Quantonics Memes — Index:     Return to Previous Page                 Return to the Arches
 
If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!
 

©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029 — Rev. 14Aug2008  PDR — Created 14Apr1998  PDR (1 of 2)

(See revision history at page bottom.)
Recent revisions marked:

Atom Laser
Awareness Scales
Black Hole Diffraction
Classical Lies
Custom Atoms
Decidable Gödel
Emerscents
Emerscenture
Internetworks
Many Truths
Meme Meme
Multiversal Travel
Non-local Reality
Non-separable Reality
Organoplastics
Paradice Found
Philosophical Revolution
Pirsig vis-à-vis Deming Impact
Quantonic Interrelationships
Quantonic Questions
Quantum Absolute Flux
Quantum Ambient Fermionic System Condensation (This one is potent, almost unimaginable value!)
Quantum Coherence/Cohesion
Quantum Communication
Quantum Computation
Quantum Consciousness
Quantum Co-observation/Omniobservation
Quantum Correlation
Quantum CowithinITness
Quantum Emotion
Quantum Entanglement
Quantum Logic (omniadic logic which manifests as quanton(nonlocal,local); classical logic is dichon(multivalent, bivalent))
Quantum Nonisolation
Quantum Nonpreference
Quantum Nonseparation
Quantum Omnicoherence
Quantum Omnicontextuality
Quantum Omnivalence
Quantum Paradice
Quantum Parthenogenesis
Quantum Power (Watch for our coincident, new Millennium III futurist paper. Paper delayed due to WJS work.)
Quantum Preference
Quantum Reality
Quantum Sanity
Quantum Scence/Sense/EmerScence
Quantum Security
Quantum Sleep
Quantum Truths
Quantum Vacuum Energy
Rydberg Atoms
Subsume SOM
Superluminal Actions
Superluminal MoM
Truth Latency (How long is which 'truth' true?)
Two MoQs for Millennium III
Value Emersion(ethics/aesthetics) vis-à-vis Material Emersion($)
Wave Reality                                                                          yTop

Quantonics Memes — Descriptions:                   Return to Previous Page
©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029

Atom Laser «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
An Atom Laser Meme
 Term: Atom Laser
 Term Source: A team of researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, led by Wolfgang Ketterle first used a phrase 'atom laser.' See, Science magazine, Atom Laser Shows That It Is Worthy of the Name, 13Feb98, p. 986.
 History:

Term: Atom Laser - a device which emits coherent atoms vis-à-vis an optical laser which emits coherent photons. Scientists predicted lasers early in our 20th century, and actualized them second half of our 20th century. In parallel, quantum science advanced for about 100 years beginning near 19th century's end. Quantum science holds that all is a superposition of quantons. So in that sense, quantum science predicted that atoms could 'lase.'

Term etymology:

Dates -

Schawlow and Townes, theory of laser - 1958
Theodore Maiman, ruby laser - 1960
Wolfgang Ketterle and team, atom laser - 1997
 Analogues: Coherent behavior, Bose Einstein Condensates (BECs), stimulated emission, lockstep behavior, Optical Lasers, quantum correlation, etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. SOM - A classical mindset has great difficulty perceiving SOM 'objects' like atoms as waves. SOM rejects memes like 'atom laser' as impossible, and besides, "What use could you possibly have for an atom laser?"
  2. MoQ - A Quantonic mindset readily accepts this new meme and sees incredible possibilities which extend from development of atom laser technology. A major theme of MoQ is 'better.' Atom laser technology offers a much better future for all lifeforms.

Science:

  1. Atomic assembly of macroscopic goods.
  2. Atomic construction of emerscents and other nanoscale products.
  3. Fabrication of quantum-correlated atoms.
  4. Fabrication of unheralded materials from custom atoms. (See Custom Atoms in our Memes Index at top of this page.)
  5. etc.
 Quantonics Use: Quantonics sees atom lasers as a way to build products more efficiently and better.
 Rationale:

An atom laser meme is a powerful meme. Just as optical lasers can emit photons, atom lasers can emit atoms. Things are built from atoms, so atom lasers might be able to build things.

Quantonics says it is better that we can imagine, invent and evolve a technology meme where anything can be built one atom at a time, almost perfectly. Old ideas of factories taking enormous space and capital resources fades. We might use atom lasers to build nearly everything we need in our abodes. We could purchase atom laser compatible designs, not finished products. We can purchase information and actualize it where we need it. Imagine:  when we visit another star system, we take our atom laser equipment and designs with us, not finished equipment.

 Symbology: TBD.
 Local Definitions:
  • Laser - Light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation.
«BACK                                                                          yTop

Awareness Scales «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
An Awareness Scales Meme
 Term:
Awareness Scales
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop

Black Hole Diffraction «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Black Hole Diffraction Meme
 Term:
Black Hole Diffraction
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop

Classical Lies «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Classical Lies Meme
 Term:
Classical Lies
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop

Custom Atoms «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Custom Atoms Meme
 Term:
Custom Atoms
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: Designer atoms, artificial atoms, etc.
 Interpretations:
  1. SOM - SOM would tell us that there are only 118 elements, and that's that.
  2. MoQ - MoQ tells us there are many truths, therefore we can expect that there are an unlimited number of elements we can contrive.
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale: We are no longer limited to 118 natural elements! We can design our own elements!
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop

Decidable Gödel «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Decidable Gödel Meme
 Term:
Decidable Gödel
 Term Source:

Term: Decidable

Term etymology: Doug Renselle invented this phrase to show that Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems are also about decidability.

 History: 'Decidable Gödel' originated here (as far as we know) on our Quantonics site in April, 1998.
 Analogues: Certain, provable, proof of unprovability, etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. SOM's one truth and single context underpin and undermine Western culture's very foundations and legacy mathematics. Kurt Gödel disclosed this unambiguously in his two Incompleteness Theorems.
  2. MoQ's new philosophy offers worlds of mathematics and other disciplines an expanded view of reality, with many truths and many contexts.
  3. 29Jan2002 quote from Menas Kafatos' and Robert Nadeau's 1990 The Conscious Universe, page 174 of 214 total pages: "The inability of the [classical] reductionist approach to completely comprehend or 'subsume' physical reality with an appeal to physical theory is, as we noted in the introduction, one of the inescapable implications of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem[s]. Even though Kurt Gödel as a young mathematician was greatly influenced by the thinking of the Vienna Circle, his work 'proved' that the principal aspiration of these theorists was 'in principle' unattainable. Gödel's enormously important but often ignored theorem, which was developed in the summer of 1930, 'proves' that mathematics, or the language of physical theory, cannot reach closure. Since no algorithm, or calculational procedure, that uses mathematical proofs can prove its own validity, any mathematical description which claims to have reached closure or to have provided an exhaustively complete description of any aspect of physical reality, cannot prove itself." Our brackets and italicized thelogos. Doug.

Science:

  1. No formal system can be simultaneously both consistent and complete.
  2. Consistency and completeness are c¤mplementary terms.
  3. Consistency and completeness are interdependents of a mathematical uncertainty principle.
 Quantonics Use: In Quantonics we use a Decidable Gödel meme to incrementally justify a reality of many truths and many contexts. We also use this meme as an adjunct to a Quantum Logic meme via a conjectural statement about dependent interrelationships of consistency and completeness as c¤mplementary comjugates which form a mathematical uncertainty principle.

 Rationale:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rationale:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rationale:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rationale:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Rationale:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rationale:

In Quantonics we understand we cannot know absolute truth about all of reality from a perspective of any arbitrary, local context we may abide.

Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems arouse curiosity and interest of many folk from diverse disciplines. Gödel showed finite intellect may not know absolute truth via finite models of reality.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems often leave one with a feeling of despair. Gödel himself committed suicide (by gradual self-starvation), and some speculated that he felt absolute despair when he proved that our knowledge via any single model of reality was necessarily incomplete.

In Quantonics we see hope rather than despair from Gödel's theorems. Incompleteness and inconsistency are kin to (quantum) uncertainty, and they enrich reality's fabric rather than stigmatize it. In Quantonics any prospect of knowing everything absolutely is Static Hell. Note 1. Conversely, Dynamic Valhalla is, after unlimited effort, assurance there will still be change and something new to learn and experience.

Gödel used Western cultural philosophy, Subject-Object Metaphysics (SOM), and its classically derived mathematical tools to construct his theorems. His SOM bias caused him to make a very large assumption. Ask yourself this question: What context did Gödel assume when he invented his theorems?

Douglas Hofstadter in his famous book, Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, (GEB) distilled Incompleteness Theorem one thus:

"All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions."  See page 17 of GEB.

This statement is intentionally or unintentionally elliptical. Hofstadter's omitted ellipsis is:  '...in an unlimited (complete) context.' Note 2.

"Whoa," you say! How could both Douglas Hofstadter and Kurt Gödel have left out such an important ellipsis? Hofstadter didn't, sort of... Elsewhere (in GEB and Metamagical Themas) he frequently uses phrases like, "in some imaginable world," to inexplicitly declare (a limited but within) an unlimited context. But in his verbal reformulation of Gödel's first theorem he did leave an ellipsis out. One might say this blatantly shows mathematical predilection toward absolute truth for a single encompassing context.

