SOM Abstraction:

 SOM thinkers concluded over Earth's last 2.5 millennia that mathematical induction, consistency and completeness could be applied to our physical world in general. SOM thinkers concluded, until Earth's 20th century Homo sapiens could develop both consistent and complete reality components. SOM unifies abstract mathematics and reality on induction and it unifies consistency and completeness on 'general' reality components. To do so SOM must simultaneously insist on one knowable truth in one general context.

Events of our recent 20th century uncovered these fundamental limitations of SOM. Henri Poincaré, Karl Popper, et al., showed a futility of applying induction generally to physical reality (However, Popper adopted 'falsifiability' as evident classical truth, and now we know his assumption was incorrect in any quantum realm.). Kurt Gödel, Alan Turing, et al., showed a (Classical, SOM) folly of assuming either abstractions or component reality can be both consistent and complete simultaneously. Any more complete system, must necessarily be less consistent and vice versa. And worse, n¤ system can assess its own consistency or completeness. And worse, n¤ adjunct system or systems may assess any system's consistency or completeness. See our recent (year 2000) Absoluteness as Uncertainty.

Begin aside: (16Jan2001, Doug.)

Let's use Gödelian memes to distinguish twixt classical (SOM) absoluteness and quantum (MoQ) absoluteness:

SOM says its classical model of reality is the absolute verity of -

• Classical consistency: Always states the truth, and
• Classical completeness: State all the truths.

MoQ, quantum reality, and Quantonics all deny SOM absoluteness and say they are, instead, modeling reality as absolute change (Semper flux!) via -

• Quantum comsistency: Always changes, and
• Quantum c¤mpleteness: Changes all.

See Gödel. Gödel shows that n¤ hypothesis, theory, n¤r axiom set n¤r sets can ever c¤mpletely and comsistently 'define' quantum reality. Doug - 20Feb2002.

As you can see SOM declares homogeneous reality "certain" as established by its dogmatic concept of absolute truth.

By comparison, MoQ declares heterogeneous reality "quantum uncertain" based upon nature's absolute Planck rate flux impetus. MoQ calls that absolute flux impetus, "Value."

End aside.

As our link above shows vividly, modicum consistency may only be achieved by assiduous control of context. In language currency of quantum MoQese we refer to this, "...assiduous control of context," as "squeezing."

SOM Analyticity:

 SOM declares its classical objects "Newtonian." SOMites describe Newtonian objects as analytic functions of time, and use space as a proxy for time; i.e., SOMites view time as space/space. As a result, time becomes a decoherent classical concept which has n¤ 'independent' definition or radically mechanical semantic of its own. Analytic functions are continuous. MoQ/quantum reality is discontinuous, quantized. Thus, we see SOM as clearly incapable of representing reality 'objectively.' Here is a bit more information on Newtonian reality, and how it limits SOMites and their classical thinking methods (CTMs):

• According to Newton:
  • reality is analytic (differentiable):
    • one past, one-future centric:
      • predictable
      • inductive
      • deterministic
      • known
        • closed
        • conservative
      • temporally reversible (i.e., + or - time)
    • continuous/homogeneous/immutable
    • modeled by ideal, dimensionless, y=f(t) point objects
    • analytic, objective, y=f(t) motion is change
    • capable of unlimited, y=f(t), object speed
    • reducible:
      • mass is measurable, but undefined
      • length is measurable, but undefined
      • time is measurable, but undefined
      • gravity is measurable, but undefined
  • reality is synthetic (integrable)
  • formal analytic functions of mass, length, and time define and describe all real objects
    • mass/energy
      • this classical notion as an identity was not established by Newton
      • mass is defined as a conceptually decoherent point object
    • length/space
      • one space fits all analytic needs
      • local spatial notions may be arbitrarily scaled globally
      • space is a homogeneous plenum
      • space is state-ic (space holds still)
      • space is classically measurable
      • space is classically numerable
    • time
      • one time fits all analytic needs
      • local temporal notions may be arbitrarily scaled globally
      • time is a homogeneous plenum
      • classical motion in space/space consumes classical time
      • time is classically numerable (e.g., a clock's classically demarcated circle)
      • time is 'the' independent variable for all classical notions of change via unitemporal motion
      • classical time is not process, not absolute flux, not absolute change
      • space and spatial concepts are classical proxies for time
      • time is only classically 'definable' in terms of classical, homogeneous space
  • reality is anthropocentric:
    • humans may unilaterally observe objects which are:
      • still, quiescent
      • isolable, separable, infinitely property-scalable
      • impenetrable, hard
      • immutable (during observation)
    • humans are naturally both objective and subjective, however must be carefully trained to:
      • worship objective reality as "substantial"
      • denigrate subjective reality as "phenomenal"

 Classical Legacy:

 Classification of Reality:

 SOM denies any unknown as part of reality. (In our opinion, this is SOM's dominant fault.)

SOM, and its classical science kin, abdicate responsibility for a philosophy of reality. SOM concludes — since it cannot classify reality — reality must not exist. SOM insists reality must be objective and substantial so things not substantial are 'subjective' and inaccessible from a perspective of truth.

This easily distills to saying, "If we do not already have words and concepts to describe any now-phenomenal, previous unknown, we must conclude that it does not classically exist." See William James' comments on this issue at top of our Quantonic Remediation of English Language page.

