Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'tautologous' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'taut¤l¤g¤us.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'tautologous.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'taut¤l¤g¤us.'

Where classical 'tautologous' implies an objective dichotomous quantitative absolute unchanging analytic global truth (absolute classical certainty), quantum 'taut¤l¤g¤us' implies quantum c¤mplementary qualitative abs¤lutely changæable tentative l¤cal truth (abs¤lute quantum uncertainty).

As examples, let's extract some text from our Aristotle Connection.

Aristotle's syllogisms say:

1. a law of identity - (A is A);
2. a law of contradiction - (A must be either A or not A);
3. and a law of an excluded middle - (A cannot be both A and not A).

Our quantum c¤¤pti¤n says:

• in quantum reality A is b¤th A amd n¤t A (i.e., A issi a quant¤n)

Our quantum c¤¤pti¤n remerqs amd c¤¤pts all three ¤f Aristotle's syllogisms.

Whatever classicists ineptly call 'tautologous,' students of Quantonics should more adeptly perceive as Quantum Variable Persistence. See QVP. Tautology is never classically absolute, rather it is quantum agency of its own paratehmp¤ral, parafluxual changæ — however viscous and tentative that changæ may be.

See: absolute, axiom, certain, fact, law, principle, rule, tautology, truth. Too, in quantum reality all these terms are QVP!

Page top index.

Quantonics chooses to remerq classical 'think' to classical 'thingk.'

Quantonics chooses to remerq classical 'think' to quantum 'think.'

Classical thingking is:

1. material,
2. substantial,
3. objective,
4. dogmatic-provincial-parochial,
5. absolutely-determinate,
6. closed,
7. state-ic,
8. orthodox (meaning, literally "politically correct" classically right, heresy-free, OSFA, tragedy of commons sense, social opinion and reason)
9. choice is heresy,
10. cause-effect,
11. 1-1 correspondent,
12. Aristotelian-Baconian-Cartesian-Newtonian-Leibnitzian-Einsteinian, etc.,
13. lisr,
14. stable (inanimate except for classical y=f(t) 'motion.'),
15. mechanical,
16. analytical,
17. dichonic,
18. dialectical,
19. excluded-middle,
20. everywhere-bivalently-dissociative,
21. EOOO,
22. oppositional,
23. CTM,
24. retroflective (inductive on history, deductive from history; always looking back and doing so OGC encompassing OGT; see SOM Connection),
25. independently propertyesque,
26. serial rote, trusted, state-ic know-ledge base methodic incremental objective EEMD recall thingking.

Quantum thinking issi:

1. energetic,
2. abs¤lutely fluxing (QVPersistently),
3. subjective,
4. heuristic-ihnterpretive-hermeneutic,
5. apparently-ensehmble pr¤babilistic,
6. ¤pen,
7. phase-ic,
8. heterodox (meaning "...interpretation involves according primacy of subjectivity over objectivity...," and quantum uncertain individual opinionings and reasonings are hermeneutic)
9. free-wihll,
10. affectati¤nal (ensehmble n¤wings' comditi¤nings as affectings f¤r ensehmble c¤¤bsfective-l¤cal-n¤nl¤cal-selectings nextings' ¤utc¤mings),
11. many-many c¤rrelative,
12. Heraclitean, Zenoan, Hamannian, Bergsonian, Jamesian, Pirsigean, etc.,
13. n¤nlisr,
14. anihmatæ,
15. n¤nmechanical,
16. ensehmble-recursive-fractal-emergent,
17. quantonic,
18. rhet¤rical,
19. ihncluded-mihddle,
20. everywhere-¤mnivalently-ass¤ciative (see our coined 'omnivalent;' real quantum qubits wihll all¤w us t¤ 'use' this quantum 'miracle' f¤r 'computational' thibediring),
21. BAWAM,
22. c¤mplementary,
23. QTM,
24. k-n¤w-flective (thibediring),
25. c¤¤bsfective ihnterrelati¤nship,
26. up to Planck rate sorso~EIMA recapitulative quantonic m¤dal pr¤cessings thinking.

Both lists are incomplete. They can be extended indefinitely.

We ask our readers and students to compare them and 'select' for themselves which of those they perceive as better. Some of you will probably want to choose notions (more classical) and memes (more quantum) from both lists. As you grow in Quantonics that may be a necessary option. However, as you mature as students of Quantonics you may see your views migrating from that classical list to our quantum list.

Note that our interpretation of Zeno's paradice does not agree with countless others. Had we adhered other classical interpretations of Zeno we would not be including him in our quantum-dropping-names list.

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

Classical thought tends to dogmatically 'thingk' about past and now. Even worse it tends to 'thingk' unitemporally: one past, one now, one future. See our QELR of think. Also see thingk.

If you want evidence of our position here on classical 'thought,' see Hume's Law which says that "There is no bridge twixt fact and value." Analogously Hume would say "There is no bridge twixt past-now and future," and "There certainly is no bridge twixt was-is and ought."

This is how classical 'science' and classical 'religion' thingk: ought is subjunctive, ought is about subjective, qualitative value and reality is objective and materially real.

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

Quantum th~¤ught issi a quanton(¤ught,th)! Wæ can sh¤w that as quanton(n¤nahctualihty,ahctualihty) issi quanton(¤ught,th) issi th~¤ught.

