Arches

Doug's Hodgepodge CeodE 2011
of
Ad Hoc Financial-Economic-Political Comments

These remarks are Doug's opinions only.
Doug is n¤t a certified broker.
Doug is n¤t a licensed counselor.
Ponder at your own risk.

Doug.

NOFLAME$$$dpellesner${at}$indy${dot}$rr${dot}$com$$$NOFLAME

Archive of prior years' HodgePodge™

Doug's HodgePodge CeodE 2010
Doug's HodgePodge CeodE 2009
EconVal FeuiChau Chs1-3

Chapter Four Index to Doug's Commencing 11Sep2010 Feuilleton Chautauqua on Economic [Vv]alue
Chapter Four Prologue Latest changes 1-5Dec2011 2011- Doug. Topic 16 -
Topic 1 - Evolution [Vv]alue Comparisons Just a heads-up. This is going to take many months, perhaps 1-2 years, due issues of Keynesian 'stability' vav quantum~real memeos of equilibrium and chaos. Doug is developing a new cuneiform~like graphic set of hermeneutic tools for describing quantum aspects of equilibrium and chaos vividly. Doug - 6Dec2011. Topic 17 -
Topic 2 - Topic 18 -
Topic 3 - Topic 19 -
Topic 4 - Topic 20 -
Topic 5 - Topic 21 -
Topic 6 - Topic 22 -
Topic 7 - Topic 23 -
Topic 8 - Topic 24 -
Topic 9 -  Topic 25 -
Topic 10 - Topic 26 -
Topic 11 - Topic 27 -
Topic 12 - Topic 28 -
Topic 13 - Topic 29 -
Topic 14 - Topic 30 -
Topic 15 - Topic 31 -
Chapter Four Epilogue

22-28Feb-1,19Mar2011

Chapter 4, Prologue - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Prologue: Issues of [Vv]alue in FEPolitics.

Doug ended Chapter Three by briefly introducing to this audience his views of what Keynesians "believe, think, and do."
He compared his own quantum~beliefs applying his bias against — while deselecting — all dialectical systems and favoring a move toward quantum systems.

Doug's innovated QuPo intends to do that. We may refer it "QuPo pragma."

Doug believes that politics is governments' agency of action. However, Doug asks, "What actions?"
Do we want political actions for individuals? Society? Government?

Doug believes all politics which are anti-individual are bad politics.
But classical society is sociopathetic against individuals!
Our current government is Keynesian-Marxist-Social. Very bad!!!

QuPo is pro individuals, Mae-wan Ho sociologically.

Doug has been quoting Danah Zohar often in his first three chapters of this online text book. Again:

Danah quotes T. S. Eliot,

"We must be still and moving
Into another intensity
For a further union, a deeper communion
Through the dark cold and the empty desolation
The wave cry, the wind cry, the vast waters
Of the petrel and the porpoise. In my end is my beginning."

— T. S. Eliot
'East Coker,' Four Quartets

That is Danah's Chapter 10 mast quote of her Quantum Self, p. 141, Quill, 1990.

Her first paragraph of Chapter 10 reads:

During the pregnancy with my first child, and for some months after her birth, I experienced what for me was a strange new way of being. In many ways I lost the sense of myself as an individual, while at the same time gaining a sense of myself as part of some larger and ongoing process.

Danah Zohar in her Quantum Self

Perhaps you may fathom how Danah is one of Doug's sheroes!

She is writing, a quantum~being issi quanton("some_larger_and_ongoing_process,cowithin_self_as_an_individual")!

Danah's fetus is quantumly cowithin Danah and Danah is cowithin her fetus while both of them are cowithin quantum~reality.

'No' classical politics understand what Danah wrote.

Their dialectic denies what Danah wrote.

Danah writes, tells, and shows us that quantum~th~ought affirms her words at Quantum Self's Chapter 10 beginning.

Herein lies essence of Doug's comparisons among classical society vis-à-vis classical individual and quantum~society vis-à-vis quantum~individual.

Classical dialectical society and its EOOO politics are EEMD-separate from classical individuals.

Quantum complementary society and its BAWAM QuPo coinside, middle~include, everywhere~associate quantum~beings.

Such a quantum complementary society understands quantum~beings.
That quantum~understanding affects what a quantum~society does.

So a large part of what Chapter Four must cover may be summarized as comparisons: quantum vis-à-vis dialectical.

Before we list those comparisons, allow us to choose our bases for those comparisons. We introduced believe, think, and do already.
Let's expand that list somewhat to allow deeper quantum~hues of comparison.

  • believe,
  • think,
  • say,
  • write,
  • do.

