'wave'

Etymology:

• Classical - wave

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

A classical-wave is a transverse analytic cyclicity. A classical-wave is a mechanical, concrete and immutably-predicable periodicity.

Classically waves are 'context free.' As such, wave loci are not considered via classical analyticity to be 'contextual.'

Classical waves are dialectically objective and can (may) be classically measured at a 'point.' Classical waves may be cut up (analyzed) via SOM's Knife.

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : Wavæ, wayvæ, wavihng, wavihngs, ætc.

A quantum~wave is an (real timings) evolving ensemble of ephemera. In Quantonics we intend by 'ephemera' and 'ephemeral:' all wave~phenomena which are stochastically, quantum~uncertainly, and emergently-emerscently transitory at all scales of reality. A quantum~wave is emergent, always changing and potentially changing all quantons with which it may have both quantum~interfering and quantum~n¤ninterfering quantonic~interrelationshipings ( ).

Quantumly waves are quantum~comtextually affectational and coobsfective. As such all quantum~waves and their ensembles and comstituents are quantum~comtextually~sensitive. Ephemera (which are quantum~varying and ~omniffering waves) of all scales affect all quantum~reality to greater and lesser qualitative affectationings.

Quantum waves, similar quantum lines, may n¤t be severed, analyzed, and measured at a point. Quantum~waves must be ømnihtøræd dynamically using other wavings to do all quantum~ømnihtøring (exemplar here is electron microscope electron waves ømnihtøring fermionic target ensembles; similarly comsider (quantizational) quantum~scintillation QED of photons and electrons...). Waves ømnihtøring waves is what Quantonics means by quantum~relativity.

Also see our quantum~circle, and imagine it as a genærat¤r of an quantum~¤pæn~wavæ.

Doug - 13Sep2009; 20Oct2009, Add quantum link. Doug - 12Dec2014.

Page top index.

'wavefunction'

Etymology:

• Classical - wave
• Quantum - notions of wavefunctions as probability commenced during Earth's 20th century. If one builds an ancient quantum~theory whose bases are Essene Gnosis, one can make proper inferences that reality is positive thus denying wavefunctions as having qua to represent a negative reality. Sankara understood this over 1.2 millennia ago...

"That the world is continuous I consider more than ever as unacceptable. But as soon as it is discontinuous, all our words that we apply to the description of facts are so many c-numbers. What the words 'wave' or 'corpuscle' mean we may know not any more." 23November1926. W. Pauli, 1979, see for example, A. I. Miller, Early Quantum ElectroDynamics, 1994, Cambridge University Press. Latter see specific quote on p. 13 of hardbound first edition. Miller's text is exceptional. It's too new for Doug to do a full text review, but if you want to discuss select paragraphs and have Doug do QELR's of Miller's work, contact Quantonics. Miller provides selected papers from that time period. Doug can review those for you if you have specific interest. Most author's are wearing SOM blinders, and cannot — lack qua — to fathom a reality emersced from quantons.

Herein we see ad occulos quantum~reality's most fulminating paradox of what is particle, what is wave?

It appears, from reading papers from CeodE 1920s, Pauli, et al., didn't omnistinguish among classes of entropy, what Doug refers today as "entropa." Had Pauli understood that Fermi statistics were about material, decoherent, spin one~half reality and Bose statistics were (are) about coherent, integer~spin reality, he may n¤t have written (stated) what we read above. (See Tomonaga's The Story of Spin.) All then, apparent to most, was J. C. Maxwellian posentropic. All treated flux and energy and mass as posentropic. (Sheer dialectical testosterone and hubris.) That, we are knowings nowings, is simply bogus. Some waves are posentropic~decoherent~fermionic (appear as material substance). Some waves are zeroentropic~coherent~bosonic (appear as immaterial flux) AKA cohera. Some waves are mixings of those and quantum~perturbations (say BECs) of those. Some waves hide from all observation and we now refer them as Schrödinger's negentropic~isocoherent~isoflux.

