- Quantum "both-all/while/amd-many." Quantonics animated pluralistic both/and cooption of classical either/or. More quantumesque purely, "bothing-all/while/anding-many."

See a more detailed description of BAWAM under our How to Become A Student of Quantonics.

- Choice, Chance, Change. Choosings, Chancings, Changings. A nowistic, a priori (i.e., QLO, anticipating nextings), perpetual quantum selection ontology. This is analogous classical notions of PM and PMM, except this quantum ¤nt¤l¤gy issi ¤næ ¤f pærpætual, mahssihvely ænsehmble EIMA quantum pr¤cæssings' fluxings. Sææ: pærpætual moti¤n, ænsehmble, amd pr¤cess.

Also see our reality loops which minimally~exhibit  CH³ graphically: MoQ I Reality Loop, MoQ II Reality Loop, and Generation III Reality Loop.

- Classical Thinking Method (both SOM and CR use dialectic) See our quantum stage.

• We also intend by CTM:
  • naïve realism and
  • naïve localism,
  • both ISMs borne of archaic, anachronistic, and passé Iliadic, Parmenidean, Platonic, Aristotelian, Thomist, Buridanian, Baconian, Descartesian, Newtonian, Einsteinian thing-king methods
• CTMs may be narrated as:
  • Bergson's 1st desnouered classical delusion that reality is stable, thus: analytically stoppable, state-ic, event-ic and
  • Bergson's 2nd desnouered classical delusion that objects in reality are independent, thus: depend massively on 'normative,' 'tautologous,' and 'axiomatic' assumptions of objective, substantial, and material independence
  • Bergson's 3rd desnouered classical delusion that negation is objective (see Bergson's "Negation is Subjective).

Here is a quote of Doug from our recent, 2004, review of chapter 8 of Max Jammer's The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics:

"One notion that is incredibly important to grasp here is that all 'as practiced' logic and mathematics [and thing-king] on Earth today find their bases in Aristotle! Few understand that he was just wrong! To us, that is a major catastrophe for our world. It is the key SOM Disabler^{see Key Disablers} of nearly all thinking on Earth at Millennium III's emergence. Perhaps even more important: Aristotle infects everyday judgment, society, law, epistemology, ethics, politics, and so on. It is an unmitigated disaster of maltuitive thought. We've lived with it for 2500 years. It is nowings rent and purchase for change."

CTMs are all based on primitive, only apparently tautological and thus deludedly-veritable assumptions, carefully examined, proffer a bottom line that classical truth is little more than cultural, local opinion. Our view is that Heraclitus had a better set of hermeneutics which included his view that, "Dialectic blinds humans to the logos." Heraclitus' logos is much more like what we refer "coquecigrues" and "quantum reality" today at Earth Millennium III's commencement. See our SOM's Bases of Judgment. Yellow background table cells there are what Pirsig refers as, "SOM's Church of Reason." In Quantonics we call it a, "classical dialectical analytic deign to feign."

- Ensehmble Quantum Uncertainty

A fine, but cogent, point is that quantum ensembles are not classical. Classically, we can thingk of historical a posteriori ensembles as di(omni)-stinct from parallel-simultaneous a priori ensembles. Quantum ensembles are adirectional, atemporal, amagnitudinal, massihvely prægmallel (vis-à-vis classically, state-ically 'parallel'), etc. Flux rate is quantum essence. Direction, time, and magnitude are, among countless others, classical hyperboxland (4D) Feynmanian-collodionesque interpretations of quantum flux.