By adding "say," and "write," to our list, we can entertain exposing some of classical societies' dialectical treacheries against humanity.
For example, in general, if dialectic is bogus as Doug, et al., claim, then what a dialectical society says and writes, in general, is bogus.
Since such a classical society believes, thinks, and does using dialectic as its basis for reason and
judgment, its beliefs, thoughts and actions and all that it writes and says about them are bogus.

Doug asks, then, a simple question:

"Is that what we see today?"

Another:

"Do you agree that our current classical dialectical society routinely lies to us and attempts to enslave us with valueless fiat debt?"

Doug says "Yæs!" to both queries.

A great recent exemplar appears in a Market Oracle article, CeodE 2011.

If BIS lies, and if people in its statistics 'department' lie, and if a previous Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder
claimed in 1994 (Nightly Business Report) that "...the last duty of a central banker is to tell the public the truth,"
our society is living in a huge bundle of lies and ruling few control freak (AKA TPTB) conventions and conveniences.
All of this is pro classical social control and anti individual freedom, period.

Doug's QuPo innovations are intended to remedy this situation.

How?

Recall Pirsig's genius inverting Object hyper Subject into Subject hyper Object?

Doug's approach mimics Pirsig!

How?

By inverting from this...

 

Biological

Inorganic

} Object
dialectical-schism:

 

Individual

Social

} Subject
...to this:

 

Individual

Social

} Subject
dialectical-schism:

 

Biological

Inorganic

} Object

We can write this in quantonics script as from dichon(Object, Subject) to dichon(Subject, Object).
Doug's use of dichons shows classical dialectic's schism (SOM's Wall) is still intact.
When Doug changes that script to quanton(Subject,Object) he removes SOM's Wall and
changes Subject and Object from dichons themselves into quantons.
Graphically it could look like this:

 

Individual

Social

} Subject
 quantum~complement:

comma~nospace, EIMA
 

Biological

Inorganic

} Object

Pirsig's inversion innovated a new MoQ way of thinking as Subject hyper Object with SOM's wall of dialectic wayved away.

Doug changed Pirsig's use of classical-Intellectual (topos' psyche) into
quantum~Individual (topos as: quanton(pneuma,psyche)),
since Doug claims classical dialectical society cannot 'think.'
SEP of Doug's claim is classical societies' need for dialectical rules and
laws to permit society to run on programmed-pogromed automatic.

Doug's Quantonics version of Pirsig's genius inversion looks like this:

 

Quantum~Individual

Quantum~Social

} quantonSubject
 quantum~complement:

comma~nospace, EIMA
 

Quantum~Biological

Quantum~Inorganic

} quantonObject

If Doug's QuPo is successful it will implement that political quantum~reality.

Dialectical politics will argue that society is hyper individual. Doug (following Pirsig's lead) says that
classical dialectical society has rules and laws, but it has n¤ social-intellect.
So, even classically, individual is hyper society.
Why?
Doug's surmise is that intellect is an emerscence of life itself while
classical society is a formal design born of naïve dialectical thought.

Quantum~society, then, and any quantum~politics attending it are both
emerqs of life itself, n¤t Platonic formal-state-ic ideal design.

So quantum~society hyper classical-society, and quantum~politics hyper classical-politics.

More generalized, quantum~holographics (~hologramics) hyper classical-dialectics (pogromics). 20Dec2011 - Doug.

Now we can treat our list: believe, think, say, write, and do...comparatively quantum vis-à-vis classical.

26Feb2011, continued...

Admittedly, we have accumulated beau coup tools for our imminent work in Chapter Four.

We have completed our list of QuPo From~Tos.

We have affirmed our allegiance to Pirsig's genius Subject~Object inversion.

We are learning, gradually, how important Autiot is as a co~benchmark of Quantonics and its evolving evaluationings of
quantum~reality, so we are using Autiot as a tool in quantumly~redescribing inflation, deflation, and hyperinflation.

We have expanded our list of Comparison Evaluation Assessment Tools to Believe, Think, Say, Write and Do.

We have a basal set of hyper~hypo comparatives for assessment of each tool's success:

Individual vis-à-vis Society
and
Quantum vis-à-vis Classical.

We have taught our audience how to do PBings on those comparatives for even better assessments
of better vis-à-vis worse from Financial, Economic, and Political complementarospectives.
Doug will offer PBing primitives at each Topic's Segment of Chapter Four.
You may develop those PBings' details at your leisure.

We have added significant new Quantum~Politics tools to our wMBU™ tool set.
Doug will apply those to each Value comparison in each Topic's Segment of Chapter Four.