Isoflux hides in a very similar way as jet engines hide torque via designs incorporating partial isofluxic contrarotation of compressor and fan blades. Another exemplar of partial isofluxic contrarotation is superconducting pairs of electrons. If all material reality could isofluxially contrarotate, it would become immeasurable, undetectable, unobservable, etc. This is, quantumly, our ultimate cloaking emerscenture and emerscitecture. Think about it. Isoflux is what we now intend when we say "absolute zero Kelvin." Metaphorically like a coldest boy friend for which a girl could ask. A kind of perfect, "Make the world go away, get it off of my..." Ever wonder why NDEs come back to actuality and say they felt cold? (Only similar memeo, but very interesting in this quantum~comtexting.) LOL. To commence grasping last few sentences in a life ontology scenario see our Generation III Quantum~Reality Loop.

28Mar2009 - More...

What is our biggest tell that Pauli is a classicist, a died in wool dialectician? This: his dichon(discontinuous, continuous)!

What did he say? He said, "Reality is either continuous or discontinuous, and even worse, if reality isn't continuous it has to be discontinuous! ...

Pauli's pure dialectic exposes its own stupidity as ideal formal opposition. Opposition, notionally, is one basis of ideal negation, which is now manifestly bogus, if we adhere memeos of an all positive quantum~reality. (For a comparison of classical dialectic and quantum~rhetoric, see our What are Sophisms? You will see how many folk perceive rhetoric almost as relativism (this explains how classicists ineptly referred Kuhn a "relativist"). It would be, were it ideally objective, but waves are subjective. Classical relativism succumbs and dies when it is metastindyanically in[fj]ected with animate middle~including everywhere~associative quantum~holographic wavings.) Doug - 28Mar2009.

... Pure, unadulterated pig whis! We call it "lisr, immutable, stopped EOOO EEMD."

OK, though, you are a student of Quantonics. You know what to do when you see sheer dialectical stupidity of this magnitude. It's over 83 years since Pauli emitted that bilge! "What do you do?" "What do you say?"

You say, "quanton(continuous,discontinuous)." That's incrementally better, but we can make it even better. "But what does that mean?"

It means, "quantal, animate, evolving BAWAMings EIMAings."

Over-simply we see classical either-or vav quantum both~and. Our vav is short for vis-à-vis (Latin for "as compared to").

Again, over-simply, quantum~reality issi omniscomtinuityings of comtinuityings. "Doug, how can you say that?" Easy! Least action and ensemble least action subatomic and atomic con(m)stituents of quantum~reality are perpetual flux and that means they are intrinsically adiabatic. They are 100% efficient. They perpetually retain their con(m)tinuity until they experience some kinds of quantal transmutation, most of which are described thoroughly by two types of quantum discipline: QED (quantonings(photon,electron)) and QCD (quantonings(gluonings,quarkings) and quantonings(nuclei,electrons)). Quantum~simply, then, left alone these quantum~comstituents are self~comtinuous.

Quantonics' Change HotMeme™ "All of this is crucial. It is essence, nascence, and ensemble~bases for one of quantum~realityings' greatest, until now, inexplicables! Change!"™ Quantonics' Change HotMeme™

Quantonics' Change HotMeme™ "Quantum change, we may now say with quantum~comfidence, issi quantal~omniscomtinuityings of all quantum~realityings' quantum~comstituents' quantonic interrelationshipings!"™ Quantonics' Change HotMeme™

Quantonics' Change HotMeme™ "Quantum~changings quantum~modulate~demodulate quantum~comstituentings' comtinuityings omniscomtinuously."™ Quantonics' Change HotMeme™

Classico-quantumly and with a holographic quantum~awareness based mindset then we may describe change as: Energy well's (quantum attractors') emerqancings and continuityings are discontinuously, and self~other~adaptively~coobsfecting complementary energy well's (begs quantum~partiality and evolutionary absolute change borne tentativenessings of nexi) via holographic~network adiabatic interrelationshipings' cognitionings, re cognitionings, and omniscriminationings.