An excellent example, in Quantonics, of what we intend by EQU is: any diffraction pattern. Any diffraction (rather, quantum omniffraction) pattern directly measures animate, included~middle~everywhere~associative EQU. To understand quantum~omniffraction, one must study challenging memes surrounding quantum~scintillation. When a photon is absorbed by an atom's electron in an omniffraction pattern's 'target' screen, that photon's energy is transferred to, modulates, said electron. When that 'happenings,' absorbed photon's light tentatively 'goes away.' After some uncertain delay, said electron may choose to 'decay' to a lower energy shell. Fathom, briefly, how electron decay may be viewed innovatively and elegantly as quasi~rectification, demodulation, quantum~style. (Doug begs you to ask self, "Self, how can I do this quantum~electron 'rectification' on isoflux?") When 'electron~decay' is 'happenings,' a photon is emitted. Absorbed photon's light suddenly reappears. Classically this 'uncaused' light is called paradoxically an 'apparition.' Classicists view this as 'inexplicable phenomena.' Classically it is inexplicable. Doug just showed you how, quantumly, it is explicable. If you grasp Doug's intent here, you see essence of classical enigma called "effectless cause," and "causeless effect." A huge issue here is that quantum~scintillation must be viewed as Bergsonian~gn¤stic durational quantum~pr¤cæss (wave flux changings). Quantum~scintillation appears classically acausal, n¤t 'because' quantum~reality is acausal, rather quantum~reality is flux durational and always changing. What that means is that we cann¤t 'measure' scalarbatively dichon(when, where) a 'cause' occurs. John von Neumann tried and failed. Doug's description here explicates von Neumann's 'failure.' Actually it was a 'success' in showing why we cann¤t 'measure' quantum~reality classically. See monitor. Classicists naïvely and DIQheaded conventionally choose to analyse scintillation as stoppable state-event immobilities. When you view scintillation quantumly, there are n¤ classical enigma. Try it. Describe classical scintillation. Describe quantum~scintillation using Doug's grundlagen. Compare them side-by-side. If you do this 'without cheating,' you will understand both quantum and classical realities thoroughly. Your quantum~stage~mind and its potential qua will exceed your own expectations! Doug. When you view scintillation classically, "effectless cause," and "causeless effect" oxymora emerge. Why? Dialectic depends upon 'event-state' 'science.' So we may choose to obtain how CTMs induce classical paradice. Doug - 19Jan2008. Note: This paragraph offers one to three sequential courses worth of curricula for teaching tertiary-and-post-level quantum~memes.

For a relevant discussion see Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, pp. 113-117. Included within those pages ponder this remarkable comment by Einstein, "If one works only with Schrödinger waves, the interpretation II of |Y|², [i.e., quantum mechanics is considered as a complete theory of individual processes] I think, contradicts the postulate of relativity."

Elsewhere we have mentioned how most quantum theorists today try to ignore Schrödinger's wave mechanics. Is this part of an answer to why?

We should pay more attention to Huygens, Göethe, de Broglie, Schrödinger, and Bohm!

In Quantonics, quantum theory is not relative, quantum relativity theory is quantum. We must not relativize quantum theory, rather quantumize relativity theory. But that is unnecessary! Quantum theory, Quantonics style, intrinsically bears its own, more Poincaréan version of relativity.

See our Quantum Uncertainty as Macroscopic.

- How, why, what, who, when, where

Students of Quantonics can use comparisons of classical vis-à-vis quantum views of these simple terms to shred classical reasoning. Howings? Like this:

Term	Classical View	Quantum View
How	To any classicist 'how' is always accomplished via classical method. Classical 'how' may only be explained using scientific objective truth. Classical method is intransigently dialectical, analytic, mechanic, nominally Boolean, and syllogistic. Classical method's ontology is Newtonian based upon what classicists refer as "the enlightenment." See dialectic.	To quantumists 'how' must be QELR'd to a more quantum present-participle howings. Howings issi quantum emergence, emerscence, emerscitecture, emerscenture (in comtrast to classicism's radically mechanical manufacture).
Why	To any classicist 'why' is a cause-effect explanation for classical 'events.' Why? "Because single cause A determines effect B, and classicists can prove it 'scientifically' using Popperian falsifiability (based upon binary alternative denial contradiction)." What happens next is a value-free absolute determination.	To quantumists 'why' must be QELR'd to a more quantum present-participle whyings. Whyings issi an ensehmble affectings - Valuings - outcomings explanation for quantum semper flux, animate, affectational, real emergent changæ. Why? With Quantonic adaptation we follow Robert M. Pirsig's lead: "...¤utc¤mings Bings Valuings affective precomditi¤nings Aings." We supplement that statement with others which say, "quantum Valuation is c¤¤bsfective, "quantum Value interrelati¤nships are: included-middle, everywhere-ass¤ciative, anihmatæ, superp¤siti¤ning, entangling, (at least) quatr¤-c¤herent, (at least) quatr¤-entr¤pic, etc." See "whatings happeninngs nextings."
What	To any classicist 'what' is a classical object with classically identifiable objective properties.	To quantumists 'what' must be QELR'd to a more quantum present-participle whatings.
Who	To any classicist 'who' is a classical object with classically identifiable objective properties.	To quantumists 'who' must be QELR'd to a more quantum present-participle whoings. Whoings are quantum emergent processes. Whoings are quantum uncertain beings with full expression of ontic free will within some quantum animate, EIMA comtext.
When	To any classicist 'when' is some stoppable uni-time corresponding 1-1, deterministically to a classical 'where.' Classicists both presume and assume that 'when' is 'independent' of any 'where.' All 'wheres' march to a single, homogeneous, OGC, OGT 'when.'	To quantumists 'when' needs Quantonic English Language Remediation to whenings. Whenings are animate, EIMA, quantum processings.
Where	To any classicist 'where' is a Cartesian locus. 'Where' is classically stoppable in 'space-time.' Classically, 'where' is analytic, synthetic, syllogistic, lisr, objective, etc. It is a fixed, "zero momentum" locus in some state-ic dimensional reference frame.	To students of Quantonics AKA quantumists, 'where' should be QELR'd to present-participle whereings. Whereings are quantum processings. Whereings are animate, EIMA, arbitrary probability distributionings whose mode classicists self-delude as 'objective.'

See dialectic.

- Einstein's Invariant Geometrical Interval. Compare to quantum AVD.

Readers must be aware that Einstein's notions of Invariant Geometrical Interval and Relative Invariant Geometrical Interval are both invalid in quantum reality. That phasement carries strong implications for classical science. A great example is that classical notions of Lorenz (Lorentz) 'invariance' are also invalid in quantum reality. Simply, Lorenz Invariance is wrong, invalid! Doug - 24Jul2006.

- local, isolable, separate, reductionist - SOM objective attributes

See our Bases of Judgment.

- _wahvæManahgæmænt By Uncertainty™; a quantum ascendant way (mode, m¤dalings: quantum~radically st¤chastic (see QLO; see fuzzon; see fermionta), quantum~radically wahvæ~phasistic~æncodings) of Millennium III business wahvæ~management. Quantum _wMBU™ subsumes and devolves MBO as a relic of ancient dialectical management practices and theories.

So what Quantonics tools do we have to do _wahvæManahgæmænt By Uncertainty™? Let's start a list:

• Poisson Bracketings as applied utility modalings of Quantonics' Macroscopic Quantum Uncertainty,
• Bergsonian Duration as applied utility modalings of Quantonics' Macroscopic Quantum Uncertainty,
• Doug's April, 2006 applied macroscopic uncertainty review of Financial Times and E&Y's multi-paper insert 'Mastering Uncertainty' 17Mar2006 issue which included Sull's Difficult Decisions for an Uncertain World paper which Doug reviewed.
• Empiritheory as a quantum approach to more classical Jamesian-Peircean pragmatism.
• Quantum~th~¤ught as QTMs bridging fact and Value: straddle(Value,fact) quanton(¤ught,th) th~¤ught . See our QELR of thought.
• etc.

- N¤n Deterministic Periodic Quantum Waves; From Gleick's Chaos; Papers on Chaos and NDPF: Non Deterministic Periodic Flow... We may also write, "Stochastic Periodic Quantum Waves: SPQW."

Readers must grasp a quantum meme that quantum~reality is radically stochastic. An implication of that key enabler is that waves cann¤t predict events! Waves can only uncertainly 'guess' at what future wave patterns may look like. See NEO just above. Classically physicists say, "Quantum theory can only predict 'probabilities.' Quantum theory may n¤t predict specific events." We see, glaring back at us, classical thing-king's arrogant deign to feign: "Classical mechanics can predict events." That's roughly equivalent to Einstein's bogus, "God does not roll dice." Einstein's great error, one of many and a tragedy of commons sense, will haunt classical science forever more... G¤d's consummate quantique is NEO!

