one of you asked this: "Is rational the same as logical?"

Classically, "Yes." Quantumly "N¤."

Why? Classical reality is innately (by human 'design') logical. Quantum reality is n¤t in any classical sense 'logical.' Quantum~logic (an oxymoron) is, rather, coquecigrues.

Doug has prepared a detail comparison list of classical and quantum logic at our coquecigrues link in next left column.

Doug - 8May2007.

Page top index.

 'reality'

In Other Languages: Arabic (old) - Chinese - Deutsch - French - Greek - Hebrew - Japanese - Italian - Latin - Portuguese - Russian - Spanish - Swedish - Swiss -

Synonyms - classical:

• being actual
• being true, truth
• exists objectively
• exists factually
• exists materially
• exists substantially
• concrete existence
• absolute truth as:
  • always states truth (consistent)
  • states all truths (complete)
• etc.

Synonyms - quantum:

• emergent change
• qualitative evolution
• subjective affectation of animate Value
• Dynamic Quality (Pirsig)
• absolute change as:
  • always changes (consistent)
  • changes all (complete)
• etc.

Etymology - classical:

"reality n. 1550, from Middle French réalité, and directly from Medieval Latin realitas, from Late Latin realis real..." See Barnhart.

Reality is humans' and probably all multiversal sentients' greatest enigma!

A human attempting to offer exegetic and exoteric descriptions of reality is incredibly more omnifficult to imagine, let alone accomplish, than an ant attempting to explain to his herd what a human is.

It appears that our exegetics and exoterics are limited to incremental, yet naturally moral, progress of explanatory and descriptive OEDC(apparent_accretionings)... Human genetic evolution (e.g. N-somias replacing~accreting bi-somias in lieu of many chromosome pairs) and human cellular(self_resurrection,self_euthanasia) are superb natural exemplars here.

And so, that is what we do, that is what we are doing...trying our level best to be in quantum processings of better descriptionings of our personal heuristics and hermeneutics of reality.

We perceive at least three kinds of Earth chauvinistic, human contrived interrogatory notions, memes, and memeos of reality, all from mostly Western (occidental) cultural perspectives and conspectives:

1. What is reality? Define reality!
2. What is classical reality? Define classical reality!
3. What is quantum reality? Describe quantum reality!

Number one we answer too simply with our ant vis-à-vis human and human vis-à-vis reality metaphors.

Two and three we answer using Quantonics' now fecund QELR approach...

Doug - 27Mar2005.

Classical assess: stability independence excluded-middle EOOOness H5Wness lisrability causation certainty EEMDivity observation : Real, reality, etc.

What is classical reality? Simply, what is classical reality?

Classical reality is a closed, inanimate-stable, analytic, dialectical (objective), continuous, concrete, determinate (causal-effective, a posteriori), homogeneous, oppositional (EOOO, contradictory), bivalent, locus specific, quantitative, interactive, other-referent, EEMD, posentropic reality.

Classicists, SOMites, nearly all folk of Western culture at Millennium III's commencement believe that reality may be correctly and ontologically defined as Aristotelian, Thomist, Cartesian, Newtonian, and Einsteinian. We offer a list of classical words those folk used to define their interpretations of classical reality, in increasing order of classical reality assessment capability:

1. stable (Bergson's first classical delusion)
2. independent (Bergson's second classical delusion)
3. oppositive (depends upon first two delusions)
4. contradictory (depends upon third delusion)
5. falsifiable (depends upon fourth delusion)
6. capable of proof assessment (requires falsifiability; even classical thing-king views 'proof assessment' as problematic and thus 'proof capability' can only garner provisional assessment of proof)
7. veritable, true (requires 'proof')
8. capable of provability of 'truth' (Kurt Gödel's metanotion of proof; a quasi transcension into viable descriptions of quantum reality)

Students of Quantonics recognize that list as SOM's Bases of Judgment with Gödel's meta statement of provability tagged on.

There is a huge list of classical assumptions which attend that basal set of judgments, and our English language is built almost entirely on a pretext that those classical assumptions are correct — classical beliefs about classical reality include notions that reality is:

• classically notional, semiotic
• classically putative, assumptive, presumptive, suppositive, axiomatic, propositional, tautological, etc.
• classically reasonable, rational, logical, and technological
• classically mechanical, methodic, y=f(t) motional, and formal
• classically ideally negational
• classically reversible as both y=f(t), and y=f(-t)
• classically capable of ideal notions of empty, null, naught, void, etc.
• classically dialectical, dichotomous, dichonic, Ockhamistic, and ideally either-one-or-the-other
• classically analytic, and analytical, inductive, and deductive
• classically measurable, and viewable; see our QQA on measurement
• classically spatial, extensible, numerable, and space-proxied unitemporal
• classically manufacturable, reproducible, repeatable, ideally cyclic, and synthetic
• classically true, and classical truth, classically veritable, verifiable, and valid
• classically absolute: always states the truth (classically consistent) and states all truths (classically complete)
• classically objective, substantial, and material
• classically and unambiguously, ideally pointlike
• classically judgmental (see our list of SOM's Bases of Judgment above)
• classically stoppable, state-ic, event-ic, inanimate, immutable
• classically lisrable
• classically local, no action at a distance allowed, force-interactively-associative
• classically identical, and identifiable (Aristotle's sillygism 1)
• classically negatable (Aristotle's sillygism 2)
• classically middle-excluded (Aristotle's sillygism 3)
• classically 1-1 correspondent (directly contradicts classical assessment capability number 2 above, and Aristotle's sillygisms)
• classically causal-effective (directly contradicts classical assessment capability number 2 above, and Aristotle's sillygisms)
• classically J. C. Maxwellian posentropic only (directly contradicts classical assessment capability number 2 above, and Aristotle's sillygisms)
• classically certain, predictable, and determinate
• classically conservative, closed, Maxwellian-posentropic
• classically homogeneous
• classically convenient, and conventional (singular, one size, one context, one actuality, one time, one radical beginning, one radical ending, one Theory of Everything, one Grand Unifying Theory, one truth fits all) See our SOM Connection. See our Aristotle Connection.
• classically, arbitrarily and infinitely, divisible (a classical, infinitely divisible, SOMitic-but-not-CRitic, monism)
• etc.

That list when fully 'extended' represents a fairly comprehensive 'definition' of classical reality.

Cultural relativists define reality as essentially heterogeneous interpretations of our above lists. See our MoQ, CR, & SOM comparison table.

Doug - 27Mar2005.