Simply, that means quantum~change is "quantal." It occurs often with apparent zero latency and thus itself is adiabatic (quanton(photon,electron) scintillation is a superb example of transmutational adiabaticity...). When it is apparently n¤n adiabatic, novel quanta of immense varieties are generated (emitted, radiated) and that energy is locally 'lost' (transmuted) via radiation of those quanta (transmuted: n¤t lost to quantum~reality). Similarly, sometimes some quanta are locally gained, absorbed.

Latter sounds like a quantum~omniscription of 'classical conservation.' It isn't! Why? Essentially, quanton(nonactuality,actuality) is open. All open systems are n¤n 'classically conservative.' Another indicator is that quantum~reality is waves, waves are stochastic, all stochastics are positive. Classical conservation requires an ideal dialectical notion of negation in order to do 'classical conservation.' Quantum~reality issi positive! Quantum~reality issi a n¤n negative stochastic quantal~wavings reality. See cancel. Compare negate.

(This update awakened Doug at 01:20 CDT, and it's now two hours later, and I am going to pause and let you read it as is...more after I get some more sleep. Needs more links, touch-ups, etc. Doug - 28Mar2009. Thanks to Jade, Dotty and Fiona!!! What a ride...)

27-28Mar2009.

Doug.

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

Classical quantum theory is mechanical and obeys mathematical 'rules' whose foundations are dialectical. Regular readers in Quantonics understand that all reasoning based in dialectic, in Quantonics, is simply bogus.

So, Classical Mechanical Quantum Theory is bogus. (In Quantonics.)

A great example which we can use here is a quote from Dan Thomas' web site on quantum theory, re Probability, "In quantum theory, the wavefunction can be complex and negative, so that it cannot be a probability." Of course, that 'quantum theory' issi classically mechanical. See our What is Wrong with EPR?

We marked apparent classical problematics in bold violet. Classicists make a huge error in judgment when they use the. In quantum reality, there is n¤ the! Definite articles simply cann¤t exist in quantum reality, since quantum~reality is evolving and all quantons' middles, to both greater and lesser extents, are included. Classical mathematics' 'independence axiom' violates quantum reality. See our thelogos.

Too, classical mathematics assume 'negation' is objective (classical mathematics assume objectivity is dialectical), but in quantum reality there are n¤ classical 'negatives.' Indeed as Henri Louis Bergson has shown us "Negation is subjective."

Begin Doug aside 4,8Aug2011:

Another great example which Prigogine and Stengers belie in their fabulous Order Out of Chaos, shows mechanical devastation of classical quantum theory delivered by retarded classical objective and dialectical mathematics. See p. 227 of 349 total including index.

Classical mechanics mathematically layers wavefunctions like this:

• Energy operators,
• Eigenfunctions,
• Eigenvalues.

Classically each of those is expressed as scalar results. Worse, in classical mechanics eigenvalues are either one or zero. Essentially any system of energies can be reduced to classical scalar static and objective results. No account is taken of a need to monitor dynamics of an energy system. It is assumed, even presumed, that said system may be stopped for scalar measurement.

However, it worsens more. Energy operators must commute, and in order for them to commute they must have 'common' eigenfunctions. 'Common' eigenfunctions cann¤t exist in quantum~reality in any classical mathematical sense. Common part of any eigenfunction is always definite and determinate and continuous. Quantum~reality perpetually evolves based upon ubiquitous up to Planck rate quantization~scintillation fractal self~other referent recursionings. So classical definiteness is overridden by quantum~uncertainty. Radical ubiquitous quantization destroys classical notions of process determination and continuity. An implication then, is there can be n¤ classically 'common' eigenfunctions! Doug - 8Aug2011. See P&S' OOoC text pp. 221-223.

What we uncloak here is classical mathematics' cheap imitation of quantum~autsimilarity using specific and definite classical functions. Autsimilarity cann¤t be specific n¤r definite since it too is under a quantum edict of absolute change.

We desnouer Bohm's "We need a non mechanical approach to quantum~reality." Paraphrased. Doug - 8Aug2011.

Even kinetic analyses are turned into static scalar 'values.'

