This is our April, 2005 editorial
Go directly to 2005 April News
"Indeterminacy is the principal feature of intelligence!"
"For we can analyse a thing, but not a process; we can break up extensity, but not duration. Or, if we persist in analysing it, we unconsciously transform the process into a thing and duration into extensity. By the very fact of breaking up concrete time we set out its moments in homogeneous space; in place of the doing we put the already done; and, as we have begun by, so to speak, stereotyping the activity of the self, we see spontaneity settle down into [state-ic, socially positive] inertia and freedom into necessity. Thus, any positive definition of freedom will ensure the victory of determinism."
Henri Louis Bergson
"In other words keep tim[ing]s free! Classicists defraud and detain time as synthetic y=f(thomogeneous)!
"For Pirsig, Bergson's 'any positive definition of freedom will ensure the victory of determinism' is what he means when he says that Quality is undefinable. Once analytic thought defines Quality, we lose it. By making Quality actual it becomes Static Quality. To paraphrase Pirsig using Bergson's marvelous statement, 'Thus, any positive definition of Quality will ensure the victory of Classical Thing-king Methods.' So we now have another analogue for Pirsigean Quality Freedom! Other analogues which Pirsig mentions are: Good, Moral, etc. Also examine Bergson's specificity. He uses positive. About what is he speaking? He is speaking of positivists, a subspecies of SOMites.
"And we see that Bergson has given us another insight into a potential Pirsigean Problematic: can freedom ever really be entrapped and imprisoned? Can Quality ever really be classically defined?
"In larger reality, we claim 'No!' Only SOMites and CRites who adhere Aristotelian/Newtonian/CTM philosophical underpinnings may delude themselves that they can classically define freedom and Quality. Their SOM box permits them to do that objectively, however, it is only a self delusion."
Doug's February, 2001 comments on Bergson's quote.
A Gentle Spirit A Quantum Spirit of, From Any Classical Conspective, Perversity
Banesh Hoffmann's Account of Heisenberg's Abstraction of Quantum Uncertainty ("The Principal Feature of Intelligence") -
"Is all this difficult and discouraging? Does the idea of an electron in several places at once or with several states of motion at once give us pause? Does it revolt our sensibilities? We have been too particular. We have leaned too heavily on the particle image. Let us not imagine that scientists accepted these new ideas with cries of joy. They fought them and resisted them as much as they could, inventing all sorts of traps and alternative hypotheses in vain attempts to escape them. But the glaring paradoxes were there as early as 1905 in the case of light, and even earlier, and no one had the courage or wit to resolve them until the advent of the new quantum mechanics. The new ideas are so difficult to accept because we still instinctively strive to picture them in terms of the old-fashioned particle, despite Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle ["feature of intelligence."]. We still shrink from visualizing an electron as something which having motion may have no position, and having position may have no such thing as motion or rest. [See our Quantonics solution to Zeno's first paradox.] We still try to blame the clumsiness of the innocent experimenter [and his classical viewing and measurement 'techniques'] for this fundamental characteristic of the electron, or the photon.
"We have not abandoned our former steppingstone in all this, but rather have made it a base for further advance. We may still look on a combination state of motion as a confession of our ignorance as to the precise outcome of an observation, and may still regard it as listing various probabilities. The interference patterns, embodiments of these probabilities, are still discernible only as crowd effects. It is the mental picture that has changed. We have learned at last the sheer impossibility of visualizing atomic processes except in terms of the most grotesque images. We have seen what fantastic shapes our mental image must take if they would spy on that which the principle of indeterminacy veils.
"It was Bohr who realized these things most surely and profoundly. He it was who finally [yet, unfortunately and still, classically-] resolved the wave-particle conflict, and first delineated with fundamental [i.e., classical-] clarity an outline of the puzzling new era in science. He it was who saw that the wave and particle were but two aspects of the same thing [quantumly rather, not classical 'thing,' but quantum flux, semper fluxio]. They were not enemies. Their whole battle had been a [i.e., classical-] sham. Their persistent warfare had been one long [i.e., classical-] fraud, a superb example of the power of classical propaganda. If the wave collared a piece of territory, the particle never really disputed it, but opened up a new region of its own. If the wave explained interference, the particle took no serious counteraction but consoled itself with staking a claim to the photoelectric effect, a claim never contested by the wave. It had been the most polite type of [i.e., classically-] pseudo warfare imaginable, but done up with such bellicose classical trumpetings as to give the false impression of terrible battle. What happened, for example, when we placed indicating devices at the holes in the screen? Did they force the wave and particle into genuine battle? Not at all. The particle politely found a way for the wave to escape the trap without embarrassment. (See Doug's quantonic life~death paraphrasing of this paragraph below...)
