Aug2001

"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). Dirac, in our view, is saying then, that there is no causality! Why? No quantum system may be left undisturbed. We think his statement is legacy classical detritus: an assumption that 'zero momentum' exists in reality. Reality is in abs¤lute motion and quantum reality is always disturbing itself by ensehmble- 'measuring' itself EIMA-fractally.

Henri Louis Bergson says it presciently, like this, "But the determinist, even when he refrains from regarding the more serious emotions or deep seated psychic states as forces, nevertheless distinguishes them from one another and is thus led to a mechanical conception of the self. He will show us this self hesitating between two contrary feelings, passing from one to the other and finally deciding in favour of one of them. The self and the feelings which stir it are thus treated as well defined objects, which remain identical during the whole of the process. But if it is always the same self which deliberates, and if the two opposite feelings by which it is moved do not change, how, in virtue of this very principle of causality which determinism appeals to, will the self ever come to a decision? The truth is that the self, by the mere fact of experiencing the first feeling, has already changed to a slight extent when the second supervenes: all the time that the deliberation is going on, the self is changing and is consequently modifying the two feelings which agitate it. A dynamic series of states is thus formed which permeate and strengthen one another, and which will lead by a natural evolution to a free act." (Our bold, color, italics.) See Bergson's Time and Free Will, p. 171. Notice Dirac's proemial observation ("system which is left undisturbed") restated by Henri Bergson as we have emboldened in dark red.

See our QELRs of choice, duration, fact, opposite, object, subject, select.

But determinists believe that experiments are sources and agencies of classical 'truth.' But experiments "disturb" that upon which determinists 'experiment.' Banesh Hoffmann, agreeing with Dirac, says it like this, "But experiments are a clumsy instrument, afflicted with fatal indeterminacy which destroys causality." Banesh Hoffmann The Strange Story of the Quantum, p. 174. Regular readers grasp how Doug enjoys paraphrasing quantum titans like Hoffmann. Let's take a business perspective and do it again here in light of Ernst & Young's and Financial Times' recent 2006 efforts to awaken global businesses to macroscopic quantum~uncertainty issues. "But classical businesses are clumsy, decoherent, instruments afflicted with fatal unrecognized and misunderstood quantum~uncertainties which destroy business suppositions of causality." See?...This theoretical stuff applies to every day problems... It isn't obvious at first blush; however, quantum uncertainty imposes this com(n)clusion on Millennium III business theory: "Quantum business theory is about omnicomtextual interrelationshipings' c¤¤pæration. Classical businesses who continue to focus on control and hegemony shall become extinct." Doug - 31Mar2006.

We offer some additional quotes from Max Jammer's first edition, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, pp. 90-91, Wiley, 1974. (We acquired a personal copy of this text at, to us, significant expense. Why? Pirsig used it, among other references, to write his SODV paper.) Our quotes are from Jammer's discussions of early versions of interpretations of Bohr's complementarity. For us they are fascinating. We hope they are for you too.

"On the occasion of Bohr's seventieth birthday (October 7, 1955) Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, working then at the Max Planck-Institute for Physics in Göttingen, wrote a comprehensive article on complementarity and logic. Although von Weizsäcker was not present at the Como meeting in 1927, his assistantship to Werner Heisenberg in Leipzig soon brought him in close touch with Bohr's conceptions of complementarity. For the purpose of the just-mentioned article, as explicitly stated here, von Weizsäcker re-read most carefully Bohr's early papers on this notion and came to the conclusion that for over 25 years he had misinterpreted Bohr's notion of complementarity, the real meaning of which he now thought he had discovered. But when he asked Bohr whether his interpretation (which we shall soon discuss in greater detail) accurately presents what Bohr has in mind, Bohr gave him a definitely negative answer. This historical fact should be a warning to us to be particularly careful in our analysis of Bohr's original conception of complementarity.

"Bohr's point of departure in his Como lecture was the statement that the 'essence [of the quantum theory] may be expressed in the so-called quantum postulate, which attributes to any atomic process an essential discontinuity, or rather individuality, completely foreign to the classical theories and symbolized by Planck's quantum of action...' ...the postulate of the indivisibility of the quantum of action demands 'not only a finite interaction between the object and the measuring instrument but even a latitude in our account of this mutual action' ..." See page 90. We left out footnotes and ref's. For footnotes and ref's see original text.