Some mathematicians insist mathematics can be free of context by assuming one large, unlimited context! Some mathematicians assume if a formal system works in an unlimited context, then they know it works everywhere! Some mathematicians assume under those conditions a formal system is absolute! Kurt Gödel says, "No!"

We must remember, our mathematics — i.e. mathematics Western Culture uses today — was developed with a combination of mostly Greek and some Arabian concepts. Greeks are also developers of our predominant culture, SOM. SOM also tells us we can know absolute truth, i.e., we can objectively assess and assert provable absolute truths about any universal system. An implication: SOM also assumes a single universal context.

Perhaps now we can see why Gödel committed suicide. He adopted SOM's principle of universal context, and using that presumption, he knocked a key foundation element from under all of mathematics. Imagine having to face all of those mathematical idealists after committing such a treacherous act. Pythagoras killed one of his disciples (Hippasus) for less (discovering irrational numbers)!

As we shall see, any system that:

  • can express absolute truth, and
  • is context free

is complete.

However, Gödel shows us, any complete system is inconsistent. Note 3.

But, Western culture's modern mathematics still carries an implicit SOM delusion that it can absolutely prove statements using formal mathematical systems. Note 4.

What do we mean by two words 'consistent' and 'complete?'

A consistent system:

  • always states truth,
  • regardless of context.

A complete system:

  • states all truths,
  • regardless of context.

Gödel's theorems say:

  1. Incompleteness Theorem 1 - Any true axiom of any consistent formal system which asserts the unprovability of the axiom by the system is unprovable by the system.
  2. Incompleteness Theorem 2 - Any true axiom of any consistent formal system which asserts the consistency of the system is unprovable by the system.

Theorem one says any formal system, since it includes an unprovable axiom — thus it cannot state this specific truth — is necessarily incomplete. Theorem two says any formal system, since it cannot state and prove its own consistency, is necessarily inconsistent.

Imagine the impact of this and disbelief of mathematicians everywhere (many are still trying to ignore it). This strikes a devastating blow to SOM's very heart.

Western Culture's mathematics in Kurt Gödel's time and as-practiced predominately today emerged from a great SOM assumption of absolute truth in one universal context. (If you doubt my words here, read a recent book, Fermat's Enigma, 1997, by Simon Singh, where he states repeatedly mathematicians still hold to their sacred and discoverable Platonic 'absolute truth.') To continue this Platonic adherence modern mathematics of necessity must be context free. We may speculate that is why Gödel/Hofstadter left off an ellipsis. If we assume completeness is a valid proxy for context, it is indeed provocative consistency of a formal system shares a conjoint interdependence on context.

In Quantonics we speculate Gödel's theorems are another dual of quantum science's uncertainty principle, which we generalize to cover a wide range of Quantonic uncertainties. Douglas Hofstadter disagrees with us as you can see at: Note 5.

We think Gödel's theorems are dealing with an uncertainty of quanton(consistency,completeness). Our intent is for this quanton to show consistency and completeness are complementary interrelationships and thus interdependent co<n,m>jugates. Mimicking Heisenberg, if we use quantum science's notation and represent consistency with a symbol Cn and completeness with a symbol Cm, this may follow:

CnCm k

What we see here is an inequality similar to one which Heisenberg discovered between quantum theoretical uncertainty in position of a quanton and its momentum.

We speculate an uncertainty relation between mathematical consistency and completeness simply tells a similar story when we are more certain about system consistency, we are less certain about system completeness and vice versa. As we study various fields of discipline we discover uncertainty principles abound (which is commensurable with stating, "...quantum c¤mplementarities abound..."). They appear to be an inherent part of our natural multiverse.

What is most important in our rationale here is a local fact we cannot know with certainty both aspects of an uncertainty interrelationship simultaneously (assuming our discussion is classical and what we just said assumes a Maxwellian posentropy comtext — see our quantum aside below). We can know them more certainly when we observe them one at a time from different contextual perspectives. If we know one better, we know its complement moves toward an extreme conjugate interpretation.

Another way we look at this uncertainty interrelationship is from a perspective of increased context. For example, when we compare Earth's context to a context of any multiverse we see Earth's context as VERY limited! Thus, we may infer Earth's context is VERY incomplete! We can surmise Earth's context allows for relatively high consistency, which indeed is what we observe.

Our Quantonics position is this apparent high consistency local to any necessarily incomplete system is part of what drives a SOM delusion of a potential to know absolute truth.

As a result we have become, as Hofstadter calls us, Earth chauvinists. Any apparent consistency of our Earth context deludes us our multiverse is wholly consistent. But our uncertainty principle tells us our multiverse taken as a whole is much more complete than Earth's tiny and local context. We must surmise our multiverse is thus VERY inconsistent! So we live on a tiny 'isle of truth' called Earth which probably is very different from local contexts in other parts of our multiverse.

Aside: Quantum Reality steps into our rationale.

In this aside, we use standard notation, in keeping with previous text above, for expected values of consistency, Cn, and completeness, Cm, using their expected values to express a Heisenbergian uncertainty interrelationship product like this: CnCm k.

All of our above discussion is making an assumption. It is a classical, legacy assumption. It assumes that entropy is only positive! Classicist James Clerk Maxwell developed modern classical Thermodynamics Theory. Let's quickly review Maxwell's three laws of thermodynamics and juxtapose C. P. Snow's popular and funny duals of them:

Maxwell Snow
1. Universal energy/mass is constant and energy/mass conserve. "You cannot win."
2. Disorder always increases (posentropy); thus a unilogical/classical arrow of homogeneous time is imposed on reality. "You cannot break even."
3. Thermalized, dissipative energy may not achieve a zeroentropy state, let alone a negentropy state. "You cannot leave the game."

As you may choose to infer, and as our keen-minded modern mentors (Mae-wan Ho, Brian Josephson, Ilya Prigogine, Bernhard Haisch, et al.) warn us, "Maxwell did not perceive classes of energy other than thermalized, dissipative energy." But note reader, that William James Sidis, William James, Boris Sidis, Bergson, Renouvier and others did.

Classical Thermodynamics Theory assumes entropy may only be positive. Consequences are that Maxwell's three laws work, IF an assumption of entropy being positive is TRUE! Is it? Classically? Yes! Quantumly? No!

(A good place to start on this topic, i.e., different kinds of entropy, is an old and somewhat classical treatise by Isabelle Stengers and Ilya Prigogine titled Order Out of Chaos.)

Maxwell's Thermodynamics Theory insists that both entropy(CnCm) = 0, and entropy(CnCm) < 0 NEVER happen. entropy(CnCm) = 0 implies zero entropy! entropy(CnCm) < 0 implies negentropy! Maxwell's Thermodynamics Theory denies both zeroentropy and negentropy (Item 3 above.). Classicists uncloak their naïveté by declaring both these concepts "Absurd."

Maxwell's thermodynamics is classical dogma, classical doctrine! Is it fact? No! Maxwell assumed, unilogically/homologically, one universe! To make matters worse, he assumed it is closed! Why did he do that? To assure energy in our universe is constant and conserves! To assure universal, unitemporal clockwork determinism. To make all our classical, formal, syllogistic 'equations' work.

Classical mathematics cease to work generally in an open, plural, heterogeneous, quantum-animate multiverse (It) since It does n¤t in general permit:

  • ideal tautologous identities,
  • objective independence (i.e., the independence axiom, an Aristotelian excluded-middle),
  • analytic continua,
  • analytic stoppability, (re: Zeno's "1/2 remaining distance," and "step-then-stop race," etc. paradice; Bergson's cinema; classical reference frames; etc.)
  • homogeneous continua,
  • ideal localability,
  • ideal isolability,
  • ideal separability,
  • ideal reducibility,
  • unilateral observation, (see our "coobsfection")
  • cause and effect, (see our August, 2001 QQA)
  • induction,
  • repeatability, (i.e., essence of 'scientific' verification and validation)
  • classical objective negation (and thus classical proof's greatest necessity: 'falsifiability' via contradiction; see "Negation is Subjective;" quantum, n¤n-Bohrian c¤mplementarity outright denies any possibility of real classical objective negation;),
  • etc.

Newer quantum science shows us that both entropy(CnCm) = 0 and entropy(CnCm) < 0 are real! This astounds most pundits, but it is real!

You may ask, "Doug, What the hell is going on here?"

Good question!

Classical 'reality' assumes only positive entropy physical and logical (in-form-ation) transactions are real.

Begin aside, aside (14Dec2000):

We can benefit greatly by considering consequences of Maxwell's classical, closed posentropy reality.

In his reality classical objects may 'move' but theoretically they may not actually change or emerge. What do we mean by 'emerge?' Let's use two words here: new and n¤vel. Let's say that 'new' means (for our local purposes here) a re-arrangement of classical objects, a 'new' synthesis (or classical manufacture) of a 'new' classical object using reality's available conserved energy and mass. Let's say that 'n¤vel' means incremental creation (or emerscenture) of — previously n¤nactual — actuality.

