This is our year 2002 editorial response to 911 Infamy. It is, we think necessarily, a long editorial. To go directly to our 2002 News below click here. You may wish to skip immediately to our: January review of Sylvia Nasar's A Beautiful Mind, now a separate web page, or our January "How to become a student of Quantonics." We moved this text to a separate web page in July, 2003.

Our assessment of Earth Millennium III's year 2001 is that hate reigns on our planet. N¤t love! Hate! Hate reigns in both 'religious' and 'scientific' (and other) organizations! Why? Our answer is very simple: Either/Or classical monism. Most of us on Earth see reality as logical. A logical reality allows/forces its sentients to assess all of reality and its constituents as either/or: right/wrong good/bad correct/incorrect "for us"/"against us" etc. But guess what? Is reality classically logical? N¤! Emphatically n¤! Reality is quantum paralogical/pragmalogical! In quantum reality there are n¤ perfect, ideal, classical either/or dichotomies! And when we thingk classically either/or, that thing-king places us in disharmony with quantum reality! Some of us have been proselytized via religious scriptures, "Thou shalt not judge," and "Judge not lest ye be judged." Quantum reality says it even more firmly: "It is impossible for anyone to judge anything absolutely." Quantum uncertainty reigns in reality! Classical dichotomous certainty is a grand illusion! In Quantonics, we call that grand illusion, "SOM." We claim, along with our mentors, that SOM reality is a deign to feign. It is a grand Earth-chauvinistic self-delusion. We claim SOM, and its latest creation CR, are mindsets of hate born of either/or thing-king! This captures essence of what Quantonics is about. Quantonics wants to show all of our community how hate is spawn of classical either/or thing-king. What lies at bottom of hate-filled mental dichotomies? Specific and arbitrary metaphysical assumptions about reality which are first presumed and then assumed to be general metaphysical assumptions about reality. These arbitrary metaphysical assumptions abide in and control nearly all Western (and some Eastern) cultures' disciplines and their paradigms: Epistemology Ontology Language Logic Sciences Mathematics Religion Law Etc. These arbitrary, but non-general — though treated as general — presumptions and assumptions about reality include: "reality is objectively/materially stable" "'real' objects 'exist' state-ically" "'real' objects are independent" "reality is objectively logical" "reality is analytic" "reality is causal" Etc. In Quantonics we show that n¤ne of those presumptions and assumptions apply to quantum reality. Unfortunately, still most of Earth's cultures at Millennium III's commencement adhere them or concepts and ideas very similar to those presumptions and assumptions. Results of those presumptions and assumptions lead to catastrophic thing-king as exemplified here: Epistemology - Human anthropocentricity. E.g., along with Earth-chauvinism/-centricity denies other sentient cultures in our galaxy and other galaxies of our multiverse(s). Anthropocentricity is a classical biform which implies either human or not human, latter of which is treated logically as a classically objective lump. Ontology - Classical bivalency of either being or not being. Either 'state' alive or 'state' dead. Bivalency of one birth and one death, which we call "one life centricity," which wafts incredibly like anthropocentricity, one truth centricity, one context centricity, one deity centricity, one global culture centricity, one way ("our way") of thing-king fits all, and so on... Language - English language is innately an objective language. It is based upon assumptions of a material and substantial, immutable, homogeneous, analytic, predicate-logical reality whose constituents are wholly objective. English language's purpose is to keep all users in an objective intellectual detention center. English language drives as much subjectivity out of reality as it can. Logic - Bivalency of either proof or disproof. Bivalency of either contradiction or noncontradiction. Bivalency of either 'exists' or not 'exists.' Bivalency of either 'verity' or 'falsity.' Even provisional logical 'proof' depends upon 'contradiction' via 'objective negation' through a notably fallible concept of Popperian 'falsifiability.' Sciences - Bivalency of either known or unknown. Bivalency of either substantial or insubstantial experimental 'results.' Bivalency of either ambiguous or unambiguous experimental 'results.' Bivalency of either certain or uncertain experimental 'results.' Bivalency of either fact or nonfact. Bivalency of verifiability (verity) versus unverifiability (falsity). Mathematics - Bivalency of either ideal or not ideal. Bivalency of either logical or physical. Religion - Bivalency of either heaven or hell. Absolute judgment exists and is bivalent:— either good or evil. Bivalency of religious judgment permits one 'belief system' to dichotomously assess goodness of another 'belief system.' In Ireland Protestants hate Catholics and Catholics hate Protestants. In Afghanistan, some Muslims hate "The Great Satan" USA. Now, after 911 Infamy, some of us in USA hate some, most, or all Muslims. Law - Bivalency of judgment: guilt or innocence. Bivalency of legal interrogation. Bivalency of query: Thou shalt answer either "Yes" or "No." Bivalency of meting as either acquittal or punishment. Bivalency of legal language, "The people versus..." and "Roe vs. Wade." Quantum reality denies all those classical presumptions and assumptions and their concomitant ideal classical bivalencies! If we can compare our culture to any other culture, our individual or group position to any other individual or group position and perform bivalent assessments of them we will nearly always assess our view as good and theirs as bad. This is a mentality of hate. It is a byproduct of classical thing-king methods (CTMs). We need to subsume CTMs and adopt more Quantonic Think-king Modes (QTMs). Our wish is to quantum-intellectually, quantum-intuitively, quantum-instinctively, commence and nurture a long Chautauqua away from classical-hate and toward quantum peace and mutual respect. This is an incredibly difficult evolution to undertake. Why? Nearly 3000 years of Greco/Roman classical culture have immersed most of Earth's people in closed, either/or mindsets. Remediating that will take decades, perhaps centuries. But we must start, now, somehow. Today, in Millennium III, Western religion and science are metastasized with both SOM and CR. Even science's own parenting and caring of its first quantum child cradles it in a dichotomous world, with predicate lodging, and objective thing-king. To Usama bin Laden, our USA is a, "Great Satan." To UbL, we either are Satan, or we are not Satan. His crowd "is not Satan," therefore we must "be Satan." To George W. Bush, "You are either with us, or you are against us." Both statements are transparently and patently ludicrous. Both statements demonstrate extents and depths of Earth's classical mental metastasis. Yet classical mindsets like those are bases and foundations for 2001's hate-filled anguish and terror. Look at Israel and Palestine. What are their mental metastases? SOM! Think about it, do not just 'thingk' about it! If you agree, share your thoughts with others. Develop n¤vel think-king skills which help you to better assess others' views and offer alternate, better, quantum memes. If you disagree, feel free to share your thoughts here. Doug - January 1-14, 2002.

November, 2002 News:

Do you realize, reader, that this is our last month's news for year 2002? Our December, 2002 issue will appear in early January, 2003. What a year 2002 has been. Hope all of you enjoyed its ride as much as we did. We are seeing more and more quantum cycles on our journey. Watch out Harleys! Our next issue will emerge from Oregon's gorgeous and rugged coast. Dickeys are flying in to visit us in Oregon and Hobsons are flying in to see us in Sedona. We'll share, with you readers, tidbits from those visits plus other goodies.

We view 2003 as an anniversary year. We started our Quantonics web site in February, 1998. February, 2003 will mark an ending of our fifth consecutive year in operation. Site volume has grown 50 times since we started and is doubling every 1-2 years. Best of all, a few of you folks are beginning to realize what we say about an imminent quantum tsunami is right on.

Too, similar James, Nietzsche, Bergson, Pirsig, Geertz, et al., we have anticipated some very stochastic affectors, especially cultural changes away from more socialistic toward more individuistic, for examples:

• William James' anticipation of societal evolution from monism to pluralism, and his keen awareness of ~quantum flux as impetus for that evolution;
• Nietzsche's anticipation of a grand tabula rasa of culture, which he called "nihilism," which he expected would cleanse Western culture of classical evils;
• Bergson's anticipation of Western cultures' eventual conversion from two classical delusions which those cultures had harbored for nearly three millennia:
  • from a notion that classical reality is stable to an epiphany that quantum reality is absolute flux, and
  • from a notion that objects (dichons) in classical reality are independent to an epiphany that quantons in quantum reality probabilistically "interfuse" one another;
• Pirsig's anticipation of an imminent ~Millennium III philosophical inversion:
  • from a more classical EEMD object/quantity over subject/quality dichonic hierarchy (see our SVO animation),
  • to a more quantum EIMA subject/qualitative over object/quantitative quantonic c¤mplementarity;
• Geertz' anticipation of both classicism's and relativism's imminent and ultimate failures:
  • "absolutism removes judgment from history" (~condensed from p. 72 of Geertz' 2000 Available Light; also see our detail on these quotes), and
  • "relativism disables judgment" (~condensed; also see Richard Shweder's Review of Geertz' Available Light);
• Geertz' recognition of cultural, national, geographic and state disassemblies — we see those and other lower-level cultural disassemblies (e.g., public schools "fading fast," rapid growth of virtual tertiary education, precursor onset of "quantum" education, etc.) happening now;
• our Quantonics anticipation (with assistance of titans like those we list, incompletely, above; our anticipations are amalgams of their memes with ours) of:
  • failure of subject-object metaphysics (SOM) and classical thing-king methods (CTMs);
  • and declaration of relativism's win over SOM and CTMs;
  • relativism's failure;
  • quantum/Quality's win over relativism;
• virtual market elimination of classical education infrastructure via virtual education and quantum education (precursors of this massive change are appearing with regularity now);
• virtual market elimination of middlemen (including most agents, distributors, brokered residential home sales, brokered retail equity sales, retail bookstores, retail perishables and dry goods, retail electronics, retail automobile sales, almost retail anything, etc.);
• current precursor development of quantum: emerscents, communications, computing, biochemistry, biology, nanology, etc. (See our Millennium III Key Transformation Agents from 1996);
• precursor quantum animate and emergent semiotics and language innovations, at least in Quantonics; quantum philosophy, quantum thinking, etc. — we also see precursors of this in entertainment and television with multitasking interfaces/displays — living and emergent text and semiotics are n¤t too far off;
• imminent Millennium III free energy and quantum antigravity; and so on...
• individual choice AKA "heresy" regarding a woman's choice whether to abort (LeBaron);
• individual choice regarding one's own managed euthanasia (Oregon leads our nation!!);
• our Quantonics demonstration of The Kyoto Accord's ludicrousness;
• Catholic anti-heretic hypocritical meltdown (Static catholicism is antithetic quantum/Quantonics/MoQ.);
• political meltdown, especially recent Democratic (anticipate hard falls for Hilarious and Slick, similar Daschle, Gephart, Reno, et AL., and Republicans beware: a two party system is classically dichonic and incapable of indefinite sustainment — few of US 'like' Democrats and Republicans objectively syncretized together or ideally separated — we anticipate enthusiastically that politics will "go quantum" — perhaps this is a n¤vel QQA for 2003: "What do we mean when we say 'quantum politics?'");
• Bush's election, as a rejection of social Democratic 'values;'
• union(s) meltdown (one of our best examples of group thingk's pro-social, anti-individual Exclusive Static Quality; unions, as do socialists despise individual achievement of any kind);
• etc.