For a more detail description see our review of Hoffmann's The Strange Story of the Quantum, Act II. (This link will be available during late August-September early, 2007. Doug.)

So we shall coopt classical 'thought' and QELR it as th~¤ught.

What that illustrates is quantum~thought is subjunctive: quantum~n¤nactual. It has an ought partial and a 'th' partial. Ought is subjunctive and 'th' is actual and reifiably objective.

Power here is in a novel view of thought as an agent of evolution which bridges fact and Value, like this: HotMeme™ Th~¤ught bridges fact and Value.™ HotMeme™. Th~¤ught, quantum~th~¤ught issi a quanton(Value,fact). Iht issi th~¤ught as quantum~æv¤luti¤n, agæncy ¤f quantum~æv¤luti¤n. Think_qing about what ought, what should, what will be, what may be, potentia, etc. Tapping into reserve~energy.

See Was, Is, Ought.

Let's take this a tad further...

Recall Paul Pietsch's "Indeterminacy is the principal feature of intelligence." Do you remember how we slightly reworded it to, "[Quantum~] Uncertainty is the principal feature of intelligence?"

Further...let's reword it again with our more recent emerqancy of thought: "Indeterminacy is the principal feature of th~¤ught."

We see quantum~uncertainty ihn n¤vel quantum~lightings. Fathom uncertainty as th~¤ught bridging (straddling) fact and Value at reality's edgings of nowings assessing and selectings, ihn a l¤cal comtext, whatings each of us is wanting to be happenings nextings.

Compare all of that to a classical 'science' which says "Absolute certainty is the goal of all dialectical 'thought.'"

Now, are you going to MBO? Rather should you not ponder Value of _wMBU?

Page top index.

To our most steadfast and undaunted students of Quantonics...this is, apparent to us now, in September, 2002, our most omnifficult of all Quantonic English Language Remediations. Please comsider our tiny efforts here but tentative creasings in imminent and much sm¤¤ther quantum manif¤ldings. Indeed, student, you may wish to view our efforts here, depicted under bullet items below, as but an outline of candidate, and vaster texts. We feel comfident that we have emerscitectured many pr¤t¤emergent memes for a n¤vel Millennium III quantum perspective of 'time.' 'Tis nontrivial...beware. 7Sep2002 - Doug.

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'time' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'tihmæ.'

Students of Quantonics, very, very, very important! Read this:

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical nongrammatical plural, present-participle 'timings' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'tihmings.' Ditto tehmp¤ral.

'Tihmæ' issi ¤ur m¤st ¤mnihffihcult Quantonics mæmæ t¤ ¤mniscrihbæ. Quantonic th~¤ughts~think~king ab¤ut omnifferences among classically quantitative ideas and concepts of 'time,' and our Quantonics qualihtatihvæ mæmæos, mæmæs, amd ¤mniscrihpti¤ns ¤f tihmings aræ lihkæ quantum n¤mbærs — their girth appears nearly limitless.

We have said to our students prior that Greek is a nounesque, objective, (Attic) dialectical language. Latin is a verbesque, functional, quasi dialectical language.

Latin, philosophically and scientifically and theologically owns terms for temporality (including terms shown below and: agere, animus, cadere, etc.). (Greek owns the term for change: pragma. Also chronos.) They are, in their current as-used etymonics, inadequate for Quantonics' quantum~temporal~plural~participle linguistics, so we shall coin and QELR our own versions, here:

We are exceptionally tickled to have a iamai turn out as a palindrome, unintentionally. Compare it to Quantonics' issi at iamai edgings! Rather fabulously we see quantum~issings as quantum~nowings! Emotively this is quantum wellness to our sensibilities. Doug - 19Apr2005.

'time'...continued...

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

Classicists, AKA SOMites tend to thingk of time as unitime and unitemporality: monochronicity. One classical time fits all reality.

10Jan2009 Aside:

What does that last sentence mean?

Let's ask a question. "If classical Earth time fits all reality, what happens when Earth stops rotating?" Does Alpha Centauri time stop? Does omniversal time stop?

N¤!

See, whenever we declare any 'thing' a monism, like classicists do with 'time,' we immediately put ourselves in SOM's Box, we imprison our thoughts in a local corral, a detention center of mind. Classical thingking detends classical minds.

Time is n¤t a, quantum~timings are n¤t, universal canonic whole OSFA OGC monism[s]. Ditto space, mass, and gravity.

Why?

Quantum~flux is heterogeneous, EIMA, and evolving at up to Planck rates. Time, space, mass, and gravity are all symptoms of their metameme quantum~flux in a similar sense that acceleration is a symptom of its metameme gravity.

Quantum~reality is heterogeneous, EIMA, and evolving at up to Planck rates, therefore we can phasement comfidently that there are n¤ classical monisms in quantum~reality!

Thank you for reading.

Doug - 10Jan2009.

10Jan2009 Aside end.

Classicists, AKA CRites may thingk of time as times and polytemporality: polychronicity. Differing relative contexts may have differing time bases and temporal phasicities.

Both SOMites and CRites view their versions of time as proxies for space rate. This is what is meant, usually, when we hear classicists say, "space-time 'identity.'"

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : Tihmæ, tihming, tihmings, tehmp¤ra, tehmp¤ral, tehmp¤ralihty, etc.