Maxwell's version of reality is capable of 'new;' however, it is theoretically incapable of 'n¤vel.'

In Quantonics, we refer to n¤n-Maxwellian, quantum entropy ontological transactions of — tofrom, — that is, for example, — both from n¤nactuality, to actuality — and from actuality, to n¤nactuality — as 'n¤vel' emergence and or its quantum c¤mplement (immergence). (See our MoQ I and II Reality Loops vis-à-vis our SOM Reality Loop. Parenthetical added 16Jun2003 - Doug.) Such transactions violate Maxwell's classical laws of thermodynamics: such transactions require an open multiverse, where Maxwell's classical laws insist that posentropy transactions may only use closed 'existing' or classically 'real' mass and energy.

Also consider three additional intraentropy transactions of:

    • posentropyposentropy (quantum decoherent/mixed actuality; Maxwell's 'reality')
    • zeroentropyzeroentropy (quantum coherent actuality; n¤ Maxwellian dual)
    • negentropynegentropy (quantum isocoherent n¤nactuality; n¤ Maxwellian dual)

Our new Quantonics meme of emerscenture emerses 'n¤vel' emerscent quantons.

Doug 14Dec2000.

End aside, aside.

Quantum reality assumes all posentropy, zeroentropy, and negentropy (and complex both partial and impartial, both l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal, both luminal and superluminal, etc. combination) transactions are real.

In classical reality energy must conserve! All Maxwellian energy is thermalized and dissipative! EUniverse = Constant!

In quantum reality energy and information need n¤t conserve as mandated in a closed, classical, constant-energy-universal sense! Our quantum multiverse is n¤t closed! It is open! It is a quantum-open-unlimited-complementary-multiverse! All quantum energy may be positive, zero, or negative entropy combinational classes of c¤mplementary energy. By "c¤mplementary energy," we mean

EMultiversequanton(unlatched_cloaked_isoflux,latched_uncloaked_flux).

(See our Coined Quantonic Terms for definitions.)

Consistency and completeness are about both physical and logical reality! So consistency and completeness must adhere quantum entropy concepts. (For Millennium III, dump or subsume your classical ones!) How can we say this a better, perhaps simpler way?

As a start we can associate unique quantum phrases with their entropy trichotomy:

Entropy Term Classical Equivalent Quantum Equivalent
1. Posentropy Thermalized Energy Decoherent EnergyvIsocoherent
2. Zeroentropy None (exists not) Coherent EnergyvIsocoherent
3. Negentropy None (exists not) Isocoherent Energy
(Partial/Mixed) None (exists not) DecoherentvCoherentvIsocoherent

'v' means "...in Quantonic interrelationships with..." We assume quantum isoflux (ison fluxors) commingle and compenetrate all physical and 'logical' reality. One graphic representation we use to show this commingling and compenetration is:

, where blue dotted is isoflux, and black/green solid is decoherent flux.

Under extreme local and coherent or partially coherent conditions, CnCm = 0! Examples are solitons. Examples are BECs. Examples are bosons, gravitons (gravity is superluminal, partial coherence), etc. Physical examples are tsunamis, and solitonic photons and electrons, electron Cooper pairs, molecular fermionic Bose-Einstein Condensates, lasers, superfluids, reversible memories, 'doctored' spins, etc. Zero and integer spin quantons exhibit coherent, zeroentropy behaviors. We call these "Single Microstate Zero Entropy" behaviors — SMZE behaviors.

All physical and information systems (may) have almost unlimited possible combinations of what we call "quantum numbers," each 'doctorable.' (I.e., unlimited Quantonic Interrelationships which may be manipulated to accomplish some rather profound physical and information outcomes.) An example of a quantum number is 'spin.' Any physical or information system's quantum numbers may be wholly coherent or partially coherent, or classically decoherent, or combinations of all — and potentially manipulable! Tsunamis, superconductivity, gravity, and superfluids are examples of partial coherence. Whole coherence reduces any physical or information system to its least energy and all 'constituents' in that system become singular (i.e., their quantum numbers all cohere). E.g., a BEC of sodium atoms becomes a single, wholly coherent, sodium atom, regardless how many sodium atoms were previously decoherent. Were our multiverse "wholly coherent" it would appear ~singular,..., and we haven't even touched upon 'isocoherence!'

So as you may deign to perceive, Quantonic interrelationships of Consistency and Completeness viewed with your newer quantum-extended Gödelian perspicacity, are not trivially Maxwellian as many naïve classicists assume(d).

:End aside - Quantum Reality steps into our rationale.

A discipline of Quantonics asks its students to expand their thinking. A Decidable Gödel meme shows us we can decide much in a New Philosophy. We can decide mathematics is uncertain, yet still and forever invaluable. We can decide absolute truth is a kind of Static Hell. We can decide an unending adventure of choice, chance, and change is a better kind of Dynamic Valhalla. A Decidable Gödel meme helps move us to a different realm of Pirsig's New Philosophy and its concomitant expanded thinking.

* * * * * * * *

Footnote 1:  Those of us in Quantonics averse to classical science's unsubsumed legacy, say "Don't go there! Stay out of classical Static Hell." We do so by adopting a New Philosophy, a Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ I) and a new science, a Bohmian non-Mechanics of Quanta (nMoQ II).

Return to Reference 1.

Footnote 2:  Solomon Feferman refers to an equivalent of this omitted ellipsis as an assumed, "...global notion of truth." See Feferman's Penrose review at:

http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-07-feferman.html

Readers of that Feferman link should be aware that Turing's machine assumes 'haltability.' Students of Quantonics are keenly aware that Bergsonian duration and quantum~reality both claim any classical notions of 'haltability' are bogus, in general. Quantum reality is n¤t 'haltable. Also see Zeno of Elea on 'stoppablity.' Doug - 4Apr2008.

Return to Reference 2.

Footnote 3: Why? This is not too obvious. But stated simply, Gödel's reason is that a complete system would have to state a truth that it is a consistent system. As we will see below, Incompleteness theorem two says any system which truthfully asserts its own consistency is inconsistent.

Return to Reference 3.

Footnote 4: As an example, see CRC's 1999 Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics, page 741, "Gödel's..." CRC states Gerhard Gentzen used transfinite induction to prove arithmetic is both consistent and complete.

This is really strange considering Gödel's theorems. 'Transfinite' suggests many truths. However, induction is a predictive recursive process based on repetitive historical evidence (i.e., by recurrence). This shows us a significant problem in mathematics since induction depends on mathematics own finite, local context which is never stated. Induction, in general, depends on one local, finite context. Just like Euclidean geometry, arithmetic will not work in all contexts. We can easily contrive contexts in which arithmetic will not work.

Plus Gentzen's proof, like Gödel's, is a sophism — yet no mention is made anywhere of many truths/many contexts. In SOMitian formal mathematics, sophisms are innately self-contradictory and thus false! And, our missing ellipsis intentionally or unintentionally, again, does not appear.

Also, if you look at Gödel's Completeness theorem you will note his 'complete' model is locally complete (like a digital computer), not nonlocally complete (like our quantum multiverse). So, there is still much confusion about consistency and completeness, even among experts. We think all of this occurs because of SOM's assumption of (attainability of) global absolute truth in one unlimited context. However, mathematicians never state SOM's assumption explicitly. Curious, eh? I see some people with brooms, some symbol dust, and toes raising edges of carpets. J

Return to Reference 4.

Footnote 5: See Douglas Hofstadter's comments in his Metamagical Themas, p. 475. "...where in trying to produce all the truths expressible in a formal system or all the members of a semantic category, you wind up with either an incomplete system or an inconsistent system...Some people choose to see trade-offs such as these as more examples of a kind of 'uncertainty principle:' you can't have both total correctness and total novelty. You must take your pick. This 'either-or' quality, however, has very little to do with the quantum-mechanical substrate of our world. It just has to do with statistical phenomena in general."

Begin Rev. 21Oct99 PDR - Read Doug Hofstadter's next-to-last sentence again! Think about it. Read it again. What is Doug doing here? If you read our work on SOM Logic and our SOM Connection under our Buridan Review, and if you agree with our conclusions there, you know what Doug is doing in his next-to-last sentence above. Plus, you know he is a SOMite, par excellence! Doug just showed us unambiguously his own SOM biformal bias in his use of "either/or." Doug assumes reality is SOMitian 'either/or,' not quantum 'both/and.' Doug inheres Aristotle's antique syllogistic laws. If Doug did do that in his statement above, we may assume his conclusions about consistency and completeness not being an uncertainty relationship are at least questionable. End Rev. 21Oct99 PDR

Return to Reference 5.

 Symbology: TBD.
 Local Definitions: TBD.
«BACK                                                                          yTop

Emerscents «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
An Emerscent Meme
 Term: Emerscent
 Term Source: Paul Douglas Renselle, in his white paper, The Next Millennium: the Emergent Systems Epoch.
 History:

Term: Emerscent - since June 1996. Emerscents as specific kinds of memes is not a new concept. Nano-intra-life-form immersibles originated at least as early as our 19th century.