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : Ræhl, ræhlihty, etc.

What is quantum reality? Simply, what is quantum reality?

Quantum reality is an open, animate, quantal, flux~essential, stochastic (QLOistic), rhetorical (sophist), affectional (selective CH³, evolutionary), heterogeneous, non negative (BAWAM, affirmative), loci~arbitrary~superpositional, qualitative, phasistic, self~referent, REIMAR, mix~entropic, mix~coherent reality.

Quantumists, MoQites, and a few folk of quantum persuasions at Millennium III's commencement believe that reality may be hermeneutically and ontologically described as Heraclitean, Hamannian, Jamesian, Bergsonian, Bohmian, Capraean, Pirsigean, Bentovian, Zoharian, Mae-wan Hoean, and Zukavian. We offer a list of classical words those folk use(d) to describe their hermeneutics of quantum reality, in increasing order of quantum reality descriptive~metaphorical capabilities:

1. quantum absolute animacy
2. quantum quantons in quantum reality have arbitrary spatial, temporal (students, please open this link to fathom deeper quantum hermeneutics of a posteriori and a priori quantum~temporalisms below), energy~material, gravitational, sensorial, etc. quantum likelihood omnistributions
3. quantum~positive (quantum reality is probabilistic~likelihoodistic; all stochastics are non negative quantum metaphors)
4. quantum~complementary
5. quantum~uncertainty
6. REIMARings descriptionings
7. quantum~sophist rhetoric, pragmalogic, and coquecigrues
8. Absoluteness as quantum uncertainty (Kurt Gödel's metanotion of proof; a quasi transcension into viable descriptions of quantum reality)
9. a posteriorai probability (proemial memes of quantum entropa and quantum cohera lurk here)
10. a iamai plausibility (plausibility is what we mean by "nowistic stochastics;" plausibility assesses nowings' affectations with nuance influence from pastings' affectations plus expectations of futurings' potential affectations - Doug - 6Jun2006.)
11. a priorai likelihood (proemial memes of quantum entropa and quantum cohera lurk here) (Just a reminder: ai suffixes on Latin temporalities are intended as linguistic participlings. Doug - 27Jan2007.)
12. Static Good - Physial uncertain quantum recursive persistency born of and mediated by Dynamic Good
13. Dynamic Good - Physial absolute quantum flux; see QTM
14. Emergent Good - Physial novel emerscenture, Requires emerscent linguistics, requires acceptance of quantum evolution as real

Students of Quantonics recognize that list as Quantonics' version of quantum reality's Bases of Judgment subsuming quantum metaphors of Gödel's meta statement of provability with Quantonics' version of quantum analogues of SOM's Bases of Judgment tagged on.

Thæræ issi a huge list ¤f quantum~ihnterrelati¤nship~attrahct¤rs which c¤ihnsihde that æmærqant wavæ ¤f jihudgmænts, amd — quantum bæliæfs ab¤ut quantum ræhlihty mihddle~ihncludæ mæmæs that ræhlihty issi:

• quantumly mæmætihc, mæmæ¤tihc
• quantumly ræcursihve, ræcapihtulatihvæ, ændless bættærings
• quantumly c¤quæcihgruæs wihth quant¤l¤gy
• quantumly n¤nmæchanihcal, bi¤n¤nihc, anihmatæ æmærqancy
• quantumly p¤sihtihvæ
• quantumly æntr¤pihc
  • p¤sæntr¤py (quantum n¤nræværsible)
  • zær¤æntr¤py (quantum ræværsible)
  • nægæntr¤py (quantum is¤ræværsible)
  • mihxæntr¤py (mihxtures ¤f ahll kinds ¤f quantum æntr¤pa)
• quantumly capablæ ¤f n¤næmpty mæmæs ¤f quantum ræhlihty
• quantumly quantonic b¤th~ahll~while~amd~many
• quantumly æv¤lutæ, æmærscænturing pr¤babilistihc~n¤wistihc~lihkælih¤¤dihstihc (problems here with inverse QELR of 'likelihoodistic;' 'di' QELRs as 'omni;' that's bad; needs work!)
• quantumly moniht¤rable, amd c¤¤bsfæcting
• quantumly l¤ci ambigu¤us, n¤mærable, amd flux-pr¤xied heter¤tehmp¤ral
• quantumly æmærscænturable, æmærscing, æmærscænturing, æmærscihtecting
• quantumly umcærtain, (and from any classical conspective-) -pærværse, -equihv¤cal, -prævarihcatihvæ (Feynman said, "absurd")
• quantumly abs¤lutæ: ahlways changæs (quantumly comsistænt) amd changæs ahll (quantumly c¤mplæte)
• quantumly sub_qjæctihvæ, qualihtatihvæ, amd fluxing; sææ subjectiv, subjective, quality
• quantumly fuzz¤nihc
• quantumly valuati¤nal (sææ ¤ur list ¤f Quantonic's Basæs ¤f Jihudgmænt ab¤ve)
• quantumly umst¤ppable, dynamihc, pr¤cæss æv¤luti¤n
• quantumly n¤nlisrable
• quantumly l¤cal, ahcti¤n at any ¤mnistancings mamdatæd, æværywhere~ihncludæd~mihddle~wavæ~st¤chastihc-ass¤ciatihve
• quantumly n¤nihdæntihcal
• quantumly n¤nnægatable
• quantumly mihddle-ihncludæd
• quantumly c¤herænt, quantum c¤herænce, at læast:
  • dæc¤herænt (quantum fermi¤nihc tæntatihvæ amd præfæræntial ahctualihty; sææ isot amd isop)
  • c¤herænt (quantum b¤s¤nihc tæntatihvæ amd præfæræntial ahctualihty)
  • is¤c¤herænt (quantum is¤nihc n¤npræfæræntial n¤nahctualihty; sææ ison)
  • mihxc¤herænt (mihxtures ¤f ahll kinds ¤f quantum c¤hera)
• quantumly entropic, at least:
  • posentropic (quantum fermi¤nihc tæntatihvæ amd præfæræntial ahctualihty
  • zeroentropic (quantum b¤s¤nihc tæntatihvæ amd præfæræntial ahctualihty)
  • negentropic (quantum is¤nihc n¤npræfæræntial n¤nahctualihty
  • mihxentropic (mihxtures ¤f ahll kinds ¤f quantum entropa)
• quantumly affæctati¤nal
• quantumly ænsehmble umcærtainty, st¤chastihcihty
• quantumly æmærgænt, ¤pæn
• quantumly heterogæne¤us
• quantumly plural, heuristihc, hermæneutihc
• quantumly ihndihvisible (due quantum~coherence, arbihtrary quanton(is¤spathial,spathial) peaqlos, amd quantum~ihncludæd~mihddle) anihmatæ EIMA pluralism
• etc.