What is difficult (omnifficult) for classicists to grasp about Bohr's quantum complementarity is that it portrays 'individual constituents' of reality as 'not classically, state-ically, objectively individuated.' Rather quantum complementarity says quanta and their ensembles included-middle complement reality and reality included-middle complements quanta. Latter is what is so di fficult for classicists to grasp since it violates their dialectical 'rules' of 'inertial immutability' AKA 'state,' and 'objective independence.' To compare how MoQites, CRites, and SOMites philosophize, thingk, think, view, measure, and monitor reality see our table comparing them. Look at all top of table links, please. Doug - 13Mar2005. Thank you for reading and studying.

"...For, since the interaction between the object and the instrument, contrary to classical physics, cannot be neglected, 'an independent reality in the ordinary physical sense can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observations.'" See bottom of page 90, top of page 91.

Jammer continues to quote Bohr, "'On one hand, the definition of state, of a physical system, as ordinarily understood, claims the elimination of all external disturbances. But in that case, according to the quantum postulate, any observation will be impossible, and, above all, the concepts of space and time lose their immediate sense. On the other hand, if in order to make observation possible we permit certain interactions with suitable agencies of measurement, not belonging to the system, an unambiguous definition of the state of the system is naturally no longer possible, and there can be no question of causality in the ordinary sense of the word.' This passage...thus leads to the conclusion that space-time coordination and the claim of causality are complementary features in the description of physical observation.

"As the preceding quotations clearly show, Bohr's 1927 conception of complementarity referred, above all, to the impossibility of carrying out a causal description of atomic phenomena which at the same time, is also a space time description." Page 91.

Readers and students may note how closely this aligns Bergson's almost half-century earlier comments in his Creative Evolution and his Time and Free Will. Similarly, our comments in our descriptions and solutions to Zeno's Paradice.

Many of you just want us to go directly to an answer, rather than wading through a swampy morass of linguistic descriptions. For you, we offer our own Quantonics' simple and devastating view of classical causality:

Assume that classical macroscopic causation is a quantum special event. John von Neumann showed, after significant effort, that, in general, we may not determine a locus of any specific quantum special event. A further implication is that we cannot classically determine a time of any specific quantum special event. Classically, space is time; time is space.

To us, in Quantonics, we infer that von Neumann's result tells us that we may n¤t know a locus of any causal quantum special event. If we cann¤t locate a specific cause, then how can we claim classical causation?

Classical 'causation' requires one-to-one correlation/correspondence of a single, independent 'cause' and a single independent 'effect.' Quantum reality simply denies any possibility of such 'classical causation.'

Explicitly, for example, there is n¤ such classical concept as absolute 'independence⁵.' For another, reality is quantum umcærtain due both abs¤lute flux and c¤mplementarity⁶. For another, reality is abs¤lutely quantum anihmatæ and thus classically unstoppable — a relentless, ubiquitous, EIMA, abs¤lutely anihmatæ "disturbance" — we do not have a 'time' and a 'locus' to look at and 'determine' classical causation's artifacts! When we look, our 'objects' of classical observation have already changed (are absolutely changing), denying us 'observation' of 'specific, independent' classical 'effects.' Quantum special ævænts aræ themselves quantum pr¤cesses! For another, reality is abs¤lutely quantum heter¤gene¤us. Any quanton has potentially uncountable ensehmble quantum c¤mplements, thus denying any capability of assessing classical 1-1 correspondence. See our n¤vel Quantonics notion of ensehmble quantum c¤mplements just added in black text in Note 6 Part 2 below, and our relevant n¤vel notion of ensehmble quantum umcærtainty.

...continued,

It is impossible to assess "one-to-one independent correlation/correspondence," if we classically assume 'real' subluminal (presence of ensehmble quantum umcærtainty) stoppability. It is possible to assess "entangled, i.e., dependent, correspondence:"

• quantum coherence:
  • (i.e., quantum coherence (BECs),
  • partial coherence (e.g. unmeasured/unlatched qubits,...), and
  • mixed coherence (e.g., measured/latched qubits,...);
• quantum superposition:
  • quantum pure superpositionings (e.g., isocoherence, ~pure BECs),
  • partial superpositionings (bi-refracted photons in an optical rig, quantum l¤cal gravities,...), and
  • mixed superpositionings (tsunami, solitons, zer¤ spin phasicities in atomic nuclei, thoughts,...);
• etc.)

because we need n¤t 'stop' entangled quantons to locally 'measure/observe' their spin, polarity, et al., superluminal, ~zero latency (minimum Planck quantum of umcærtainty; appears as classical absence of umcærtainty), phase inversions. We need only animately be assessings/measurings extents and types of their coherencies, superpositions, etc. How do we do that? A way is using qubits in quantum c¤mputers!