Term etymology: Renselle combined emergent and ascent during first half of 1996.

 Analogues: Nanomachines, nanobiomachines, nanoscale, etc.
 Interpretations:
Philosophy:
  1. SOM -
  2. MoQ -
Science:
  1. Nanosurgery.
  2. Nanosurgical techniques.
  3. Nanogenetic editing.
  4. Networks among bioforms and machines.
  5. Pleasure, entertainment.
  6. Reversible wireless bio-connections to virtual equipment.
  7. etc.
 Quantonics Use:

Quantonics sees emerscents as a controllable way to quantum-correlate bioforms with any other bioforms, equipment, or devices that have emerscents installed. In Quantonics and MoQ we adhere to Pirsig's New Philosophy dictum that known patterns are in Quality. Emerscents are a Quantonic means to emerge new connections to Quality's direct experience from within and co-within lifeforms. One good example to imagine is intentional superluminal communication among a group of Homo sapiens distributed across a city, planet, solar system, or galaxy.

Note: Mitochondrial DNA may already do an uncorrelated version of this via correlated quantum subsystems between mother and child.

 Rationale: Emerscents provide one potent vector into bio-quality-management. Emerscents offer unlimited possibilities to: correct genetic defects, extend longevity, communicate between life forms, stage entertainment immersion, etc. Possibilities are limited only by imagination.
 Symbology:
  • TBD
 Local Definitions:
  • Nano - Very small. Sub-atomic, and atomic-scale organic and inorganic devices.

«BACK                                                                          yTop

Internetworks «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
An Internetworks Meme
 Term:
Internetworks
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop

Many Truths «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Many Truths Meme
 Term:
Many Truths
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop

Meme Meme «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Meme Meme
 Term: Meme
 Term Source:

Term: Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene.

Term etymology: 'meme' appeared first in The Selfish Gene in, e.g., this text:

"...The gene, the DNA molecule, happens to be the replicating [recapitulating] entity that prevails on our own planet. There may be others. If there are, provided certain other conditions are met, they will almost inevitably tend to become the basis for an evolutionary process.

"But do we have to go to distant worlds to find other kinds of replicator and other, consequent, kinds of evolution? I think that a new kind of replicator has recently emerged on this very planet. It is staring us in the face. It is still in its infancy, still drifting clumsily about in its primeval soup, but already it is achieving evolutionary change at a rate that leaves the old gene panting far behind.

"The new soup is the soup of human culture. We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. 'Mimeme' comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like 'gene.' I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme. If it is any consolation, it could alternatively be thought of as being related to 'memory,' or to the French word même. It should be pronounced to rhyme with 'creme.'

"Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via spermatozoa or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation..." Our brackets. See page 192 of Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, Oxford UP, 1st ed. 1976, New ed. 1989, paperback.

In this quote you see Dawkins' connections to MoQ's cultural and intellectual Static Patterns of Value (SPoVs). He says, in essence, Pirsig's intellectual SPoVs are memes born of social SPoVs! Here we see Dawkins' own duality with Pirsig's MoQ.

A large driving force of our Quantonics organizations and this site is a concept of meme. A N¤vel Philosophy, Pirsig's MoQ is a n¤vel meme. N¤vel memes are direct expressions of MoQ's Dynamic Quality! In our presentations to various academic organizations, we describe examples of how memes emerge, latch, become more static, and then (usually after becoming exclusive, as early Millennium III societies are doing now in 2004) fade away only to be replaced by more, better, n¤vel memes. Here, again, we see another dual with MoQ I Reality Loop.

 History: Since ~1976. See term source above. Read footnotes to new edition of The Selfish Gene to discover how meme has become a meme.
 Analogues:

Viruses, prions, phages, bacteria, agents, emerscents, worms, etc.

(Memes propagate and mutate just like viruses. Ideas are potential memes which have not found means to propagate and mutate.)

 Interpretations:
Philosophy:
  1. SOM bondage of a meme in a classical mind.
  2. MoQ freedom of a meme in a Quantonic mind.
 Quantonics Use:

One goal of Quantonics practitioners is to invent, identify, and propagate new memes for a third millennium.

Perhaps a most important new meme identified thus far is Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality: a new way of thinking for Millennium III.

 Rationale:

Memes are a way to break SOM's bonds; its classical mindset. Memes help Quantonics practitioners to leap out of a classical legacy.

SOM thinkers fear memes. SOM thinkers often reject memes. Memes are just one test of our style of thinking to show whether we think in SOMland or MoQland.

 Symbology:
  • DNA
  • Entangling quantons
  • Virus symbol (looks like an oil drilling rig)
  • Waves
  • etc.
 Local Definitions:
  • DNA - Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Five nucleic acids which constitute definition of all known life forms on Earth. DNA's nucleic acids are: Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine, and Uracil.
  • Meme - A self-replicating idea achieving emergence and replication via better imitation in life's intellectual and social pattern pools (i.e., ever-changing Static Patterns of Value under Dynamic Quality's influence).
  • MoQ - Metaphysics of Quality, Robert M. Pirsig's new philosophy as described in his works: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Lila, and Subjects, Objects, Data, and Values.
  • Quanton - An interrelationship. A complementary interrelationship, wave function entanglement, wave-particle duality, etc. A quanton represents commuting, non-commuting, and other interrelationships among quantons.
  • SOM - Subject-Object Metaphysics, currently as-practiced Western Cultural philosophy which MoQ wishes to subsume.

«BACK                                                                          yTop

Multiversal Travel «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Multiversal Travel Meme
 Term:
Multiversal Travel
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop

Non-local Reality «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Non-local Reality Meme
 Term:
Non-local Reality
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop

Non-separable Reality «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Non-separable Reality Meme
 Term:
Non-separable Reality
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Organoplastics «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
An Organoplastics Meme
 Term:
Organoplastics
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Paradice Found «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Paradice Found Meme
 Term:
Paradice Found
 Term Source:

Term: Paradice Found - paradice is Renselle's coined plural of paradox.

Term etymology: From Pirsig's words in Lila:

But the Paradise was always somewhere pointed to, always somewhere else. Paradise was never here. Paradise was always at the end of some intellectual, technological ride, but you knew that when you got there paradise wouldn't be there either. You would just see another sign saying:

PARADISE PARADISE PARADISE

and pointing another direction to go.

 History:
 Analogues: Paradoxes found, etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Philosophical Revolution «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Philosophical Revolution Meme
 Term:
Philosophical Revolution
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Pirsig vis-à-vis Deming Impact «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Pirsig vis-à-vis Deming Impact Meme
 Term:
Pirsig vis-à-vis Deming Impact
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Quantonic Interrelationships «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Quantonic Interrelationships Meme
 Term:
Quantonic Interrelationships
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use: In Quantonics, we use a quanton as its interrelationships and its own referent. Any quanton is intentionally self-referent.
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Quantonic Questions «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Quantonic Questions Meme
 Term:
Quantonic Questions
 Term Source:

Term: Quantonic Questions - Used first by Paul Douglas Renselle in his study of Quantonics.

Term etymology: Quanton is believed coined by Mario Bunge of McGill University, Canada sometime between 1978-1988. See an email from Hans Christian von Baeyer below. Since then we have found Nick Herbert in his Quantum Reality used a term 'quon.' So Quanton may be seen as quANTon. Others use an acronym qwf for an equivalent quantum wave function. Thus in Quantonics, we see quanton, quon, and qwf as terms expressing a similar concept of wave-particle duality, complementarity, and interrelationships. Especially we see quantons as interrelationships vis-à-vis classical and objective 'attributes' or 'properties.' Here is an email to Doug from Hans Christian von Baeyer telling an etymology of quanton:

[Doug,]

"...The word quanton itself was apparently coined by the McGill university philosopher of physics Mario Bunge, as claimed by J.-M. Levy-Leblond in the journal PHYSICA (Amsterdam) vol. 151 B, 314 (1988)."

HvB

Hans Christian von Baeyer
Chancellor Professor of Physics
College of William and Mary | hcvonb@facstaff.wm.edu
P.O. Box 8795 | hcvonb@physics.wm.edu
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795 | http://www.physics.wm.edu

 History: In mid-1997 a meme of Quantonic Questions first occurred to Renselle when he realized certain kinds of questions clearly disclose differences in an MoQ - Quantonic mindset juxtaposed to a SOM - classical mindset.
 Analogues: Classical logic vis-à-vis quantum logic, SOM thinking vis-à-vis MoQ/Quantonic thinking, Distributive logic vis-à-vis Non-distributive logic, SOM logic vis-à-vis ggl (generalized Galois logic) or gaggle, etc.
 Interpretations:
  1. SOM - Questions may be answered factually, yes or no based upon classical science or classical experience.
  2. MoQ - Questions may be answered yes, no, both/and, either/or, Mu, etc.
 Quantonics Use:

Examples of Quantonic Questions:

  1. Are you dead or alive?   
  2. Do you tell lies or the truth?
  3. Is there just one truth, or are there many truths?
  4. Are you a quantum system or a classical system?
  5. Are you right or wrong?
  6. Are you male or female?
  7. Are you living or dying?
  8. Are you alive or dead?
  9. Is reality absolute or relative?
  10. Is there life only on Earth or life elsewhere in Milky-Way?
  11. Are rocks static or dynamic?