That list when fully æv¤lved amd æmærgæd ræpresænts a fairly c¤mprehænsihve dæscrihpti¤n ¤f quantum ræhlihty.

Doug - 27Mar2005.

Quantonics Description of Reality, QELRed Paraphrased from Errol E. Harris' Description

Quantonics Description of Reality, unQELRed Paraphrased from Errol E. Harris' Description

"Ihn Quantum scihænce, spacæ, tihmæ amd mattær aræ each manihfestati¤ns ¤f quantum is¤flux amd quantum ræhlihty issi ænvisagæd as quantons ihmmærsed ihn a quantum æmærgænt~dæmærgænt c¤mplæmænt ¤f b¤th n¤nahctualihty amd ahctualihty. Iht issi æssæntiahlly a Quantonic anihmati¤n, ihnnovatæd by th¤se wh¤ sharæ mæmæs amd mæmæ¤tihcs ihn a quantum kabal. Space, time, mass, temperature and all classical measurables ahll bæc¤mæ, ihn quantum ræhlihty, sihmple manihfestati¤ns ¤f quantum flux, ihts c¤hera, amd ihts æntr¤pa. Classical matter, extensity and change pærcæihved quantumly aræ sihmply flux. Quantum ræhlihty issi b¤th n¤nahctualihty amd ihts quantum c¤mplæmænt ahctualihty. N¤nahctualihty issi is¤flux which can manihfest as pr¤t¤ fuzz¤ns. Fuzz¤ns aræ partiahlly æmærscænt anihmatæ EIMA quantonic ihnterrelati¤nships ¤f quantum lihkælih¤¤d ¤mnistrihbuti¤ns which surr¤umd tæntatihvæ is¤flux attrahct¤rs ihn n¤nahctualihty. Tæntatihvæ fuzz¤ns straddqle quantum n¤nahctualihty amd ahctualihty amd bæc¤mæ amd æv¤lve quantons whæn they pr¤t¤~latch n¤velties amd gr¤w~latch ihncræmæntal changæs basæd ¤n their pr¤t¤ quanton attrahct¤r(s). "Quantum ræhlihty via ihts anihmatæ EIMA hætær¤gæneihties eliminatæs any classical notions of paradice."

"In Quantum science, space, time and matter are each manifestations of quantum isoflux and quantum reality is envisaged as quantons immersed in a quantum emergent~demergent complement of both nonactuality and actuality. It is essentially a Quantonic animation, innovated by those who share memes and semiotics in a quantum kabal. Space, time, mass, temperature and all classical measurables all become, in quantum reality, simple manifestations of quantum flux, its cohera, and its entropa. Classical matter, extensity and change perceived quantumly are simply flux. Quantum reality is both nonactuality and its quantum complement actuality. Nonactuality is isoflux which can manifest as proto fuzzons. Fuzzons are partially emerscent animate EIMA quantonic interrelationships of quantum likelihood distributions which surround tentative isoflux attractors in nonactuality. Tentative fuzzons straddle quantum nonactuality and actuality and become and evolve quantons when they proto~latch novelties and grow~latch incremental changes based on their proto quanton attractor(s). "Quantum reality via its animate EIMA heterogeneities eliminates any classical notions of paradice. See isoflux, quanton, OEDC, simplicity, cohera, entropa, percept, perspect, Quantum Essence, fuzzon, emerscent, EIMA, QLO, isot, Quantonics' Reality Map & Loop Generations I, II, III, and Loops MoQ I, and MoQ II, etc. Quantonics' reality descriptions added 23May2005 - Doug.

Page top index.

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'reason' and remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'reas¤n,' and 'reas¤nings.'

Classical reason is analytical. Classical reason tends to generally apply positive-dialectic and -formal logic and -formal logics' concomitants: temporal and spatial stoppability with objective independence — in its 'reasoning' methods.

Classical positive (aka societal) reason is necessary to groups and individuals who wish to control other individuals, groups, organizations, societies, and nature. Without positive reason, "one loses control."

"Might it not be true, perhaps,
that [classical] reason, the supposed liberator of the human mind, is no
more than the repository of ancient prejudices and habits of mind that
have no general validity whatever?"
by Henry D. Aiken,
The Age of Ideology,
pp. 20-21, 1962 ed., Mentor
(paperback, total 283 pages).
(Our brackets.)

Quantum philosophy answers, "Yes."
Emphatically, "Yes!"

Ihn Quantonics wæ bælieve there aræ many kinds ¤f physial reas¤nings. All aræ changings. Our vihew issi that, quantum c¤mtextually, ensehmbles ¤f kinds ¤f reas¤nings may bæ ~st¤chastihcally

assessed b¤th quantum l¤cally amd quantum n¤nl¤cally ahs bætterings. One kind which wæ pr¤m¤te issi 'quantum reas¤nings.' Quantum (Quantonics' versi¤n ¤f quantum, i.e., more qualitative, both quantitative and qualitative, more subjective, more sophist and rhetorical) reas¤nings ihnfuse amd emerq m¤re subjectihve amd hermeneutic quantum memes. Examples aræ quantum~: ihncluded~mihddle, abs¤lute changæ anihmacy, everywhere~ass¤ciativity, n¤nl¤calability, n¤nis¤lability, n¤nseparability, n¤nreducibility (see lisr), n¤nc¤mmutativity, n¤ndistributivity, n¤nfact¤rizability, superlumihnality, superfluihdity, supergravihty, c¤herence, ihslandicity, amd s¤ ¤n... (FYE: quantum reas¤nings ehmbrace n¤ti¤ns ¤f EIMA.)

See Bergson and Zeno on classical reason's notions of stoppability and independence. Also see our Prereview Comments to Bergson's Creative Evolution.

See logical positivism. Search internet for comparisons among societal "positive law" and more quantum "natural law."

Page top index.

'rectify'
'rectification'

We are deferring quantum~comtextual QELR of this text for 30-60 days to allow newbies to, we believe more easily, read its partially classicalese.

In Other Languages: Arabic (old) - Chinese - Deutsch - French - Greek - Hebrew - Japanese - Italian - Latin - Portuguese - Russian - Spanish - Swedish - Swiss -

Synonyms:

• make 'right' (classical)
• make 'correct' (classical)
• distill (classical)
• cleanse (classical)
• conversion (~quantum)
• change (~quantum better)
• emergence (~quantum)
• evolution (~quantum)
• etc.