...continued,

Classical causation is, in quantum reality, a quanton(cause,effect), which in Quantonics is always [] ensehmble quantum umcærtainty interrelationships, regardless of which scales of reality we examine: chromodynamic (quarks, gluons, etc.), subatomic, atomic, mesoatomic, macroscopic, etc.

(Students of Quantonics may criticize, "Doug, you should have scripted 'a quanton(causings,effectings),' to which we would respond:" "Students, you are partially resonant with our own thoughts; however, both cause and effect are classical terms, and we have already claimed that we want to use our equivalent of Pirsig's 'Bings Value preconditions Aings.' And we do that like this, 'quanton/quantons(affectings,outcomings).'" You observed our conspicuous caprice here in our mixed co<n,m>textual use of classicalese, which we admit doing in our first sentence's classical context. Our use of quantonics script notation to differentiate classical EOOO dyads from BAWAM omniads (which strictly speaking should be quantonically both plural and present participle — see, for a proper quantum grammatical example, 'equals') has its precedent in our Bell Theorem Study. See near top of page, our quanton/dichon quatrotomous discussion.)

First, we must recognize that all classical causes are macroscopic stimuli. As such, they are quantum plural animate ensehmbles of much smaller, candidate 'causes.' Thus, it is impossible, in general, to identify which specific candidate 'cause' is uniquely responsible for any specific classical 'effect.'

...continued,

But, in Quantonics, our position is that reality is n¤ncausal for reasons we describe below. To us, ensehmbles of quantum reality look at ensehmbles of residual local and n¤nlocal animate conditions and select what they like best, thus affecting whatings happenings nextings. Outcomes are always quantum umcærtain. Quantum chance reigns! There is n¤ real classical causation because there are n¤ single specific causes.

It will be to our advantage to look at both classical 'cause' and 'effect' word forms before we attempt to answer this month's QQA. However, before we do, allow us to recall how Doug became so intensely captivated by this classical topic...

Though a lingering concern has haunted us for decades, our deep curiosity about problematics of classicism's cause-effect concept began in April, 1992 on a Chautauqua to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. On a journey there, we were browsing a small town book store when we found Robert M. Pirsig's Lila. We were stunned! We read Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance many years (late 1970's early 1980's) prior to that and simply did not know Pirsig had written his second book and published it in 1991.

Purchase of that book essentially ended Doug's vacation plans. He spent his vacation's next ten days devouring Lila, rereading it and rereading it and drawing pictures and taking notes furiously on his (then) new MacIntosh PowerBook 1401. Pirsig totally enthralled our being. He still does...like this:

...continued,

In Lila Pirsig writes about classical causation, classical cause-effect interactions:

"In the Metaphysics of Quality 'causation' is a metaphysical term that can be replaced by 'value.' To say that 'A causes B' or to say that 'B values precondition A' is to say the same thing. The difference is one of words only. Instead of saying 'A magnet causes iron filings to move toward it,' you can say 'Iron filings value movement toward a magnet.' Scientifically speaking neither statement is more true than the other. It may sound a little awkward, but that's a matter of linguistic custom, not science. The language used to describe the data is changed but the scientific data itself is unchanged. The same is true in every other scientific observation Phædrus could think of. You can always substitute 'B values precondition A' for 'A causes B' without changing any facts of science at all. The term 'cause' can be struck out completely from a scientific description of the universe without any loss of accuracy or completeness.

"The only difference between causation and value is that the word 'cause' implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning of 'value' is one of preference. In classical science it was supposed that the world always works in terms of absolute certainty and that 'cause' is the more appropriate word to describe it. But in modern quantum physics all that is changed. Particles 'prefer' to do what they do. An individual particle is not absolutely committed to one predictable behavior. What appears to be an absolute cause is just a very consistent pattern of preferences. Therefore when you strike 'cause' from the language and substitute 'value' you are not only replacing an empirically meaningless term with a meaningful one; you are using a term that is more appropriate to actual observation." Pp. 103-104, Lila, Bantam hardbound 1^st ed., 1991. (our bold)

...continued,

...continued,

With which of Pirsig's words above do we find most harmony? These:

"The only difference between causation and value is that the word 'cause' implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning of 'value' is one of preference."