Those kinds of anticipation are very difficult to achieve without using QTMs.

Some of you are regular writers to us here in Quantonics. We beg your patience while we commence our longest Chautauqua yet in this, our current life iteration. We will answer urgent emails briefly. We will carry on dialogues, but they must be brief. If you have questions, try to prioritize them and offer them one per email. That helps us answer your emails, but allows us to do more of them very quickly.

Our latest Chautauqua will last until early Spring 2003, of Earth's Northern hemisphere.

Many of you really enjoy our August, 1999 QQA on I Ching and Yin and Yang so we want to offer you a n¤vel (to us) meme. Recently, on reviewing Zeno of Elea's four paradice in our Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy we found some fascinating comments on Yu and Wu. We decided to take a moment to put both Yu and Wu in a n¤vel Quantonics perspective. Yu and Wu both have multiple heuristics. Gary Zukav, in his Dancing Wu Li Masters, tells us that his Chinese friends said that Wu (or perhaps it was his use of "Wu Li;" Zukav used Wu Li as Mandarin for English "physics" with a more literal interpretation as "patterns of organic(/inorganic) energy") has at least 85 variations. We assume Yu is similar in that regard.

Our point here, however, is to juxtapose Yu and Wu in an analogous manner to how our Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy does. They say that Yu can convey heterogeneous semantics of being, and that Wu offers us plural inferences of nonbeing. As an example, one of Zukav's inferences is "nonsense." I Ching, in general, appears to use Wu as "non" and "not." We tend to intuitively view their uses as more subjective/qualitative/affective and that view aligns a more quantum hermeneutic. Students of Quantonics recognize Wu as our more subjective quantum n¤t, our quantum c¤mplement. Following our approach in our Aug99QQA, we presume that — according to our quantum EIMA inferences there regarding — Zen (Chan) Tao, from a Quantonics perspective, has: n¤ SOM wall, n¤ classical analytic knife cut separation, n¤ Sheffer stroke binary denial alternative, n¤ Aristotelian EOOO objective EEMD. Instead we presume that Yu and Wu are quantum c¤mplementary one another which we can show as a Tao quanton:

quanton(n¤nbeing,being)quanton(Yu,Wu)

Our quantonic script for a Tao symbol shows beautifully how in quantum reality all quantons are EIMA-both-all alive while-and dead, both living and dying, both emersing and immersing in AH's OEDC. We are 'not' classically either alive or dead, either living or dying, etc. (See our Are You Alive or Dead?) In Quantonics, we view any usages of either/or as classicisms. Specifically, either/or represents binary alternative denial based upon Aristotle's ideal "excluded-middle." We call it "SOM's wall," and a "Pirsigean platypus." It is also called a "Sheffer stroke." Either/or presumes reality is classically objective, radically mechanical, and as a result is analytical via classical negation. (See Bergson's Negation is Subjective. Also, if you want to have a genuine quantum epiphany which demonstrates how negation is indeed subjective, realize what Richard P. Feynman saw and experienced when he was a pre-teen: -1ei. He used a classical equals sign, but fathomed, in a classically twisted way, how an anihmatæ heterogeneity (i.e., anihmatæ changæ of radius r, from Planck's length to unlimited, (-1(cos(r•) + i•sin(r•))) of e^ri becomes, subjectively, minus one. Usually, r is inanimately, homogeneously, classically 'normalized' to a classical '1.' That classical 'normalization' uncloaks another deign to feign: '1' size radius fits all! )

Begin aside - 23May2003 - Doug:

It is interesting to note a large classical difference twixt classical radius and quantum radius. To most classicists radius is a proxy for amplitude and amplitude (when it generates, two dimensionally, area) is a proxy for energy. (By classical convention, energy is deigned only 'two dimensional,' and state-ic.)

In quantum reality we can look at two durational circles of omniffering radii and view them as omniffering flux rates (i.e., Poincaréan relatively, a bigger durational circle is a lower (larger wavelength) flux rate and a smaller durational circle is higher (smaller wavelength) flux rate.). Alternatively we can observe 'one' normalized radius and view its different 'rates' of rotation as proxies for energy.

Understanding these comparisons of classical conspectives of energy vis-à-vis quantum perspectives of energy is essential to understanding basic artefacts of quantum reality:

• especially notions of
  • quantum memetic superposition (EIMA)
    vis-à-vis
  • classical synthetic superposition (EEMD), and
• an edict of
  • classical lisr 'nonentanglement'
    vis-à-vis
  • real quantum c¤mplementary entanglement/superluminal-action-at-a-distance, etc.

Energy to classicists is amplitude sweeping an area. C¤mplementary energy(ings) to quantumists are entropa flux(ing) rates. Incisively, in quantum reality — discussing quantum superposition we must understand that classical waveform amplitude and phase are, as P. A. M. Dirac tells us, paraphrased, "...direction and amplitude are irrelevant." See Dirac's The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, mid-page 17, Ch. I, Sec. 5 'Mathematical Formulation of the Principle.'

Philip R. Wallace says it more colloquially, and ~classically, "Since water waves are easily visualized, they constitute a simple basis of discussion. Imagine that in a still pool of deep water we have a small float localized at some point, which we can jiggle up and down periodically, with any frequency we choose. The resulting wave will have an amplitude (which in a classical wave will determine its energy) as well as an oscillating phase, which will specify its instantaneous state in the oscillation. To adopt a different analogy, one might think of phases of the moon. The size of the illuminated moon goes through cycles, from full brightness to near extinction and back again. Where it is at a certain point in this process is called its phase at that point. One can make an analogy with going around in a circle, where one returns to the initial point after a certain time or after having gone a certain distance. Since in the circle one goes through an angle of 2 radians, a change of phase of this amount is equivalent to a cycle. A change of phase of 2 is equivalent to no change at all. A change of phase of corresponds to the change from trough to crest or the inverse.

"As for the amplitude of a water wave, it describes the magnitude of the periodic oscillations. If the stimulating source is stronger—that is, if it is jiggled twice as energetically—a wave will be created with exactly the same pattern but with twice as much energy. It will simply be, so to speak, magnified. The energy in the wave is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the vibrations; in this case it will be increased by about 41%. The important feature here is that, in 'classical' waves, without changing the frequency, we can increase the energy and amplitude of the wave continuously by increasing the energy input. In quantum mechanics, however, since Planck's law specifies that the energy of a quantum is proportional to the frequency, the wave amplitude must be frequency dependent.

"What has this to do with the 'probability interpretation?' In this interpretation, the probability depends only on the amplitude of the wave function; no mention is made of an interpretation of phase. Yet phase correlations between states are essential to the description of quantum transition and thus of all physical change..." Our bold red. See p. 21 of Wallace's Paradox Lost, 1^st ed., Springer Verlag, 1996. Where our ellipsis leaves off Wallace goes on to find substantial problematics with now predominant classical field theories.

Wallace stirs our curiosities here, on at least two counts. He concurs with Dirac that in quantum reality classical amplitude is irrelevant in determining energy of a quantum system. Elsewhere he admits that this goes against any grain of what we call classical 'common sense.' Yet it is quantum valid.

And perhaps unintentionally he shows, in his "A change of phase of 2 is equivalent to no change at all," what Irving Stein said is wrong with our current classical ontology: "...change is a classically decoherent concept." But 'common sense' itself says that notion is silly! Were it so, time itself would reset each time a clock's hand points north. What is wrong here? Mathematics! Only mathematics can conclude that a phase change of 2 is objectively 'no change at all.' Read carefully our discussion under Quantum Pi. Physically (physially/naturally), 2 is a cycle of real change.

To distill, then, and among other issues, when we use radius, r, as a proxy for amplitude, it becomes a classical proxy. When we use radius, r, as a 1/ (i.e., 1/r, apes and assonates frequency as a reciprocal of wavelength) proxy for flux/frequency/energy, it becomes a quantum proxy.

End aside.

But reality is 'not' a classical clockwork mechanism, on any of its scales. Quantum reality is, as David Bohm tried to show his scientific peers, non-mechanical!

Extent of this epiphany grasped in its fullness is a quantum ascendancy! Would that you may fathom how CTMs naïvely deny it. We offer it as our Holidays 2002 and New Year 2003 gift to you, our faithful readers and students. Our wish is for you to learn to venture its quantum depths.