Etymology:

"rectify...1392...rectification...before 1400..." Essentially from Latin 'rect' which means 'right.' Classical absolutist notions of 'right' represent 'ideals' and 'concepts' which Pirsig despises as absolute, DQless 'virtue.' See Barnhart.

This QELR requires much effort... As of 28Mar2005 it is still in its infancy, but weighing its importance, we are publishing it for your study, as is...tentatively in light blue background... Doug.

Classical assess: stability independence excluded-middle EOOOness H5Wness lisrability causation certainty EEMDivity observation : Rectify, rectification, etc.

Classical rectification requires objectivity, analyticity, determinacy, etc.

Given that, if you are familiar with Edison vis-à-vis Tesla re: DC power and AC power...

Electrical engineers, even given their mostly classical thus objective predilections, have some extraordinary quantum metaphors in their methods of signal and power rectification. If we pay attention to their work and QTM~adjust our hermeneutics, heuristics and memeotics of their work, we can see novel Quantum Lightings. We need to use just a little classical math here to help explain our gist:

An_AC_Signal can-be-expressed-transversely-as sin(t). Our use of explicates and adjusts frequency and our use of t spreads frequency 'clock-like' over classical uni-time. One wavelength of sin(t) looks, a transverse dichon(1T, 2D), like this:

Here are four transverse (a state-ic 1Time, 2Dimension-Flatland) cycles of it which we shall use to demonstrate half- and full-wave rectification, graphically.

It is omnifficult; however, try to imagine our waves here as quantum~animate, EIMA, omniversal, quanton(NT,ND) peaqlos. Now compare how MoQites monitor it vis-à-vis how SOMites dichons(1T, 2-3D) 'measure' it.

Quantum hermeneutics of that picture vastly omniffer classical interpretations, e.g.,

• Classically amplitude matters, but quantumly rate matters while amplitude is irrelevant.
• Classically 'state' matters, but absolute quantum~emerscent~change matters while classical 'state' (an illusion of classical stability) is irrelevant.
• Classical absolutely certain metrication and ratiocination of 'zero' and any 'number' matters while quantum uncertainty of zer¤ and any n¤mbær is relevant.
• Classical Aristotelian tautological idealization of 'identity' matters, but quantum impossibility of 'identity' is relevant.
• Classically negation is real, analytic, dialectical, and objective, but quantumly~stochastic~absence~of~negation matters while classically ideal tautologous negation is irrelevant (see aside). Similarly, we can list countless comparisons of classical interpretation vis-à-vis quantum hermeneutics.
• Etc. (See our Jammer table and Jammer list for more.)

Important aside:

See de Finetti's remarks on "what probability is," and most relevantly it is positive; keep this positive, i.e., n¤nnegative, aspect of quantum reality firmly embedded in your quantum stages as we proceed. Notice that our classical sine wave above assumes 'zero exists' and that sine can be positive, then negative, then positive, etc. Do real quantum waves alternate positively and negatively? Physically, H5W is nature's 'zero' reference? Hmmm...? Perhaps quantum waves are all positive and quantum relative?

A further clarification here: social positivism is classical consensus. Consensus relies on classical notions of truth (recall how classical 'science' is about what is true and 'classical philosophy,' antithetical its own appellation, is about 'truth') based upon proof based upon falsifiability based upon contradiction based upon negation based upon objective independence based upon stability. Quantum probability as quantum positive refutes all of those classical notions as n¤n~quantum~real. See our 2004 Bases of Judgment.

end aside.

But there is some, though slight, quantum essence, if we QTM~look for it, even in a more naïve classical conspective. A good example here is how we mathematically represent our graphic.

One way is as we have shown it: sin(t). Even though mathematics claims for itself "context freeness," it expresses, solipsistically, heterogeneous interpretations (maths too, heterogeneously, like Kuhn's scientific paradigms, cann¤t help but be, due their insistence on SOM Bases of Judgment, contextually schizophrenic), a possibly greatest example being Euclid vis-à-vis Riemann.

Another is Asin(t), which classically (non-quantumly) adjusts our signal's quantumly~irrelevant amplitude. Thingk about that. Think about that...

Another is sin(t)±C, which (if we visualize classical spatial axes of ordinate as signal vertical locus...) offsets our signal on our axes' ordinate (...and with time, t, horizontal as our classical spatial axes' abscissa), and time, t, spreading our signal spatially. Ummm..., let's see now, where is that wave? It's locus is spatially arbitrary? How can that be 'true?' (Banesh Hoffmann cogently asked,) "How can we classically measure it at a point?" (Henri Louis Bergson presciently asked,) "How can we measure an animate process at a point?" And we can infer from Bergson, "If negation is subjective, what do 'negative' cycles of a sine wave really mean? Do they 'exist?' Mayhaps classical dialectic deludely manufactures them!" Quantonics versions of quantum philosophy and quantum n¤nscience say, "Hoffmann and Bergson offer better viewings of reality than do 'classical philosophy' and 'science.'"

In our latter case, if t didn't change, we would see a vertical bar and perhaps see slight bar intensity changes (perhaps probabilistically darker, denser-slower change, on ends, lighter, less-dense-more-rapid change, in middle) as our signal goes up and down.

Now key query: "If our signal is sin(t) or Asin(t), but not sin(t)±C, what is its average classical power-energy?" Look at our four cycles above.

This answer is classically notion-simple. But when we look at our classical 'problem' quantumly, using quantonics' QTMs, we see some rather incredible memes.

Classically, without any C offset, our signal appears on our axes' abscissa varying ordinately 'positively' and 'negatively.' If we integrate our signal classically, we have a classical 'zero' result (like velocity of a bike perigrinating a 'circle'). Notice how classicists do not view this type of integration as any violation of temporal context. Why? Classically, there is only one 'time,' and, it, like our signal is state-ically 'transverse.'

What is important, in our view and metaphorically, is that classicists' notions of ideal classical objective 'positive' and 'negative' applied in our example show that average energy 'nonexists' in this case, yet we still 'know' that energy is present as flux. Our TV and radio signals compenetrate our beings and we assume 'nonexistence' of them until we see and hear their 'rectified' projections in and on our radios and TVs! They aren't there, yet they are there!!! Quanton(n¤t_there,there), not dichon(not_there, there)!!!