Doug, in each topic's segment, will use all of those tools to show comprehensive exegeses of each Value topic.

Our topic segments will apportion in two groups:

seven Q~Vs,
and
remaining QuPo [Vv]alue From~Tos in our A Primer on QuPo table.

Our topic segments will be shown in this order:

  1. Evolution
  2. Choosings~Chancings~Changings
  3. Quantum~Grail
  4. Quantum~Uncertainty
  5. Packet~Energy~Wellings
  6. Coherent~Autonomy
  7. Planck Rate Quantization,
    Simply Quantization

Those are seven Q~Vs from our QuPo table, and then:

  1. Flux
  2. Both~and
  3. Quantization (re: abduces~, abduction of~Plurality)
  4. Plurality
  5. Included~middle
  6. Complementarity
  7. Islandicity
  8. Coherence
  9. Evolution (re: abduces~, abduction of~Individualism)
  10. Individualism
  11. (I) Individual Islandic Freedom
  12. Spontaneity
  13. Quantal Adaptation
  14. Holographicity
  15. Cancellation
  16. Coquecigrues
  17. Autsimilarity
  18. Meme
  19. Memeo
  20. Mixentropy
  21. Truthings
  22. Heterodoxy
  23. Quality
  24. EIMA

Those 24 Q~V QuPo Primer Table (sub)Essences of our first seven Values
finish our list of Chapter Four QuPo segment topic titles.

Two of those, Quantization and Evolution appear in both lists. In list two, as subEssences,
Doug shows localized abductive (quantum~pull) aspects of those redundancies (reuse tautologies).
In list one those two Q~Vs co~affect all aspects of Quantum~Politics
(even more generally: all of quantum~reality).

See Doug's Plateau II Bases of Quantum~Value Thinkqing for a more general view.

So this Chapter Four will have 31 topic segments, preceded by this Prologue and succeeded by a TBD Epilogue.

"Doug, why do you call them 'subEssences?' "

For our seven Q~Vs, each may be omniscribed and assessed using all 24 of our Q~V (sub)Essences.
That phasement omniscribes quantum~holographicity.
All seven are ihn all 24, and all 24 are ihn all seven. Obtain: reused Q~Vs exemplify self~other~hologramic quantum~cowithinitnessings intrinsically.
A quantum~hologramic system interrelationally mixing all things in all.

All holograms are kind of like an ultimate quantum~[[inter~][intra~]]relational evolving per~intera EIMA~memory (~memeory) database.
An implementation of that would consume more classical computing power than is available now in our Solar System.
Another impetus for immediate available qua of quantum~computing.

Before we proceed Doug wants to quote Henri Louis Bergson on his 100+ year-old gnostic views of memory and its intrinsically individual nature:

"One general conclusion follows from the first three chapters of this book: it is that the body, always turned toward action, has for its essential function to limit, with a view to action, the life of the spirit. In regard to representations it is an instrument of choice, and of choice alone. It can neither beget nor cause an intellectual state. Consider perception, to begin with. The body, by the place which at each moment it occupies in the universe, indicates the parts and the aspects of matter on which we can lay hold: our perception, which exactly measures our virtual action on things, thus limits itself to the objects which actually influence our organs and prepare our movements. Now let us turn to memory. The function of the body is not to store up collections, but simply to choose, in order to bring back to distinct consciousness, by the real efficacy  thus conferred on it, the useful memory, that which may complete and illuminate the present situation with a view to ultimate action. It is true that this second choice is much less strictly determined than the first, because our past experience is an individual and no longer a common experience, because we have always many different recollections equally capable of squaring with the same actual situation, and because nature cannot here, as in the case of perception, have one inflexible rule for delimiting our representations."

A portion of first full paragraph of Chapter IV, Matter and Memory, MIT Press, 1988,
a translation of Bergson's original French by N. M. Paul and W. S. Palmer.

Doug recently shared this and Doug's following embedded [bracketed and bold-hued] commentary with both Steven and Dale.
In this Chapter 4's comtextings, Doug's purpose(ings) may appear to you:

"One general conclusion follows from the first three chapters of this book: it is that the body, always turned toward action, has for its essential function to limit, with a view to action, the life of the spirit. In regard to representations it is an instrument of choice [what ç a t h o l i ç s refer "heresy"], and of choice alone. It can neither beget [classical reality, canonically, cannot evolve] nor cause [quantum reality isn't a causally determinate reality as classical canon prescribes] an intellectual state [quantumly intrinsic absence of strict classical determinism].

