Value is quantum
potentia tugging nowings' betterings.
Recall that Hume's
'Law' says, "...there is no bridge twixt value and fact."
Why did Hume believe that?
Hume believed that 'fact' is 'state-ic,' and holds
immutably still. To Hume, 'fact' is verifiably stoppable and
tautologous. Hume is a dialectical mechanic. Hume is wrong!
Reality is absolute change. Reality is quantum
That shows us Hume's 'Law' is bogus. There are
are innumerable dynamic interrelationshipings among quantons
and Value. How? Absolute quantum fluxings' middlings are ensemble~associatively~inclusive
interfering and n¤n interfering,
l¤cal and n¤n l¤cal,
b¤s¤nic and færmi¤nic,
quanton(Value,quanton) AKA recursive "quantum straddling."
Doug - 30Mar2007.
is quantum a priorai dynamic~potentia
everywhere~included~middle~associatively attracting~tugging n¤wings'
1 See c¤hæra and æntr¤pa.
AKA quantum~relativity AKA quantum~phase~encoding issi self~other~awareness!
Photons, entangled photons, are self~other~aware,
however primitively you wish to perceive it.
Doug - 26Mar2007.
Doug is doing a lot of work nowings on,
"the big question."
Mae-wan Ho in her the Rainbow and the Worm
(1993, 2000) apprised us (that is, we first saw) nearly 10 years
ago that Erwin Schrödinger wrote a book about it:
What is Life?
Errol E. Harris wrote a whole chapter of his text
The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science titled Chapter
VIII, 'The Riddle of Life,' as a lead in his Part
II - The Realm of Life in that text.
Doug is just now doing a detail critical review
of Section 4 Open Systems of 'The Riddle of Life.'
We are sharing a small part of Doug's effort,
in this, our April, 2007 TQS News.
As part of that work, Doug is doing a cursory
review of Schrödinger's What is Life?
Prior that, however, allow Doug a chance to put
Schrödinger's query, in Doug's, in a quantum~Gn¤stic's,
that is... Ihn Quanta's Lightings:
classical_life = dichon(death, life)
and as we showed above,
As may be apparent classical life versus death
is an either-or DIQheaded,
schismatic-schizoid dichotomy. Classically, life is mechanically
separate from death and death is mechanically separate from life...objectively,
concretely, dialectically, formally.
However, quantumly, living
issi ihn dying and dying issi ihn living.
Quantumly living and dying c¤mplæmænt one
another. A great real example of which Doug writes here~now
is a recent scientific-medical announcement that cellular senescence~apoptosis
protect against onset cancer (link lost: see instead cellular
apoptosis). Living always carries with it, in all
ways, c¤mplæmæntary aspects of dying and vice
versa. Living and dying share quantum~EIMA
interrelationshipings with all of quantum~reality. We
can show that in script as quanton(living,dying), and ontologically
(see reality loop link) as quanton(unsaid,said) complementing
quanton(isobeing,being). Quantumly one lives forever
(issi active~transmutatively both partially isolivings
livings) as illustrated by our Generation
III Quantum Reality Loop.
A great quantum analogy is this:
That is, quantum light issi ihn
quantum absence of light and vice versa. Indeed,
a lone photon is light. A lone photon and its phase~inverse~photon
to creatio nihilo ex vivo aperio, and its quantum~c¤mplæmænt,
creatio vivo ex nihilo aperio.
[only apparent] darkness
[as only apparent 'death'] from Light
[as life whose c¤mplæmænt is apparent 'death'
AKA apparent 'darkness'] laid bare."
We may offer at your request countless other desnouering
Doug - 26Mar2007.
One Google-Person is worth ten emBalmered DIQheads!
Doug - 15Mar2007.
What is a better, quantum, way to say "has-been
drip under pressure?": "exp[eu]rt!"
Doug - 23Mar2007.
On insecurity requirements
and anti coversion, anti covert terrorist, techniques. Using
quantiques to impose quantum~uncertainty upon terrorists...
Ever wondered why some computer systems are so
affected by security attacks?
If you want a system to be, classically 'certainly,'
insecure what should you require that system be?
Dialectical! (I.e., be sure to 'intelligently
design-in' classical von Neumannesque radically formal system
But Doug, "What does that mean?"
Dialectical systems are:
||Etc...List is endless...