Example Answers:

  1. SOM: "Alive."
  2. SOM: "Lies," or "Truth."
  3. SOM: "One."
  4. SOM: "Classical."
  5. SOM: "Right," or "Wrong."
  6. SOM: "Male," or "Female."
  7. SOM: "Living."
  8. SOM: "Alive," or "Dead."
  9. SOM: "Absolute," or "Relative."
  10. SOM: "Earth."
  11. SOM: "Static."
  1. MoQ/Quantonics: "Yes.1"
  2. MoQ/Quantonics: "Yes.2"
  3. MoQ/Quantonics: "Yes."
  4. MoQ/Quantonics: "Yes."
  5. MoQ/Quantonics: "Yes."
  6. MoQ/Quantonics: "Yes.3"
  7. MoQ/Quantonics: "Yes."
  8. MoQ/Quantonics: "Yes."
  9. MoQ/Quantonics: "Yes."4
  10. MoQ/Quantonics: "Yes."
  11. MoQ/Quantonics: "Yes."

What about 'Mu?' As Pirsig tells us a mu answer is OK when we need an answer about any unknown. Pirsig tells us to say "Mu," and then shut up or increase one's context until it is large enough to encompass a non-mu answer. See pp. 288-290 of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Bantam, paperback, 373 pages. As examples using a format similar to questions above:
Is there One Multiversal Truth? (SOM centric dichotomy)
SOM: "Yes."                          MoQ/Quantonics: "Mu."
 
or
 
Is there One Truth, or are there Many Truths? (Quanton)
SOM: "One."                          MoQ/Quantonics: "Yes."

 

 
In Lila Pirsig does a similar thing with mu:
 
"Does Lila have Quality?...Does a dog have a Buddha-nature? It's the same question. It's exactly the same question. You could transpose it right into that whole Zen verse by Mumon:

Does Lila have Quality?
That's the most important question of all.
But if you answer "yes" or you answer no,"
You lose your own Quality.
 
"That's a perfect transposition. That's exactly what happened. He answered 'yes.' That was his mistake. He let himself get caught in the kind of 'picking-and-choosing' situation that Zen avoids, and now he was stuck."
 
See pp. 137-8, Lila, Bantam, hardbound, 410 pages.
 
There are times when we must answer, "Mu." I think Pirsig would tell us today that known is in Quality and Quality is in known. Quantum science tells us there are islands of known within defined local contexts, but there are spaces of unknown co-within islands of known. In either case, to keep our Quality integrity, there are times when we must answer, "Mu." (Even mathematicians - J)
 Rationale: A goal of a new philosophy, a Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ) and Quantonics is to move Western culture from its current Subject-Object Metaphysics (SOM) legacy to a New Philosophy. When we try to show interested people what we are talking about, we find asking Quantonic Questions helps. SOM answers to Quantonic Questions belies possible SOM-tutored bias of any person being interrogated. Similarly, MoQ answers to Quantonic Questions may illustrate a beginning of Quantonic understanding.
 Symbology: Note that this Quantonic Questions symbol is a quanton. You may attribute both Boolean and quantum logic (non-distributive islands). You can sense musical particles and waves. You can see connectors for complex interrelationships. You may infer complementary conjugates (e.g., a black hole or VES center).
 Local Definitions:
  • MoQ - Metaphysics of Quality, Robert M. Pirsig's New Philosophy as described in his works: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Lila, and Subjects, Objects, Data, and Values.
  • SOM - Subject-Object Metaphysics, a currently as-practiced Western Cultural philosophy which MoQ wishes to subsume.
  • VES - Vacuum Energy Space.
 Footnotes:

1.  All multi-cellular life forms on Earth are systems whose cells are continuously dying and being replaced by new cells. Cell death is called apoptosis. ( See a special web site dedicated to a topic of apoptosis at:  http://www.apopnet.com/ )  Cell birth is via division or more technically: eukaryotic mitosis (chromosomal division) and cytokinesis (cytoplasmic division). In a modern Homo sapiens all cells in a body experience complete replacement-recycling about twice each year. So, a technically correct Quantonic answer is "Yes," we are both/and alive and dead and living and dying.

                                                                             Return to ref. 1

2.  In MoQ and Quantonics we say there are, "Many truths." What we mean is there are many contexts — our multiverse is not uni-contextual as SOM insists, but indeed is multicontextual. Each context may have its own local (Boolean, distributive) sets of truths or logic. So when you say, "I tell the truth," your assumption is you are doing so within your presumed context of truth. Your local truth could be false in another context. Beware! This is not identical to Cultural Relativism! Learn our MoQ Credo:

    A House of MoQ has many truths, all ruled by Good.
    A House of SOM has one Truth which rules and demotes good.
    A House of Cultural Relativism has no good, no truth, and therein chaos reigns.

                                                                             Return to ref. 2

3.  SOM and Western classical science teach us there are two ideal sexes: male or female. That's it! Any other appearance or genetic configuration is a disease or abnormality.  'Physicians' often surgically alter physical aspects of these "abnormal" beings.  Unfortunately, given physicians' current genetic surgical incapability, they must leave patients' genetic code as-created. So, genetically these patients are unaltered, but physically they are in essence mutilated from any genetic intention.

In Quantonics, we know physical surgical alteration without prior genetic alteration is wrong and backward. But also in Quantonics we say what is most wrong is how we think about this problem. Again, our inherited SOM-thinking is inadequate. SOM culture continues to impose its legacy-addled will on physicians, us, et al.

Nature creates many variations on its sex theme. Maleness and femaleness appear as extreme ends of a sexual spectrum. In its middle are herms or hermaphrodites. Halfway between herms and males are merms. Halfway between females and herms are ferms. (See 'The Five Sexes,' by Anne Fausto-Sterling, in The Sciences magazine, March/April 1993, New York Academy of Sciences.)

Actually its spectrum is not discrete as these sentences imply. Sexuality is more like a continuum. We don't know for sure, but it appears probable no Homo sapiens can be declared pure male or female.

Quantonics says do not alter natural sexuality, but if we must, alteration needs to be both genetic (first) and as final resort surgical (last). Nature evolves Homo sapiens' chromosomes as we speak. Certainly genetic alteration of a zygote is preferable to genetic alteration and perhaps surgery of a newborn.  Today we see Downs syndrome as trisomia 21. We also see trisomias on chromosome pair 23, humans 'sex' chromosome. Even more interesting, we see quatra-, penta-, hexa-, etc. -somias of both X and Y on pair 23. Scientists name these syndromes: Kleinfelter's, Turner's, T-fem, etc.

                                                                             Return to ref. 3

4.  In Quantonics, from a simple two-context perspective of SOM and MoQ we adhere Pirsig's tutelage:

In SOM, its ISMs are copious and most SOM ISMs teach at least some truths may be perceived as absolutely obtainable by anthropocentric intellect. In our Western culture, to adhere non-absolute truth is to adhere cultural relativism. But it is very interesting as-practiced SOM of our predominant Western culture pursues absolute, objective truth as a goal and says subjective truth is unobtainable and/or relative. To distill this in MoQese, SOM says absolute, objective truth is a goal and subjective truth is relative and should be ignored or discarded as insubstantial. Bottom line, SOM says cultural relativism adheres relative truth. (Note: This is how we infer an "or" answer above.)

In MoQ, SOM's ISMs evaporate because MoQ unifies Subject and Object into a single class of Static Patterns of Value (SPoVs). In MoQ, Quality is unknown, undefinable, but describable, recognizable agent of all SPoV evolution. MoQ's two most highly evolved levels of SPoVs are first, social SPoVs, and then, evolved further above, intellectual SPoVs. MoQ's intellectual and social levels correspond to SOM's Subjective realm. So MoQ says its equivalent to SOM's subjective realm is more highly evolved than SOM's most worshiped and revered: absolute objective (substantial) truth. To distill this in MoQese, MoQ says Quality is absolute (agent of creation and change), and truth (there are many truths in MoQ) is relative, but locally dependent upon context. (Note: this is how we infer a "Yes" answer above.) Bottom line, MoQ adheres both absolute quality and many local, context-dependent truths. In MoQ, our multiverse is morally absolute. In MoQ, we say cultural relativism adheres no absolute value, and worse it adheres no absolute nor local truth, and thus chaos reigns. Cultural Relativism is both amoral and immoral (via denial of absolute ethical change and acceptance of absolute chaos/disorder). For more on this subject, see:

Links: Other MoQ & CR Info

                                                                             Return to ref. 4

«BACK                                                                          yTop
Quantum Communication «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Quantum Communication Meme
 Term:
Quantum Communication
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:

If quantum communications give us a capability to talk with anyone, any time, any where in our known universe, with whom might we speak?