Along those same lines we want to direct you to a just emerging, very n¤vel site titled Quantum Chan School 2002 (link is dead; looks like Henry Osho gave up...sad...) which is using quantonics.com as one of its primary quantum Zen (Chan) references. This site appears to be under construction, but it is unique in that it is hosted in China and uses Quantonics as a resource. Check in there periodically to see how they are progressing. Note that "Chan" is Chinese for Japanese "Zen." Original artwork which appeared there a couple of weeks ago was simply superb! Last time we checked this site was obviously under alteration. But persist. We sense it will offer much in futures.

Those of you who have long term acquaintances with Quantonics may recall our anticipations which we presented at Loyola University Chicago back in 1998.

No sooner had we written that paragraph above when we received an email from that site's author, and he writes:

We send our thanks to Dr. Osho for his kind remarks about Quantonics. As you can see, he shares some of our anticipations.

Another individual who appears to be sharing some of those anticipations received some attention in a late November, 2002 issue of The Chronicle in an article about Mikhail N. Epstein. Epstein sees Earth's cultures undergoing transitions similar to those described by other prominent folk whom we view, some listed above, as having quantum predilections. Epstein is worth further examination by students of Quantonics. As described in that Chronicle article Epstein anticipates an almost Nietzschean evolution from imperative (~SOM) through deconstructive (~CR) to subjunctive (quantum/Quantonic/MoQ).

In terms of site progress, we offer two updates which we think are worthy of your study:

Zeno of Elea
Einstein Wrong?

If you have not seen these, check them out.

Thank you for your patronage of Quantonics during our long years of progress! We sincerely appreciate you and your vast interests in Quantonics! See you here next year — 2003!

Doug.

October, 2002 News:

Eight years (1992-2000) of Democratic slime take their toll!

'Da TXen achieves his fondest dreams. As of 0900CDT, 6Nov2002, George W. Bush has both houses of Congress, his little brother still governor of Florida, and more than half of USA's governorships.

'Dem Dem's have a disaster of massive proportions on their gooey hands. But what can they do? 'Da slime is still at their top echelon of political power and direction plus Hilarious is still in USA's senate. Democratic meltdown...

But is our nation safe in hands of a Republican Congress and Republican Executive branch? Remember Newt Gin-grinch and his "Contract for America." Recall how his enthusiasm and gloat turned to hyperbole?

If Republicans, in their new found ecstasy of power, repeat Gin-grinch's sad performance, we shall see their recent anointment in meltdown too, attending and slithering with wormy Dems. If Republicans emphasize social/group-thingk over ascendant individual Values, then we think it will be an omen of a Geertzian disassembly of American politics, in general. If we see that happening it is a powerful tell of more enormous changes for Millennium III.

Consider what triggered vast political change of recent weeks. Republicans think it is/was 'political leadership.' But that is a deception. It is misleading. 911 triggered what happened, but that is not all there is to it. 911 had to occur in a unique context in order for what we see now to happen. Our view is that 911 happened in a global context of social disassembly in favor of a meme of individual freedom and free will. Individuals expect government not to lead, rather to protect their freedom. Bush says leadership is why Republicans regained control of USA's Senate. We disagree! In our view, Republicans won based upon hopes of individuals — that Republicans might see a n¤vel Millennium III enlightenment that individuals and their greatest expectations for both freedom and exercise of free will — are on a rising cusp of even more massive proportions than what we saw in these elections and in 911.

But Doug, what are indicators of this cusp you are talking about?

Internet is a big one.

Growing scepticism regarding goodness and quality of organized, consensual social patterns of Value imposed above individual rights is another. Latter, we think is felt more than recognized.

Failure of Democratic group-thingk initiatives during 20^th century glares as obvious (welfare, socialized medicine, Culturally Robbing U Hood, etc).

Government confiscation and corrupt waste of personal/individual wealth...

Notice, here, that Democrats really believe that they know as a social group how to spend individuals' hard-won wealth better than individuals do.

Union greed — and notice especially $100k per year IDWU and ILWU dock workers' recent economic terrorism against our own USA. But our USA is a union too! It too is greedy. It favors group spending and investment of national wealth over individuals spending their own wealth. It is time to shut union terrorism down!

Socialistic and common-istic NEA has literally destroyed Quality of education in our USA.

Union group-thingk is antithetic individual interests. And what is against individuals is against social groups' own interests...think about it.

'Law' is another indicator. What does 'law' do specifically? It takes away individual freedoms. And that is a major worry we have regarding Bush's Homeland Security initiatives. If Bush's efforts take away more individual freedoms, he is moving his Republican party in a direction which will totally disassemble American politics. Bush needs a n¤vel mantra: "Let's not just cut taxes (and size of government) but let's cut 'laws' too!" (Have you flown recently? UGH!) What's worse, laws do not do anything!

Another is terrorism.

Do laws against terrorism stop terrorists?

We need n¤vel thinking about how to deal with quantum changes which are occurring on Earth today. A good one we just saw recently: that Predator drone killing six Al Queda in a car in Yemen.

We must deal with terrorists virtually. Any virtual threat requires at least a virtual response, plus. We must realize that individuals are much more virtual than social groups and can protect themselves from virtual threats much better than any unionized government social organization ever will or can. Notice how that last sentence describes why Al Qaeda's acts are so effective. Our responses to terrorist threats must be capable of compartmental heterogeneous mass customization and incremental delivery of virtual threat responses — each unique to each unique threat situation. What is an optimal way to do that? Via individuals in individual situations. But those individuals must have special skills. They must be able to band and disband virtually!

Shouldn't our schools be teaching our children how to responsibly defend themselves? I.e., how to defend themselves virtually as individuals and in teams? Shouldn't our adults learn how to defend themselves? If virtual terrorism is in our Homeland then virtual defense must be in our Homeland!

Another indicator of said cusp is virtual living. Most of us are well into that process. But government and academia and politics have yet to join this process. For a first time, we as individuals are leading. Government must follow. Examples are virtual elections, virtual presidents and governors, virtual congresses, virtual senates, virtual voting, JIT government, JIT education, JIT whatever we can imagine, and so on... Academia must do this too. We can no longer afford current massively redundant academic infrastructures. (University of Phoenix Online is a successful precursor here, with 40 thousand virtual students taking virtual coursework and virtual examinations. Latest Chronicle lists at least nine others too.) Too, we can no longer afford massively redundant government infrastructures, e.g., USPS, etc. Change there is yet to come, but it shall. Businesses too.

Indicators of this massive disassembly change from groupthingk to individualthink are countless, but we cannot, do not see those indicators until we are sensitized to their presence.

A huge indicator just appeared in The Chronicle's 1Nov2002 issue, an article titled 'THE FACULTY: Chancellor Says Transformation, Biologists say Mumbo-Jumbo.' Martha Winters Gilliland, chancellor of UMKC, Kansas City, Mo, has set a mission for UMKC to go "quantum." Can you imagine our glee when we saw those words? This is, for us, a first. A leader of an academic institution saying that under her leadership that institution must take a quantum approach. This is fabulous. It is as big an indicator as we have seen! But notice article's title: biology faculty members think a quantum approach is "Mumbo-Jumbo." Ha! Would that they understood how quantum biology is devastating classical approaches (Gilliland calls classical approaches "Descartesian;" Descartes, René...was a SOMite par excellence, father of Bergson's despised "spatial extensity").

We wrote this email to Ms. Gilliland to show our support for her endeavors:

Dr. Gilliland has yet to respond to our email.

We are amazed and happy that The Chronicle is doing such a superb job of documenting so many indicators for us.

We waited a couple of extra days to do this month's News to see what happened in USA's 2002 elections. This should be our last diatribe on politics and 'law' for a couple of years.

Next time you hear from us we will be, virtually, in Oregon!

Thank you for your patronage of Quantonics! See you here again in early-mid December, 2002, or later!

Doug.

September, 2002 News:

Desist Doug! Do not do this! Fight it with every effort you can muster!

UGH! Just as Pirsig said, "You cannot keep a fat man out of a refrigerator."

What are we attempting to desist? Politics! Whenever we bring up anything remotely political, some of you write, "...who cares!" We understand, but we seem congenitally incapable of staying out of that damned source of political-fat "refrigerator."

What we feel most discomfort about here is that our views below appear, from a classical perspective, viscerally 'negative,' even unpatriotic. That is n¤t h¤w we feel, n¤r what we believe. Our main criticism is that USA and its people and political 'leaders' appear to us as almost wholly classical. We criticize that classicism because, to us, it is simply unreal. Our harsh words below are our way of editorializing and sending our meager version of a quantum wake-up call.

On politics...

Is it just us? Are Democrats melting down or what? In less than one week, last week of September, 2002, Tom Daschle, Teddy Kennedy, Jim McDermott, David Bonior, Robert Torricelli, et Al., have just made blithering political idiots of themselves. Or is it all a ruse? Apparently, they sure are, at least tentatively, making Republicans look politically better. But are they? What in a nut's hell is going on?

Torricelli, AKA Clinton wannabe N, is sniveling and sliming his way out of 'office.' Watching Torricelli's performance on TV was like watching a huge slug ooze and slime-trail its way across a polluted pit of fellow New Jersey Democratic politicos. Whom does Torricelli worship most? Ultra slime #1, 'da Slime Master, Slick William. And how does Torricelli choose to leave office? In Clintonesque fashion, by pseudo-guaranteeing his Democratic replacement, despite polls which favor a Republican (Forrester) replacement.

But what is fulminating this meretricious Democratic meltdown? Is it Bush's politicization of events subsequent to 911? Did 911 do Republicans a favor? Are Democrats simply inept dealing with global scale conflict? Is this conflict good? Is it a precursor of massive and imminent cultural changes on Earth?