Consider perception, to begin with. The body, by the place which at each moment it occupies in the universe [quantum~comtextualism], indicates the parts and the aspects of matter on which we can lay hold: our perception, which exactly measures [scalar 'measurement' isn't valid in quantum~reality which is perpetually evolving and transmuting...] our virtual action on things, thus limits itself to the objects which actually influence our organs and prepare our movements.

Now let us turn to memory. The function of the body is not to store up collections, but simply to choose [heresy], in order to bring back to distinct consciousness, by the real efficacy  thus conferred on it, the useful memory, that which may complete and illuminate the present situation with a view to ultimate action [quantum~pragma]. It is true that this second choice is much less strictly determined [quantum~uncertainty is intrinsic] than the first, because our past experience is an individual and no longer a common [assumed by classicists: a classically-shared social, determinate and concrete] experience, because we have always many different recollections [quantum ensemble heterogeneity borne of perpetual and ubiquitous quantization~scintillation 'loops'] equally capable of squaring with the same actual situation, and because nature cannot here, as in the case of perception, have one inflexible [anthropocentric] rule for delimiting [SOM-knife analyzing] our representations [and thus our quantum~pragma, which appears often...random, especially to society which expects a rule-based consensual behavior]."

A portion of first full paragraph of Chapter IV, Matter and Memory, MIT Press, 1988,
a translation of Bergson's original French by N. M. Paul and W. S. Palmer.
Doug's reparagraphing and brackets to highlight his hermeneutics of Bergson's opus. Doug's bold and color.

Bergson's indictment of classical society is gnostically apparent, at least to Doug.

Quantum~individualism reigns and will only permit peer interrelationshipings with quantum~society.

Blows Keynesians and classical ç a t h o l i ç monist-universalists entirely to hell, agree?

Doug - 5Dec2011

Doug - 26-28Feb2011, Doug - 5Dec2011.

. . .

28Feb2011

Classical politics, as bivalent in its essential theory, has many 'opposites' to our 31 topics.

You might ask then, "How can classical politics have many 'opposites' and retain its theoretical bivalency?"
Classical politicians 'rationalize' their theory. They make it 'fit' whatever they need it to fit. It's called 'politics.'
It's BS! Dialectical BS! It doesn't work, unless you like lies, cons, fraud and burgeoning ponzis.

Let's put some of their 'bivalent opposites' side-by-side with our Q~Vs, just to illustrate:

Q~Vs Classical 'Opposites' Doug's Concision
Evolution static creation, immutability, perfect absence of change, etc.

Classical- politics assumes, theoretically, perpetual ideal 'state.'

Classical political dialectic precludes evolution, except as linear y=f(t) 'evilution.' Doug's coining of classical 'evilution' as a replacement for classical version of quantum~evolution. Evilution is dead evolution which has become ESQ by embracing dialectical thought. Doug - 19Mar2011.

Quantum~politics empirically assumes perpetual absolute change.

Quantum politics embraces, "...evolution of all things in all things is natural."

This will be Chapter Four's first Topic.

CH3ings canon, law, axiom, rule of law, fact, fact without Value, orthodoxy, edict, principle, consensus, common, one size fits all, stoppability, analysis, reduction, deduction, induction, predicability, etc.

Classical politics claims 'laws' exist, and all political socialists believe and adhere social 'laws.'

Quantum~politics shows its believers that all dialectical 'laws' are simply bogus (e.g., "Truthings are agents of their own evolution."), based upon ersatz, facile, illegitimate classical political presumptions of ideal state and ideal separability of all classical objects.

Grail exclusion, excommunication, proscription, dialectic, lisr, objective interaction, objective property, scalar quantification and measurement, etc.

Classical-reality is dialectic.

Quantum~reality is hologramic.

Dialectic-politics interacts classical objects.

Holograms in QuPo ubiquitously grail~interrelate quantons as EWings.

Uncertainty certainty, absolute state, provisional predication as positive social eminence, proof based upon absence of falsifiability, falsifiability based upon contradiction, contradiction based on objective negation, objective negation based upon an dialectical illusion of objective independence, and objective independence based upon a dialectical illusion of reality as stable and stabilizable, etc.

Classical-politics believes, thinks, says, writes, and does classical notions of 'certainty.' Classical politics views circles as stuck, metric, closed tautologies.

Quantum~politics embraces both "indetermination," and "quantum~uncertainty." Quantum~politics views Nash equilibrium circles as open (and still evolvable) hologramic cycloids.

This is a political immensity! If you assume status quo, politically you are extinct. If you assume hologramic evolution, you may survive.