In all of this classical scalar mathematical analysis other assumptions are made which viewed quantumly are simply bogus:

• classical wavefunction amplitude and area as energy vav quantum wave function flux rate(s) (amplitude is irrelevant) as evolving energy(ings),
• eigen operator commutation vav impossibility of classical mechanical-formal commutation in quantum~reality,
• classical scalar measurement of amplitude at an instant vav quantum~ømnihtøring of flux gradience (a quantum wavefunction in itself) as flux evolves,
• classical wavefunctions are temporal vav quantum wavefunctions are atemporal,
• classical wavefunction intensity as 'square of the amplitude,' (i.e., velocity as a scalar magnitude) vav quantum wavefunction intensity as flux rate relevant (velocity as flux),
• classical superposition of scalars vav quantum~superposition of evolving wavefunctions,
• classical 'probability' vav quantum stochastics as probabilityings, plausibilityings, and likelihoodings,
• classical single event prediction vav quantum stochastic prediction as an evolving wavefunction,
• classical determinism vav quantum~uncertainty born of wave function stochastics,
• etc.

We see vividly almost ad occulos that classical thingking (CTMs) is manifestly bogus, retarded, ersatz, facile, pseudo, and faux.

Doug - 4,8Aug2011.

End Doug aside 4,8Aug2011.

Classical complexity creates 'imaginary' values in actuality.

Quantum complexity is an admission that real quantum~n¤nactuality complements quantum~actuality, like this: quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality).

Compare classical square root to Doug's quantum~square~root.

See Doug's 2012 'A List of Suggested Requirements for N¤væl Quantum Maths.'

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

For now, and to keep it quantum~simple, quantum reality is positive, n¤n classically-'negative,' and wavefunctions are probability!

Wavefunction Collapse Aside:

Doug has seen too many of you apparently search in vain for a quantum~omniscription of whether a wave function collapses and whether a notion of classical 'collapse' as classical stoppability is valid in quantum~reality?

Quick answer to latter part of that phasemental query is "quantum~reality is unstoppable."

In quantum~reality, however, there are always more howevers.

Quantum~computing requires what is called "coherence" ( "c¤herænce" ) in order for a quantum~computer to "coherently monitor" ( "c¤heræntly ømnihtør" ) some portion of quantum~reality, e.g., another quanton or some evolving ensemble of quantons.

Apparently, and Doug currently lacks qua to describe this, but quantum~omnitoring is omnifficultings to both establish and durationally maintain.

One issue is that any quantum qubit which is fermionic, then is made coherent tentatively in order to dynamically (stindyanically) omnitor its comtext, is extremely subject to decoherence based upon both local and nonlocal affectings in said computing environs. Doug wants to say, emphatically, that is not defined in any way by a notion of classical stoppable 'collapse' of said fermion's transmutation from a pretend boson to an actual fermion. Fermions like to stay fermionic, and they will go from their ISOTive bosonicity to their 'normal' fermionicity at any subatomic drop of a pin.

In general, n¤ quantum~wavefunction classically stops, ever. Evolve yæs! Stop n¤! All quantum flux is quantum durationally perpetual, but it can mix (via quantum~phase~encoding) with other quantum~flux to transmutationally emerse n¤væl quantum~actualities. Examples of latter are paired fermionic contrarotation as fermionic torque hiding. It is worthwhile for serious students of quantonics to compare "torque hiding" to "partial coherence" in qubits while they are c¤heræntly ømnihtøring some portion of quantum~reality. Ditto advanced memes of partial gravity and anti gravity. Realise that photons of white light, when entangled, can phase dependently select darkness: photon hiding. Realise that isoflux contrarotates and hides DQ as 'dark energy,' which is essentially unlimited. Memes of quantum~hiding as temporary (many types of) quantum~coherency. Imagine a bullet which could contrarotate... An arrow? A pair of electrons?

26Feb2009 - Doug.

End Wavefunction Collapse Aside.

Thank you for reading,

Doug - 24Dec2008.

Page top index.