Or do we see a decline in relative power of group/unionized/self-entrapping/bully/Big-Brother Social Patterns of Value over individual/autonomous/free I-Cubed Patterns of more highly evolved and evolving Value?

Why do Daschle, Kennedy, McDermott, Bonior, Torricelli, et al., suddenly seem hell-bent to express their individual opinions, anti-Clintonesque, without regard their parent group's (Democrats') party line?

Folks, this is our opinion, and that's about all; however, we believe we are seeing (and, yes, we agree with you, "we see what we are biased to see") a quantum tell of a sea change in Earth's political cultures, in a wake of 911's DQ.

If we are correct, we will see similar weird and synaesthetic color-flavor-strange behaviors from Republicans too. (We already have, with Bush's platypusean "...you're either for us or against us...," his "Arafat is not a terrorist...," his "We want effectively zero unionization in our 'Homeland Security' workforce, with absolute presidential power to hire and fire," and more recently Bush's Inquisitional, "...[ours is] the only choice!")

We see synaesthesia too in other nations (Pakistan, India, Philippines, France, Germany, England, Italy, etc.), and other organizations (Catholic church in its own meltdown, and dot.coms mostly already melted and spilled anti-dot.puddles, Enron, WorldComm, Tyco, Martha-baby (actually, to us, she exemplifies an I-Cubed individual — you go, adorable girl), and so forth.), and other cultures (Russian~democratization, Japanese-post-democratization, Chinese~democratization, Tibetan~cultural destruction, Sri-Lankan~civil war, etc.), and so on...

Further, we can expect to see — what we believe will appear to groupniks — as increasing and more ubiquitous individualist (~anti-)social anarchy, without regard for tired, worn, anachronistic: UN, WTO, and Democratic Globalists' naïve and still-born Earth-as-a-social-union expectations. Unions are in their forth quarter, their ninth inning. Unions are greed-struck in their self-imposed Vaticanesque fort of wane. Their death knells shriek. Their hegemonous anti-individual, anti-quantum, classical and polylogical social order unwraps its covert stealth as self-consuming chaotic and corrupt disorder.

Towards better, quantum individuals are deaf to unions' wails: union dues and don'ts. For us, unions devolved into geists of zeit, antedated parachronists blind to disassembly's Geertzian Phoenix — ours': an ebullient arousal, an ever-evolving-emergence of I-Cubed individualism.

Why do we say this?

Our view: what Pirsig, Geertz, Nietzsche, and others foretold is commencing now, before our eyes. Pirsig foresaw a revolution of individualism over socialism, based upon quantum epiphanies by I-Cubed individuals that reality is more subjective and qualitative than objective and quantitative. Geertz foresaw a pluralistic "disassembly" of unions (e.g., "nations, states, cultures, their engirdling borders, perimeters and [SOM-]walls, etc.") of all forms (from which we infer — Geertz did n¤t say this — we Quantonically infer it: disassembly in favor of I-Cubed individualism and greater Mae-wan Ho-esque quantum cohesive freedom). Nietzsche saw a nihilism, an era-effacing tabula rasa tsunami (a la The Abyss) dissolving and washing away polit-slugs' scum.

Clintonesque politicians envision (Torricelli said this) "loss of Democratic control," as their ultimate loss of hegemony over individuals.

Republicans are next. Their classically analytic-synthetic mechanized anti-quantum 'federated republic' is a union of 'objective' unions, even more enclosed and enclosing and entrapping/multiwrapping than any quantum~democracy. [See Mae-wan Ho's Coherent Autonomy to grasp essene~tials of Doug's thinking here - Doug - 16Jan2007.]

What preconditions favor this quantum tsunami sea change? To sheer advantage of I-Cubed individuals, utter political and social ignorance of a physial quantum organization meme: Mae-wan Ho's quantum EIMA interpenetrating interrelationships of both quantum cohesion and quantum individual autonomies.

Another big precondition-toyset born of a few's own diligence, one antithetic Mae-wan's meme, comes to mind too (and it also applies to religion and science — it applies to any rule-based 'unions'):

On law...

I-Cubed individuals resent this old and malevolent story: a few exercising homogeneous and oft monolithic control over a vast plurality — regardless whether elected, appointed, and hired — while calling it pseudo-humbly, "public service." Why do we resent it? It is a social group-thingk misrepresentation! Our resentment distilled, it must be reappellated, "hubristic public hegemony." We see it in all unions: nations, governments, states, cultures, religions, academia, corporations, labor movements, charities, sciences, courts, et al.

What is the mechanism of a few? Establishment and identification of crisis/crises (threat of terrorism, threat of heresy/individual choice, need for discipline, need for structure/architecture, threat of witches, threat of aliens, threat of deconstructionism (science's current mantra), threat of vitiation (local government corruption), need for isolationism, ... an unending litany of contrived conspiracies to evoke fear and "majority-democratically" educe 'political leadership' and action ...)

Purpose: promotion and proselytization of crisis-born fear over a vast plurality. Inculcation of guilt for a vast plurality's not wanting and needing to establish abundant and politically forceful "resolutions" and 'laws' to deal with said crisis/crises. (Bush administration is in full stride as we write this.)

Method? Manufacture an illusion that 'law' and its power to decide is classically absolute. Plus more delusion that a few as the purveyors and holders of the 'laws' must be writing more and more 'laws' regardless whether a vast plurality wants and needs them, and worse a few effect their will without a vast plurality's authority and approval of a few's 'laws.' Further, that few, then interpret their 'laws' to control a vast plurality. Next, a few's confiscation and blatantly and radically-social, Culturally Robbing U Hood, redistribution of a nation's wealth and entrepreneurial spirit: burdensome and encumbering capital gains (e.g., TEFRA's earned income CG rates), alternative minimum, and inheritance/death taxes. A vertical, 'bi-partisan' government by the government, for the government, Homeland Secure goose killer larger than Jack's stalk itself, larger than Trojans' horse, more covert and totalitarian than KGB!

Is it any wonder Brits, French, and Italians worry about our USA? When did we cease chary of hate and war? Who nourishes this nawab negativism? a few!

Are a few's 'laws' any good? For a few, yes. For a vast plurality, less so. Every new 'law' takes another freedom away from a vast plurality. Already too many 'laws' and many of our freedoms are gone. Are 'laws' ethical? Does one 'law' fit all individuals? Do individuals have anything to say about whether they adhere and obey a few's 'laws?'

Are a few's 'laws' absolute? Who decides? At this juncture only 'a few' decide, for a vast plurality. Is it moral, ethical, and better for a few to decide what is ethical and moral for a vast plurality?

What is 'law' today at Millennium III's beginning? In our view, 'laws' are naught but local-time, context-specific, non-general opinion: jury opinion, courtroom opinion, appellate opinion, state supreme court opinion, and ultimately US supreme court opinion. 'Law' is local opinion.

Do 'laws' work? If 'laws' work, should we not at least expect them to produce consistent results? A good test of this query is to perform a statistical experiment. Assume that our courts can only choose among three outcomes for any court decision: guilty, innocent, and uncertain/hung. Imagine if we could take an 'identical' case and court test it in 99 (or any number of) different locations in USA. Further assume that all 99 cases can be run in parallel without knowledge of each other. What results can we expect? Will all 99 court results be identical? Legal 'experts' tell us they should, or perhaps more realistically expect a general US public to believe that they will come out identically.

Were we to actually perform this gedankenment, our US 'law' courts would probably decide statistically that 1/3 of cases should be guilty, 1/3 innocent, and 1/3 hung. 'Law' is not consistent! 'Law' is innately, by classical, moronic, anthropocentric Aristotelian/Newtonian 'design,' incapable of consistency!

Whenever we try one of those 99 cases, we introduce a n¤vel legal context and its own local conditions. We are always unsure to what extent any context corresponds other legal contexts and their separate and omnifferent local conditions (i.e., different: local cultures, court rooms, judges, juries ("...it's not what did happen, it's what juries believe happened..." CSI ~21:25 CDT, 4Oct2002), etc.). So, statistically our results will vary roughly as we describe.

Again, are a few's 'laws' absolute (i.e., both consistent and complete)? Is that what we mean by the 'law?' Do our current ways of thing-king expect concurrence among all 99 case results? Isn't that what we classically expect 'law' means? But we have just shown you that classical 'law' simply does not work that way. Assuming you expect concord, then we can say classical 'law' simply does not work...it is nonviable. 'Law' as practiced today, in USA, is really only 'chance.' Indeed, it is nonverifiable and invalid! One legal template does not, cannot, fit all cultural contexts!

In Quantonics we know that no classically contrived 'laws' are absolute. More stringently, we say, "Flux is crux," which implies no 'law' is socially stable whether we want it to be or not!

Does our legal system work? For a few, who classically impose 'social stability,' thus blatantly denying quantum reality, yes. For a vast plurality, especially I-Cubed individuals, no.

Crux: Individuals are beginning to grasp how phony and corrupt our legal system really is. They are beginning to grasp how it works for hegemonists, but fails for an otherwise free populace. As we explain in one of our links above, societies cannot make individuals free. Only individuals can make themselves free. Societies, as they evolve, make individuals less free. Thus, from a few's perspective, 911 told our fundamentalist, corrupt political leaders to take as many more of our freedoms away from us as possible without public outcry. Why? Control, hegemony!

We are seeing results of that now. Those results, tentatively, appear as precursors of disassembly of what we have known as the USA. Worse, we are allowing politicos to strike a final blow against a vast plurality as if they were working for Usama bin Laden and his Al Queda, his Neandertaliban. This is why we call them "corrupt."

Aside: For fun replace 'law' above with 'religion,' then 'science,' and reread. Doug - 2Oct2002.