Why "N¤n Deterministic?" Quantum reality is uncertain. Quantum reality is always partial, quantum~partiality issi quantum~enthymemetic, due its perpetual quantum~evolution at up to Planck rate fluxings. All motion, all change in quantum reality is open. All orbits are very complex poly cycloids. Classical H5W may n¤t be classically-stoppably assessed in quantum reality. See our coined term scalarbation.

- Ontic Emergent-Deemergent Cycle (AH's acronym used in our recent dialog; permission granted.)

For a good example here take a look at our quantum MoQ II reality loop as showing OEDC iterations. Next, ponder humans' individual cellular apoptosis OEDC. It amounts to ~10¹³ cellular apoptosis OEDCs per 'second.' (Assumes ~10²¹ total cells per human body and roughly 1.5•10⁷ 'seconds' per 170 days. A superb question to ask when you ponder this example is, "What is quantum-human-l¤cal posentropy's gradient during these cellular apoptosis OEDCs?") See our Quantonics animate, recursive evolutionary ontology.

Our above estimate is wrong based upon an error Doug made when he first read Mae-wan Ho's the Rainbow and the Worm. We wrongly used ATP (adenosine triphosphate, intracell energy) molecule count in place of cell count! Here is corrected paragraph...

For a good example here take a look at our quantum MoQ II reality loop as showing OEDC iterations. Next, ponder humans' individual cellular apoptosis OEDC. It amounts to ~10⁶ cellular apoptosis OEDCs per 'second.' (Assumes ~10¹⁴ total cells per human body and roughly 1.5•10⁷ 'seconds' per 170 days. A superb question to ask when you ponder this example is, "What is quantum-human-l¤cal posentropy's gradient during these cellular apoptosis OEDCs?") See our Quantonics animate, recursive evolutionary ontology.

...Search WWW for <estimated total cells per human body>.

We have used this example in about 10 locations in Quantonics. All must be repaired. We'll do this ASAP!

We found this error during our review of Daniel C. Dennett's Breaking the Spell. Dennett claims that DNA transcription error rate is less than 1 error in 10¹² transcriptions and refers those 'errors' (that's how dialectical classicists view transcription evolutionary mutations) as happening "almost never." However, if we take our (even our corrected) calculation above as a proxy for transcription rate we find that "errors" happen rather often! Doug - 9Mar2006.

•  OBFA

•  OCFA

•  OLFA

•  OMFA

•  ONFA

•  OPFA

•  ORFA

•  OSFA

•  OTFA

•  OUFA

 peaqlo

add 'Four Peaqlos on Their Way to a Fermion' link to 3D Fuzzon page 14Dec2006 - Doug

- Partial emerqance (emerqancings) of animate REIMAR QLO, also Ensemble Quantum Likelihood Omnistributionings, EQLO

 Here is a list of relevant links showing applications of fuzzons to memeos of peaqlo:

• 2D fuzzons (please follow point, line, and circle links on that page)
• 3D fuzzons, both actual and nonactual (please read all text on that page)
  
  See our Four Peaqlos on Their Way to a Fermion graphic on that page.
  
  
• fermionta (using fuzzons to evolve a fermion; explicit examples of peaqlos applied)
• ditto, applied to QCD ontologies; quark ontology and proton~neutron (nucleonic) ontologies
• etc.

Perhaps our best applied application of peaqlo as quantum likelihood omnistribution appears under probability.

Others include our 2005 How CRites Measure Reality, How MoQites Measure Reality and How SOMites Measure Reality.

What are some examples of peaqlos? All quantons are peaqlos, but that likely isn't what you intend with your question, so...