Everyone of those insecurity requirements
is an Quantum~Security HotMeme Agent
of insecurity. Quantum~Security
That list plus many other perhaps less apparent
'intelligently designed-in' insecurity requirements 'define'
a classical standard system. A OSFA
system. A totalitarian system. A control system. A catholic,
'universal' system. A Marxian, "Wear y-our OSFA same-look-like-us
commonist, communist, we system.
But when one does that, what unintended
consequences does one introduce? Many! But for this tiny editorial,
our biggest unintended consequence is INSECURITY! Identical
uniforms and behaviours make ideal 50 calibre machine gun targets!
Thinkq about it... Hitler
did... Mussolini did... Catholic Inquisitors did...and demanded
flock do it too, so the church could protect itself in
In Nature, no two viruses are identical. No two
anythings are identical, not even to themselves! Nature is absolute
change. Anti Nature is absolute OSFA, universal,
consensual 'state.' From any quantum~security complementarospective
catholicism is insecure, by design, by 'intelligent-hylic-psychic'
design. Have you noticed EU's inquisitorial sameness,
by design? Have you noticed Bu()sh()'s insistence on One
Global Government and its sameness by design? Error! Error! Error!
Each item on our list, and countless others unlisted,
dialectically: frame-by-frame, cinematographically,
and fusio--incre-mentally reduces system security.
If you want transport security
from your home to work and vice versa should you always
determinately take same route?
All formal and thus 'mechanical' systems have
covert (read "insecure") channels. N¤
amount of formal 'design' can ever 'eliminate' covert channels
in a mechanical (dialectical) system! Read Bell
and LaPadula's paper. Read IEEE journal issues on computer
security. Read about Kurt
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. Thinkq
about security. Cease thingk-king
Did you know that M$ OS (at least NT4.0) is 'designed'
to be secure? They should follow USA's (very classical)
Are M$' OSes secure? N¤! Will they ever
be secure? N¤, (n¤t even "simple security
condition" physically) n¤t as long as they
are dialectical systems.
What is biggest reason M$ systems are insecure?
Da (errrr...ummm, duh) Registry!
(Note that Unix and Linux systems do not have
an M$esque Registry.)
What is a good metaphor of M$' registry? It is
much like stuffing USA's buffoonesque dialectical bureaucracy
inside your PC.
Guess what? US buffoonsp[eu]rts want to create
a OSFA government 'registry' and impose that on all government
users and all Windo$e application developers. (Presumably, we're
If you want to be secure, ignore USA beaurocrappeds.
They, as we just evidenced, like M$, grasp squat re: system
security (and "global warming," and "climate change,"
and "homeland security," and "tsunami security,"
and "hurricane security," and "asteroid security,"
and "war planning," and "war disentanglement AKA
'redeployment' planning," and...).
Can you imagine how much that delights computer
security terrorists? Their bugs will OSFA work everywhere, mechanically-dialectically
perfectly! Oh joy, oh joy...
If we want to continue using dialectical computing
systems (this will become a n¤n issue as soon as real
quantum computing becomes viable and broadly available), n¤
two systems should be alike, for example, in terms of their registries
and how their registries are interpreted.
A way to do this is similar US' use of code whisperers
for comm security in WWII. Create a registry metalingual (code
whisperer) interpreter whose interpretive 'model' is unique to
each OS implementation. If that approach were used n¤
computer system terrorist could have advance 'know-ledge' of
how a registry 'works.' It isn't that simple, though, since a
terrorist could substitute a 'standard' interpreter tentatively.
That action is monitorable and detectable. But substituting a
tentative on a huge ensemble of registry unique machines
offers a significant challenge.
Following Bill Maher's New Rules, MSFA=1/OSFA.
(Many sizes fit all is an quantum~c¤mplæmæntary
inverse of one size fits all; individual walk (you)
is an quantum~c¤mplæmæntary inverse of societal
talk (we); etc...)
Better yet, dump da registry and meta interpret
all intra system comm's. Multi-cores make this almost trivial.
Multi-threading sequence randomization is of value here too.
Genuinely secure systems have at least a modicum
of behavioral 'free will.' Their behavior is (should be,
innately) indeterminate regarding covert channel, e.g., registry-communication
signals. US Military uses this in their siops. And they hop their
radios in countless ways. And they spread spectra in countless
System engineers must learn to take advantage
of n¤n classical system behaviors, even if they must be
emulated: uncaused 'cause,' affectless 'cause,' affectless
'effects,' etc. They are a lot like Michael Jordan fakes. They
HotMeme "Terrorism only works when terrorists can plan,
exploit, and expect predicable results." Quantum~Security HotMeme.