Further, in order for classicists to extract power from our signal, they have to rectify it. (Details of this are nontrivial, but essentially half-wave rectification wipes out negative half cycles of our signal leaving a net positive power result. Full wave rectification inverts negative half cycles (our signal now looks like a bouncing ball) and extracts more power from them.) Here is our four cycle wave half-wave-rectified, graphically:

Here it is full-wave-rectified:

Essence: power hides even in (some) classically ideal-zero-offset signals. To see that power and use it we have to rectify it. These two sentences offer a rather deep classical metaphor of quantum reality! Recall how Heraclitus said, "Nature loves to hide." And Pirsig said SQ frets~latches hidden, hiding, cloaked DQ.

Do you perceive any other subtleties here? Let's make a list of perhaps more obvious ones:

• classical half-wave rectification retains a pulse-width-modulated 'frequency' and divides 'peak-to-peak amplitude' by roughly two to four,
• classical full-wave rectification doubles 'frequency' and divides 'peak-to-peak amplitude' by roughly two,
• classical probability densities vary approximately with types of rectification,
• classical Aristotelian, Newtonian, Einsteinian analysis insists that our doubled frequency must 'certainly,' in a stoppable, zero momentum reference frame (i.e., our 2D graphic), reverse 'direction' at a classical point in zero classical unitime, (Is this related to our quantum pendulum study? Click our yellow update box there. H5W? Is it important? Why?)
• etc.

If you are a reasonably adept student of Quantonics our metaphor should hit you like a bolt of Pirsigean lightning about now.

You should be able to see vividly now what our Planck quanton shows! Bosons are 'rectified' quantum isoflux: isoflux contrarotation rectified into unichiral, integer-spin rotation! Fermions are (using Quantonics' QTM hermeneutics and heuristics) spin one-half, pendulus, Möbius rectifications of unichiral boson pairs (See our 2005 fermionta.). Of course zero-spin chiralty free 'isotons' appear also. See quantum spin emergence. Latter may need some clarification after our work here. Broad brush it shows a QCD TBCSUD quark ontology in novel Quantonics' Lightings.

Recall that 9Jan2000, when we first created that animation above, we admitted that we did not know how to graphically show Nature's rudimentary perpetual motion bosons and fermions. But just now, we do know, we are k~nowings aren't we? What is wrong with our animation?

But keep in mind that our work here is still and yet classical. We are only discovering how even classical notions have quantum tells when we put those notions under scrutiny of QTMs and transmogrify them into quantum memeos.

Our half- and full-wave rectification examples show DQ-zero offset signals rectified and SQ-latched as ~direct current (DC) power. DC emerging from alternating current (AC) is a classical metaphor of quantum emergence! A quantum tell! (A very similar metaphor arises when we compare classical signal modulation and demodulation 'techniques.')

To say it more quantumesquely, "Apparently hidden power emerges from zero offset signals when we rectify them." That sentence is a metaphor of quantum emergence! It is a metaphor of our saying, "Bosons and fermions emerge from quantum isoflux when we quantum~rectify it!"

Let's keep using classical notions to evoke some more quantum philosophical memeos, OK?

Let's make a list of classical notions and their comparative quantum memeos:

Classical Notions	vis-à-vis	Quantum Memeos
Positive as objective opposite of negative		See our QELRs of negative, object, opposite, positive.
Negative as objective opposite of positive		Ditto.
Rectification as mechanical, objective change
Rectification as frequency division & doubling
Zero offset sine wave as 'zero' average power
Average power as area under a transverse wave		Quantum energy AKA 'power' is flux rate.
Signal amplitude as a power proxy		Quantum flux rate is a power analogue.
Signal time as a space proxy		Quantum timings and spacings, quantum gravityings and energyings, etc., are all symptoms of quantum flux. Fermionic wobble (spin 1/2 flux) emerqs what classicists refer as 'space.' Classical 'time' has no analogue in quantum reality since quantum timings emerq phenomena of EIMAings, superluminalityings, actionings at omnistancings, acausalityings, entanglementings, interferencings, holographicityings, adiabaticityings, cohera, entropa, etc.
Nonconceptual		Very high flux rates as essential quantum adiabaticity, zeroentropy
Nonconceptual		Quantum isoflux as ideal isoadiabaticity, negentropy
Nonconceptual		Quantum isoflux as contrarotationally hidden
		Quantum isoflux rate (wave number) as energy proxy
		Quantum~rectified isoflux as space, time, mass-energy, & gravity proxies
		Quantum~rectification manifests at least as quantum modalities of wave~probability~likelihood rectification: self-self-interference via nonlinear entanglings agencies self-other-interference via nonlinear entanglings agencies other-other interference via nonlinear entanglings agencies self-self-noninterference absent nonlinear entanglings agencies self-other noninterference absent nonlinear entanglings agencies other-other noninterference absent nonlinear entanglings agencies etc. Colloquial 'rectifiers' (usually, again colloquially, 'diodes') are "nonlinear entanglings agencies." However, there are countless others, including: mitochondrial DNA, meiosis, human growth via exponential (base 2) cell multiplication, prisms, beam splitters, diffraction gratings, QCD fermionta, lasers, candle flames, black holes (inverse rectification, a Doug heuristic), and so on.
Etc.		Etc.

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : Rectify, rectification, etc.

Page top index.

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'recursion' and remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'recursi¤n.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'recursion.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'recursi¤n.'

Classical recursion assumes reality is stable and objects in reality are independent. Classical recursion further assumes reality is inanimate/stoppable, excluded-middle, analytic, etc.