Doug's Political Diatribe Summary...

Democrats are in freefall. Republicans are only tentatively ascendant. Democrat and Republican classical political epistemological union is, even though they cannot yet see it, killing USA's golden goose.

On Progress in Quantonics...

We are underway in our efforts to study and fathom both QED and QCD. This effort shall endure at least through our imminent three-month 'break' in Oregon. Just now we are reading Feynman's QED and Silvan S. Schweber's QED and the Men Who Made It, while reading Philip R. Wallace's Paradox Lost in background. Schweber's book is fabulous, especially about Schwinger. Schwinger appears to us as another ~I-Cubed individual! He appears as one of us. By comparison Feynman is brilliant, but he is a SOMite, an objectivist par excellence. He believes and rather forcefully insists photons and electrons are classically objective 'particles.' Wallace appears to us a lot like Kuhn and Geertz, emitting mixtures of SOM, CR, and MoQ. Sadly, our former hero, P. A. M. Dirac has fallen from grace. We just discovered, in our QED/QCD readings that he hated philosophy, and that he too is a died in wool mathematical SOMite. Go imagine...

Thank you for your patronage of Quantonics! See you here again in early-mid November, 2002, or later!

Doug.

August, 2002 News:

APS' June, 2002 Resolution on Perpetual Motion Machines (PMMs)

Actually, reader, this piece should go in our humor section, but it seems too important to treat that way. It is a serious issue which speaks of Post Modern Science's entrenched, inept, metastatic classicism.

APS News, Aug/Sep, 2002 issue tells us American Physical Society's Executive Board passed a resolution against perpetual motion 'machines' at its June, 2002 meeting in Annapolis. "The resolution was deemed necessary because of a recent increase in patent applications for [PMM] devices. Robert Park, APS Director of Public Information and author of the weekly electronic newsletter 'What's New,' reported that the US Patent Office has received several patent applications for [PMMs] during the first six months of this year alone." Regarding APS News' comments on APS E-Board resolution, "The Executive Board of the APS is concerned that in this period of unprecedented scientific advance, misguided or fraudulent claims of [PMMs] and other sources of free energy are proliferating. Such devices directly violate the most fundamental [inept and classically 'mechanical,' 'scientifically' contrived/constructed] laws of nature, laws that have guided the scientific progress that is transforming our world." Our brackets and a bracketed comment.

As we have learned to expect from classicists' views of themselves, they are always right — via their 'laws' — and their arrogant expectations are that if Nature doesn't agree with their laws then Nature is probably wrong. APS says that their classical views of Nature are correct and that if Nature violates their views then Nature is very likely at fault. Classicists often try to eliminate, or sweep under a carpet's edge memes which disagree with their 'laws.' Also see Classicists Throw Away Subjective Reality. Classical, "normal" scientists share role-playing hubristic arrogance regarding their current paradigm's disciplinary matrix.

Don't folk in APS realize that, if we adhere APS E-Board's paradigmatic and bureaucratic role-playing resolution, science must declare Nature "fraudulent" or at least "absurd?" (Or perhaps Nature is showing humans that classical 'science' is absurd. ) But this is old stuff. For disagreeing with their radically mechanical 'laws,' celebrity and bureaucratic 'scientists' have been calling Nature "absurd" and other denigrating appellations for centuries. Some view Nature as science's enemy. Hmmm...wonder why...? (She frequently — more often than not — disagrees with them. )

Crux: Self-exegetically and -exoterically, Nature is a perpetual motion 'machine' made of PMMs! How? All photons, electrons, and protons are, by strictest 'mechanical' interpretation, Perpetual Motion 'Machines!' See what Silvan S. Schweber has to say about this meme of Perpetual Motion.

What science calls "physical reality" is made of PMMs! Nature cannot 'exist' without perpetual motion 'machines.'

Search online for Review of Particle Properties: http://pdg.lbl.gov. Also see pages 11 1-47 of CRC's Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. In our 82^nd edition page 11-1 has photon (g) under Gauge Bosons; 11-3 has electron (e) under Leptons; 11-32 has proton (p) under N-Baryons. Look under "mean life." You will see either "stable" (ð perpetual motion) or some very long 'time' like ~10²⁵ to ~10³² years — essentially "perpetual."

It is also interesting to note that Richard P. Feynman, in his QED, claims that interactions among photons (PMMs) and electrons (PMMs) explain all of physical reality except for radiation and gravity. QED is scientific description of interactions among photons and electrons. Specifically, he says, "I would like to again impress you with the vast range of phenomena that the theory of QED describes: It's easier to say it backwards: the theory describes all phenomena of the physical world except the gravitational effect...and radioactive phenomena...I must clarify something: When I say that all the phenomena of the physical world can be explained by this theory, we don't really know that. Most phenomena we are familiar with involve such tremendous numbers of electrons [and photons] that it's hard for our poor minds to follow that complexity." Pages 7-8, PUP, 1985 paperback. Our brackets and ellipses. Feynman also says this, "...QED describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is—absurd." Page 10.

As an example of photonic perpetual motion, re-cognize photons which reach Hubble Space Telescope from galaxies more than 12.5 billion light years away. Are photons, for all practical purposes, in perpetual motion? Hmmm...?)

From our perspective this shows us that "free energy" is one of Nature's great miracles, but classical science can't see that. Why? It and classical 'scientists' are blinded and blindered by CTMs! Very sad...

Fortunately, in our view, this classical bilge will end (become extinct, evolve out of 'existence') during Millennium III.

Our opinions and Natureal facts. Doug - 30Aug2002.

Recent Progress in Quantonics

As you may be able to tell from our diatribe on perpetual motion above, we recently decided our tasks for our quarter-long time-off "break." We plan to study QED first and then QCD.

As regular visitors know we converted our QELR page to a master index page and 26 A-Z pages. In its previous form that QELR page was just too large and took too long to load. Also, our additions of n¤vel remediated terms is growing too rapidly, and we needed a way to emersce that increasing complexity. Now, by visiting that master index page, you can tell quickly which terms have been added as new, and revised/extended/upgraded.

We continue parallel efforts on many reviews, all of which are directly or indirectly related to our review of William James Sidis' The Animate and Inanimate. You may wish to take a look at our Recommeded Reading page to see some texts we added there which we will review prior to doing WJS' AIA review.

See you here again in early-mid September, 2002, or later!

Doug.

July, 2002 News:

Hope you are enjoying steam-bath USA! It is just roasting here in our local arena. We have had temp's. over 90 for weeks now with few reprieves.

A New Ice Age:

Speaking of temperatures that brings to mind notions of global warming and significant controversies due 'environmental scientists' politicization of climate as another way to induce human guilt and fear, and force nations to spend precious resources on Earth's climate over which we have, compared to nature herself, little control.

Latest, September, 2002 issue of Discover magazine's cover story, by Brad Lemley, is A New Ice Age!

Very interestingly, their cover shows that, but article's title on page 35 is the new ice age!

Someone at Discover is thelogos sensitive, yet someone else (article's author perhaps) is n¤t .

This article is very good from our Quantonics perspective. It offers historic positive entropy regarding an ice age which Earth experienced from about 1300 to 1850. It was a mini ice age within a much larger ice age which Earth is still experiencing. Lemley recommends we read a 2000 book, by Brian Fagan titled The Little Ice Age, which describes that mini ice age.

Scientists at Woods Hole Physical Oceanography Department, Cape Cod, Massachusetts say that polar ice cap melting, from Earth's recent mini-warming cycle, is dumping enormous amounts of very cold fresh water into Earth's north Atlantic ocean. They tell us that this water has difficulty mixing with ocean salt water. It will take up to 300+ years for mixing to complete, but until then that cold water probably will drag Eastern US and Western European temps down by as much as 10°C! They say that this may start happening soon, sooner than anyone imagines possible, and as a result Eastern US and Western Europe may experience, within 10 years, temperatures similar to those in George Washington's time and this cooling may last for a few hundred years!

If Woods Hole scientists' cooling warning holds, crop losses alone will exceed $100B, and "damage to ecologies could be vast and incalculable."

Further they say that US' National Academy of Sciences published a 2002 report titled, 'Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises.'

This offers great interest to us in Quantonics because the Kyoto enviro-SOMwits tell us our whole globe will warm 6°C over next 100 years! Now Woods Hole is telling us Earth will experience an enormous temperature decline within only 10 years.

What this shows us is that no one knows what will happen next! Quantum reality is far too complex for any naïve Earth scientist or group of scientists to fathom. Even worse/better (depending upon your own hermeneutics) quantum reality is n¤t classical, i.e., n¤t: analytic, causal, 1-1 correspondent, objective, quantitative, etc. As an example of what we mean here, one of Lemley's picture side bars says, quoting William Curry a climate scientist, "As we continue to pile on atmospheric carbon dioxide, we're going to have more unintended consequences." This is just simple classical HyperBoole! We cann¤t classically, analytically know n¤r predict absolutely what consequences are of what we do now! To say that is to disclose one's own belief in naïve classical myth. On geological scales, all consequences are always unintended (humans included - they are less than 1/2000^th of Earth's total life mass)! Planet Earth does n¤t, as classicists surmise, react predictably to similar stiumuli which recur over geological periods of time. Vocanoes do not intend to erupt. Asteroids/meteorites (e.g., Shoemaker-Levy) do not intend to hit Jupiter. Earthquakes do not intend to destroy cities in Italy and USA! Those last few sentences are key: they tell us we cann¤t use affirmative action on Earth! We simply have n¤ classical means of doing that while knowing that we are doing classically, politically-correctly, "the right thing."