'what'

Etymology:

• Classical - what
• Quantum -What you see here is our novel, innovated quantum QELR of 'what.'

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

As you can see classical 'what' is singular. In classical 'reality' 'what' is always grammatically and almost always logically singular. 'Whats' is grammatically incorrect. 'Whatings' is absurd, unheard of, and unprecedented. We offer a superb example? "What happens next." Classical 'what' may neither be plural/heterogeneous/multiplicate, nor may it be animate/changing/emerging. Ditto 'next.'

By c¤mparis¤n, quantum what may be expressed as b¤th whats amd whatings. Seld¤m is quantum what singular. Nævær is quantum what classically 'inanimate!'

See "...whatings happenings nextings..."

Page top index.

'when'

Etymology:

• Classical - when
• Quantum -What you see here is our novel, innovated quantum QELR of 'when.'

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

As you can see classical 'when' is singular. In classical 'reality' 'when' is always grammatically and almost always logically singular. 'Whens' is grammatically incorrect. 'Whenings' is absurd, unheard of, and unprecedented. When is always classically unitemporal adhering a classical functional notion of y=f(t). We seldom see y=(f(t_r,t_s,t_t,...t_j,t_k,t_l...)), i.e., y is a function of heterogeneous times.

In Quantum reality, quantum when is usually plural/heterogeneous/multiplicate. We may use it both as whens and as whenings. Seldom is when singular. Nævær is quantum when classically 'inanimate!' We will usually describe quanton ensehmble quantum interrelati¤nships ¤mnitemp¤rally as "whenings happenings nextings."

Page top index.

'where'

Etymology:

• Classical - where
• Quantum -What you see here is our novel, innovated quantum QELR of 'where.'

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

As you can see classical 'where' is singular. In classical 'reality' 'where' is always grammatically and almost always logically singular. 'Wheres' is grammatically incorrect. 'Whereings' is absurd, unheard of, and unprecedented. We offer a superb example? "What happens where." Classical 'where' may neither be plural/heterogeneous/multiplicate, nor may it be animate/changing/emerging. Ditto 'next.'

By c¤mparis¤n, quantum where may be expressed as b¤th wheres amd whereings. Seld¤m is quantum where singular. Nævær (due to abs¤lute quantum flux) is quantum where classically 'inanimate!' A perfect example of quantum whereness is quantum p¤siti¤n-m¤mentum umcærtainty of, for example, a baseball quanton. Another example is an electr¤n in an energy shell in an atom. Where is that electr¤n? It is somewhere in its pr¤bability distributi¤n amd when we mæasuræ or 'square' it to find out, we get a quantum pr¤bability of 'where.' Whereness is essentially quantum pr¤bability. Any quanton which is in 'motion' (all quantons aræ always in abs¤lute quantum flux 'motion') has a p¤siti¤n which is 'spread out' (i.e., pr¤bability distributed) in ~Hilbert 'space.' We have multiple issues here, and we can briefly discuss two of them. A baseball is an aggregation of atomic and subatomic quantons, so we must be able to talk about a baseball's whereings (and whatings and whenings) in terms of all those quantons' (AKA quantum umcærtainty interrelati¤nships) p¤sti¤nings amd m¤menta. T¤¤, æach of those quantons has anihmatæ EIMA actualized pr¤bability based up¤n its anihmatæ EIMA pr¤bability distributi¤n.

Page top index.

'who'

Etymology:

• Classical - who
• Quantum -What you see here is our novel, innovated quantum QELR of 'who.'

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

From any anthropocentric conceptive, a human 'who' is usually viewed as a classical object. Franz Boas did this in his definement of late 19^th century anthropological science in its infancy. Margaret Mead et al. followed, and today anthropology still suffers that classical legacy blunder. As such we can say then that classicists today still view humans as objectively adhering Aristotle's three syllogisms: Classically, 'who' is an object!

From a more quantum perspective, humans are quantonic. Any human, like any other quantum actuality, is an anihmatæ quanton of EIMA quantons. So any quantum quanton who, is a quanton of quantons.