Recall Paul Pietsch's "Indeterminacy is the
principal feature of intelligence (and security)." Restated,
HotMeme "Quantum uncertainty is a principal feature
of real security." Quantum~Security
(For an analogous quantum randomization exemplar
see our review of Aspect, et al's., Wheeler's
Delayed Choice quantum gedankenment use of QRNG (quantum
random number generation) to try to fake out a "system-wide
superluminally~aware" photon; ph¤t¤ns
cann¤t be QRNG terrorized by classical physicists; th¤ught~æssæncæ
here is 'photon' as classical and ph¤t¤n
Last evening Doug watched a Bruce Willis movie
titled Live Free or Die Hard. That movie illustrates evidently
what Doug is describing above. Dialectical society's OSFA bureaucratic
catholic ineptness is a direct result of dialectic's
implicit insecurity as a model for any system. Doug - 7Sep2008.
Doug - 23Mar2007.
What one physical (inter)relationship do you know
which holds still?
Why did Einstein base his theories of relativity
upon his notion of "invariant geometric interval?"
Doug - 19Mar2007.
Would you believe that a Google web search on
'quantum being' produces over 21 million hits?
Doug - 19Mar2007.
USA's Scooter Libby trial is a clear and evident
indictment of US' 'Legal System.'
US' 'Legal System' finds its bases of 'reason'
in inept classical Aristotelian syllogistic (sillygistic)
"One notion that
is incredibly important to grasp here is that all 'as practiced'
logic and mathematics [and thing-king] on Earth today find their
bases in Aristotle! Few understand that he was just wrong! To
us, that is a major catastrophe for our world. It is the
key SOM disabler of nearly all thinking on Earth at Millennium
III's emergence. Perhaps even more important:
Aristotle infects everyday judgment, society, law, epistemology,
ethics, politics, and so on. It is an unmitigated disaster of
maltuitive thought. We've lived with it for 2500 years. It is
nowings rent and purchase for change." Original
September, 2004 Doug quote from his review
of Max Jammer's The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, 'Quantum
Logic,' Wiley, 1st edition, 1974.
Classical logic depends upon a unitemporal reality
immutably holding still in order for it to work. In Doug's view,
classical 'logic' is intellectual terrorism. Cheney and Bush
and Rove use it to their political advantage while our 'legal
system' in all its 'power' and 'glory' gives these snakes a pass.
Any legal system which is political is illegal! Justice, even
classical dialectical justice, supposedly, is blind.
However quantum reality evolves, radically evolves,
and thus from any classical conspective contradicts
itself from Planck moment to Planck moment. Reality is
change. Our US' 'Legal System' demands an abyss of stasyss.
Reality is, from any quantum complementarospective,
about what is Good and better. Classical reality is dialectically
about what is 'orthodox' and 'worse-ship.'
Those last two sentences explicate why some jurors
and some pundits feel much discomfort:
worse) of how our inept legal system appears dialectically
'viable,' but its outcome is humanitarian nonsense and tragedy:
like vigilantes hanging a black man based on social dialectic:
"because he's black and we hate blacks!" Bogus then,
bogus now. There isn't a digm's worth of omnifferencings among
Libby and Simpson 'trials.' Social ex cathedra incompetence
desnouered aperio. Opera of gritless soap laid bare. Logic
can 'prove' anything. Political 'legal logic' proves whatever
politicians want. Just like Democracy and democracy, politicians
can mechanically 'make it fit.' Folks, that is political
intellectual rape and abuse: OSFA, our size, their
size, fits all.
Read Oliver Goldsmith's poem The
Logicians Refuted. Compare coquecigrues.
It's timings for massive changings folks! A quantum
tsunami is upon us and it waits for none. We have at least two
choices: 1) Ræm¤dal our society, quantumly.
2) Possibly, have it torn asunder within its own self.
Status quo is n¤ longer US' way
Gn¤sis via quantum~philosophy
is a n¤væl and better ESS.
However, and currently, in our 'legal system,'
it all comes down to what a jury
believes, and USA calls that 'law.'
Doug's views, n¤t the views...
Doug - 9-19Mar2007.
Social 'value:' Do, politically, unto others...as
others, politically, shall do unto you.