Politically, we must all keep in our minds, hegemonists who want to control others use two emotional tools: fear and guilt. First they claim an imminent calamity and they propagandize and build fear based upon said "calamity." Second they assign guilt. It is a classically powerful strategy, but when one understands quantum reality better, we find that classical strategy is wholly inept. Politicians and 'scientists' who pursue such a classical strategy are doomed to failure and embarrassment — and perhaps worse.

To demonstrate classical political ineptness we refer you to a news item in Science's 26July2002 issue titled, 'Global Change Research - Senate puts the Heat on Science Nominees.' See pages 494-5. This article by Jeffrey Mervis is about John McCain (R-AZ) and his intense but faulty belief in The Kyoto Accord. Mervis says this about McCain, "McCain (questioning Bush administration's environmental change policy) first read a description (in a Senate panel) of how 'warming in the 21st century will be significantly larger than in the 20th century...and temperatures in the US will rise by about 3-5°C on average during the next 100 years.'" Ron Wyden (D-OR) agreed in front of that Senate panel and said, "The science behind climate change is no longer in question." From this we may conclude that Wyden is (and McClain) simply out of touch. Science, by its self-imposed provisional nature, is always in question! Further, the classical 'science' "behind climate change" is Newtonian and obsolete!

We think our US Senate needs some of its own provisionality, e.g., term limits. Dump McCain. Dump Wyden. Why? They are both scientifically inept and profoundly politically inept for using scientific results to attempt to achieve political aims. (Doug's personal opinions.)

We urge you to read these articles from Discover and Science magazines. But realize that those 'scientists' and 'politicians' too are using classical emotional tools to induce your own fear and guilt.

An Asthma Breakthru:

Another interesting scientific/medical news item is that asthma is at least partially genetic (ADAM33)! See Nature (26Jul2002, p. 383), Science News and Science.

Latest on Sonoluminescence:

Last March we reported on a published paper about an experiment using deuterated acetone to produce apparent excess or free energy. Said paper appeared in Science, and was quickly questioned as to its validity. Science appeared somewhat embarrassed by an outpouring of anti-SL-free-energy sentiments by yet classical scientists who see entropy as only J.C. Maxwellian-positive.

Two updates (two that we know about) appear in Science and Nature. Science published a CYA shortly after publishing that original paper.

Very recently, 25Jul2002, Nature offers both a brief and a report on SL. Their report by Didenko and Suslick classically denies SL as a source of free energy. Said report does a classical chemical "energy budget." Doing this, they show that classically energy conservation holds. We would expect that. But their techniques are old and naive. One example is their means of calculating and describing photon energy. Other (recollected; see relevant links in next paragraph) articles we have seen discussed photon duty-cycle energy density, not full-acoustic-pressure-cycle photonic average "energy budget." As we recall, photons are emitted for a very brief duty cycle (i.e., a subportion of a Single Bubble SL acoustic-pressure-cycle). Calculating their energy for that brief cycle and then considering an energy budget over a full Multi-Bubble sonoluminescent wave cycle of sustained duty cycle energy produces an extrarodinary amount of energy surplus.

Didenko and Suslick's approach is like spreading hurricane Andrew's energy over a millennium and claiming there should be little affect from Andrew making landfall.

Other authors (as we recall from previous web searches on SL, e.g. http://www.llnl.gov/llnl/05publications/jc120422/ and http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9811054 and http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9901011) have shown that brief duty cycle SL lasts only a few picoseconds. When one uses that pulse width to calculate photon energy budget, one achieves entirely different results from what we see in Nature and Didenko-Suslick.

We just want to say that when we use classical techniques to study quantum animate processes, we are wearing classical blinders and limiting ourselves. We cann¤t expect to see many more vast quantum spectra of reality. Classical 'science' denies quantum reality!

We probably have n¤t seen an end of SL. In Quantonics we expect fabulous new SL adventures to come. In our view, in our beliefs and hopes, SL offers enormous potential opportunities to extract and use Casimir's vacuum energy.

Progress in Quantonics:

Currently we are reading and criticizing Heisenberg's 1958 Physics and Philosophy. This is a fun task. Foward is by F. S. C. Northrop, and we have already used some of his and Heisenberg's quotes here in Quantonics.

See (search for Heisenberg and Northrop):

What is Wrong with EPR?

What is Wrong with SOM's Boolean Logic?

Quantonics English Language Remediation (see new quotes at page top)

Bergson's Time and Free Will Topic 34 (see new quote in red text comments halfway down on page 192)

Heisenberg's book is helping us immensely in our attempts to understand classical homogeneous time (rather, a space/space classical proxy for time; an Einsteinian inept space-time identity) concepts vis-à-vis quantum heterogeneous "c¤mplementary included-middle timings as animate Bergsonian durational processings changings" memes for our long overdue review of William James Sidis' The Animate and the Inanimate.

Finally we just finished our first graphic and text describing ensehmble quantons, called Quantonic Ensehmble Quantum Interrelationships. This is a major milestone in Quantonics' history. We begin here a process of describing compound quantons. We compare Quantonics/quantum adeptnesses to classical obtuse ineptnesses. This single page will very likely spawn more growth in Quantonics than any other single work we have achieved prior.

Heads up! Beth and Doug are commencing extended travels year-end 2002 and early 2003. Uncertain how well-maintained TQS News will be. There may be a several month hiatus here.

See you here again in early-mid September, 2002, or later!

Doug.

May-June, 2002 News:

End of Spring and early Summer have been busy for us. We have been enjoying many non-Quantonics play activities, and we are planning a full quarter of vacation time in USA's phenomenal and beautiful West.

Despite all this we managed to do some work here in Quantonics.

Our two biggest accomplishments are:

First, we finished and published our review of Bergson's Time and Free Will.

Second, we finished and published our critical review of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen's 1935 EPR paper titled, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?

Former is worth your timings if you want to develop a n¤nclassical, more quantum perspective of timings and timings as they present-participle-plurally affect your quantum beings.

Latter arose due our review of Sylvia Nasar's A Beautiful Mind, where she claims, we believe erroneously, that EPR's paper was not and has not been refuted.

More recently we just acquired an original of David Bohm's 1963 Birkbeck College Inaugural Address. Most of our understandings of Bohm's work arise from his ponderous 1951 Quantum Theory. In twelve years twixt his book and his Inaugural Address on Problems of the Basic Concepts of Physics, Bohm made an enormous amount of progress. We are amazed to find that his progress anticipates much of our work in Quantonics. He addresses many classical problematics, in his own unique manner, which we have covered without knowing of his work. What is good for us, is that Bohm complains about most classical problematics about which we complain. And his complaints align very closely ours. We plan to review this Bohm work and show you those alignments with our Quantonic views.

We are still working on these reviews:

Jeffrey Satinover's The Quantum Brain
John Lukacs' At the End of an Age
Henri Louis Bergson's Matter and Memory
Robert M. Pirsig's Subjects, Objects, Data, and Values
William James' Varieties of Religious Experience
William James Sidis' The Animate and the Inanimate (our ultimate interim goal)

When we finish these tasks, we plan an extended hiatus in our new Western digs (anticipating that this will actually happen) during which we will take a long rest, and then commence effort on a book which we plan to publish via Quantonics.

Regular readers are aware that our efforts here in our Quantonics News are reduced. That is not a 'tell' that our work in Quantonics is reduced. Rather, it is an indication that we, and most likely you, have made a serious re-evaluation of what is important in our lives post 911.

Honestly, our review work and our research are what we love most. So we shall pursue those more, and offer news here less often and in less depth. All our Quantonics work, though, continues its emergence elsewhere in Quantonics. Those of you who wish to keep up with those changes, as they occur, should consider putting a site change monitor on pages which interest you most. That way, when we make changes here in Quantonics, you will be notified immediately. As usual, when we offer new pages, you will see those announced on our top page. We leave those announcements active for about 30 days, plus. So you need to monitor our index page for any new web pages we produce.

See you here again in early-mid August, 2002, or later!

Doug.

April, 2002 News:

You may wish to skip immediately to our:

January review of Sylvia Nasar's A Beautiful Mind, or our
January "How to become a student of Quantonics."

Our April, 2002 News is essentially a review of John Lukacs' 2002, At the End of an Age. That review has taken much more time than we
anticipated, so sadly our News is behind. We are just now putting finishing touches on our review of Henri Louis Bergson's Time and Free
Will. This work has taken us nearly two years of extensive effort, but happily we will have it for you in just a couple of weeks, early-mid June,
2002. Including indices, TaFW offers over 60 new web pages in Quantonics! Plus it contains ground-breaking new memes related to
cause-effect and free-will. Watch for it.

We will post our Lukacs' mini-review here, shortly after we post TaFW. Reviews of The Conscious Universe and The Quantum Brain are
imminent/pending too. All of this building and assisting our huge review effort on William James Sidis' The Animate and the Inanimate!

We just wanted you to be aware of our unplanned, unintended delay... Thank you for your patience and your persistence while you are
enjoying Quantonics!

See you here again in early-mid June, 2002!

Doug.

March, 2002 News:

You may wish to skip immediately to our:

• January review of Sylvia Nasar's A Beautiful Mind, or our
• January "How to become a student of Quantonics."

Hello Quantonics visitors! We hope your Northern hemisphere Spring time is glorious and filled with a bounty of fresh blossoms and scents.