Quantumists say that ahll classically indefinable measurables aræ quantum dæfihnable~¤mniscrihbable ihn tærms ¤f m¤re prihmihtihvæ quantum flux. Sææ ¤ur flux perspicacities and perspicuities web page.

Quantum tihmings aræ, sihmihlar quantum h¤l¤gramings, amd quantum is¤flux, classically directionless, amd heterogæne¤us. Ihn Quantonics wæ cahll that quantum mæmæo~mæmæ¤tihc "¤mnihtehmp¤ralihties."

Summary:

• time and unitime - Classically SOMitic time
• times and polytime - Classically CRitic times
• tihmings amd ¤mnihtehmp¤ralihty (omnitemporality) - Quantumly MoQitic tihmings

Page top index.

'time'...continued...

Classical 'time:'

• Time as homogeneous
  • This classical interpretation of time demands unitemporality, "one time fits all"
  • Unitemporality imposes ubiquitous mechanical synchronicity
  • Ubiquitous synchronicity disables any notions of qualitative novel emergence
  • Unitemporality is a classical, arbitrary, quantitative and objective edict
• One time fits all: OGC forces OGT
• Human sensory bandwidth limits human perceptions of time
• Space-time 'identity'
  • Time as space rate, implies
  • Time is space/space, and
  • An implication: dx/dx dx/dt, thus
  • We conclude classical time has no self-coherent classical meaning
• Classical "scientific" time
  • "scientific" time as an 'independent' analytic 'variable'
  • except for Dirac's notion of many times, classical "scientific" times never appear as heterogeneous (Why? Classical reality is presumed unitemporal. One classical time fits all! See OGT.)
  • classical "scientific" times never appear as Poincaréan heterogeneous relational dependencies (Why? Classical "scientific" time has no classical dependencies. It is objective time, ideally, exclusively EEMD. Think about that, do n¤t thingk about it. Think about how Einstein's relativity makes 'independent' classical time solipsistically co-dependent on itself. Scientists' ~dyslexic notions of time uncloak "science's" own absurdities: homogeneity, stoppability, analyticity, globality/universality, localability, isolability, separability, reducibility, and perhaps most 'absurd' of all is a notion of classical temporally-stoppable simultaneity (If there is only one time, how can it ever be simultaneous? Stronger: how can that one time be stopped? Notice how similar this classical 'scientific' absurdity is to a mathematical notion of absolutely stopped and stable '1' as timeless and context free and all ones are 'identical' to all other ones. See our One is Only.), etc.) Red text update 3Feb2005 - Doug. See more of this update below!

'time'...continued...

• J. C. Maxwellian time and entropy
  • Time as a spatially extensive, unilogical, irreversible arrow
    (due his 2^nd 'law')
• Newtonian time
  • Time as a spatially extensive, unilogical, EOOO, y=f(t) or y=f(-t) reversible arrow
  • Time as classically analytic, thus quantitative, numerable, and lisr
• Einsteinian time
  • Time as limited by light speed
  • Time as limited by classical human sensory bandwidth
• Minkowskian time, derived from Einstein's theories of relativity
  • See Minkowski's mathematically naïve conjugal space-time triangle
• Diracian classical time
  • "Causality applies only to a system which is left undisturbed." Page 4, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, by P. A. M. Dirac, Oxford Science Publications, 1958 (1930-1988). See both Bergson and Irving Stein below.
  • Causality implications: temporal homogeneity, analyticity, identity, stoppability, denial of abs¤lute Planck rate quantum flux.

Page top index.

'time'...continued...

• Bergson on classical time
  • Mae-wan Ho paraphrases Bergson's view of classical time similarly to this, "...classical time is an infinitely divisible, homogeneous, quantitative, numerable (i.e., synthetic), spatial extensity."
  • Classical time is analytic, homogeneous, spatially-extensive, numerically multiplicate, conveniently stoppable for purposes of measurement, meaningless twixt measurements, representable as a discrete numeric scalar magnitude, etc.
• Pirsig on classical time
  • "Substance doesn't change." Page 305, ZMM, Bantam paperback, 1982
  • Implication: classically, 'unispatial motion' is time (See time as space rate, above.) See forward.
• Irving Stein on classical time
  • "Thus, what is called determinism[/causality] turns out to be [classical] analyticity or [classical] identity and what is called [classical] change appears to be inexplicable in classical physics; i.e., change appears to be only the existence of time." Page 35, and Stein says further, "...to define the concept of change, classical physics then can produce no basis for a concept of change. Such a basis can only be produced, if at all, by another physics, such as quantum mechanics. A concept of change, itself, will then probably be considerably different from how we normally understand it. It is not that I deny that change exists, but simply that I do not find it, as yet, a coherent concept — certainly not in classical physics." Page 38, The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics, Peter Lang Pub., 1996. Our brackets, ellipses and bold.

'time'...continued...

• Margenau on classical time
  • "Or take a concept like time. It is a quantity indicated numerically by a clock; it is also that elusive thing which troubled St. Augustine and is sometimes vaguely defined as the independent variable in the laws of mechanics, or as distance divided by speed in uniform motion. The point is that a scientific observable, to be completely useful, must be understood in two different ways, one referring to direct experience, the other to related theoretical constructs. Hence it must possess two different kinds of definition, one operational or 'epistemic,' the other constitutive in the sense that the non-operational meaning of the term is constituted or established, as it were, by relations to other concepts. An operational definition of force is in terms of dynamometer readings, a constitutive one specifies it to be mass times acceleration. By virtue of the first the scientist is able to measure, by virtue of the second he can reason about forces." P. 34, Scientific Indeterminism and Human Freedom, by Henry Margenau, Archabbey Press, 1968, 1^st ed.
• Errol E. Harris on Newtonian classical time

Page top index.