Packet EWings negation (vav cancellation), separation, excluded-middle, commutation, distribution, equivalence relations, identity, state, novelty as reproduction using standard 'parts,' thought as dialectical reuse of know ledges, running on repeatable y=f(t) formal-mechanical processes, etc.

Classical-politicians believe A - A = scalar zero.

Quantum~politicians understand that:

  1. negation is subjective, and
  2. wave~stochastically positive quantum fluxings may tentatively cancel one another but never classical 'negate' one another.

In quantum~politics zero is always a fluxing process, never an ideally empty classical space volume.

This is politically important since n¤ classical politician can ever martyr 'physically' and materially his enemies n¤r his opponents.

Coherent~Autonomy lisr, excluded-middle, dissociativity, objectivity, quantity, etc.

Classical-politicians assume classical-society is above all classical-individuals. This is pure and simple dialectical Error!

Quantum~politicians presume that quantum~individuals are above classical~societies and share~earn peer interrelationshipings with quantum~societies.

See Mae-wan Ho on sociology needing memes of coherent~autonomy.

Quantization y=f(t), continuity, closure, monism, independence, homogeneity, truth, state, stability, scalarbation, zero momentum, etc.

Classical-politicians assume classical reality is a monism of reducible material objects which are always immutably static and under state control. They treat humans as OSFA immutable objects.

Quantum~politicians assume quantum reality is a quantized plurality of NSFA humans each individually free to perform quantum~pragma as long as they respect other quantum individuals and their rights.

©Quantonics, Inc., 2011-2020

Doug's Chapter Four Prologue sets a rather complete stage for all of Chapter Four's 31 Topics and Epilogue.

Do not expect this to happen as quickly as Chapter Three! Each Topic will be relatively long and cover lots of "political ground."

Happy reading!

22-28Feb2011-1,19Mar2011

Doug.

HodgePodge Index

1,3,6,18Mar2011

Chapter 4, Topic 1 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Topic 1: Evolution [Vv]alue Comparisons.

As our first topic in Chapter Four this text must carry a burden of exemplifying our approach using guidelines from our Prologue.

Doug will be using these tools to describe each topic:

  • QuPo From-Tos (guidelines for due diligence on classical don'ts and quantum dos),
  • Pirsig's genius quantum hyper classical inversions,
  • Autiot as a fractal~energy~recursive~per~intera tool in quantumly~redescribing classical dialecta into quantum~hologra.
    For example, 'planned-results' classical-evilution (Error) becoming (redescribed as) self~other~prahgmah as quantum~æv¤lution.
    Prahgmah here, as used by Doug represents what is intended in next list item as quantum~prahgmah, not classical-pragma.
    Classical-pragma evilves. Quantum~prahgmah æv¤lvæs. Evilution is dialectical, formal, mechanical, y=f(t) linear, closed, bivalent, EEMD, etc.
  • Comparison Evaluation Assessment Tools: Believe, Think, Say, Write, and Do (Pragma),
  • Tool Success Metrics as hyper~hypo comparatives of Individual vis-à-vis Society and Quantum vis-à-vis Classical,
  • PBing Primitives (these are left for student fledging),
  • New QuPo wMBU™ Tools (use as Value~Quality assessments of results from above tools). and
  • Value~Assessment text and narrative omnique to each topic.

Take note of Doug's fifth bullet.
Doug hasn't ever written this (according his fallible recall), but vis-à-vis
as a text~linguistic copulum is also a quantum~hologramic~grail.
If it isn't apparent why Doug makes that claim, see his What is Grail?
There, think of grail as always capable of quantonic~interrelationshipings in
quantum~hologramic networkings of many fuzzonic EWings.

Due diligence on each topic shouldn't require all of those tools.
We will learn by doing (due~ing) omniffering subsets of those on each topic.
Sometimes maybe only one. Others, a few. Seldom, all.
However, all tools will be used in this Chapter Four, spread across all Topics.

Topic 1 is Evolution.

One practice we may establish here and now is to go immediately to our
QuPo Primer From~To Table and browser search on 'evolution.'

It should be helpful to our audience if Doug lists 'evol' references in our QuPo Table, so let's do that first.

 
From-Tos QuPo Table 'Evol' Content Doug's Concision
From Mythos to Emersos

Quantum~Individual Quantum~Being Due Diligence "To Do" List for Finding One's Inner

Evolving Your Individual Quantum Stage from Mythos to Emersos

We must keep in our minds (our quantum~stages) how being quantum~gnostic is a requisite to finding one's inner. We call this "due diligence." It requires one to be autodidactic, i.e., having qua to do individual "self management." Doug calls this "quantum~being." It is individual self~responsibility. It is extremely relevant what Doug refers quantum~ego.