Beth and Doug just returned from a trip to Oregon. First few days there were sunny and bright, but remaining ones were cloudy, rainy/snowy, and dark. This is our first trip during which Doug did no book-reviewing, writing, et al. Our favorite place to stay in Oregon is The Overleaf Lodge, and our favorite rooms there are 204 and 304. TOL sets right on a rugged section of coastline, on Yachats' northern most edge. And our Pacific ocean's air is fresh and clean. Its waves break on volcanic rock fewer than 30 meters from our room. At times those waves may exceed 10 meters, when winds blow at category 5 levels. Regardless, we can hear those immensely powerful waves day and night, tides in and out. For Doug, those crashing waves are actualized metaphors of Pirsig's Dynamic Quality. Like Planck's clock, those waves shlosh Doug's quantum being and keep his quantum stages partially-refresh-annealed, poised for n¤vel quantum memes. Doug's birthplace is Oregon, and his heart yearns to stay there semi-permanently. People there are so fine and so good (at least, i.e., outside of Eugene ).

If you do decide to try Yachats out, be sure to have a halibut platter at Yachats' Crab and Chowder House restaurant. Also try TOL's masseuse!

We accomplished little work last month, so let's take a news detour for a change.

Soon, Doug...soon...

We want to share our views of current events. Then we want to talk about what Doug calls a "quantum tsunami," which is currently spreading rapidly over Earth's continents.

Current Events -

Our position on 'Intelligent Design:' To us, 'Intelligent Design' is naught more than a Fundamentalist Trojan Horse attempting a back door entrance into science, metaphysics, and philosophy. Any student of Quantonics knows that reality is n¤t a (classical, state-ic, immutable, closed) 'design.' Reality is an unending, n¤vel quantum emergence. Too, adherents' use of 'Intelligent' is telling. Clearly 'Intelligent Design' adherents' use of 'intelligent' is anthropocentric. Assuming a classically separate/separable supreme architectonic, that human n¤nconceptual, in our view, is outside any human's scope of 'intelligence.' But those adherents tell us they know what the supreme architectonic wants all of us to do: adopt a single, global, unionized belief system and judge all others dichotomously using the supreme architectonics' absolute set of classical rules. In our view 'Intelligent Design' is simply naïve, just pure bilge! When people tell us they know what a supreme architectonic wants us to do, they have but one motive: state-ic control and hegemony over others' animate free wills. In our view, n¤ human is infallible. In our view no human knows the supreme architectonic or what It wants (assuming a supreme architectonic 'wants' as humans do). To do so, that human would have to be the supreme archetectonic! Quantum reality (our best, but extremely limited and incomplete, current modeling of a supreme architectonic) denies absolute truth, and to prove it to us, quantum reality's absolute flux makes all processes' (including humans') outcomes uncertain and n¤nanalyzable, regardless which comventions, comtexts and perspectives we use to examine them!

Our position on GW Bush's handling of Israel and Palestine:

George W. Bush's telling Israel to get out of Palestine is just ludicrous to us! Would USA leave Afghanistan if Israel told us to? Our initial reaction to Bush was that he is doing a great job, even though he is a SOMite of first magnitude. Bush appears to think that it is absolutely correct for Israel to get out of Palestine and absolutely incorrect for Israel to stay in Palestine. This is pure SOMthingk!

Some of our prescient students of Quantonics have said to us, "Why not apply Nash's equilibrium to USA, UN, Israel and Palestine?" Wow, are you guys good or what? We had not tumbled to that connection between our top of page 911 editorial closing remarks and our review (below) of A Beautiful Mind! Thank you! Thank you!

Isn't it clear that if Israel needs to get out of Palestine, then (thingking classically) we (USA) must stop our war against terror?

One more thing! Bush is a liar on a scale of Bill Clinton! How can we call him a liar? He told our entire world that "Yassar Arafat is not a terrorist!" Arafat is not only a terrorist, he is worse than UbL! He is worse than Saddam! He has been a terrorist and a liar almost his entire life!

George W. Bush has lost any respect we had for him. (Are we ever going to elect a statesman as president of our USA?)

Bush, listen up!

One more remark on this topic: If you can, read an article in 12Apr2002's issue of The Chronicle titled 'Educating Ourselves Into Cooexistence.' It is about a Muslim American who discovers that our US Constitution states many of the Koran's precepts. Upon experiencing this personal enlightenment, he exclaims, "The US is Muslim!" We think Clifford Geertz would love this article.

Our position on USA's current decline and fall of its education system:

Allow us to just share our email response to a student of Quantonics who queried us on this issue (We made some clarifying changes in red. Links added. Italics in place of single quotes as appropriate.) -

A Quantum Tsunami -

Doug's view is that we entered a quantum tsunami in roughly 1900-1910. During times since then Earth's "information age" peaked. Just as our information age replaced its predecessor industrial age, Doug feels confident that a quantum tsunami will replace our current information age. Indeed, Doug senses that quantum tsunami's cusp is happening now. There are many tells, some of which we listed above, and we want to share just a few more of them and comment briefly on them. If you want to see our legacy anticipation of a quantum tsunami, see these pages: 1999 TQS News, Next Millennium, and 2000 TQS News. If you want to find every occurrence of "quantum tsunami" on our web site, do a Google Search on "quantum tsunami"+quantonics.

"Doug, what do you mean by cusp?" Well until this millennium, quantum change of our society, its culture, its philosophy, its science, etc. has been very gradual. But now, we detect a much steeper positive slope in that change. We call that a "cusp." To our sensibilities it turned dramatically upward between 1995 and now.

Some 2002 Quantum Tsunami Tells -

Free quantum energy - Researchers have just had a breakthru in table top experiments doing sonoluminescent fusion! They show (yet to be validated) evidence of 2.5 Mev neutron emission borne of apparent Deuterium-Deuterium and Deuterium-Tritium reactions in cavitating deuterated acetone. See Science, 8Mar2002, Vol 295, pages 1868-1873. Also see: www.ornl.gov/slsite, and www.rpi.edu/~laheyr/SciencePaper.pdf. This Science article lacks in one major regard: it did not attribute Claudia Eberlein for her anticipation of quantum fusion via sonoluminescence.

When this quantum tsunami key enabler comes to fruition, none of us will pay homage to crude oil and fossil fuel burning any longer!

Also consider that Tom Petzinger (staff writer, WSJ) claims this will have a huge cultural impact on whether societies use money any longer. He anticipates a complete disappearance of money!

Secure quantum communications - This one is in full swing now. There are countless journal articles which have appeared just this Millennium on quantum communications. Recent articles speak of testing quantum communication equipment as we speak. And at least two new companies have been set up to pursue opportunites in this quantum tsunami regime. As we have told you before, true quantum communications are superluminal, secure, and require almost no utility infrastructure! Google Search for this tell, to read more.

General quantum computing - Most futurists claim this reality is further off. We disagree. We think useful quantum computing has already been demonstrated. We are in a phase now of generalizing those memes and preparing to build a first quantum computer. We expect to see general development of large scale (i.e., N-qubit systems) quantum computers before 2010! Our opinion.

Again, many classical constraints on computing will simply vanish when quantum computing emerges for general use. These changes will have an (are having an) enormous impact on computer scientists and engineers. Classical science and philosophy must be subsumed by vastly more robust and complex quantum replacements. This will have a huge impact on reputations, legacy concepts, jobs, and prestige, not to mention Earth's entire cultural omniversity.

Aside: We see many laggards, who do not anticipate this quantum tsunami, falling by a technological wayside, never to return. But free energy and other quantum marvels will mitigate this huge negative somewhat. Even still, a technogap twixt those who possess this knowledge and those who do not will widen almost beyond imagination. Current social patterns of value will find it nearly impossible to cope with these changes. Do you sense that happening already, now, e.g., in Middle East and elsewhere. And consider how tertiary education systems in our USA are literally in a free fall, now, with dumbed-down teachers, dumbed-down professors, dumbed-down college presidents and of course nitwitted graduates? Foundations are ceasing their historical giving to colleges and universities. Universities are firing good professors, "for grading to(o) hard." Most US citizens have lost respect for our antique and still classical 'education' system. Think about it. What is most important on most college campuses today? Organized sports, socialization (i.e., cloning of perfectly utopian beings all of whom thingk "politically correctly"), riots/terrorism (e.g., pipe bombs as community terror tools in U. of Oregon), etc. Even philosophy, science and mathematics are trapped in rigid classical paradigms, unable to break out of their churches of reason. End aside.

Precursor quantum teleportation - During 2002 we should see first teleportation of an atom. Next, a molecule. Next... We believe we will see teleportation of inorganic goods by 2010! Watch science journals for announcements of atomic teleportation yet this year!

Quantum AI - How many of you saw that marvelous movie AI? And have you seen Honda's walking robots? Countless people and organizations are working, now, as we speak, on general purpose associative memories.

"What does that mean, Doug?" Well your PC uses what we call RAM, AKA Random Access Memory. RAM is really dumb memory! Why? It is composed of di-gits (digits or popularly, "binary digits" or "bits"). That RAM, once written, remains static (nonvolatile) until it is re-written. Worse, each bit has only two classical values: on (usually viewed as logically TRUE) or off (usually viewed as logically FALSE).

None of those artificial beings in AI can be emerscentured with di-git-al RAM! What can we use? Qubits, quantum bits.

Qubits are quantons! We can show a qubit as a quanton like this: qubitquanton(actuality,n¤nactuality). What is key here is that a qubit's decoherent actualness quantum c¤mplements its unlimited, omnivalent isocoherent n¤nactualness!

By comparison, a PC RAM bit is only a TRUE-FALSE bivalent micro-subset of actuality. We can show it like this: digit = dichon(FALSE, TRUE).

Worse, where a qubit is quantum animate (essentially alive and aware), digits are classically state-ic and inanimate (essentially dead and dumb) except when re-written hegemonously by a CPU.

Future quantum computers, quantum self-organizing associative networks, and self-organizing genetic networks shall be able to emerscenture AI beings! Qubit associative memories will make this possible.

We have countless other quantum tsunami tells to offer. We will do that gradually, here, as months pass...

See you here again in early May, 2002!