All this nice talk and worrying about others'
privacy is just political subterfuge. Buy into that horse-hockey
and you lose!
Politics is a classical
social pattern of value. Politics is 'retail' dialectic
wrapped in classical subversive 'institutions are above individuals,'
and 'objects are
above subjects' materialistic anti gn¤stic 'orthodox'
corruption. Politics is war.
If you do n¤t like that, help humanity
find a n¤vel way to subsume and efface dialectical society.
Meantime decide and vote for whom you feel has
most to offer USA's global future. If you want death and destruction
vote for one-note-samba stay-the-course fundamentalist head-banging,
inquisitors-imperialists, necrolieb and neokan't war hawks, and
If you want peace and healing vote for orchestral~multitonic~multiversal~culturists,
intellectual~individual~omniversalists, and gnostic~individualists.
Doug - 4Mar2007.
'Da Clintonistas are scared scatless, aren't they?
It is sooooo apparent. Their character inferiority is manifest
now, even at their best game, politics.
Great part of all this is that we individuals
will simply ask them, like McDonalds, to "Step aside."
It will be fun to watch their tantrums as their
antique self built centers of political thought detend them.
They have their own rules. But they aren't working
for Hillarious, are they?
"Rules is Tules for Fules."
See how difficult it is for them to adapt? They
have learned their own rules mechanically too well. They have
stymied their own abilities to adapt, to live at political reality's
"edgings of nowings."
Talking points, schmaulking
Status quo's knows job...emerqs a hose
Doug - 3Mar2007.
As many of you are aware, Doug is carefully reviewing Elaine
Pagels' opus. Dr. Pagels is, Doug opines, a quantum~being. She
is, in ancient topos, an elect pneumatic. How can
Doug write and imply and infer that? Simply, she mines classical
(hylic-psychic) and she refines it into quantum (pneumatic).
Doug is currently reviewing her
Beyond Belief. Three paragraphs from that text illustrate
how important Elaine Pagels' works are for modern humanity. In
a sense, what you may choose to read here represents a previously
missing, intentionally hidden, destroyed and maligned part of
history: the rest of the story...
[~Mary, some say...Doug comment]
[Didymos AKA Didymus: "twin"
"...give similar accounts of what Jesus taught privately.
Unlike Matthew, Mark, and Luke,...
[MML "Synoptics" meaning "same
conspective, same view of Jesus' biography...Doug comment]
"...who say that Jesus warned of the coming 'end of time,'...
[This is a powerful tell of (Paul-Saul's)
Roman social-dialectical influence
using classical pessimism's eschatonic
fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Quantumly, there is n¤ "end time."
Creatio aperio is Light and Light issi quantum
flux and flux issi forever!
See Bergson on Radical Finalism...Doug
"...both John and Thomas say that he directed his disciples
instead toward the beginning of time to the creation account
of Genesis I and identify Jesus with the divine light
that came into being 'in the beginning.' Thomas and John both
say that this primordial light connects Jesus with the entire
universe, since, as John says, 'all things were made through
the word [logos; or, the light].'
[Doug comment: Readers please observe how
that description fits Quantonics' version of quantum reality.
Essentially that light AKA logos carries all of
what we currently refer 'realities' multiverses' creatio aperio.
In a sense light issi aperio.
article on photon as holographic quanton.
Classical notions of state-ic
creation omnisagrees Quantonics' quantum view that reality as
has always been(ings) and will always be(ings).
Students be aware that Doug's italics may be hermeneuted hylically,
psychically, and pneumatically.]
"Professor Koester has noted such similarities in detail,
and concludes that these two authors drew upon common sources.
While Mark, Matthew, and Luke identify Jesus as God's...
[Doug comment: dialectically separate from
"...human agent, John and Thomas characterize him instead
as God's own...
[Doug comment: inseparable; quantum~coherent]
"...light in human form.
"Yet, despite these similarities, the authors
of John and Thomas take Jesus' private teaching in sharply different
directions. For John, identifying Jesus with the light that came
into being "in the beginning" is what makes him unique
God's 'only begotten son.' John calls him the 'light of
all humanity,' and believes that Jesus alone brings divine light
to a world otherwise sunk into darkness. John says that we can
experience God only through the divine light embodied in Jesus.
But certain passages in Thomas's gospel draw a quite different
conclusion: that the divine light Jesus embodied is shared by
humanity, since we are all made 'in the image of God.'