Our Topic word here is Evolution. So our gnostic due diligence process of developing individual responsibility and quantum~ego requires our individual adaptation, a quantum~process of quantum~evolution, out of SOM's Box into quantum~reality. Out of classical mythos, into quantum~emersos. Why? Emersos hyper mythos!

Classical-society practices mythos' status quo. Quantum~society lives emersos' perpetual change. See Doug's QELR of 'society.' See Heterogeneous Cultures Classical and Quantum.

From Analyticity to Islandicity From classical analytics' state-ic lisr formal objectivity to quantum~fluxes' perpetually evolving quantal~holographic cowithinitness. In progress...
From Formal Synthesis to Coherence From classical mechanical assembly of objects to evolutionary emergence~emerscenture of ensembles of quanta emerqing complementary holographically coherent islands of fermionic and bosonic Value(ings). In progress...
From Static Creation to Evolution From classical monism's inertial continuity to quantum~heterogeneity's adaptive evolutionary quantized spontaneity. From Planck's clock set to zero to Planck's clock fully enabled. From classicism to quantumism. From 'state' to flux. In progress...
From Static Truth to Evolution From classical immutable, concrete, perpetually-static 'truth,' to quantum~perpetually changing and unstoppable and immortal evolution. A huge comsequence of quantum~evolution is: Quantonics HotMeme™ "There is n¤ classical status quo."™ Quantonics HotMeme™. Doug - 8Feb2011. In progress...
From Socialism (we)
to Individualism (I)		 From classical socialist continuously inertial dogma (i.e., status quo) to quantum~individual evolutionary quantized~adaptive spontaneity (i.e., semper fluxio). From stux sux to flux is crux. From social state is simple and individual change is complex to social state is complex and individual change is simple. See Doug's What is Simple? What is Complex? Doug - 9Jan2011. From social orthodox religions to individual quantum~gn¤ses. See Doug's What is Gnosis? Doug - 11Jan2011. In progress...
From Classical lisr to
Quantum~Coherent~Autonomy		 From classical localability, isolability, separability, and reducibility to quantum~holographic grail~enabled systemic coherence of unlimited islandic Energy~Wellings' both locally evolving while n¤nlocally affective islandicities. In progress...
From Inertia to
Spontaneity		 From classical monism's perpetually closed, determinate mono-sloped posentropy and conservative state-ic continuity to quantum~reality's perpetually evolving~adapting mixentropic stochastic open and generative quantal spontaneity. From classical social status quo to quantum~individual vicissitudinality. In progress...
From State Perpetuity
to Quantal Adaptation		 From monistic continuous inertia to spontaneous evolutionary adaptation. From absoluteness as 'perpetual state' to absoluteness as "perpetual change." From 'absolute stux' to "absolute flux." From 'continuity' to "quantization." From MBO to wMBU™. In progress...
From Negation
to Cancellation		 From dialectic's bivalent duality of either negative or positive to quantum linguistics' phasemental BAWAM mixings of "wholly positive evolving fluxings." Implications of this From-To are nearly unfathomable-unimaginable, for example, "...classical dialectically ideal 'negation' does not 'exist' in quantum~reality." See Bergson's Negation is Subjective. Many of you have heard Keynesians say, "Gold is a barbaric relic." No -- due diligent reader -- dialectic and its bivalency, 'negation,' state, and objective independence is our 'real' barbaric relic! Dialectic is humanities' "barbaric relic!" Gold and PMs are our "near equilibrium" 'stabilizers.' Keynesians don't stabilize anything. Gold and PMs, fundamentally, do provide core stabilization of "real money." Study history and you will see this is unambiguously so. See David Stockman on 'The End of Sound Money.' Carefully ponder his remarks on debt to income ratios of 1.6 with gold as real money vis-à-vis 3.6 with Keynesian federal reserve fiat debt notes as bogus money. Doug - 18Mar2011.
From Falsifiability
to Quantum~Grail		 From a bogus classical presumption that classical 'falsifiability' 'exists' and is classically 'real,' to quantum~grail's perpetually evolving quantum~everywherings~and~everywhenings~
middle~includings~everywherings~associative interrelationshipings among all energy~wellings in any quantum~hologram.		 In progress...
From Idea
to Meme		 From Plato's concrete thought form to Richard Dawkins' viral evolution of "ideas as memes." See Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. In progress...
 

Next we will offer narration in most important areas regarding evolution.

We concern ourselves in this textbook with classical notions vis-à-vis quantum memeos of:

  • inflation,
  • deflation,
  • hyperinflation,
  • hypoinflation.