Doug.

February, 2002 News:

You may wish to skip immediately to our:

• January review of Sylvia Nasar's A Beautiful Mind, or our
• January "How to become a student of Quantonics."

Unfortunately, most of February consumed your site author with a repeat of our October, 2000 grunge (which you may recall kept us from attending a quantum conference at Puget Sound University and prevented a planned 1-1 meeting with Dr. Stein). We have been unable to accomplish much here.

APS is having their annual Physics meeting in Indy, and we are signed up to attend. Countless excellent programs.

We are reading several fascinating texts, including:

• Paradox Lost, by Philip R. Wallace, Springer Verlag, 1996 (Superb! A foundational text for all Quantonics students. Much epiphany and resonance here. Wallace is one of science's most clear and articulate writers on quantum theory. He explains, fundamentally why modern field theory and quantum reality are incompatible.)
• The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science, by Errol E. Harris, Humanities Press, 1965 (Superb! Good philosophical exegeses. RR for Quantonics students. Kafatos and Nadeau quote Harris extensively in chapter 9 of their 1990 edition Conscious Universe.)
• Time's Arrow, by Richard Morris, Simon & Schuster, 1985 (Least fascinating of all, and loaded with mistakes (e.g., diesel efficiency, 'laws' of thermodynamics, etc.))

We continue our review efforts on Bergson's Time and Free Will. We just started topic 15. There are a total of 35 topics and a long conclusion, so we are only about 30% complete on that review. Should be done with it (assuming we stay well) by early May. We also have complete notes for a review of Nadeau and Kafatos' 1990 edition of their Conscious Universe which we will start as soon as we finish TaFW. CU is important for students of Quantonics because it aligns so well with what Quantonics teaches. There is only one major point of departure: Bohrian "exclusive" complementarity vis-à-vis Quantonic "inclusive" c¤mplementarity.

Beth and Doug are headed for Oregon's coast again. We are seriously looking for semi-annual digs there. Ideally, we intend to split our futures ~quarterly twixt Florence/Yachats and Sedona. Unsure what prose offerings Beth may proffer after this trip. (We noticed that she does have a 25^th anniversary edition of Pirsig's ZMM tucked in her carry-on! )

Thanks again for your quantum-persistent patronage in Quantonics, and thank you for reading. Too, thank you for all those kind comments we receive in your emails!

See you here again in early April, 2002! WJS would be 104 on 1Apr2002! Wish him a happy 104^th birthday, and we will publish it!

Doug.

January, 2002 News:

New link directly to John Nash's Quantum Riemann Hypothesis for you visitors from Watkins' web site.

You may wish to skip immediately to our review of Sylvia Nasar's A Beautiful Mind.

Many of you have written to us and told us you want to know what you have to do to be students of Quantonics. So you want to be a student of Quantonics — do you? Here are some suggestions and a side-by-side list of beliefs, classical and Quantonic, which you must learn to c¤-inure:

Our recent review efforts which we mentioned last month include our review of Jeffrey Satinover's The Quantum Brain. We were interrupted abruptly but fortunately by a recent purchase of some previously owned textbooks one of which is Menas Kafatos' and Robert Nadeau's absolutely excellent The Conscious Universe.

Doug's Review of Sylvia Nasar's A Beautiful Mind:

Above review was moved to its own web page on 9Aug2003 - Doug.

Recent review efforts include both The Conscious Universe by Kafatos/Nadeau and The Quantum Brain by Jeffrey Satinover. We have decided to go ahead and do a full review of The Conscious Universe, 1990 version — there is a new 2000 edition out now (see Amazon.com; n¤ Quantonics affiliation) which we have yet to read. See our brief remarks in our Recommended Reading on this text. Next we pick up where we left off in The Quantum Brain. We will have more to report, on progress there, next month.

Status of our review of Bergson's Time and Free Will, is that we will return to it ASAP. We must finish Satinover's book first and decide whether and what kind of review to do on it. Keep in mind that all of this review work is aimed at giving William James Sidis' The Animate and Inanimate (AIA) our best efforts at reviewing it. You should be able to see how our considerations of Nash's 'schizophrenia' apply to William James Sidis' possible 'schizophrenia.'

We received several emails from antagonists who think Sidis' AIA is just repetitive and offers nothing new for physics in years 1920 and subsequently. We disagree. His antagonists are all died-in-wool classicists, so we can neither accept n¤r trust their judgments.

Thanks again for your persistent patronage in Quantonics, and thanks for reading.

See you here again in early March, 2002!

Doug.

December, 2001 News:

We wish our growing Quantonics community a better 2002.

2001 was a dour and dubitable year for us personally, and for all of us, year 2001 offered times of deep anguish for Earth's ever-fluxing culture of commingling quantum cultures.

Now, we move on, as always, to n¤vel and animate many-nextings.

Our accomplishments for 2001 are fewer, however, a couple of them are significant. Here is our list:

A Bell Theorem Chautauqua	This has become one of 2001's most popular pages in Quantonics. We take Gary Zukav's Bell Theorem decision tree and show it classically. Then we evolve it into Quantonic and quantum versions.
Review of Scott C. Smith's January, 2001 FPS Letter	This page is our most controversial page for 2001. Scott (a full-blown SOMite) took issue with our public domain usage and Quantonic review of his extremely classical on-line letter to FPS. His emails to us and our responses are published at this link.
Flash 2001	We wanted to do more here, but time was not available during 2001. Our review of Donald McDonald's July, 2001 Physics Today contribution is well worth all Quantonic students' efforts. Other goodies here too. Our review of Scott C. Smith's letter to one of APS' forum's appears here and shows one of 'the academy's' die hard SOMites in paroxysmal throes of a dying classicism.
Quantonics English Language Problematics (QELP)	This is a list of classical English language terms which we think need both revision and n¤vel quantum hermeneutics.
Quantonics English Language Remediation (QELR)	This is a list of our n¤vel quantum hermeneutic remediation of English language. If you want to know how English language may be altered to be capable of describing quantum reality, you will want to spend a lot of time studying this page and one immediately above. Single most important remediation we offer here is our use of a quantized 'o,' i.e., '¤' in most/all classical English words containing 'o.' Second most important remediation is our replacement of classical 'con' prefixes with quantum 'com' prefixes.
Pirsig vis-à-vis Bergson Memes on Monism and Pluralism	For us this is 2001's largest philosophical step forward for Quantonics. We mix Pirsig and Bergson to achieve a better philosophical description of nature's own quantum reality. This page is a direct result of our review of Bergson's Time and Free Will.
How to Tap Into Reserve Energy (HtTIRE), and its adjunct:	Here we offer novel percepts for how students of Quantonics can optimize their quantum beings. This is not a classically prescriptive or proscriptive "how to." Rather, we offer means of gradual self-fractal-learning to accept and use quantum reality's vast energies to personal advantage.
Quantum Stage as Neural Nets with Reserve Energy	This is adjunct to HtTIRE above, but it offers Quantonics a vector into showing its students how our multiverses are, in very analogous ways, quantum neural networks co-within quantum reality's reserve vacuum energy.
A Kyoto Accord	We offer some humor in our position that those who signed on to A Kyoto Accord will, in our opinion, be ultra red-faced in just a few years. Actually, red is starting to appear via Mars own global warming.
Our Review of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions	Top schools and research institutions are hitting this web page voraciously. We debuted Quantonics' new HotMemes™ here first. HotMemes™ are our way of directing you to sections of a much larger page where you can immediately focus topics we consider most important. If you want to see Kuhn depicted as: SOMite, CRite and quantum-MoQite, then read this review. If you want to learn why classical scientists, and others called Kuhn "a cultural relativist," read this review.
Our Review of Clifford Geertz' Available Light	Clifford Geertz, in our opinion, is Earth's first quantum anthropologist. It took us 85 pages to show you why we believe that. But our HotMemes™ will allow you to taste that huge page more rapidly without having to digest its entire contents.
Our March, August, and September 2001 QQAs	Each of these QQAs offers novel memes to our Quantonics community. Our March, 2001 QQA answers a Quantonics student's question, "What do you mean by, in your review of 'A Streetcar Named Paradise Lost,' in Sam Rosenberg's The Come as You Are Masquerade Party, 'taking William away early and rolling back his IQ?'" Our August, 2001 QQA dispense quite well with classicism's cause-effect concept. And our September, 2001 QQA explains why we do n¤t offer a road map for your visits to Quantonics.

In addition to those few, but significant accomplishments, we prepared 67 novel web pages constituting our on-line review of Henri Louis Bergson's Time and Free Will. This review is unique since it represents our first effort to fully index a whole book and its review. We intend to finish our TaFW review early in 2002. It is loaded with countless new quantum-memetic observations and (we think) innovations.

As 2002 commences for us, we are just now reading Jeffrey Satinover's new The Quantum Brain, and in parallel we are reading Kafatos and Nadeau's 1990 The Conscious Universe, and William James' 1891 Principles of Psychology. They all fit together in significant ways and offer countless new memes for application in Quantonics. These multiple readings offer us a brief respite from our intense efforts on Kuhn, Geertz, and Bergson...especially Geertz and Bergson. Bergson's deep and prescient intellect, intuition, and instinct just wears us out. His every word (similar to Pirsig) is like an iceberg whose tiny exposure only hints at nearly fathomless depths. Geertz' quantum being and superb rhetoric consumed us for 11 months! Certainly, they offer foundation for our impending review of William James Sidis' The Animate and The Inanimate. We are more convinced than ever that WJS harbored countless quantum intuitions and instincts.

We wish a happy year 2002 for all of you!

Thanks again for your persistent patronage in Quantonics, and thanks for reading.

See you here again in early February, 2002!

Doug.