[Doug's bold.] Thus Thomas expresses what would become a central
theme of Jewish and later Christian mysticism a
thousand years later: that the 'image of God' is hidden
within everyone, although most people remain unaware of its presence.
[Doug comment: Recall Heraclitus'
'Nature likes to hide.' Doug is con(m)fident Heraclitus was Gn¤stic.]
[Doug comment: But when one complementaroceives
- quanton(John,Thomas), one sees a
[Both John and Thomas c¤mplæmænt
one another beautifully! Through quantum~holographic~lightings,
Gn¤stically, "each of us issi in Iht
and Iht issi in each of us."
That is n¤t y~our dad's classically dialectical dichotomy!
Rather, John and Thomas are quantum~wh¤læ.
[A test of this religious belief is its applicability
to multiverses. We have shown that dialectic is specific and
unnatural. Is Gn¤sis applicable multiversally? Doug claims
"yæs!" How? Quantum energy, quantum flux is ubiquitous,
\ light is ubiquitous. That's a quantum
A partial said. "What is its unsaid, Doug?" Quantum
flux is ihn all and all is ihn quantum flux! John and Thomas together
describe beautifully quantum~reality! Quanton(unsaid,said)! Wow!
Wow Mom! G¤¤d G¤d Almighty!!!]
"What might have
been complementary interpretations of God's presence on earth
became, instead, rival ones; for by claiming that
Jesus alone embodies the divine light, John challenges Thomas's
claim that this light may be present in everyone. John's views,
of course, prevailed, and have shaped Christian thought ever
[Doug comment: As I claimed, this text is
crucial. We juxtapose an Irenaeun Roman
Catholic anti-christ vis-à-vis Thomas Didymos' Jesus~Light!
Impact of this is simply enormous, since it shows unambiguously
that all anti-gn¤stic 21st century 'catholics'
and 'protestants' are currently wors(e)hiping the Roman
inane anti-christ! Put that in Light of Muslims calling
USA and The West 'Satan.'
[Why does Doug, apparently agreeing with
Muslims, call Irenaeus' 'christ' 'anti-christ?'
- dichon(christ_with_light, humanity_without_light),
and (i.e., 'christ' as satanic hegemon)
(i.e., Jesus as Servant and Humanity's Coherent Everywhere~Enlightening
...For after John's teaching
was collected along with three other gospels into the New Testament,
his [Doug comment: enthymemetic]
view of Jesus came to dominate and even to define what we mean
by Christian teaching. Some Christians [Doug comment:
proto-anti-gnostic and nascently, Irenaeus.] who championed the
"fourfold gospel" Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
of the New Testament denounced the kind of teaching found
in the Gospel of Thomas (along with many other writings that
they called 'secret and illegitimate') and called upon believers
to cast out such teaching as heresy. How this happened, and what
it means for the history of Christian tradition, is what this
work will explore." Pages 40-41, Vintage paperback, 2003-2005.
Footnotes effaced. Doug's bold and color and Doug's brackets
are labeled. Pagels' only brackets in those three paragraphs
are "[logos; or, the light]."
Please, please, please, if you are 'christian,'
read Dr. Pagels' Beyond Belief. Just like our 'War in
Iraq,' 'Human-caused global warming,' 'others are infidels,'
etc., we have been led astray. Elaine Pagels, et al., are giving
us back Gn¤stic Jesus: n¤n-social-n¤n-dialectical
quantum~coherent Light inseparable from each of us as
Pagels' quantum~Jesus brings us together, without
hate, without jealousy, without war. We see animate, everywhere~associative
quantum~included~middlings of Jesus ihn
Allah and Allah ihn Jesus.
As we may infer from Pagels' "complementary,"
Light complementary Allah
Jesus complementary Allah
Buddha complementary Allah
Confucius complementary Allah
Mohammed complementary Allah
Humanity complementary Allah
Allah issi ihn G¤d
and G¤d issi ihn Allah!
We, each as individuals, are ihn
Allah and Allah issi ihn us, each
If you kill a human, you are killing part of
Allah! You are killing part of self, part of other, quanton(other,self)!
Our comma-nospace is what Doug intends by what Pagels means by
To Doug's sensibilities Heraclitus, Gandhi, Bergson,
James, Ho, et al., would agree. Mayhaps Pagels.
Doug - 7Mar2007.
How to become extinct: "Be stubborn
about status quo."
How to survive: "Be persistent at
change and adaptation."
Doug - 19Mar2007.