• a tree branch,
• a tree,
• a flower,
• a bolt of lightning,
• a photon's stochastic 'path' from a double slit diffraction 'experience' toward an ensemble of atoms' electrons in some detector 'screen,' AKA target,
• any mammal's blood supply system,
• businesses' evolving adaptational SOON operational processes
• your path as you drive from locality A to locality B,
• birds, bats, et al., flying,
• an avalanche (ensemblings of peaqloings),
• Challenger and Columbia's launches,
• wind blowing,
• waves flowing,
• etc.

- Past(ings), Now(ings), Future(ings)...a posteriorai (probabilityings), a iamai (plausibilityings), a priorai (likelihoodings)...

See our QELR of time. See that QELR's subtext on Pastings, Nowings, Futurings.

- Quantum Chromo Dynamics (strong photon-quark-lepton-QVF animate interrelationships; classical version is interactive-object-excluded-middle state-ic; quantonics version is quanton-included-middle animate; classically QCD and QED (below) are about unitemporal, unispatial, mathematical/formal/mechanical 'motion' of ideal lisr objects/'particles,' and as such need quantum included-middle, c¤mplementary, everywhere-associative absolute flux remediation in Quantonics)

See our QCD 2004 News.

- Quantum Electro Dynamics (electromagnetic photon-electron-QVF animate interrelationships; classical version is interactive-object-excluded-middle state-ic; quantonics version is quanton-included-middle animate; classically QED and QCD (above) are about unitemporal, unispatial, mathematical/formal/mechanical 'motion' of ideal lisr objects/'particles,' and as such need quantum included-middle, c¤mplementary, everywhere-associative absolute flux remediation in Quantonics)

Paul Dirac speaks quite eloquently regarding interpretation of QED in his The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, in Chapter XII, Section 81. Let's set up our quotation. Dirac describes a no-particle, i.e., a particles-absent 'state' called "Q" which he represents (to us classically, dyslexically) as a ket, |Q>. Then he goes on to describe Q as analogous Pirsig's DQ and Quantonics' n¤nactuality. He tells us that our tendency might be to think of it as a quantum vacuum, but it cannot be a vacuum since it is absolute flux. Then he calculates mathematically a probability for particles to ontologically emerge/immerge ("transition") from/to this state. His calculated probability is "infinite." He tells us like this, "This gives an integral that diverges, so the transition probability is infinite...From these calculations one can conclude that the state Q is not even approximately stationary [i.e., absence of classical 'zero momentum']. A theory which gives rise to infinite transition probabilities of course cannot be correct. We can infer that there is something wrong with QED. This result does not surprise us., because QED does not provide a complete description of nature." Page 307 of 314 total including index, OUP, 1958. Dirac goes on to tell us that we can only use QED in very limited and relatively low energy experimental situations. In his 1957 Preface To The Fourth Edition Dirac says, "The main change from the third edition is that the chapter on QED has been rewritten." Previous editions described QED classically, with classical conservation. Classical QED "is a form of theory in which the number of charged particles is conserved and it cannot be generalized to allow [] variation of the number of charged particles...A QED which demands conservation...is therefore out of touch with physical reality...It seems that the classical concept of an electron is no longer a useful model in physics..."

It is interesting to us that Dirac derived a Quantonics QED-reality, but then could not accept it as "correct." CTMs do this to their inuring users.

See Banesh Hoffmann's account of Dirac's abstraction of Poisson's bracket followed by more detail by Doug in our March, 2005 TQS News editorial. Doug - 18Sep2006.

- Quantum Gn¤stic Pneuma of Sophia, QGP¤S

See QsHE just below.

- Quantum Ihndihvihdual Governance - HotMeme™ ; quantumists and MoQites believe that adult quantum individuals are above (more highly and more rapidly evolvings) than any society; it is individuals' duty to question all attempts by any society to induce social, societal, group, herd, universal, catholic, religious, corporate, governmental, common-sense, consensual, etc., hegemony:

1. over individuals' beliefs, and
2. over individuals' coobsfective, cooperative, and mutually respectful individual free wills.

No society can tell us what to believe, but all societies have viscously-evolving opinions which other societies and individuals must learn to respect and attempt to change respectfully (attempts to change may only be made deftly; in Doug's Quantonic perspectives classical politicians are manifestly undeft, indeed, daft, e.g., 2005 Schiavo incident).