'time'...continued...

• Giambattista Vico (1688-1744) on origins of classical time notions
  • "Jove [notice comnection here to Jahweh, Jahveh and Yahweh], king and father of men and gods, is placed above all the rest, but beneath Saturn, who, since he is father both of Jove [Jupiter] and of Time, has a longer annual course than all the other planets." Extracted from paragraph number 730, of The New Science, by Giambattista Vico, first edition published 1725, third edition published in 1744, Naples (subsequently translated/republished by Bergin and Fisch, 1947-8; bracketed paragraph numbers in TNS are theirs).
  • And from paragraph 732, "The theological poets gave beginnings to chronology in conformity with their astronomy. [This appears to hold, fairly generally, for other Earth civilizations: Greco-Roman, Egyptian, Mayan, etc.] For that same Saturn, who was so called by the Latins from sati, sown {fields}, and who was called Chronos, or Time, by the Greeks, gives us to understand that the first nations (all composed of farmers) began to count their years by their harvests of grain." Ibid. We substituted braces for Giambattista's brackets in that last quote, thus intraquote brackets are ours. His intraquote parentheticals.
    
    What we see here is a legacy planetary model for time, with homogeneous spatial rotation/peregrination rate as an implied 'identity' for time. On Earth, then, we may surmise evidence is strong for a decoherent classical concept/idea[l] of 'time' as space/space which has endured for centuries, probably millennia.
    
    And is it not of even greater interest to ponder whither Earth-folk denied Jove his own Jupiterian 'Time.' Would that Jove adhere Earth-chauvinistic 'time?'

Relative 'times:' AKA 'paratemporality:'

• Times as plural, but yet classically objective, lisr, stoppably-stable/inanimate, and independent (classically 'time' is the normative 'independent variable')
• Times as paratehmp¤ral, 'side-by-side' measurables:
  • Sequentially relative classical events, e.g., "paradigms"
  • Parallel relative classical events
  • See Kuhn
• Times as Culturally Relativistic within OGC
• Hermann Hesse on Relative time, "We immortals do not like things to be taken seriously. We like joking. Seriousness, young man, is an accident of time. It consists, I don't mind telling you in confidence, in putting too high a value on time. I, too, once put too high a value on time. For that reason I wished to be a hundred years old. In eternity, however, there is no time, you see. Eternity is a mere moment, just long enough for a joke." Hesse, quoting one of 'the old ones.' Page 111 of 248 total pages, no index, Steppenwolf, Bantam. 1981, 26^th printing.
  
  Doug - 1Nov2005.

Page top index.

'tihmings'...continued...

Quantonics 'tihmings:' AKA 'pragmatehmp¤rality:'

• Most important of all... Quantonics' tihmings aræ unst¤ppable. Both classical time and classically relativistic times are classically 'stoppable;' students of Quantonics should, n¤...must, weigh amd comsider how Einstein's paratemporal relativity requires time to classically stop! (I.e., his objective classical mathematics forced a radically formal subtraction which imposed a classical zero time.) And even more important than that is how Einstein's relativity sets homogeneous time's point of 'stoppability' as light speed! And light speed is essentially calculated as dx/x, since Einstein has no classically coherent concept for time as anything but a space, x, identity.
  
  Quantum tihmæ tihcks at uhp to Planck's ratæ amd keeps on tihcking at uhp to Planck's ratæ.
  
  If you even slightly fathom what that means, you may commence imagining why we aræ spending so much effort on this issue of heter¤gen¤us quantum tihmings, heter¤gen¤us quantum tehmporalities. T¤ quantum leapfr¤g this wh¤le pr¤blem, just d¤ what Doug has d¤ne: realihze that at 'classical light speed,' Planck's cl¤ck issi stihll tihcking. Quantum tihmæ, quantum tihmings, d¤ n¤t classically STOP!!! T¤ bæ acc¤mplishings this quantum leapfr¤gging epiphany, l¤¤k at ¤ur Quantonic-quantum sensory bandwidth perspicacities and perspicuities.
  
  Our quantonic vihew here d¤es n¤t invalihdate quantum relatihvity! It invalihdates Einstein's classical relativity based upon his insistence on a deluded notion of classically temporal stoppability!

'tihmings'...continued...

• Tihmings as pragmabsolute quantum action
• Tihmings as heter¤gene¤us
  • One might argue here that quantum tehmp¤ral hætær¤gæneihty might offer potential for a classical notion of simultaneity. We can quite easily belie and tentatively refute any such notion. How? Let's make our answer slightly more subtle using our own Quantonics script, and then offer more detailed exegeses linguistically:
    
    quantons(tihmings_comtetings_iq,tihmings_comtetings_jq)
    
    Exegetically first, that quantonic subtlety: Ahll quantons aræ quantum umcærtainty ihnterrelati¤nshipings. Therefore, n¤ possibility 'exists' for any classical notions of simultaneity.
    