"When scientists at last suspected the true nature of these antics they devised sterner, more devilish tricks to make the wave and particle join battle. But Bohr and others were able to [i.e., classically-] prove [see our QELR of proof] in detail that the gentle spirit of perversity [AKA "quantum I-cubed: intellect~intuition~instinct"], Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy, was ever alert to prevent even the beginning of strife. If we try to regard the wave and particle as two distinct entities [e.g., dichon(wave, particle)], we must think of them not as implacable feudists but as professional wrestlers putting on a show. But they are really not distinct. They are alternative, partial images of the selfsame thing [quantons(wave,particle)]." Pp. 170-171. (Our brackets, links, bold, color.)
The Strange Story of the Quantum
December, 2004 through November, 2005
You are here:
|global warming rant,
what is democracy?,
fav flicks list & why?
our fav TV ad,
Apple's Itunes & IPod,
Banesh on de Broglie,
Who likes Quantonics?,
|why we cannot
fix global warming,
|a gentle spirit,
on Where Is
|Relook at EU,
A sound track,
Quantonics OS X,
|A silly GW fix,
|Doug rants on
Doug offers his best
expectation of global
warmings' current cyclings
|Russert, Katrina, &
|Murtha gets it, Libby's foot?,
Why WJS hated religion,
Still a Republican?
A Sting WinWinWin,
Admin calls US 'the people,'
Talk/Walk vis-à-vis Walk/Talk,
Confidentiality of News: Society vis-à-vis Individual?,
Technologies vis-à-vis Quantologies,
Can meaning be unambiguous?, and
April, 2005 News:
We warned you! Beware classical dialectical society and their social-hegemon 'representatives!' Beware, indeed!
Doug just has one offering on Earth's recent global interest in "individual euthanasia:" it is a HotMeme from our 2003-2004 Feuilleton Chautauqua:
Quantum Ihndihvihdual Governance - HotMeme - Simply, SOM's herd instinct and its consensual and objective 'social patterns' of behavior cann¤t control let alone survive in any ontolgy governed by MoQ's quantum ihndihvihdual patterns of Value. End QIG HotMeme
In Quantonics we believe and adhere this: individual rights are above societal rights. Simply, to us, society works for individuals, individuals do not work for society. Presidents, congressfolk, and judiciary work:
That, very, very simply is how we see individual vis-à-vis societal rights. We are confident that our belief is good, and offers better for all individuals during Millennium III, but only IF individuals believe what we just said. From our perspective, easiest way to achieve this is to evolve (perhaps revolve) from classical to quantum society. To achieve that, our view is that classical individuals must start learning how to change from classical to quantum, from CTMs to QTMs.
Some of our USA 'leadership,' and, for example, the 'catholic' 'church,' just showed us that they believe their organizations have societal rights above individuals, and that they can adhere and instruct and enforce societal rights above individual rights. What is their greatest tool? Fear! We agree with Clifford Geertz, though, "A scholar can hardly be better employed than in destroying a fear." Available Light, chapter III, p. 42. Note how Bush (executive branch), Delay, Santorum (legislative branch) and a few other right-wing-conservative fascists now want to punish our judiciary branch for protecting individual and family rights. More fear, folks! Isn't it timings to 'destroy' these mongers of fear? By 'destroy' of course, we intend 'recall' them from their Gingrichesque positions of fear-mongering saserp gloat.
Those fundamentalist, theocratic monists believe that we get one life, period! Further, and even worse, they believe their belief is the belief and everyone else must (shall by their 'law') adhere their belief.
But nature shows us omnifferently!!! How? Nature shows us that classical fundamentalist notions of 'death' are simply bogus hogwash.
"How does nature show us that, Doug?"
Many ways, but perhaps our best Earth chauvinistic example is mammalian Earth life forms, viz. you as an example of a human.
Every half-year all of y~our body's cells excepting perhaps some bone tissue, are OEDC-replaced. You essentially get a whole new you about every six months!