Just for fun, we calculated or estimated a possible number of planets in our Milky Way and in our known universe (as opposed to a multiverse of which our known universe is just one of an infinite number of universes) which might have life (very) approximately as complex and developed as Homo sapiens. We asked this question and then tried to answer it by estimation:

How many human-like life forms could there be in our known universe?

Here are our results:

An answer to this marvelous question depends upon your beliefs, attitudes, knowledge of our universe and many other implicit parameters. Many Earth dwellers suppose Earth is the only place in our universe supporting life. Many of us who are more optimistic intuit life is abundant and ubiquitous in our universe. Those are two extreme views. We will probably not know an answer in Earth's next few hundred years or even its next few millennia.

We must view our potential futures much differently, though, depending upon which of two views we elect. If we choose a pessimistic view, i.e., we are the only life in our universe we then have a large responsibility to preserve this one, precious, precarious repository of life. Our first imperative should be to colonize first our solar system and then other nearby solar systems. Why is this so important? Because we know our planet is vulnerable to inevitable catastrophic damage from large interstellar objects. It happened before and it will happen again. A recent comet Shoemaker impact with Jupiter is chilling evidence of this reality

For fun and to exemplify one approach to this speculative problem, let's calculate (estimate) a mass of life in our known universe using Earth's estimated life mass ratioed to an estimated mass of our solar system.

Then let's apply our ratio to an estimated mass of our universe and estimate a number of sentient, human-like forms in our universe. Then we can estimate things like how many planets might exist which have sentients in our universe.

Our numbers used below come from another page on this site titled Imagining a Largest Internet. See that page to verify our numbers and their sources used below.

Assumptions:

  1. There is one known universe. (A classical SOM assumption. Quantum science denies it.)
  2. Estimated mass of our universe in atoms is correct. We assumed a ubiquitous estimate of 10^80 atoms in our universe as correct.
  3. A known variety of atomic elements on Earth in 1998 is a reasonable proxy for a variety and range of quantonic interrelationships of atoms in our universe.
  4. An average atom has 58 nucleons (which probably makes our average estimated atom overweight).
  5. 'Life' means 'biological life.' (We agree, Earth is alive, but not in our species' commonly accepted SOM definition of biological life.) However, we include non-carbon-based biological systems as 'biological life.'
  6. Our solar system's life density is a proxy for life density of our Milky Way and our universe.
  7. Human and Earth life is the essential biological life in our solar system. Any other life in our solar system would not perturb our calculations significantly.
  8. Human life mass is 1/200th Earth's total life mass where total life mass of Earth is a mass of all living things: plants, animals, fish, arthropods, etc.
    • This estimate is a SWAG. As such we expected it to be off by one or two orders of magnitude. We used this ratio to determine a total mass of life on Earth. We got a wrong answer.
    • A recent issue of Science Magazine has an article entitled, Monie a Mickle Maks a Muckle (Many Small Things Combined Make a Big Thing (Scottish to English)), p. 186, Vol. 281, 10July1998.
    • Science Magazine's article gives an estimate for dry cell weight of all protokaryote life mass on Earth of 1015kg. Using our (fat) weight of 10-25 kg/(58-nucleon-atom), we get 1040 prokaryote atoms! (Note we are using a standard, average atom mass to permit us a luxury of simpler calculations.)
    • Amazingly, our previous estimate for a total mass of earth life was 1039 atoms. So we see that our estimated total mass of prokaryotes on Earth exceeds our previous estimate by one order of magnitude! Our estimate is off by a factor of more than 10 too low!
    • That makes a human life mass ratio estimate about 1/2000th Earth's total life mass!!
    • Affected calculations are highlighted red below. (15Jul98 PDR)
  9. Homo sapiens are a proxy for intelligent (sentient) life elsewhere in our Milky Way and our universe.
  10. Population of Earth is a proxy for a typical planet population elsewhere in our Milky Way and our universe.

Given those assumptions, we get numbers that look like this:

 Mass of solar system (atoms) =  4•10^55
 Mass of Earth's life (atoms) =  1•10^39 (1•10^40 15Jul98 PDR)
 Mass of Earth's humans (atoms) =  5•10^36
 Mass of one Earth human (atoms) =  7•10^26
 Mass of Milky Way (atoms) =  1•10^66
 Mass of Universe (atoms) =  1•10^80
 Population of an Earth-typical planet =  6•10^9 (to count planets below)
 Ratio Earth's life mass to solar system mass =  (1•10^39)/(4•10^55) = 2.5•10^-17
 Estimated mass of life in Milky Way =  2.5•10^-17•10^66 = 2.5•10^49
 Estimated mass of life in Universe =  2.5•10-17•10^80 = 2.5•10^63
 Ratio of human life to solar system mass =  (5•10^36)/(4•10^55) = 1.25•10^-19
 Estimated mass of sentients in Milky Way =  1.25•10^-19•10^66 = 1.25•10^47
 Estimated mass of sentients in Universe =  1.25•10^-19•10^80 = 1.25•10^61
 Sentients in Milky Way =  (1.25•10^47)/ 7•10^26 = 1.8•10^20
 Sentients in Universe =  (1.25•10^61)/ 7•10^26 = 1.8•10^34
 Planets like Earth w/sentients in Milky Way =  (1.8•10^20)/ 6•10^9 = 3•10^10
 Planets like Earth w/sentients in Universe =  (1.8•10^34)/ 6•10^9 = 3•10^24

Our numeric notation used above is called scientific notation. Interpret our symbols like this:

    represents a times operation so 1.8•10 represents 1.8 'times' 10 or 18.
    ^ represents exponentiation so 10^34 says raise 10 to a 34th power.

To summarize, 6•10^9 is a current (1998) approximation of Earth's human population. That is 6 billion people, or 6 with nine zeroes after it thus: 6,000,000,000. If an exponent is negative, using a same Earth population example its exponent would have a minus sign thus: 6•10^-9 and would appear in decimal format as 0.000000006 (eight zeroes in front of six).

A most recent estimate I have seen for our last line above is from a book by John Gribbon entitled In the Beginning. See his last page (255 of his paperback) where he references other astronomers' estimate of 10^20 planets in our universe that may have life like ours. Clearly my estimate is much larger, but not too bad considering we probably used a different method than one used by astronomers.

 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
A Quantum Communication Meme
 Term:
Quantum Communication
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:

If quantum communications give us a capability to talk with anyone, any time, any where in our known universe, with whom might we speak?

Just for fun, we calculated or estimated a possible number of planets in our Milky Way and in our known universe (as opposed to a multiverse of which our known universe is just one of an infinite number of universes) which might have life (very) approximately as complex and developed as Homo sapiens. We asked this question and then tried to answer it by estimation:

How many human-like life forms could there be in our known universe?

Here are our results:

An answer to this marvelous question depends upon your beliefs, attitudes, knowledge of our universe and many other implicit parameters. Many Earth dwellers suppose Earth is the only place in our universe supporting life. Many of us who are more optimistic intuit life is abundant and ubiquitous in our universe. Those are two extreme views. We will probably not know an answer in Earth's next few hundred years or even its next few millennia.

We must view our potential futures much differently, though, depending upon which of two views we elect. If we choose a pessimistic view, i.e., we are the only life in our universe we then have a large responsibility to preserve this one, precious, precarious repository of life. Our first imperative should be to colonize first our solar system and then other nearby solar systems. Why is this so important? Because we know our planet is vulnerable to inevitable catastrophic damage from large interstellar objects. It happened before and it will happen again. A recent comet Shoemaker impact with Jupiter is chilling evidence of this reality

For fun and to exemplify one approach to this speculative problem, let's calculate (estimate) a mass of life in our known universe using Earth's estimated life mass ratioed to an estimated mass of our solar system.

Then let's apply our ratio to an estimated mass of our universe and estimate a number of sentient, human-like forms in our universe. Then we can estimate things like how many planets might exist which have sentients in our universe.

Our numbers used below come from another page on this site titled Imagining a Largest Internet. See that page to verify our numbers and their sources used below.