Concomitant QIG attend vastly increased ihndihvihdual responsibilities, and significantly attenuated "social 'responsibilities.'"

This acronym is a quantum complement of a much more classical CSG. As a result "quantum~individual" appears here as anthropocentric, Earth chauvinistic. All quantons may be thought of as "quantum individuals." E.g., viruses and bacteria exercise QIG and their individual quantum free wills regardless whether humans like it. Human society has n¤ current means amd n¤ current capabilities to generically 'outlaw' viral and bacterial individual quantum free wills.

- Quantum n¤nMechanics.

For a good exemplar, see Doug's quantum~subjectiv[] Hamiltonian Quaternion.

 QTM

Add 'at once' link to Chaldæan At Once Aside.

- Quantonic/Quantum/Quality Thinking Mode; MoQ way to think See our quantum stage.

QTMs memeotically recapitulate all at once. It is extremely advantageous to re cognize that phasement as quantum~pr¤cæssings of holographic ræ~ænærgy~wællings. Doug - 2Sep2007.

James Gleick, in his Genius biography of Richard P. Feynman recalls Feynman's sister wishing that she could muster earning a Ph.D. She worried that she did not have what it takes to earn that lofty badge of academic excellence. She told Richard how she had great difficulty understanding materials from difficult textbooks, especially those in physics.

Richard explained that she had adequate intellect and motivation to accomplish her goal, and added that she should read difficult texts using his method: read until you do not understand what an author is saying. Back up to where you felt you were on solid ground. Read again. And again. Reread until you understand. Move on. Repeat.

This kind of learning technique is what we call "serial recapitulation." It is "a little at a time" incremental progress learning. More you do it, easier it becomes, faster you can proceed! Trouble is, it is classical. Notice its kinship with Bergson's notion of a classical cinematographic, frame-by-frame conception. Notice its heritage from Castalia. Its Hessean Glass Bead Game, incremental methodic, serial procedural para beading of an intellectual necklace.

Most reading is serial, by inured lingual necessity. De facto classical language is like that, almost innately. This is another 2500 year old ingrained classical maltuitional problematic.

Have you ever studied Frisby's Seeing? It explicates, at least for Doug it does, that our quantum stages are animate, EIMA SONs. Frisby offers some color dotted 'noise pictures' which at first appear as chaos. However, when one stares at them a minute or more our mental SONs associatively energy well reorganize a picture (say an alligator) which was 'not' there at first glance. (Ponder that 'not' as modern science's approach to that which apparently does 'not exist.' A very contemporary exemplar is perpetual motion.) This is a parallel version of recapitulation, faster than serial, except it is still 'not' all at once. It takes timings for our quantum stages to learn to do parallel recapitulation, and it takes longer to learn to do it fast, let's say almost with zero latency. Latter is what we mean by "all at once."

An excellent example of what we describe here is that young boy autist in Mercury Rising. He ~all at once decoded a crypto-puzzle which was not supposed to be decodable.

Another, perhaps less obvious example, is Ruthie ("Rootie") in Richard Powers' 2003 The Time of Our Singing.

Talbot, Pribram, and Bohm appear to imply that latter may be achieved, with Feynmanian stalwart practice, when we straddle both implicate and explicate order: quanton(implicate,explicate). That is analogous quanton(DQ,SQ) and quanton(n¤nactual,actual).

Implicate~explicate straddling is also brethren of what we call "tapping reserve energy."

We agree with Feynman that most of us can do it. We only need learn how and then practice, practice, practice. Just like learning golf, piano, art, physics...

How? Practice first serial recapitulation, then parallel recapitulation, finally all at once recapitulation. But when we do this we become adepts of quantum coobsfective self~other~referent recursion: quantum sophism (sorso).Very Zen! (Loads of examples of latter in Talbot's Holographic Universe.) QTM think-king generations can renew in milliseconds and faster.

