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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Quantum~wisdom admits individuals think, and even though they claim they can, societies' 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 alway 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.

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.

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.

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.