Recursion requires self reference. Can an object refer itself? How would a classical object refer itself? If an object is axiomatically independent from other objects, their middles (said object and others') are, by Aristotelian syllogistics excluded. But is an object middle-excluded from itself? A dialectical logician will say "That's nonsense!" Why? A is A! But it is dialectically nonsense to say that A is in A. Classical 'logic' cannot even begin to talk about real issues in quantum reality. But guess what? Mathematicians go ahead and write A is f(A), which is mechanical self-reference. How can they do that? By assuming that A on left of A=A is an analogue of A on right side of A=A. They break an axiom of independence. "For convenience." They do this when they write equations too. Some people call it "elegance." Why do mathematicians do this? To allow, mechanically, and formally, and dialectically an object to "gain access" (via objective 'indirection') to its own 'properties.' They call it "assignment." You can put an object in a temporary holder and 'operate' objectively upon it. But what if A is durationally changing? What if A is not contextually nor temporally stable? Can you put it in a temporary holder? Can you stop it? Why do not mathematicians assume that a temporary holder for A is "not A?" Isn't "A is not Temporary_A" dialectically true? This is only one of countless ways in which mathematics breaks its own 'rules' for convenience while sweeping issues we address here, conveniently, under a carpet. If you want more like this to read, for example, see Davis and Hersh's The Mathematical Experience and Simon Singh's Fermat's Enigma. Why do mathematicians do this? It has utility. It's spit and bailing twine to make their mechanical 'systems' work. But it isn't real. Why? Can we put you, classically, in a temporary holder which isn't you but is axiomatically independent of you? We'd like to see that one... All of this is part of an exegesis of why a dialectical, mechanical, Aristotelian 'A' simply has no means of self-reference, so if it really cannot self-refer, it cannot really recurse. There are countless philosophical issues here, like "can an object, A, see itself, and does A only see other, and does B affect A's affecting B?" Then ask "when?" Then ask "where?" Then ask "how?" Then ask "who?" Then ask "what?" Then ask "why?" Lots of problems, beau coup problems! Next step? Ask "H5Wings?" So formal computers are actually modeling 'objects' which are unreal. Why? In said computer A can be in any number of 'places' (temporary holders) simultaneously. In classical reality that is canonically "impossible." Most 'di' stinguish this situation as "logical" versus "physical." But you never hear them say that their 'logic' is invalid (using dialectic we have to conclude that 'logical' is opposite 'physical' do we not? mathematically, that, friend, is a dialectical contradiction), do you? We can go on and on... Doug - 30-31May2006.

Quantum recursi¤n assumes reality is anihmatæ and quantons in reality have quantum c¤mplementary, included-middle, unstoppable interrelationshipings.

Quantum reality is recursive! How? Quantum reality's: isoflux flux phlux isophlux isons, isobs, isoVs, isots, isops, etc. attractors isofuzzons fuzzons parthenoflux quantons waves peaqlos QLOs etc. all meet our quantum recursion generalities shown just above: animacy c¤mplementarity middle~inclusion everywhere~ass¤ciativity c¤¤bsfection c¤herent aut¤n¤my (A is both A and not A: a laser beam can be 'ihn' glass while glass issi ihn a laser beam yet both are quantum~autonomous one another; magnetic domains are ihn steel and steel issi ihn magnetic domains; polarized (c¤herent) wave energy issi ihn tsunamis and tsunamis are ihn polarized energy...) we also call this coinsidence, compenetration, interfusion, copermeability, interpenetration, and so on... etc. Quantum reality measures (issi quantum~monitoring) herself, ubiquitously, always. We are describing an absolutely animate, omnimensional quantum~hologram. Doug - 30-31May2006.

For application, and descriptions of relative importances of these terms, see our 7Jun2002 Möbius 3-Primæ Fermion.

See our Quantum Fractals.

See addition, differentiation, division, integration, multiplication, square, square root, and subtraction.

Page top index.

Classical problematics: analyticity, radically mechanical reducibility, ideal quantitative decrease in amount and size, lisr, etc., via mechanical subraction, division, cutting, severing, scalpeling etc. Implies its ideal classical 'opposite.'

Quantonics currently ¤ffers n¤ quantum 'analog of classical reduction,' except our weak brethren called: quantum divisi¤n-dihvihdæ, ¤mnifference, mihnus amd a special case ¤f quantum squaræ r¤¤t. But they are so unlike classical reduction as to be useless in comparison.

Quantum reality issi n¤n 'reducible' in any classical sense. (Another major SOM-blindfolded quantum meme.)

Aside - 8Oct2005 - Doug:

A terrific example of our last sentence, which appears 'classically normative,' is a hologram. One may n¤t 'classically reduce' a hologram's projection by cutting part of said hologram's holograph away.

All of quantum reality is just like that holograph and its hologram: irreducible in any 'classical' sense.

Why? Every quantum~phase~encoding of any holograph quantum REIMARs all other quantum~phase~encodings of that holograph.

Quantum~reducibility here, then, appears only as loss of hologram resolution due loss of some, perhaps most, of its holograph.

We see how quantons are much more survivable than dichons.

Doug - 8&31Oct2005.

End aside.

Mae-wan Ho describes classical reality, mimicking Bergson's words, "An infinitely divisible quantitative homogeneity." Her explicit and Bergson's implicit uses of "infinitely divisible" are classical reduction. They are what mathematicians mean by continuity, a continuity which may be cut up (reduced) into arbitrarily smaller and smaller axiomatically independent 'numbers,' 'scalars,' 'pieces,' 'parts,' and 'particles:' classical 'objects.'

Mae-wan Ho describes quantum reality, again by paraphrasing Bergson, "An indivisible qualitative heterogeneity." By "indivisible," Bergson means literally "objects in reality are not classically independent of one another." He also observes how that statement imposes hermeneutic subjectivity upon all non classical, (quantum-) real applications of 'not.'

Astute readers will note that Doug is guilty here of bending Mae-wan's words to our Quantonics advantage. Her actual remarks are about Bergson's notions of qualitative heterogeneous tihmings. But tihmings in a real sense are essence, quintessence of quantum reality! So we unabashedly, shamelessly bend her words...and we are immensely grateful for them...

Before we proceed, let's discuss 'duction.' Induction, deduction, reduction, production, reproduction, and so on... 'Duct' carries an innate d-cut. 'Duct' is like a classical Pirsigean knife. SOM's knife of axiomatic independence. SOM's knife of lisr. SOM's knife of Aristotle's identity, contradiction, and excluded-middle syllogisms. 'Duct' is d' cut which begs and belies predication. How does it 'give the lie' to predication? It says that objective independence drives out all interrelationships except objective, mechanical interaction. (A major impact here is classical science's ignorance regarding gravity and their inabilities to 'unify' gravity with other classical 'forces.' Quantum gravity issi n¤t a classical 'force' interaction! It, rather, is a partial quantum correlative coherence interrelationship. An ~analogy is quantum spin. This is, in our quantum opinion, Newton's only quasi-success. Newton's other classical work, from a quantum perspective, is mostly bogus. Perhaps we should more gently say, "naïve.") By doing that, d' cut drives out quantum awareness and quantonic ¤nt¤l¤gical ensehmble interrelative c¤¤bsfective ch¤¤sings, chancings amd changings. D' cut drives out quantum reality! D' cut drives out quantum realities' most awe inspiring miracles like: comscious indihvihdual free will, emergent ev¤lution, c¤herent superp¤sing em¤ti¤n AKA l¤ve, bi¤l¤gical life, qualitative senses, adventure, physial ethics, physial m¤rality, physial understanding, physial k-n¤wing, reserve energy quantum c¤mplementation, s¤luti¤ns to virtually all classical 'impossibilities,' amd so on...