Assumptions:

  1. There is one known universe. (A classical SOM assumption. Quantum science denies it.)
  2. Estimated mass of our universe in atoms is correct. We assumed a ubiquitous estimate of 10^80 atoms in our universe as correct.
  3. A known variety of atomic elements on Earth in 1998 is a reasonable proxy for a variety and range of quantonic interrelationships of atoms in our universe.
  4. An average atom has 58 nucleons (which probably makes our average estimated atom overweight).
  5. 'Life' means 'biological life.' (We agree, Earth is alive, but not in our species' commonly accepted SOM definition of biological life.) However, we include non-carbon-based biological systems as 'biological life.'
  6. Our solar system's life density is a proxy for life density of our Milky Way and our universe.
  7. Human and Earth life is the essential biological life in our solar system. Any other life in our solar system would not perturb our calculations significantly.
  8. Human life mass is 1/200th Earth's total life mass where total life mass of Earth is a mass of all living things: plants, animals, fish, arthropods, etc.
    • This estimate is a SWAG. As such we expected it to be off by one or two orders of magnitude. We used this ratio to determine a total mass of life on Earth. We got a wrong answer.
    • A recent issue of Science Magazine has an article entitled, Monie a Mickle Maks a Muckle (Many Small Things Combined Make a Big Thing (Scottish to English)), p. 186, Vol. 281, 10July1998.
    • Science Magazine's article gives an estimate for dry cell weight of all protokaryote life mass on Earth of 1015kg. Using our (fat) weight of 10-25 kg/(58-nucleon-atom), we get 1040 prokaryote atoms! (Note we are using a standard, average atom mass to permit us a luxury of simpler calculations.)
    • Amazingly, our previous estimate for a total mass of earth life was 1039 atoms. So we see that our estimated total mass of prokaryotes on Earth exceeds our previous estimate by one order of magnitude! Our estimate is off by a factor of more than 10 too low!
    • That makes a human life mass ratio estimate about 1/2000th Earth's total life mass!!
    • Affected calculations are highlighted red below. (15Jul98 PDR)
  9. Homo sapiens are a proxy for intelligent (sentient) life elsewhere in our Milky Way and our universe.
  10. Population of Earth is a proxy for a typical planet population elsewhere in our Milky Way and our universe.

Given those assumptions, we get numbers that look like this:

 Mass of solar system (atoms) =  4•10^55
 Mass of Earth's life (atoms) =  1•10^39 (1•10^40 15Jul98 PDR)
 Mass of Earth's humans (atoms) =  5•10^36
 Mass of one Earth human (atoms) =  7•10^26
 Mass of Milky Way (atoms) =  1•10^66
 Mass of Universe (atoms) =  1•10^80
 Population of an Earth-typical planet =  6•10^9 (to count planets below)
 Ratio Earth's life mass to solar system mass =  (1•10^39)/(4•10^55) = 2.5•10^-17
 Estimated mass of life in Milky Way =  2.5•10^-17•10^66 = 2.5•10^49
 Estimated mass of life in Universe =  2.5•10-17•10^80 = 2.5•10^63
 Ratio of human life to solar system mass =  (5•10^36)/(4•10^55) = 1.25•10^-19
 Estimated mass of sentients in Milky Way =  1.25•10^-19•10^66 = 1.25•10^47
 Estimated mass of sentients in Universe =  1.25•10^-19•10^80 = 1.25•10^61
 Sentients in Milky Way =  (1.25•10^47)/ 7•10^26 = 1.8•10^20
 Sentients in Universe =  (1.25•10^61)/ 7•10^26 = 1.8•10^34
 Planets like Earth w/sentients in Milky Way =  (1.8•10^20)/ 6•10^9 = 3•10^10
 Planets like Earth w/sentients in Universe =  (1.8•10^34)/ 6•10^9 = 3•10^24

Our numeric notation used above is called scientific notation. Interpret our symbols like this:

    represents a times operation so 1.8•10 represents 1.8 'times' 10 or 18.
    ^ represents exponentiation so 10^34 says raise 10 to a 34th power.

To summarize, 6•10^9 is a current (1998) approximation of Earth's human population. That is 6 billion people, or 6 with nine zeroes after it thus: 6,000,000,000. If an exponent is negative, using a same Earth population example its exponent would have a minus sign thus: 6•10^-9 and would appear in decimal format as 0.000000006 (eight zeroes in front of six).

A most recent estimate I have seen for our last line above is from a book by John Gribbon entitled In the Beginning. See his last page (255 of his paperback) where he references other astronomers' estimate of 10^20 planets in our universe that may have life like ours. Clearly my estimate is much larger, but not too bad considering we probably used a different method than one used by astronomers.

 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
A Quantum Communication Meme
 Term:
Quantum Communication
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:

If quantum communications give us a capability to talk with anyone, any time, any where in our known universe, with whom might we speak?

Just for fun, we calculated or estimated a possible number of planets in our Milky Way and in our known universe (as opposed to a multiverse of which our known universe is just one of an infinite number of universes) which might have life (very) approximately as complex and developed as Homo sapiens. We asked this question and then tried to answer it by estimation:

How many human-like life forms could there be in our known universe?

Here are our results:

An answer to this marvelous question depends upon your beliefs, attitudes, knowledge of our universe and many other implicit parameters. Many Earth dwellers suppose Earth is the only place in our universe supporting life. Many of us who are more optimistic intuit life is abundant and ubiquitous in our universe. Those are two extreme views. We will probably not know an answer in Earth's next few hundred years or even its next few millennia.

We must view our potential futures much differently, though, depending upon which of two views we elect. If we choose a pessimistic view, i.e., we are the only life in our universe we then have a large responsibility to preserve this one, precious, precarious repository of life. Our first imperative should be to colonize first our solar system and then other nearby solar systems. Why is this so important? Because we know our planet is vulnerable to inevitable catastrophic damage from large interstellar objects. It happened before and it will happen again. A recent comet Shoemaker impact with Jupiter is chilling evidence of this reality

For fun and to exemplify one approach to this speculative problem, let's calculate (estimate) a mass of life in our known universe using Earth's estimated life mass ratioed to an estimated mass of our solar system.

Then let's apply our ratio to an estimated mass of our universe and estimate a number of sentient, human-like forms in our universe. Then we can estimate things like how many planets might exist which have sentients in our universe.

Our numbers used below come from another page on this site titled Imagining a Largest Internet. See that page to verify our numbers and their sources used below.

Assumptions:

  1. There is one known universe. (A classical SOM assumption. Quantum science denies it.)
  2. Estimated mass of our universe in atoms is correct. We assumed a ubiquitous estimate of 10^80 atoms in our universe as correct.
  3. A known variety of atomic elements on Earth in 1998 is a reasonable proxy for a variety and range of quantonic interrelationships of atoms in our universe.
  4. An average atom has 58 nucleons (which probably makes our average estimated atom overweight).
  5. 'Life' means 'biological life.' (We agree, Earth is alive, but not in our species' commonly accepted SOM definition of biological life.) However, we include non-carbon-based biological systems as 'biological life.'
  6. Our solar system's life density is a proxy for life density of our Milky Way and our universe.
  7. Human and Earth life is the essential biological life in our solar system. Any other life in our solar system would not perturb our calculations significantly.
  8. Human life mass is 1/200th Earth's total life mass where total life mass of Earth is a mass of all living things: plants, animals, fish, arthropods, etc.
    • This estimate is a SWAG. As such we expected it to be off by one or two orders of magnitude. We used this ratio to determine a total mass of life on Earth. We got a wrong answer.
    • A recent issue of Science Magazine has an article entitled, Monie a Mickle Maks a Muckle (Many Small Things Combined Make a Big Thing (Scottish to English)), p. 186, Vol. 281, 10July1998.
    • Science Magazine's article gives an estimate for dry cell weight of all protokaryote life mass on Earth of 1015kg. Using our (fat) weight of 10-25 kg/(58-nucleon-atom), we get 1040 prokaryote atoms! (Note we are using a standard, average atom mass to permit us a luxury of simpler calculations.)
    • Amazingly, our previous estimate for a total mass of earth life was 1039 atoms. So we see that our estimated total mass of prokaryotes on Earth exceeds our previous estimate by one order of magnitude! Our estimate is off by a factor of more than 10 too low!
    • That makes a human life mass ratio estimate about 1/2000th Earth's total life mass!!
    • Affected calculations are highlighted red below. (15Jul98 PDR)
  9. Homo sapiens are a proxy for intelligent (sentient) life elsewhere in our Milky Way and our universe.
  10. Population of Earth is a proxy for a typical planet population elsewhere in our Milky Way and our universe.

Given those assumptions, we get numbers that look like this:

 Mass of solar system (atoms) =  4•1055
 Mass of Earth's life (atoms) =  1•1039 (1•1040 15Jul98 PDR)
 Mass of Earth's humans (atoms) =  5•1036
 Mass of one Earth human (atoms) =  7•1026
 Mass of Milky Way (atoms) =  1•1066
 Mass of Universe (atoms) =  1•1080
 Population of an Earth-typical planet =  6•109 (to count planets below)
 Ratio Earth's life mass to solar system mass =  (1•1039)/(4•1055) = 2.5•10-17
 Estimated mass of life in Milky Way =  2.5•10-17•1066 = 2.5•1049
 Estimated mass of life in Universe =  2.5•10-17•1080 = 2.5•1063
 Ratio of human life to solar system mass =  (5•1036)/(4•1055) = 1.25•10-19
 Estimated mass of sentients in Milky Way =  1.25•10-19•1066 = 1.25•1047
 Estimated mass of sentients in Universe =  1.25•10-19•1080 = 1.25•1061
 Sentients in Milky Way =  (1.25•1047)/ 7•1026 = 1.8•1020
 Sentients in Universe =  (1.25•1061)/ 7•1026 = 1.8•1034
 Planets like Earth w/sentients in Milky Way =  (1.8•1020)/ 6•109 = 3•1010
 Planets like Earth w/sentients in Universe =  (1.8•1034)/ 6•109 = 3•1024

Our numeric notation used above is called scientific notation. Interpret our symbols like this:

    represents a times operation so 1.8•10 represents 1.8 'times' 10 or 18.
    ^ represents exponentiation so 1034 says raise 10 to a 34th power.