Classical notions involve state, and linear change AKA 'evilution' of static objects ('value'): classical canonic absence of 'quantum~change via evolution (Value).'

Quantum memeos involve absolute flux and quantized and thus stochastic changings of fluxings' EWings: quantum~æv¤lution.

What Doug intends to do then is ponder basic classical-equilibrium notions vis-à-vis quantum~equilibrium memeos of inflation, deflation, hyperinflation, and hypoinflation.

Before we get into those rather ugly details, allow Doug to use another metaphor comparing classical linear state-ic 'change," and quantized~flux evolutionary changings.

Take a look at this graphic Doug prepared:

Doug shows nine EWings. Central one is coobsfecting eight others quantum~holographically.

Straight lines "" in our graph represent classical 'flow of event-state-event-state...' 'change.'
This is linear thought at its worst: y=f(t). Reality simply doesn't work like that! Reality is quantum,
but classicists impose linear thought on their 'reality' to make it dialectically objective and thus bogus.
Classicists are brain dead retarded twidlos. You can take that to your bank.

Notice that Doug's quantum~change as stochastic~quantization looks like "lightning bolts."

Indeed, lightning is a terrific exemplar of quantized change and stochastic selection vicissitudinal spontaneity.
How can that happen? Quantum flux is quantized. It comes in small packets and their ensembles of flux packetized like this:

Each quantum makes selections-choices at up to Planck's rate: AKA evolutionary adaptation.
Those choices appear macroscopically random, i.e., stochastic. Doug m¤dæls them like this:

No two of these are ever 'classically identical.' They may be autsimilar, but never 'identical.'

What Doug Values philosophically about this is it also m¤dæls what Doug intends by grail.

Let's observe it as a grail twixt two evolving EWings:

Doug calls this a Fuzzon Quanton.

In Quantonics script it looks like: quanton(EWingx,EWingy).

We can substitute for our comma~nospace AKA grail.

Classicists would script it like this: dichon(EWingx, EWingy).

They could substitute a linear, state-ic, eventic for their SOM Wall comma-space.

This first Topic of Chapter 4 is going to lay foundation for subsequent topics. There is much to cover here.

In progress...18,20Mar2011 - Doug.

As Doug's graphics illustrate, we are now entering a phase of study called "quantum vis-à-vis classical systems thinking."

We are studying and comparing evolving absolutely changing quantum~systems with static perpetually unchanging classical-systems.

Evolution vis-à-vis evilution.

Currently, in Keynesians' 'economic religion,' stability (perpetual unchange, except for linear 'motion') is ideal
classical state analyzed by formal methods assuming ideal objectivity and ideal objective independence.

Doug's version of quantum~stability has to be capable of embracing memeos of "absolute change," and middle~inclusion among others.

A key word here is equilibrium.

Classical equilibrium is ideal and formal 'state.' Any change in 'state,' classically may only be analyzed via
linear y=f(t) thing-king. That 'state' can be anywhere, anywhen as long as it doesn't 'change.'
Classical 'change' is 'static-eventic' and canonically 'context free.' It is stuxic.

Quantonics HotMeme™ "Stuxic is toxic!"™ Quantonics HotMeme™.

Quantum~equilibrium has n¤ 'state.' However, it can appear 'stable' when it hovers near its desired attractors.
But quantum~equilibrium can become very unstable when it tentatively, but perhaps radically, evolves further
to a more~attractive from its previously~attracted -- while apparently more stablæ -- quantum~equilibrium.
All quantum~change is radically and stochastically comtext dependent. It is fluxic!
See QTP and QVP.

Distilled, we may obtain classical radical-independence and perpetual absolute state are radically context independent: stuxic AKA status quo AKA 'stability.'

Compare that to:

Quantum~holographic middle~inclusion and absolute flux are radically comtext~sensitive: fluxic AKA radical~instability.
Doug - 31Jan2012.

Classical equilibrium notions of homeostasis, equifinality, classical closure, classical openness, etc., do n¤t -- cann¤t hold
generally in quantum~reality since 'classical linearity' of systems' behaviors aren't generally valid in quantum~reality.

Classically asymptotic 'stability' (AKA 'classical equilibrium') can quantum leap to a whole new wave~energy
attractor apparently without 'cause' without 'effect' borne of apparently linear 'preconditions.'

All classical 'general linear systems theory' (for example, Liapunov 'system trajectory'
theory) n¤ longer 'generally,' n¤r 'specifically' applies in quantum~reality.

'Trajectories' of system behaviorings are, in general, n¤n linear!
We must n¤t make a classical Error of assuming linearity.

We must n¤t reify specificity as generality!
If we do, "facts become superstition."