Our emboldened phoneme words are basic classical implements in radical mechanics' fool boxes. Whenever you see 'duct' thingk 'd' cut' and add another implement to SOM's fool box.

Two of our quantonics acronyms summarize these aspects of SOM's d' cut wall: EOOO EEMD.

Quantons aræ n¤n classical in any d' cut sense. They cann¤t bæ classically reduced! Why? Their middles aræ ihncluded by BAWAM EIMA st¤chastic flux quantum macr¤sc¤pic distributi¤n. All quantons aræ b¤th l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal; b¤th here amd everywhere heter¤-tehmp¤ral-simultane¤usly. When any ¤ther quanton measures them, they tentatively "comtext squeeze" int¤ said measuring quanton's l¤cal comtextings. (They do not classically, von Neumannesque 'collapse!' That is a passé classical state-ic, hyper-stoppability notion.)

Quantonics' memes which 'come closest to analogues of classical reduction' aræ ¤nt¤l¤gies where p¤rti¤ns ¤f actual bæing transihti¤n t¤ is¤bæing. An e[ample issi where quantons, s¤meh¤w, have bæc¤me dichons amd thus ænter pr¤cessings ¤f bæc¤mings e[tinct (Here, for now, we can only offer a classical metaphor in quasi-quantonicsese: 'e[tinction' appears as a return to isoflux, and further emergence of that particular quanton quiesces (isot indefinite persistence); it may be, probably will be, 'revived' cowithin more highly evolving quantum comtexts; its evolutionary history, we surmise issi memeorized; here we can see, according to our Quantonics version of quantum flux ontology, that ESQ garners absolute EEMD and deprives any ESQ flux its EIMA flux 'nourishment.' Sort of like being ignored at your family's dinner table...).

Als¤ quantum n¤mbærs which decrease with l¤ss ¤f energy (flux c¤unt), may bæ th¤ught ¤f as quantum subtracti¤n. But in this case negati¤n is 'subjective' amd 'smaller' quantum n¤mbærs aræ quantum-subjectively amd quantum-qualitatively 'smaller.' (E.g., if it is 'zero' degrees today and it was 'twice' as cold yesterday, how cold was it yesterday? :)

As s¤¤n as we ænter any quantum ¤nt¤l¤gical aræna, we als¤ ænter a quantum aræna ¤f very c¤mplex issues regarding quatr¤c¤herencies (quantum c¤hera), quantum quatr¤entr¤pies (quantum entr¤pa), amd quantum tihmings...plus a pleth¤ra ¤f ¤ther quantum issues. Why? This issi Nature's m¤st es¤teric 'playground.' It issi he-r 'stuff' ¤f creati¤n amd discreati¤n. Many ræalms where 'classical angels fear to tread.' (Quantum s¤phists pr¤ceed with vig¤ur.:)

See addition, differentiation, division, integration, multiplication, square, square root, and subtraction. Also see n¤mbær. See an ¤nt¤l¤gy example. See entr¤pa. See cohera. See tihmæ.

Page top index.

'relate'
'relative'
'relativity'

In Other Languages: Arabic (old) - Chinese - Deutsch - relativitäts French - reconter, relatif Greek - Hebrew - Japanese - Italian - Latin - comparare (latus) Portugese - Russian - Spanish - relacionar Swedish - Swiss -

Synonyms:

• descri(pt)be (noun & verb)
• associate (noun & verb)
• recall (noun & verb)
• attribute (noun & verb)
• synthesis (noun & verb)
• interconnection (radically mechanical; "metrically invariant")
• inclusion (radically mechanical group theory)
• familial
• analogous
• etc.

Classical assess: stability independence excluded-middle EOOOness H5Wness lisrability causation certainty EEMDivity observation : Relate, relative, relativity, etc. Classical notions of relating as description, relating as association, relating as recall, relating as characterization, relating as synthesis, etc.

Classical relativity is objective. It is dialectical. It is analytical. Relative objects in classical reality adhere Aristotle's radically mechanical syllogisms: identity, contradiction, excluded-middle. Thus classical objects' relativities must be radically mechanical objective 'properties.' They must be observable and measurable objective properties. That means they must be localable (and thus stoppable), isolable (and thus stoppable), separable, and reducible (requires stoppability, if ideal analyticity is to be retained). We call latter "lisr."

Einsteinian relativity, by his own adherence to his local-naïve-realism, had to retain a semblance of ideal objectivity. As Don Howard explains for us in his 'Holism, Separability, And The Metaphysical Implications Of The Bell Experiments,' Einstein could find only one way to do this was via a classical notion of invariant metrical interval.

Bottom line here: classical Einsteinian relativity is objective by design. Einstein's design of his theories of (special and general) relativity depends enormously on his local and naïve principles of Aristotelian and Newtonian science. Some examples are: humans can measure, humans do measure, only humans measure, measurement depends upon observation, observation can be unilateral, measurement is objective based upon shasb (notions and possibilities of 'subjectiv(e)' measurement do not 'exist' and thus are classically theoretically bogus), all of what we have learned from measurement and theory — and have placed in rules, axioms, principles, and 'laws' and know-ledge data bases — are enough for us to be capable of describing reality, etc. Simply classical 'state' is simple. Static reality is simple. Reality conveniently and conventionally holds still: retains state. See Henri Louis Bergson on comparisons of static and dynamic simplicity.

Einsteinian classical relativity theory is about analytic and synthetic state interactions among (actually 'between' since classicists do not yet know how to calculate 'among;' this classical problematic refers itself as "the many body problem") static objects.

Implications? Einstein blew it! He is and was wrong, period. Reality is not ideally, classically objective. Reality is not a local and naïve realism!

Einsteinian relativity is just wrong, folks! There are no ideal propertyesque lisrable state-ic 'objects' in reality. Indeed, reality is not ideally classically-objective. Reality is not state-ically, inertially simple.

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : Ihnterrelatæ, ihnterrelatihve, ihnterrelatihvihty, ihnterrelati¤n, ihnterrelati¤ns, ihnterrelati¤nings, ihnterrelati¤nship, ihnterrelati¤nshipihc, ihnterrelati¤nshipihcihty, ihnterrelati¤nships, ihnterrelati¤nshiping, ihnterrelati¤nshipings, etc. We need, here, a straightforward, single phasement description of what Quantonics means by quantum~relativity:

"Quantum relativity is quantum flux relativity." and "Quantum~relativity issi quantum~complementarity." Doug - 4Feb2006.