To summarize, 6•109 is a current (1998) approximation of Earth's human population. That is 6 billion people, or 6 with nine zeroes after it thus: 6,000,000,000. If an exponent is negative, using a same Earth population example its exponent would have a minus sign thus: 6•10-9 and would appear in decimal format as 0.000000006 (eight zeroes in front of six).

A most recent estimate I have seen for our last line above is from a book by John Gribbon entitled In the Beginning. See his last page (255 of his paperback) where he references other astronomers' estimate of 1020 planets in our universe that may have life like ours. Clearly my estimate is much larger, but not too bad considering we probably used a different method than one used by astronomers.

 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Quantum Computation «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Quantum Computation Meme
 Term:
Quantum Computation
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Quantum Consciousness «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Quantum Consciousness Meme
 Term:
Quantum Consciousness
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:

Consciousness as one type of a class of DQ quantonic interrelationships, something like this:

DQ                   v  Quantum Sensing
                         v  Quantum Learning
                         v  Quantum Thinking
                         v  Quantum Consciousness
                         v  Quantum Concepts
                         v  Quantum Patterns 
                         v  SQ
 
Quantum Sensing is:  Non-SOM, non-anthropocentric sensing which may occur at a quantal least Planck action h-bar level of quantonic interrelationship.
Quantum Learning is:  Quantons latching into actuality.
Quantum Thinking is:  Possible quantal least action h-bar levels of choice-chance-change preferring initial or preconditions of non-SOM, non-anthropocentric correlation of multiple potential quantonic interrelationships.
Quantum Consciousness is:  Ubiquitous Planck rate action.
Quantum Concepts are:  Latched quantons.
Quantum Patterns are:  archetypes, prototypes, stereotypes, etc.
SQ is: latched Static Patterns of Value (SPoVs) from any DQ interrelationships; i.e., latched quantons.
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Quantum Entanglement «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Quantum Entanglement Meme
 Term:
Quantum Entanglement
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Quantum Logic «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Quantum Logic Meme
 Term:
Quantum Logic
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Quantum Parthenogenesis «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Quantum Parthenogenesis Meme
 Term:
Quantum Parthenogenesis
 Term Source:

Term: quantum parthenogenesis

Term etymology: First used by Doug Renselle, on 29June1998, in his comments on Dr. Mae-Wan Ho's book, the Rainbow and the Worm.

 History:
 Analogues: Virgin birth, bootstrap, self-reproduction, etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. In Pirsig's new philosophy, MoQ, a Quality Event is a place-action where one Static Pattern of Value or SPoV becomes aware of another SPoV. Result is nothing, a new SPoV or alteration of both or either of any initially interrelating SPoVs.
  2. In MoQ and Quantonics, SPoVs are Static Quality (SQ) co-within, commingling, and interpenetrating Dynamic Quality (DQ). SQ is never alone, never without DQ's ubiquitous flux.

Quantum Science:

  1. In quantum science, a special event is a place-action where one quantum system interrelates or entangles itself with another. Result is nothing, a new quantum system or alteration of both or either of initially interrelating quantum systems.
  2. In quantum science, quantum systems may be undifferentiated, or differentiated and undifferentiated together. Some call this a pure state and a mixed state of quantum systems.

Classical Science:

  1. In classical science, objects are individuistic, isolable, and only separately and anthropocentrically observable.
  2. In classical science, all actions are local, objects pre-exist, and no non-objective or subjective reality interacts in any way with observable objects to alter objects or objects' properties or behavior(s).
 Quantonics Use:

In Quantonics, looking at early Quality Events, we see a need for most rudimentary unlatched SPoVs to be co-aware, to be able to intertwine, commingle, interpenetrate and emerge new, more complex latched and unlatched SPoVs/quantons.

Looking even further back we presume if there were not multiple, primal quantons in reality's beginning, then - there might have been only one. If that were true and if that SPoV were self-aware it might have been capable of quantum parthenogenesis.

 Rationale: Quantum parthenogenesis permits a bootstrap of actualization of reality if there was (or, as Wheeler and Feynman warily conjectured, is) only one primal unlatched SPoV or quanton.
 Symbology: TBD.
 Local Definitions:
  • SPoV - Static Pattern of Value
  • quanton - quANTon, qwf, wave-particle duality, complementary pair, etc.
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Quantum Reality «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Quantum Reality Meme
 Term:
Quantum Reality
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Quantum Security «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Quantum Security Meme
 Term:
Quantum Security
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Quantum Sleep «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Quantum Sleep Meme
 Term:
Quantum Security
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Quantum Truths «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Quantum Truths Meme
 Term:
Quantum Truths
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Rydberg Atoms «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Rydberg Atoms Meme
 Term:
Rydberg Atoms
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Subsume SOM «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Subsume SOM Meme
 Term:
Subsume SOM
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Superluminal Actions «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Superluminal Actions Meme
 Term:
Superluminal Actions
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Superluminal MoM «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Superluminal MoM Meme
 Term:
Superluminal MoM
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Two MoQs for Millennium III «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
Two MoQs for Millennium III Meme
 Term:
Two MoQs for Millennium III
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK                                                                          yTop
Wave Reality «BACK ©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029
A Wave Reality Meme
 Term:
Wave Reality
 Term Source:

Term: xxx

Term etymology: xxx

 History:
 Analogues: , etc.
 Interpretations:

Philosophy:

  1. .
  2. .

Science:

  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
 Quantonics Use:
 Rationale:
 Symbology:
 Local Definitions:
«BACK               Return to Previous_Page                  Arches                               yTop


To contact Quantonics write to or call:

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

©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029 — Rev. 4Jul2015  PDR — Created 14Apr1998  PDR (2 of 2)
(16May2000 rev - Revise 'Decidable Godel' to add quantum entropy aside.)
(1Jun2000 rev - Add anchor to our Godel Quantum Reality aside.)
(2Jun2000 rev - Add notation for consistency and completeness to our aside.)
(2Jun2000 rev - Add Maxwell's and Snow's classical laws of thermodynamics to our aside.)
(4Aug2000 rev - Add a new meme to top list: 'Quantum Ambient Fermionic System Condensation.')
(21Aug2000 rev - In Quantum extension to Decidable Gödel Meme change all uncertainty constants from one to zero.)
(26Aug2000 rev - In Quantum extension to Decidable Gödel Meme change all uncertainty expressions to entropy expressions.)
(26Aug2000 rev - Add link under Decidable Gödel Meme to 'Absoluteness As Quantum Uncertainty Interrelationships.')
(30Aug2000 rev - Add 2nd link under Decidable Gödel Meme to 'Absoluteness As Quantum Uncertainty Interrelationships.')
(30Aug2000 rev - Add posentropy comment, aside reference, and 'comtext' def. link to Decidable Gödel Meme.)
(14Nov2000 rev - Date.)
(14Dec2000 rev - Add aside on 'new' vis-à-vis 'novel' to Decidable Gödel Meme.)
(14Dec2000 rev - Add link to our Quanton Complement Interrelationships in our Decidable Gödel Meme.)
(15Dec2000 rev - Add '
Emerscenture,' i.e., a new meme of quantum manufacturing, to our Quantonic Memes.)
(22Dec2000 rev - Add link to MoQ II Reality Loop as example in Decidable Gödel Meme 'new' vis-à-vis 'novel' aside.)
(15Jan2001 rev - Change some 1998-2000 dates to 1998-2001.)
(24Jul2001 rev - Add anchor to CP Snow duals of Maxwell's 'laws' of thermodynamics.)
(13Sep2001 rev - Repair typos under Decidable Gödel Meme.)
(5Nov2001 rev - Link 'Quantum Emotion' to our review of
Geertz' Available Light Chapter X.)
(5Dec2001 rev - Add top of page frame-breaker.)
(29Jan2002 rev - Add Decidable Gödel Meme quote from Kafatos and Nadeau's The Conscious Universe.)
(29Jan2002 rev -
QELRemediate Decidable Gödel Meme.)
(9Jan2003 rev - Add Zenos_Paradice link under our Decidable Gödel Meme.)
(16Jun2003 rev - Change some wingdings char's. to GIFs for compatibility. Extend Decidable Gödel Meme. Other minor format changes.)
(4Jul2003 rev - Add anchor to Estimated Sentients in Universe.)
(30Oct2004 rev - Update our Meme Meme.)
(21Dec2006 rev - Adjust colors.)
(2Sep2007 rev - Reformat. Massive respell. Major clean-up of Decidable Gödel Meme.)
(4Apr2008 rev - Update 'Decidable Gödel' with 'Quantum Partiality' link. Update footnote 2 there.)
(14Aug2008 rev - Reformat.)
(4Jul2015 rev - Make page current. Adjust color.)