Why do we sense abundant resonance with that Pirsig quote? Here is a list to which we will append an ever emerging and growing plethora of quantum memes:

• Pirsig's quote captures quantum reality's essence.
  • Quantum real "value" as predominantly qualitative, and only apparently "wholly quantitative."
• It, by claiming reality uses "preference" to choose incrementally (viz. quantally) better value, uncloaks a meme that quantum reality measures itself.
• It, by quantonic inference ¤f b¤th "implied meaning ¤f 'value'" amd "preference" elicits a cascade ¤f quantum percepts:
  • Affective Plurality
    • Many l¤cal preferential ch¤ices (ensehmble ch¤¤sings) f¤r better am¤ng many prec¤nditi¤ns
    • Unlimited both l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal perspectives ¤f many prec¤nditi¤ns
    • Heter¤geneity ¤f both l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal perspectives
    • EIMA ¤f both l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal perspectives (Red texts added 3Jun2003 - Doug)
  • Qualitative Hermeneutics
    • Many l¤cal interpretations among many ensehmble preconditions
    • Unlimited b¤th l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal interpretations among many preconditions
    • Heter¤geneity ¤f b¤th l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal interpretations
    • EIMA ¤f b¤th l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal interpretations
  • Quantum Pragma/action
    • Unlimited b¤th l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal pragma/action ensehmble outcomes of preferred ch¤¤sings
    • Ubiquitous EIMA ensehmble quantal actions arise from reality's ongoing, EIMA-fractal measurement/valuation of itself (Aristotle denied this as "sophist reality.")
    • Heter¤geneity ¤f b¤th l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal ¤utc¤mes
    • EIMA ¤f b¤th l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal ¤utc¤mes
  • Islandic/comtextual (quantum l¤cal) ch¤¤sings
  • N¤vel quantum ¤nt¤l¤gy ¤f affective plural ch¤ices (qualitative hermeneutic selecti¤n), chances (st¤chastic affects ¤f many l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal ch¤ices) and changæs (many quantum pragmatic and tentative, variably persistent ¤utc¤mes).
• It exposes classical reality's greatest ill and most primal source of its own philosophical, cultural, and scientific arrogance: its self delusion of any possibility of "absolute certainty," and "absolute causality."
• Etc.

...continued,

We find minor irritation with that otherwise superb Pirsig quote. We annotated it primarily via our bold red color on Pirsig's overtly classical words, and our italics on Pirsig's thelogos. "Only" is a classically monistic definite. "Between" may imply an ideal classical dichon. "Implies" and "implied" are classically causal (against which Pirsig is arguing). "One" is a classically monistic lisr definite.

Now let's treat Pirsig's other quoted text above with which we have learned, since we last read his book, to now disagree. We will repeat each emboldened segment and then discuss it, as follows:

"...is to say the same thing..."

Problematics: use of 'the' is usually classical thelogos; use of 'same' petitions a classically rational "identity, equality, and tautology;" and use of 'thing' is a purely classical, objective colloquialism.

"...a matter of linguistic custom, not science. The language used to describe the data is changed but the scientific data itself is unchanged..."

Problematics: use of 'matter' apparently assumes an Aristotelian, classically material, substantial, objective reality; use of 'not' appears as an intended classical objective negation (see n¤t); use of 'the' is usually classical thelogos; use of 'data' appears classically state-ic; use of 'unchanged' evokes a classical concept of stable, immutable reality (Bergson calls these, "classicism's two great self delusions." Paraphrased. That is, 1) reality is stable, and 2) objects in reality are independent.).

"...without changing any facts of science at all. The term 'cause' can be struck out completely from a scientific description of the universe without any loss of accuracy or completeness..."

Problematics: use of 'changing' apparently assumes objective change; use of 'facts' clearly assumes 'science' can know (apparently) absolute facts about reality; regarding Pirsig's use of 'completeness,' see our Absoluteness as Uncertainty; consider how eliminating 'cause' as a classical concept dramatically improves one's understanding of quantum reality which is intrinsically n¤ncausal.

Based upon several previous months' QQAs², we assume that classical English is quantumly/quantonically problematic, and we further assume that classical 'cause-effect' semantics too are irrecoverably beyond problematic.

...continued,

Let's look at some classical grammatical applications of first 'cause,' and then 'effect.'