Who aside:

Quantum reality issi change, issi evolution. Humans age, and aging is evolution itself, quantum~evolution itself. So a good test of quantum~who is to ask "When are you, you?"

For philosophical~lingual entertainment, con(m)sider:

• "When is you you?"
• "When is you y¤u?"
• "When are y¤u you?" and
• "When are y¤u y¤u?"

Can we say you at age 10 'is' you at age 70?" "Is you now, you one second ago, one Planck moment ago?" "Are you certain? Do you n¤t have to admit uncertainty, macroscopic uncertainty?"

Fathom classical you vis-à-vis quantum y¤u. Who vis-à-vis wh¤? Which 'who' is 'real.' Which wh¤ issi ræal? Is a static 'who' real? Is an objective 'who' real? Ræal?

Quantumly, wh¤ may nævær be classically objective. Wh¤ is always qualitatively subjective. Quantumly wh¤ may never be stopped, since wh¤ is always evolving.

A classically 'concrete' reality is actually a deign to feign!

Doug - 10Dec2008.

End who aside.

Page top index.

'whole'

Etymology:

• Classical - whole
• Quantum - What you see here is our novel, innovated quantum QELR of 'whole.'

Synonyms - Classical:

• unified
• universal
• catholic
• complete
• full
• EEMD
• absolute
• (for fundamentalists) 'true'
• etc.

Synonyms - Quantum:

• coinsident
• compenetrating
• EIMA
• holographic
• interpenetrating
• interfusing
• superpositionings
• entanglings
• complementarophasings
• real issi quanton(DQ,SQ), etc.
• any wh¤læ issi quanton(DQ,SQ)
• etc.

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

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'whole' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'wh¤læ.'

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

Classical 'wholes' are universally objective, state-ic, and exclusive. Classical 'wholes' are canonically material, substantial, formal and represent thermodynamically what classicists intend by positive entropy (posentropic reality). All wholes are only posentropic.

Classical reality is to those who practice dialectic, foundationally monistic. Dialectic formally derives from monism. Basal assumptions of monism, we can show in Quantonics, are bogus in almost all ways. Yet modern c. 2007 earth societies practice it, religiously. Other descriptions of reality 'scare' and threaten them. They have already made their futures extinct, through fear uncertainty and doubt (AKA FUD) borne of orthodox canonic wors(e)ship of malspels.

Classical wholes leave out most of reality, including:

• zero entropic reality,
• negative entropic reality,
• mixed entropic reality,
• and all reality which classical 'experts' claim is unknown, and unknowable.

As may be apparent to you, classical reality itself is canonically, axiomatically incomplete, unwhole.

Quantum assess: animacy c¤mplementarity included-middlings BAWAMings H5Wings lisrings affectati¤nings umcærtainty EIMAivityings c¤¤bsfection : Wh¤læ, wh¤ling, wh¤lings, (w)h¤lihst, wh¤lnæssings, etc.

If you examine our list of quantum synonyms just left you will see that Quantonics' view of (w)holism aligns Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality. We show that like this:

We have shown a 'scientific' view using quantonic scripts near bottom above.

Religiously, gnosis is closest to fathoming quantum reality. Given that, we interpret (hermeneut, heterogeneously~animately, and inclusively) 1, 2, 3, 4 like this:

1. Mother, (AKA DQ, isoflux, etc.)
2. son, (AKA Quantonics' comma~n¤space quantum~included~middle, "straddle," etc.)
3. Sophia (Magdalene, mother, quantum~actuality, et al.), and
4. [Ff]ather (Two versions here: living as Gn¤stic Jesus (AKA logos, Light, Ihn Quantum Lightings, etc.) and dead as 'the demiurge' (AKA Satan, 'the devil,' noxious male, etc.; latter does n¤t 'exist' in quantum~reality, see: ESQ, positive, negative.)

ræhlihty issi wh¤le_ræhlihty
		1(2,3) (quantum~gn¤sis)
		1(2,3) (4) (Chaldæan gn¤sis)
		quanton(DQ,SQ)
		quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality)
		quanton(VES,PES)
		quanton(negentropy,quanton(zeroentropy,posentropy))1
		quanton(isoflux,quanton(bosonic_flux,fermionic_flux))
		Notes: 1 - See cohera and entropa. See quantum~coherence.