    Exegetically second, quantum ræhlihty issi abs¤lutæly anihmatæ, mahssihvely heterogæne¤us, ænsehmblings ¤f REIMAR flux. Wæ can qubihtahlly ømniht¤r iht, but wæ can nævær classically 'stop' it to analyze it! Quantum ræhlihty issi 'unstoppable.'
    
    See classical portion of this update just above. Doug - 3Feb2005.
    
• Tihmings as anihmatæ zer¤ rate t¤ Planck rate, i.e., 10⁴³ changæs per quantum-relative (i.e., animately- c¤mplementarily- amd omnifferentially-relative) zer¤-changæ reference quantum flux
• Tihmings as c¤mplementary
  • included-middle tihmings
  • quantum c¤njugati¤nal vis-à-vis quantum comjugational tihmings
• Tihmings as at least quatr¤t¤m¤us (in quantum-entr¤py, -c¤hesi¤n, -etc.)
• Tihmings as quantum is¤flux derivative
• Tihmings as classes of quantum ¤mniflux ihnterrelati¤nshipings (!!!)
  • This bullet uncloaks quintessences of quantum tihimings
  • Imagine an ensehmble of probability distributions (PDs); better, perhaps an ensemble of quantum likelihood omnistributionings (QLOs)
    Imagine them arranged, say with common-classically-latched extrema; with common-classically-latched modes; in a lineage of parallel 2D extensities; and so on...
    
    N¤w ihmagine a l¤cal c¤mtext ¤n æach amd c¤mnect them with blue d¤tted issi¤flux ellipses.
    
    Call æach ¤f those a class ¤f "quantons ¤f c¤mplementary tihmings."
    
    Depending ¤n h¤w many PDs y¤u ch¤se t¤ sh¤w, y¤u sh¤uld n¤w have n+1 classes ¤f tihmings' ihnterrelati¤nshipings. Here is a graphic showing ensemble PDs (QLOs) representing quantum~pastings, ~nowings, and ~futurings:
    
                      
    
    That graphic illustrates many quantum memeos. You are aware that we already mentioned ¤ur Quantonic-quantum sensory bandwidth perspicacities and perspicuities twice previously under our time QELR. Notice how our graphic shows flux is ihn flux. Pastings, nowings, futurings are ihn pastings, nowings, futurings. Quantum reality's temporalities share quantum~included~middlings and are flux~animate~EIMA fractal. Time is ihn flux and flux is ihn time. Mass~energy are ihn quantum~timings~flux and quantum~timings are ihn mass~energy. Ditto space, gravity, and any other measurable-monitorable you can imagine.
    
    Notice too, how this graphic vivifies quantum~temporal~uncertainty. If John von Neumann had seen this graphic prior to attempting to classically lisr a special quantum event, he would have grasped immediately ad oculos why his efforts would never succeed. And we are only showing quantum~actuality. When we complement above with quantum~n¤nactuality, our memeos explode with Value and facilitation of miracles previously viewed classically as "impossible." Doug - 20,21Sep2005.
    
    Examples always help: Imagine PDs for ephemera of chaos of Earth's rotation and orbit and Sol's Milky Way orbit. Apply our imaginings to those. Do similarly for your body's electron orbits (including their acausal, "uncaused-cause," biophotonic-affected quantum jumps) around their atoms vis-à-vis your body's cellular apoptosis cycles (ontological OEDC ~orbits).
    
    Aræ any ¤f th¤se ihnterrelati¤nshipings ihnsignificant? W¤uld y¤u bæ y¤u with¤ut them? W¤uld realihty bæ real with¤ut them?
    
    
• Tihmings as OEDC transitions
• Tihmings as b¤unded by Planck rate flux and zer¤ rate flux
  (See our 2002: Quantum Sensory Bandwidth Perspicacities & Perspicuities.)

Page top index.

'tihmings'...continued...

• Tihmings as quantum entr¤pic
  • p¤sentr¤py tihmings (quantum fermi¤nic dec¤herence)
  • zer¤entr¤py tihmings (quantum b¤s¤nic, BEC, fermi¤nic-electr¤n-pair c¤ntrar¤tati¤n, etc.)
  • negentr¤py tihmings
    • is¤flux¤r c¤ntrar¤tati¤n,
    • is¤space,
    • is¤time,
    • is¤mass,
    • is¤energy (AKA free energy, QVF, etc.),
    • is¤temperature,
    • is¤pressure,
    • etc.
      Thus y¤u can/may imagine h¤w quantum n¤nactuality is negentr¤pic and ¤ur list ¤f actual c¤mplementary comjugates here d¤ n¤t 'exist' from any classical perspective of actuality; as a result:
      • is¤spaceabsence_of_space
        (which appears, classically, as "non space"),
      • is¤temperatureabsence_of_temperature
        (which appears, classically, as "absolute zero"),
      • and so on...
  • mixentr¤py/partial-entr¤py tihmings
    (quantum c¤mplementary mixtures of all of above)

'tihmings'...continued...