Equilibrium changes absolutely,
with stochastic uncertainty.

Gradience issi key.

However,...

Quantonics HotMeme™ "Quantum~Reality's actual complement is like bolts of lightening in slow motion."™ Quantonics HotMeme™.

Many of its changings are di(omni)scontinuous, and n¤n linear. Some of those changings are adiabatic, and some of those are zær¤ latæncy.

Those quantum~ch¤¤sings~chancings~amd~changings aræ ihn quantum~equilibria and quantum~equilibria are ihn them.

Doug has often recapitulated, a now ancient Quantonics HotMeme™, "Truth is an agent of its own change."™ Quantonics HotMeme™.

A n¤væl Quantonics HotMeme™ emerges, "Quantum~equilibria are holographic agencies of their own changings."™ .

Now compare quantum~equilibria to classical equilibrium which is canonically an agent of its own 'state.'

Classical equilibrium is canonic stux sux AKA classical status quo.

There is no classical need to monitor, even measure, classical equilibrium's gradience.

Why? Classical 'stability' AKA classical equilibrium isn't 'supposed' to change!

Classical 'state' has no quantum~gradience. Nor does classical stability. Nor does classical equilibrium!

Classical equilibrium, classical 'stability,' is just another bogus quantum~free (Value free) con job.

Doug uses two references for his above memes and HotMemes™:
recent email with Steven regarding 'cloud management' as a digital metaphor of
quantum~holographic backup data equilibrium management, and
a marvelous text titled The Quantum and the Lotus.

For Doug's metaphor of quantum~holographic equilibrium~management of
quasi real time video distribution see March, 2007 TQS News.

Doug - 20Sep2011, 1Oct2011.

Doug's omniscussion of quantum vis-à-vis classical equilibria is non trivial.
It will take quite a bit of timings to cover and compare countless classical and quantum equilibria issues.
As a result, Doug has decided to package all of that into a QELR of equilibrium~equilibria.

For an unforeseeable few days, perhaps weeks, Doug asks you to follow progress on his QELR of equilibrium.
I will notify you when that QELR is done so that you can return here to follow progress in Chapter 4.
Key to grasping why all this is necessary...our graphic is evolving and all those relationships are nonlinear and
need to be capable of moving into and out of equilibrium and show us ways of omnitoring said changes.
Without a good quantum~complementarospective of comparisons of classical and quantum~equilibria, we cannot successfully omniscribe
classical vis-à-vis quantum and society vis-à-vis individual issues of inflation vis-à-vis deflation and hyper inflation vis-à-vis hypo inflation.

I will not continue work here in Hodgepodge™ until I have achieved a self~satisfactory
omniscription of quantum vis-à-vis classical equilibrium under that QELR.

Doug - 20Mar2011.

In progress...18,20Mar2011, 20Sep2011, 1Oct2011, 1-6,20Dec2011, 31Jan2012 - Doug.

Thank you for reading.

To be continued...

1,3,6,18,20Mar2011...this may last through all of 2012...huge progress since this intra Chautauqua started...

Doug.

HodgePodge Index

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
USA
1-317-THOUGHT

©Quantonics, Inc., 2011-2020 — Rev. 1Feb2012  PDR — Created 8Jan2011  PDR
(22Feb2011 rev - Publish Ch3, open Ch4 with its Prologue.)
(23-28Feb2011 rev - Continue Ch4 Prologue emerqancy.)
(1,3,6,18-20Mar2011 rev - Finish Ch4 Prologue and prepare a clean, tabula rasa, slate for Ch4.)
(17,20Sep2011 rev - Reset legacy markups. Add links to ongoing Chapter 4 efforts. Repair an 'evol' table text duplication. Update Ch 4 Topic 1.)
(1Oct2011 rev - Add 'slow motion' bolt of lightening metaphor of quantum~equilibrium.)
(1-2Dec2011 rev - Add Autiot as a 'tool' in Chapter 4's list of tools. Extend Autiot as a tool commencing Chapter 4, Topic 1, beginning.)
(3Dec2011 rev - Add many updates and text narrative enhancements. Add one HotMeme.)
(5-6Dec2011 rev - Add 'Bergson on Individual Experience' text and commentary. Remove working text buffer. Reset legacy markups. Add more "heads up" at page top.)
(20Dec2011 rev - Add 'pogromics' first use in Quantonics as part of describing QuPo hyper classical politics.)
(31Jan2012 rev - Add 'fluxic vav stuxic' update. Reset legacy markups.)
(1Feb2012 rev - Add 'Lightning Bolt Segments' anchor.)

Arches