When we compare this to CTMs, we see that classicists only recapitulate rote, state-ic know-ledge, 'non' self~other~referently. They treat their know-ledges as sacred paradigmatic palimpsests of objective, lisr state-icity. CTMs depend upon rote, mostly-serial "trusted scientific legacy" recall! CTM thing-king generations often take years to reconstitute their static bases of rote. (Recent examples here are: prions as real (classicists rejected this meme for decades), angiogenesis as cancer nutrition factors (rejected by classicists as "charlatanism" for decades), a notion that females are born with a fixed number of egg haploids (bogus classical notion), and glass as a fluid flows measurably over 100s of millennia (bogus classical notion), a notion that our brains do 'not' emerse 'new' neurons (this one lasted nearly a century!), list is almost endless and offers a strong clue that "all science is provisional: n¤ science is final." Doug expects during next 20-50 years that a current 'scientifically final' belief that CO₂ is a major anthropocentric 'cause' [i.e., anthropogenesis] of global warming will fall to its way side, also. CTMs are notoriously viscous (socially positive, tragedy of common sense state-ic) and, from a quantum~epistem¤l¤gical view, embarrassingly omnifficult to set aside. Sad...

By comparison, QTMs take full advantage of a Quantonics memeo that our minds are quantum stages fully capable of animate, EIMA, all at once, quantum recapitulation. We do n¤t classically recall facts and de jure principles, rather we are always in quantum ensehmble pr¤cessings of massively SON~associatings our quantum stage's latest recapitulationings. Think about it. It's very similar what Zen Masters do by putting some-most of their SQ to sleep (roughly analogous intentionally Bergsonian intellectual sympathizing cowithin implicate order; sort of like Polanyi's "plunging reorientation[ings]" and his "dwell[ings] [co]within[ings] unspecifiable manifestation[ing]s"). We call it "all at once straddling."

N¤wings you are k~n¤w~ings whatings Dougings meanings whenings heings issi referrings QTMings.

15Oct2004 - Doug. J

PS - Doug cannot perform all at once QTMings yet, on demand, reliably. He is still and yet working on it, still a student, always a student... We experience two or three all at once avatars now, roughly, per day. Imagine quantum stage mental load if this were relentless. Probably n¤t yet a Good and Valuable pursuit as Satinover warns. Doug has trouble, as it is, keeping up with all these avatars... N¤t too bright as Neo neo sapiens go... We're, possibly, only protocursors... J

- Rat Brain Biological Analogue(s)

Quantons are RaBBAs and RaBBAs are quantons.

- Quantum:

• Recursive EIMA Recapitulation,
• Recursively EIMA Recapitulate,
• Recursivings EIMAings Recapitulatings.

Quantons physially REIMAR.

Dichons innately cannot REIMAR.

Dichons "rote tote" know ledges and staysses of databaysses. Dichons run on mechanized automaticity.

We can mechanically turn dichons ideally either on or off at any 'outside' 'director's' will.

(notice SOM's dichonic wall...EOOO(on, off) and EOOO(outside_other, inside_self))

I.e., 'outside directed' is classically "other, usually societally-, institutionally-directed" vis-à-vis quantumly "ihndihvihdual~sælf~diræcted;" for example classical 'education' is "other directed," stux-sux push vis-à-vis quantum æducati¤n issi m¤stly sælf~diræcted flux~issi~crux pull. See classical push vis-à-vis quantum pull will.

Quantons REIMAR QTM~unstoppably (except for what we might call, classically, "death"). Dichons 'recall' rules and principles. Quantons adapt. Dichons believe 'state' is simple. Quantons believe flux is simple.

- Einstein's Relative Invariant Geometrical Interval. Compare to quantum AVD.

See failure of Lorenz Invariance remarks under IGI.

- Subjects, Objects, Data, & Values, Pirsig's '95 EMM paper

See our What is Wrong with Probability as Value?

- Static Pattern(s) of Value

See our What is Wrong with Probability as Value?

- Top, Bottom, Charmed, Strange, Up, Down QCD quarks. All are fermions. TBCS are isots. UD are isops. UDD is neutron. UDU is proton.

See our QCD 2004 News.