"But how does that happen Doug?"
Cyclic cellular metabolisis as both anabolisis and catabolisis. Cells die and are reborn: cellular resurrection! Cells in your body die and resurrect themselves at a rate of about 1013 per second [That estimate by Doug is incorrect! It assumes a human body has 1021 cells. As of early 2006 a human body apparently has about 1014 cells. Now we have to restate our apoptosis cycle estimate as 106 cell apoptosis cycles per second. Still high, but nowhere near as many as Doug originally estimated. See our OEDC link above for detail.]!
"But how and why do our cells die Doug?" They individually self-euthanize! They individually choose to commit cellular suicide! Biologists call it "cellular apoptosis."
See a recent group of reports on apoptosis in Science, Vol 310, 7Oct2005, p. 65, titled 'Signaling: From Stem Cells to Dead Cells.'
Describes 'state of art,' i.e., 2005, 'where science currently is' on how cellular apoptosis 'works.'
Doug - 19Oct2005. Also, in that same issue see an unrelated, p. 96, report which describes what we mean when we say, "there issi n¤ the people."
We could n¤t live (be quantum~comcurrently both living and dying; n¤t classically, fundamentally, monistically either living or dying) without cellular suicide and resurrection! In Quantonics we believe that we quantumly cann¤t be living without being dying! In our script we say, "quanton(living,dying), quanton(suiciding,resurrectioning), quanton(self_euthanasia,rebirth)," etc.
Too, cell death, like cell life, is impermanent, quantum~tentative. Why? Cellular apoptosis and its quantum complement cellular resurrection are OEDC quantum~complementary processings.
We believe human 'death,' just like human cells' death is impermanent, only a necessary cyclic renewal via a quantum emersos' emerscenture. More importantly, we believe nature's cyclicity of quantons(dyings,livings) quantum~scales all reality.
All you fundamentalists better get busy and have your government and your church 'outlaw' cellular suicide! Bushwhack nature's own quantons(euthanasia,resurrection): apoptosis! Go for it Delay, Santorum, Bush, and fundamentalist religionists!
Doug - PS - In our view, fundamentalists, their churches, and their governments practice antinatural and n¤n ESS...history will out.
May we recommend a 2004 video on euthanasia to you? The Sea Inside. Spanish with English subtitles. Excellent!
A true story of Ramon Sampedro who lived for 30+ years as a bed-ridden full quadraplegic.
Doug & Beth have living wills, so far, in Indiana and Oregon. Too, we retain our individual rights, regardless what societies say, to self-euthanize at our individual will and only at our individual will. We are looking forward, with great aspirational contingency, to our next quantum iterations...
Allow us to take Banesh Hoffmann's penultimate paragraph above about Bohr and classicists' particle-wave dialectical delusions and quantonically apply life (living) and death (dying) in place of Hoffmann's wave and particle:
"It was Bohr who realized these things most surely and profoundly. He it was who finally resolved the life-death conflict, and first delineated with fundamental clarity an outline of the puzzling new era in science. He it was who saw that life and death were but two aspects of the same quantum process. They were not enemies. Their whole battle had been a dialectical sham. Their persistent warfare had been one long dialectical fraud, a superb example of the power of classical propaganda. If life collared a piece of territory, death never really disputed it, but opened up a new region of its own. If life explained reality's holographic phase encoding, death took no serious counteraction but consoled itself with staking a claim to nonactuality's isoflux, a claim never contested by life. It had been the most polite type of pseudo warfare imaginable, but done up with such bellicose classical trumpetings as to give the false impression of terrible battle. What happened, for example, when we placed ideally formal indicating devices at heaven and hell's classical gates? Did they force life and death into genuine battle? Not at all. Death politely found a way for life to escape those schizogenous traps without embarrassment." Paraphrasing by Doug from page 171. (Our paraphrasing of Hoffmann's original text. Doug - 19May2005)
Our last sentence's paraphrasing evokes a quantonic script like this:
Doug Renselle's 19May2005 paraphrasing from The
Strange Story of the Quantum
by Banesh Hoffmann
285 pages including index; Dover
General Publishing Co., Ltd., 1947 and Dover, 1959 reprint.
Now, student, you try it with classical mind-body and countless other EOOO 'dichotomies.'
See you here again in early May, 2005!