'Cause' classical word-forms grammatically applied using classical Problematic English:

...continued,

'Effect' classical word-forms grammatically applied using classical Problematic English:

Our classical applications of 'cause' and 'effect' and their word form derivatives are helpful, and intentionally concise. Our intent here is to illustrate how a classical mind 'thingks' when it classically uses 'cause,' 'effect,' and their derivatives.

As a TBD, let us commit now (17Sep2001) to our readers to provide a quantum affects-outcomes analogue of our two tables above. We will make efforts to accomplish that task prior to year-end 2001.

...continued,

Now let's make a list of classical normatives which attend Classical 'cause-effect' Thing-king Methods (CTMs):

• reality is causal:
  • classical³
  • formal
  • mechanical
  • inductive
  • determinate
  • localable, isolable, separable, reducible (lisr)⁴
    • i.e., classical material reality obeys Aristotle's syllogistic 'laws'
  • etc.
• reality is not phenomenal nor paraphenomenal (i.e., reality is not quantum)
  • there is no ether (Michelson/Morley 'proved' this; Casimir's flux "exists not")
  • there is no quantum coinsidence, commingling, cowithinitness, compenetration, etc.
  • there is no quantum complementarity (Classically, subjective reality does not exist; those who say it does are "...charlatans, deconstructionists, fools, insane, absurd, nonsensical, ludicrous, ridiculous, etc.")
• single event determinism:
  • single cause, single effect ("A causes effect B.")
  • one cause, multiple effects ("A causes effects Bs.")
• many deterministic single events:
  • multiple causes, multiple effects ("As cause effects Bs.")
• all causes and their specific effects are classically, analytically knowable and traceable
• no effect occurs without a lisr cause (Newton, based upon Aristotelian funda)
• cause-effect, cause-effects, and causes-effects are state-ic formal/mechanical analytically one or multiple single event interactions:
  • cause-effect is an inductive-determinate interaction:
    • cause determines effect
    • a cause may determine multiple effects
    • multiple causes determine multiple effects
  • cause-effect is a local interaction
  • cause-effect is a single-event-determinate interaction:
    • one temporally measurable event associates a cause and its effect or set of effects
  • a cause predicts an effect or effects:
    • a specific cause always produces a specific effect or specific set of effects
    • cause-effect interactions are classically certain:
      • cause-effect interactions are repeatable
      • cause-effect interactions are verifiable
      • cause-effect interactions are valid canons of classical reality
  • cause-effect is a predicate-logically (i.e., formally and mechanically) describable interaction
  • cause-effect is classically, absolutely certainly, measurable: (compare to von Neumann's quantum uncertain immeasurability above)
    • classical cause-effect begs and normatively supposes predicable, predictable classical measurement capability
    • classical measurement implies classical cause-effect is a valid notion of reality, and vice versa
    • classical measurement implies classical analytic stoppability of reality is a valid concept
    • classical measurement implies classical analytic 'zero momentum' is a valid concept
• effect is change:
  • change is:
    • unitemporal motion
    • unicontextual motion
    • lisr motion
    • state-ic
• effected change's motions are classically measurable
• etc.

Our list of classical normatives is extensible in an almost unlimited way. We have, however, shown enough classical norms to permit us to develop a fairly rigorous quantum analogue and from thence to show differences and their philosophical, scientific, and cultural implications for Millennium III. We plan that as a future TBD delivery here.

Thanks for reading,

Doug.

Comments

...Notes.

1) Doug still has this Apple laptop! It still works. It has been repaired once to tighten its display connector. How many laptops today can do what Apple did with that architecture and technology? Our average laptop today lasts no more than 2-3 years! We have consumed in excess of ten different laptops since our Apple and essentially none has been anywhere near as good as Apple. All of them have been IBM/Wintel compatibles. We've had it with that crummy stuff. Our next iteration will return us to a combo of Apple and Linux/AMD. Yes! We know that Apple is considering a port to Intelesque machine architecture. May be a big mistake! Our opinion.

return

2) I.e., May2000QQA, Jun2000QQA, and our yet unfinished Jul2000QQA's Problematic English Terms and Quantonics Remediation of English Language, etc.

return

3) I.e., Aristotelian/Newtonian logical, substance/material-based analytically objective; Aristotle: "...reality is syllogistic," Newton: "...every action has an equal and opposite reaction."

return

4) Essentially classical objective analyticity: adheres Newtonian/Leibnitzian integral/differential calculus; adheres objective monism's arrow of absolute, independent, and deterministic unitime. See SOM's Reality Loop and its y=f(t) classical objective depiction of temporal motion as change.

return

...Notes, continued...