Doug has come to view Chaldæan Gn¤sis as a Pirsigean "ancients" precursor of Quantonics and quantum reality. Chaldæns' (AKA "Kaldu;" sixth and seventh century Babylonian Persians', now Iraqis') view of wholeness as classical monism is simply, "Monism is deceit." Doug hermeneuts that as "Dialectic based upon classical monism is deceit." Therefore, classical 'wholeness' is deceit regardless what you call it. See list of classical 'wholeness' synonyms just left.

'Classical monism' and its classical derivative 'dialectic' are what Daniel C. Dennett should have called 'The Spell,' in his Breaking the Spell.

Doug - 22Sep2007.

Page top index.

'why'

Etymology:

• Classical - why
• Quantum -What you see here is our novel, innovated quantum QELR of 'why.'

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

As you can see classical 'why' is singular. In classical 'reality' 'why' is always grammatically and almost always logically singular. 'Whys' is grammatically incorrect. 'Whyings' is absurd, unheard of, and unprecedented. Classical 'why' may neither be plural/heterogeneous/multiplicate, nor may it be animate/changing/emerging.

By c¤mparis¤n, quantum why may be expressed as b¤th whys amd whyings. Seld¤m is quantum why singular. Nævær is quantum why classically 'inanimate!'

See choice.

See cause. See effect. See cause-effect.

Page top index.

'wisdom'
'wise'

Etymology:

• wisdom, wise, etc.

Synonyms - classical:

• knowledge,
• ability for rote recall,
• ability to formally and dogmatically run on automatic social programing,
• formal education,
• formal experience,
• formal training,
• adherence to classical thought methodologies,
• advocacy and adherence to social 'laws,' 'edicts,' 'directives,' and so on...
• etc.

Synonyms - quantum:

• ensemble bases of stochastic choosings, chancings, and changings whatings happenings nextings

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

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

Classical wisdom finds its bases in DIQheaded scalarbative thing-king. Classical wisdom is masculine, mostly due 'the church's' patriarchal dogma and orthodoxy.

Classical wisdom is consensual. Social wisdom is justly and only "common sense."

Individuals who adhere classical consensus are 'wise.'

Classical wisdom is anti-gnostic.

Classical wisdom is analytic, dialectical, formal, mechanical, objective, state-ic and thus innately 'stoppable.'

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

Quantum~wisdom is individually selective, quantadulative. Quantum~wisdom admits individuals think, and even though they claim they can, societies_c cann¤t think_q.

Quantum~wisdom claims that our think_q~ings must always be admittings how reality issi change and change issi reality. Wisely we must acknowledge that a changing, evolving reality is always only partial and never complete. Wisdom admits "we can never arrive" at any final 'know ledge,' since knowledge itself is evolving and never state-ic.

Any reality which perpetually changes is subjective, qualitative and perhaps most important of all unstoppable.

Wisdom is Pirsigean, and in Quantonics we show that like this: quanton(DQ,SQ). If you understand Quantonics, you now see that reality is wisdom itself. How? Reality issi quanton(DQ,SQ). But it is more interesting than that since we have to realise that quanton(DQ,SQ) implies a radically ubiquitous EIMA, "DQ issi ihn SQ and SQ issi ihn DQ." How? Quantum~reality issi quantum~flux. Quantum~fluxings are quantum~waves. So, in a sense, wisdom issi quantum~wave empiritheory.

Much of what Doug writes about here regarding, quantumly, "What is Wisdom?" shares Value and semantic with a fabulous textbook titled Women's Ways of Knowing, by Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule, Basic Books paperback, 1986. All authors are female, and they follow work, among others, of William G. Perry in his Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years, 1970.