• Tihmings as quantum c¤herent
  • dec¤herent tihmings (quantum-fermi¤nicity, etc.)
  • c¤herent tihmings (quantum-b¤s¤nicity, -reversibility, -s¤lit¤nicity, -superfluidity, -etc.)
  • is¤c¤herent tihmings (quantum-is¤reversibility, -tunneling, -included-middle, -entanglement, -c¤rrelati¤n, -c¤¤bsfecti¤n, -superluminality, -comjugational-superp¤siti¤n, -etc.)
  • mixc¤herent/partial-c¤herent tihmings (quantum c¤mplementary mixtures of all of above; comjecture: partial quantum c¤herence memes may explain quantum gravity amd thus quantum anti-gravity, quantum ph¤t¤n reflecti¤n/transmissi¤n st¤chastics (e.g., emissions normal to glass, 1:25 reflection rate — see Feynman's QED, p. 19), Andreev retr¤reflecti¤n, etc.)
• Bergson on quantumesque tihmings
  • Mae-wan Ho paraphrases Bergson's view of quantumesque time similarly to this, "...[quantumesque] tihmings aræ an indivisible, heterogeneous, qualitative, durational, quantum c¤hesive (i.e., n¤nsynthetic), sympathetic-multiplicity."
• Tihmings' quantum-sens¤ry-bandwidth perspicacities and perspicuities
  • Tihmings as b¤unded by human sens¤ry bandwidth
  • Tihmings as b¤unded by augmented (i.e., 'scientific') human sens¤ry bandwidth
  • Tihmings as b¤unded by Natural sens¤ry bandwidth
• Tihmingsquanton(is¤¤mniflux,¤mniflux) (See is¤flux.)
• Tihmings as directionless and free of any classical notions of scalar amplitude (See forward.)
• Erwin Schrödinger on time, from his, 'On the Reversal of Natural Laws,' "The probability density is the product of two solutions of a diffusion equation and is thus bilinear as in quantum mechanics, and since the two solutions differ only in the direction of the time t, the product has no specified time direction." Apparently paraphrased by Walter Moore in his Schrödinger, p. 259, CUP 2001 paperback.
  
  If we were quantum physicists, perhaps quantum physical mathematicians, we would be revisiting Schrödinger's wave equations using non spatial quantum~hetero~temporalities. We would start by heterogeneously temporalizing his Laplacian operator and an attending independent time partial outside it. We might treat those novel temporal avatars as peaqlos.

See Quantonic Time Primer. See Classical vis-à-vis Quantonic Time.

Page top index.

TBD.

Classical objects only exist in, have interactions with, and pass 'through' a homological and analytic actual reality. Classical reality denies any quantum paralogical and c¤mplementary nonactuality.

See locus.

Page top index.

As preposition, see of. In quantum comtexts, use 't¤.'

Page top index.

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'transition' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'transihtion.' Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'transition' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'transihtion.' Also 'transihtionings.'

Classical 'transition' is analytic, state-ic, mechanical, deterministic, EEMD manufacture of a new form, i.e., some thing transitioned from its former objective self into some new objective form. We can apply similar classical notions to locus vis-à-vis form. Shape vis-à-vis form. All classical transitions obey 'laws' of conservation. Classical transitions are causal. That means strict causation. Event A causes effect B with 1-1 correspondence. This is essence of classical science: predictability. All classical science rests on a notion of repeatable verifiability. Any non repeat, for whatever 'reason' invalidates predictability for a particular scientific hypothesis.

But does quantum reality ever repeat anything, in general, exactly? N¤!

But Doug, but, but, but... Why?

First, let us say that quantum reality only appears to repeat. Planetary orbits. Que stick striking a ball. Baseball bat hitting a baseball. Gun shooting a bullet.

Appearances are misleading. (Evidence: Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Buridan, Newton, Einstein, and this list goes on and on and on...) If repetition were a physical reality, shuttle's Challenger and Columbia would not have crashed.

From whence arises apparition of classical verifiable repeatability?

Quantum reality is self-similar and self-referent and changæ-driven by abs¤lute quantum flux and thus issi ensehmble sophisms: enormously heterogeneous emergent pr¤cessings. But quantum emergent pr¤cessings are n¤t 'analytically determinate' and thus verifiably repeatable! They are n¤t classically scientific! They are chaotic, acausal. They, in general, exhibit n¤ndeterministic periodic flux. NPF. But it's much more complex than that. Abs¤lutely anihmatæ ensehmble quantum sophisms, what we call "quantons," aræ also EIMA, c¤¤bsfective, c¤aware, quantum ¤nt¤l¤gical.

Quantum reality is 'not' classically manufacturing itself according to some grand book of Platonic forms, and Aristotelian categorical laws. Quantum reality issi endlessly emerscenturing itself. Always changing, changing all.

That's what we mean in Quantonics when we say "transihtionings."

Page top index.

TBD.

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

Page top index.

'truth'

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

Synonyms - classical:

• absolute certainty
• authenticity
• concrete specificity
• dialectic
• dialectical certitude
• dogma as social positivism
• either-or
• orthodoxy
• positiveness
• probity
• reality
• unambiguous
• unequivocal
• veracity
• verisimilitude
• verity vis-à-vis falsity
• etc.

Synonyms - quantum:

• appears as classical equivocation
• appears as classical perversion (Banesh Hoffmann, TSSotQ)
• appears as classical prevarication
• both~all~while
  ~and~many
• flux is quantum real
• quantum truth as an agent of its own evolutionary absolute change
• quantum uncertainty
• rhetoric
• subjective, ensemble, animate likelihood omnistribution
• etc.