Here is a DNAesque exemplar:

We call them "quantons." Quantons are quantum~complementary quantum flux interrelationshipings. Quantons are holographic, animate, EIMA, REIMAR, sorso~fractal, emergent, emerging, emerscent, emerscenturable, emerscitectible, emerscitectural, fuzzonic quantum~flux emersos interrelationshipings.

What we are looking for here is n¤t those flux 'lines,' rather their ensemble, enthymemetic, and epigenic interrelationshipings which we call quantum~complementary~phase~encodings. Quantum reality quantum~flux~relatively encodes phase, n¤t space. Said encodings we call "hologra." Why? Their phase encodings are EIMA quantum~iso~equi~pragma~potent: i.e., holographic! Perhaps we can show that graphically better like this:

Doug - 29Oct2007.

Classical analysis cann¤t accomplish, let alone explain that. Rather, a classical explanation looks like those transverse 2D lines our drawing above. But that drawing is classical dialectical reality's EOOO dichonic SQ 'opposite' (rather 'a' apparently 'state-ic' quantum~complement) of what quantum reality really phase~encodes. Classical reality is ESQ. Classical reality leaves out DQ! Classical reality is n¤t real. Classical reality's 'objective properties' are n¤t real!

Quantum reality is quanton(DQ,SQ). I.e., some animate version of our drawing plus its quantum phase~encodings complementings. Now, think-king about them holographically makes all easier to grasp in any quantum perspective.

Let's do an example:

Take a musical score. Quantum complement it. How? Well, there are at least three ways apparent to Doug: temporally, tonally, and tonal-temporally. Probably there are countless others (hint, hint, phase-encodingly; Fourierly; Picassoesque cubically; etc.). Gershwin did a kind of quantum complement using temporal recursion of similar 'faster' patterns recursing 'faster' patterns recursing patterns. Bach too. (If you do not have a copy get (has to be) Glenn Gould's thirty Goldberg Variations with two Aria (alpha and omega); listen while reading Richard Powers' The Goldbug Variations. No one else even approaches Gould's skills, style, power, articulation, dynamic range, quantum~essence, etc.)

OK! Play notes, play notes and their temporal complements using complementary instruments. Ditto their tonal complements. Mix. You just moved eons closer to quantum reality in that simple exercise! Remember Miles Davis? He used to say that he tried not to play notes, rather to play notes' nots. As Doug remembers he called it "playing 'd background," a kind of musical Gestalt.

End example.

From a Bohmian, Pietschean holographic, hologramic, holomovement perspective, quantons are quantum flux phasicity~encodings.

Classically we would refer them as Fourier 'analyses.' But that is a bad way of thing-king about it! Analysis stops reality and measures flux classically using what we call "scalarbation."

Quantum reality is unstoppable, and quantum flux may n¤t be held still and 'measured at a point.'

Now let's wrap all that up by using quantum~relativity to describe holograms:

"Quantum hologramings are essential quantum fluxings' relativityings: we call them 'quantum~phasicityings~encodings.'"

Quantum relativity is quantum phase encoding. Quantum iso~omni~phase~encoding issi quantum complementarity. There are n¤ classical 'opposites,' only real quantum complements: quantum reality issi hologra of hologra of hologra...

Doug - 2-4Feb2006.

Ihn Quantum ræhlihty quantons d¤ n¤t classically 'relate,' they aræ ænsehmble abs¤lutæly anihmatæly quantumly ihnterrelatings. Our m¤st genæral dæscrihpti¤n as ¤f 2005_q f¤r quantum ihnterrelati¤nshipings issi REIMAR.

Quantum ræhlihty sahys "flux issi simple." Wæ sahy, "Flux issi crux."

Quantum ræhlihty sahys "flux issi st¤chastihc." That mæans b¤th pr¤babilistihc amd lihkælihoodihstihc. Iht mæans b¤th sub_qjæctihv(e) amd qualihtatihvæ. Iht mæans genæral absænce ¤f classical negat amd genæral præsænce ¤f quantum p¤siht. Quantum wavæs~flux aræ st¤chasihtc. Quantum st¤chastihcs aræ n¤n nægatihvæ. See positive and negative. See our 2004 What is Wrong with Probability as Value?

Quantons aræ flux. They aræ at læast quatr¤æntr¤pihc, quatr¤c¤herænt flux. See entropa and cohera. Quantum flux manihfests ihtsælf ihn ahctualihty as b¤s¤nihc flux amd fermi¤nihc flux. B¤s¤nihc flux can ahctualihze as zær¤ amd ihnteger spihn. Fermi¤nihc flux can ahctualihze as spihn 1/2 (e.g., t¤p-bott¤m-charmæd-strange-quarks, uhp-d¤wn-quarks, electr¤ns, neutrons, pr¤t¤ns, etc.), amd systæmihc ræsihdual spihn 1/2. (nuclæi, at¤ms, amd aggrægatæs ¤f th¤se, etc.) Quantum flux n¤nmanihfests ihtsælf (iht hidæs, sælf-cl¤aks) as is¤flux ihn n¤nahctualihty. Ahll these 'kinds' ¤f quantum flux can b¤th passihvely amd ahctihvæly 'mihx' ihnclusihvely wihth ¤næ an¤thær! Ahll ¤f quantum ræhlihty issi n¤n 'state-ic' REIMAR ænsehmbles ¤f ahctihvæ amd passihve ihnterrelati¤nshipings ¤f vahst amd ubihquiht¤us quantum flux!!

F¤r c¤mparihs¤n purp¤ses hæræ wæ may usæ a qu¤te fr¤m Banesh Hoffmann's The Story of the Quantum, 1947 GPC and 1959 Dover, "Where de Broglie had used relativistic waves in ordinary space and time, Schrödinger had used nonrelativistic waves in a fictional space." Quantonics usæs wavæs (fuzz¤nihc QLOs) as c¤¤bsfæctihvæ ihnterrelati¤nings. Wavæs apparænt t¤ us n¤w, aræ n¤t objectively 'relativistic,' rather, they aræ quantumly ihnterrelati¤nshipihc amd abs¤lutæly quantum parthæn¤fluxihc: æmærqing, æmærqant, æmærscænce, æmærscænt, æmærscænturable, amd æmærscihtectable ihn a quantum_æmærs¤s_ræhlihty