Of course all of this falls, at least from a human and anthropocentric stance, under epistemology. Epistemology's history is blighted with a predominant male influence of dialectical objectivism, perhaps excepting Ayn Rand. Ayn got her gn¤stic enthymemes partially by focusing on individualism, but she Alil Blewitt by insisting on an Atlantean objectivism. Reality is n¤t rationally objective, rather reality as our four women authors cant so well is animate, heterogeneous, empirical subjectivism.

Doug wants to start his own prioritized list of terms, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, essays, and whole texts which are evolving all of us toward real quantum~wihsd¤m and away from CeodE classical 'wisdom.' Quantum~wihsd¤m issi best described in these terms:

1. self~other awarenessings
2. self~other parthenofluxis,
3. self~other phylogenesis,
4. self~other antinomial,
5. self~other abduction,
6. self~directing (gnostic~selection based upon individual~quantal CH³ings, etc.),
7. full~spectrum flux~holographic,
8. subjective (qualitative, affective, etc.),
9. middle~inclusive (see included~middle at our How to Become a Student of Quantonics page...),
10. everywhere~associative (omnivalent, coobsfective, coaffective, complementaroceptive, complementarospective, etc.),
11. adaptive assuming all reality issi:
    1. process (borne on memeos of quantum~waves and omnitorabilityings of their positive energy QSOs, i.e., Quantum~Stochastic~Omnistributionings), and
    2. perpetual evolution as absolute quantized change
12. holographically hetero~cultural, heterocomtextual, heteroversal, heteroethical, heteromoral, etc. (DNA is a good example here of everywhere~holographic energy~welling (EW) autsimilar heterointerrelationshipings) 'Autsimilar' link addition by Doug - 19May2009.
13. quantum~pragmatic (essential William James and Charles Sanders Peircean forward facing quantum~empirical abductive pragmatism; see 'affective' link above),
14. etc.

Our list is perpetually extensible. Hierarchy is important and flexible: See Doug's commentary re: hyper and hypo as assessors of quantum~relative hierarchy.

One potent observation available to all of us is how a n¤væl quantum vocabulary is emerging. We need novel linguistics to describe, wisely, our quantum~realmings. Did You Know? Only a handful of people can speak fluently in that vocabulary today... "What will you do?"

Doug - 18-19,28Mar2009.

There is much more to be written here, but what Doug has written here offers you a starting point for your own individual intellectual Chautauqua.

Doug - 23May2008.

Page top index.

'word'

Etymology:

• Classical - word
• Quantum - quantons are words, words are quantons, Quantonics starting in about 1993

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'word' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'w¤rd.'

When we see 'w¤rd' in quantum comtexts we kn¤w that we are referring a quanton(anihmatæ,inanihmatæ). All Quantonic remediated w¤rds in quantum comtexts are b¤th anihmatæ amd inanihmatæ, even though we are usually/currently restricted t¤ sh¤wing them inanimately. Eventually, we will find ways t¤ sh¤w Quantonic w¤rds animately.

Page top index.

'wrong'

Etymology:

• Classical - wrong
• Quantum - wr¤ng as subjective negation based upon Bergson's "negation is subjective," about 1880 plus-minus 20 years

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'wrong' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'wr¤ng.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'wrong.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'wr¤ng.'

We shall use single qu¤tes when referring these terms, respectively, "¤ut ¤f con/comtexts."

Classically, 'wrong' is part of a conjugate excluded-middle dichotomy: either absolute 'right' or absolute 'wrong.'

Quantumly 'wr¤ng' is a part of a comjugate included-middle c¤mplementarity. Wr¤ng's quantum c¤mplement is potentially all of reality, which it quantum commingles, compenetrates, interpenetrates, fuses, etc. From a classical perspective it is 'absurd' to practice classical thing-king which axiomatically assumes all wrongs compenetrate to greater or lesser extents all rights.

Quantumly 'wr¤ng' may be rather easily interpreted n¤nabs¤lutely as relatively 'w¤rse.' When we accept this view ¤f quantum realities' awarenesses we see a quanton ¤f BAAM(better,w¤rse) vis-à-vis a classical dichon(wrong, right).

Page top index.