Etymology:

"n. 1137 treuth, quality of being true; faithfulness developed prior 899 as Old English." Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology, p. 837,

Classical assess: stability independence excluded-middle EOOOness H5Wness lisrability causation certainty EEMDivity observation : Truth, truths, truisms, etc.

"Truth is defined by the conformity of intellect and thing." Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 16, article 2. EBGB I & II.

This is a supreme height of 'thingy' Aristotelian bogosity: 'thingking."

This partially explains why Heraclitus, Hamann, Bergson, Pirsig, Renselle, et al., hold classical 'intellect' (DIQ) in such low esteem.

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

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'absolute truth' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'abs¤lute truth.' Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'truth' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'truth,' and 'truthings.'

Quantum reality is a plural, present-participle reality. Quantum 'truth' issi 'truthings.' Quantum 'truth' issi an agent of its own changæ with impetus from abs¤lute quantum flux.

Our substitution of 'h-bar' (h) MT Extra font characters for occurrences of more classical 'h' reminds students of Quantonics that quantum truth is quantal, quantized, thus anihmatæ amd an agent ¤f its ¤wn changæ.

Where classical truth is assumed global or universal and may be assessed 'certainly,' quantum truth is islandic amd may be assessed ¤nly quantum umcærtainly.

Where classical truth is presumed absolute, i.e. one truth fits all contexts or one truth fits one universal context, quantum truth may ¤nly be assessed as an umcærtainty interrelati¤nship between comsistency amd c¤mpleteness. As quantum islandic comtexts gr¤w in n¤mbær, quantum c¤mpleteness increases, but quantum comsistency decreases. Thus abs¤luteness ¤f truth may be highly comsistent f¤r small amd l¤cal comtexts, abs¤luteness ¤f truth is c¤mplementary amd thus highly inc¤mplete. Similarly, abs¤luteness ¤f truth may be highly c¤mplete f¤r large amd multiple l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal comtexts, abs¤luteness ¤f truth is c¤mplementary amd thus highly incomsistent.

Als¤ comsider quantum persistency ¤f tentative/variable quantum truth (See QTP and QVP vis-à-vis absolute persistence of classical truth).

More recently, during 2003-2005 we are commenting on good vis-à-vis truth elsewhere and to greater comprehension. See our 2003-2004 Feuilleton Chautauqua. It is a fairly long and challenging read...

As a result of that Feuilleton Chautauqua, we have placed classical notions of truth in a much much broader quantum comtext of a hierarchy which looks like this now (nearer top is more highly evolved, nearer bottom of list is less highly evolved):

• Emergent Good (we call this quantum stochastic choosings, chancings, and changings, CH³ings, selectings emergent quantum noveltyings)
• Dynamic Good (we call this quantum dynamic quality, DQ, agency of change and absolute evolution )
• Static Good (we call this being, which is quantum tentative persistence, QTP, of bosons and fermions)
• Likelihood (see Probability as Value link just below; corresponds futurings; a priorai)
• Plausibility (corresponds nowings; a iamai)
• Probability (pretty much quantum from here on up; corresponds pastings; a posteriorai)
• Provability (pretty much classical from here on down)
• Truth (provisional based upon classically ideal proof)
• Proof (provisional based upon classically ideal falsifiability)
• Falsifiability (depends on contradiction)
• Contradiction (depends on objective negation)
• Negation (depends on objective independence and ideal formal opposition)
• Lisrability (primitive classical notion: objective independence)
• Stability (primitive classical notion: reality holds still)

See our recent Bases of Judgment link just below.

Here is another, inverted, distillation of that page:

Classicists theorize and practice truth as stable. Bergson and Pirsig showed us how n¤ truth is stable, rather truth is an agent of its own change, its own quantum absolute change. This Bases of Judgment table distillation shows us how low in a hierarchy of Value our modern quantum mentors place truth. It is nearer bottom than top! That table's hierarchy distilled bottom (1) to top (14) looks like this:

©Quantonics, Inc., 2004-2012 by Doug Renselle
1. stability, 2. independence, 3. negation, 4. contradiction, 5. falsifiability, 6. proof, 7. truth,	bottom A Failed Classical Truth Hierarchy "Scalarbation"	SOM's Box Denies Dynamic Quality	E V O L U T I O N
8. provability,	A Gödelian N¤n 'Logical' Transcension	Gödel's Pre~Quantum Subjunctihve Leap Requires Recursion
9. probability, [was: a posteriorai] 10. plausibility, [is: a iamai] 11. likelihood, [ought: a futuriorai] 12. staticcareful good, 13. dynamic good, 14. emergent good.	Coquecigrues A Quantum Value Ascension top (evolute interim)	MoQ's Quantum Animate EIMA QLO Bazaar
©Quantonics, Inc., 2004-2012 by Doug Renselle

In this inversion of our previous bullet list, we see that truth is trapped twixt a crippled-invalid classical notion of proof and a prequantum memeo of provability. Simply, absolute truth is a bogus classical notion. Most classicists wave it about as a semaphore of ultimate Parmenidean, Platonic, Aristotelian sentience. But that is waving-about classical dialectic, isn't it? Essentials, fundamentals of classical dialectic loiter in lowest seven levels of our judgment hierarchy. Dialectic resides appropriately in judgment's cellar. It corresponds social judgment: ESQ, what some classicists (e.g., Polanyi, et al.) call explicit know-ledge AKA 'positive know-ledge.' Quantum 'logic,' what we have chosen to refer quantonically as "coquecigrues," which is quantum rhetorical sophism (a classical 'monster' of 'nonlogic'), emerges in probability and for now culminates in emergent good...