5) Some folk claim that Bell's Theorem 'proves' classical causality. We deny this assessment's validity due quantum dependence of locally/n¤nlocally correlated/dependent quanton pairs. Entangled pairs of quantons are n¤t independent! More fundamentally, we deny any possibility of classical 'proof' due to negation being intrinsically quantum subjective (due quantum c¤mplementarity whose middles are included — see note 6, below).

return

...Notes, continued...

6) In Quantonics we describe two kinds of complementarity:

1. Our first version is what we call classical or Bohrian complementarity. Bohr insisted that we retain 'proper' (i.e., classical) usage of classical language to permit 'unambiguous' (i.e., classical) descriptions of quantum reality. Thus Bohr retains SOM's wall in his version of complementarity. Bohr's complementarity is "exclusive" using his word to describe it. Thus in Quantonics' lingo, Bohr's complementarity is a dichon(complement₁, complement₂).

This is a most interesting aspect of Bohr's complementarity. By forcing a dichon (which resides wholly in what we call "quantum actuality"), Bohr essentially drives out any need for a quantum unknown (i.e., what we call "quantum n¤nactuality," "VES," "quantum isoflux," etc.). This is a popular classical deception, but happily it is demonstrably fallible. We must include both its unknown and its unknowable in our descriptions and understandings of quantum reality. Classical science insists that we may not describe any aspect of reality which we either do not know or is unknowable. Classical science insists that we may only use what we know and what has been discovered. But consider what discover means. It directly implies an unknown. We offer a potent observation here. What did Gödel do to create his Incompleteness Theorems? He invented provability as a meta notion of proof! We can do something similar here with Discover. We can use discoverability as a meta notion of discover. In a very powerful way meta notions (we should be saying more quantumly "metamemes" which are also quantum memeotics) are what allow our quantum stages to ascend our memeos of reality. We call it "tapping into reserve energy." Quantum Thinking Modes are metamemes and memeotics of lesser Classical Thing-king Methods! Try it yourself on 'know,' 'known,' and 'unknown.' See Casti and DePauli's Gödel for more on meta 'statements.' See: Truth, provability indices. Also see our Bases of Judgment, especially level 'True,' and hierarchy above and below it. Doug - 4Jun2004, added last sentence and link on 28Jul2004 - Doug. To understand quantum reality we must admit, into our science of it, percepts of both unknown and unknowable. Our position here is unacceptable to classicists, and is why we say they are stuck in their church of reason. For taking that position, classicists call us: "unreasonable," "irrational," "deconstructionists," "fools," "absurd," "crazy," "metaphysical," "philosophical," etc.

By mandating exclusivity of his own complementarity, Bohr retains Aristotle's logical syllogisms, especially Aristotle's "excluded-middle" syllogism.

...Notes, continued...

2. Our second version is: real quantum c¤mplementarity is inclusive (as evidenced by quantum:

space-like c¤rrelati¤n (AKA quantum entanglement) space-like superluminality (zero latency coobsfective association) c¤hæræncæ n¤nl¤cality n¤nis¤lability n¤nseparability n¤nreducibility interference entanglement superp¤sition subjective negati¤n scintillation etc.),

thus denying Bohr's own version of exclusive complementarity.

We show our Quantonics' inclusive version of conjugate c¤mplementarity like this:

Quantonics_c¤mplementarityquanton(c¤mplement₁,c¤mplement₂).

We show our Quantonics' inclusive version of comjugate ensehmble quantum c¤mplementarity like this:

Quantonics_c¤mplementarityquantons(c¤mplement₁,c¤mplements_n),

where our plural use of "c¤mplements" represents heterogeneity of other quantum c¤mplements_n which have ensehmble affective quantum interrelationships with c¤mplement₁, including complement₁'s interrelationships with itself. Plural of quantons in our script above implies a recursive fractal ensehmble quantum "sweep" of all comjugal interrelationships for every ensehmbles' measurement which affects a changæ in any quantum ensehmble's animate process ontology.

Quantonics adopts and uses inclusive c¤mplementarity as its own c¤mplementarity meme. Consider that all of Quantonics' quantons are c¤mplementarity umcærtainty interrelationshipings whose middlings are included.

return