Doug - 9-13Nov2004 - we borrowed Doug's review text words from our review of Polanyi's Study of Man.

An 11Oct2008 Quantum~Gn¤sis Aside:

When Doug superposed these following words (light blue text just below) on our existing quantum memeos of truthings, Doug was a year away yet from his mid~2005 quantum~stage adventures into quantum~gnosis. What is remarkable here is that during Doug's 2003~2004 Feuilleton Chautauqua, Doug didn't realise it, but he was emerscing grundlagen for what he now calls "Quantum~Gnosis."

Doug's Quantum~Adventures™ in retrospect appear almost impossible, let alone deeply fathomable. How did Doug evolve from Pirsig's MoQ in mid 1980s to Quantum~Gn¤sis in mid 200Xs? One way of quantum~staging this using QTMs, is that most of Doug's mentors, without Doug fathoming it, appear to have their own quantum~predilections re gnosis: Heraclitus, Bergson, James, Pirsig, Pagels, Mead, Gaffney, Chaldæans, Peratæans, Valentinæuns, Naassenes, Essenes, even more ancient Ophites (i.e., serpentine stone regarded as hermaphroditic; 'Y' as a grail (grale) which can quantum~recursively swallow its own tail (tale); 'V' of 'Y' as cup (a 'half' AKA haploid) of hermaphroditic stone) in which "all things mix in all things"), et al.,..., and now Doug.

Doug wants to mark following paragraphs as his mid~2004 proemial precis of what he n¤w~ings, CeodE 2008, and k~n¤w~ings means by "Quantum~Gn¤sis," even though Doug did n¤t kn¤w, even anticipate that when he wrote these words:

MoQites will want to ascertain that we compress "static good" from Pirsig's MoQ hierarchy of SQ. Let's show its levels here, too, classic-Aristotle-ABSI-inverted (Please read all of our October, 2003 News (it is long yet fairly easy; link just above shows results) to understand a ~2500 year evolution of this Value subhierarchy): 12.a. Atomic-Inorganic 12.b. Biological 12.c. Social 12.d. Intellectual Notice that 12 is a SQ recapitulative recursion of 1-14 which is SQ and 1-14 is a SQ recapitulative recursion of 12! Please standunder that DQ is vital impetus of quantum recapitulative recursion! It is a bit like Gershwin's musical recursion in Rhapsody in Blue with Gershwin playing it on a piano as an agent of DQ! 12 harbors all of what is necessary to emerscitect 1-14! 1-14 harbors all that is necessary to emerscitect 12! This is a full-blown exemplar of quantum recursion more colloquially known as "sophism." 12 is like a quantum chromosome of 1-14! 12 is in 1-14 and 1-14 is in 12! All that is in DQ and DQ is in all that! It is a simile of you looking at reality quantum recursively and reality looking at you quantum recursively. See our recent, 2004, you as a monism, you as a monism and pluralism, and you as a pluralism emerscitecting a non explicit monism. Regarding 12.d. Intellectual, in Quantonics we claim classical society (as a composite social object culturally-manufactured-synthesized of individual classical human objects) has n¤ intellect, i.e., classical society cann¤t think, it cann¤t even thingk, as classical individuals do; classical society 'legally' runs on automatic (i.e., "social 'principle' as 'state' ruling something 'not' itself," a Chaldæan oracle...); we claim classical individuals can only 'thingk,' so we say "Individual Intellect" here, and in our quantum version we just abbreviate it to "Individual." How can we do that? Quantum individuals k-now how to quantum cohere, quantum culturally. Quantum society is n¤t an objective construct! Quantum society is n¤t a mechanical production borne of synthetic assembly of objective parts. Due CTM's disablers, classicists are fundamentally incapable of quantum cultural coherence. Classicists view themselves as objective-cog-individuals in a classically objective societal formation. Quantum society emerges, recursively. Its individuals are in it, and it is in its individuals, quantum coherently. These last few paragraphs are essence of Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ commingling Mae-wan Ho's quantum~Bergsonian hermeneutics with Doug's quantum spin.

Doug added red text in blue text box to make a Chaldæan quantum~gn¤stic recapitulative nexus twixt now and then.

From this juncture forward in Quantonics' hopefully unbounded futurings, let it be said that this is what Doug learned, hermeneuted, intuited as "Quantum Gn¤sis."

Please observe that n¤whræings ihn that text did Doug use a word, 'gnosis.' What is amazing to Doug, is how those paragraphs, CeodE 2008, in retrospect so obviously describe what Doug means by "Quantum~Gn¤sis."

Indeed, gentle reader, quantum~gn¤stic~truthings are potent! See potentia.

Doug.

End 11Oct2008 Quantum~Gn¤sis Aside.

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

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

Page top index.

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'two' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'tw¤.'

Classically 'two' counts two lisr objects.

Quantumly 'tw¤' is quantum_2. Viz. tw¤ anihmatæ Planck quantons divided by ¤ne Planck quanton. See quantum tw¤ m¤deled using Planck quantons.

Page top index.