 Jumble of ISMs:

 One Truth:

 SOM claims Homo sapiens can know (are capable of knowing) one absolute truth. One inference is: Homo sapiens possess other than finite intellect.

Further, given this one truth and a presumption of non-finite intellect, followers claim SOM can wholly define reality. We see manifestations of this SOM arrogance in classical science's searches for GUTs and TOEs. Some of classical science's finest theorists search vainly for Grand Unifying Theories and Theories Of Everything.

Why? Because to know it is to control it! SOM manifests clearly one of its greatest limitations here: that it can define and thus capture and confine essence of a multiversal creative force. SOM is about control and power through its assertion one can know all. Can one be more arrogant? Can one have more hubris?

SOM's one truth limitation declares SOM's absolute omniscience for all to see.

Those of us in Quantonics who adhere Pirsig's MoQ philosophy intuit Quality is absolute and truth is animate and myriad (n¤t relative n¤r absolute, but a quanton(comsistentabsolute,c¤mpletemyriad)) and there are multiple comtexts for every truth which can produce extra-Boolean logical assessments differing widely among multiple comtexts.

SOM's truth is literally one-dimensional. SOM's truth is state-ic, forever or until provisionally falsified! SOM's truth is either true or false. In SOM, to say, "...something is both true and false," is by SOM philosophical assumption, "absurd." But in Quantonics we know truth is animate, quantum c¤mplementary, omnivalent, omnicomtextual, omnimensional. There are many (an infinity of) truths. Corresponding to those many truths are many comtexts. Those comtexts' edges are fuzzy, quantum c¤mplementary, and ensehmble quantum uncertain. Those comtext's EIMA-commingle to greater or lesser degrees thus violating Aristotle's 3rd syllogism which mandates (excluded middle) exclusion of any quantum superposition. Quantum science shows us reality's many truths in many (often copermeating/cowithin-other; see coinsidence) comtexts. Yet SOMites blithely and blissfully forge ahead in their tiny reductionist pseudo interpretation of larger quantum reality.

(Author's note: See another related page on this site entitled, "What is Wrong with SOM's Boolean Logic?")

(Author's note - 25May1999: We just found this excellent paper by a student in York, UK about Ludwig Wittgenstein's view of absolute truth. It harmonizes fairly well, but with a more playful perspective, a Quantonics view of absolute truth. See: Wittgenstein_and_Absolute_Truth)

SOM Determinism:

 SOMites confuse quantum persistence with classical determinism, objective independence (classical objects are ideally lisr), and objective stability (immutability, except for analytic motion in uni-time).

Quantum reality offers no classical notions of absolute, causal, 1-1 correspondent determinism. Quantum reality only offers quantum variable persistence (quantum tentative persistence).

SOM Biforms:

 Two examples of SOM biforms (dichons) are dichotomies and centricities. SOM language is filled with Boolean-biased constructs which severely limit Homo sapiens' abilities to describe reality free of apparent paradoxes (paradice). This bias nurtures other limiting concepts on intellectual endeavors like: separability, locality, perceived formality of a system, etc. within a single context.

SOM's innate biforms induce bipolarity in its philosophies, sciences, and mathematics. One of SOM's most problematic bipolarities is physical science's adherence to a bipolar concept of conservation. Presumably, a fixed amount of SOM energy 'exists' in its closed universe as conserving dipoles: energy versus mass. We can show this as a SOM dichon(energy, mass). By SOM edict its energy-mass dichon must 'conserve.'

SOM's energy biform denies reality's boundless vacuum energy.

How did SOM arrive at its illusion of 'conservation?' Via its foundational, biformal axioms, based upon an Aristotelian subject-object scission.

Assumed limited energy of SOM's philosophic and scientific ilk imposes naïve contrivances in resulting science and mathematical endeavors. A major example is J.C. Maxwell's laws of thermodynamics — his own deluded contrivances mandated by SOM's dogmatic axiom of 'conservation.'

Consider what an enormous negative attitudinal impact this has on practitioners of SOM. They assume there is only so much energy to go around, when indeed, there is an unlimited abundance of energy available to those who will learn to tap into it. (1Mar2000 PDR)

Manifestations of this abound, especially among our greatest thinkers. Einstein insisted reality's universe had to be deterministic. He felt he had two choices: universal determinism or universal indeterminism. His SOM bias eliminated his latter option as unreasonable. Amazingly he thought similarly about superluminality reusing his biased judgment: "It's unreasonable." And, "God does not role (nor roll :) dice."

Notice SOM's axiom of dichotomy in Einstein's thinking process: any issue had to be either reasonable or unreasonable! Einstein's SOM-thinking distills his perception of reality into two classes. Our SOM language syntax and dictionary of terms has much to do with our SOM-thinking.

Strangely, Einstein unified space-time, matter-energy, et al. Why did he perceive space both/and time, matter both/and energy, but have blinders for determinism either/or indeterminism, luminal either/or superluminal, etc.? In Quantonics we place blinder blame squarely on classical, old philosophy, SOM and its accoutrements: SOM language syntax and dictionary, and biformal- and SOM-thinking.

Aside (24Jun2002 - Doug):

Einstein did n¤t quantum BAWAM unify space-time and energy-mass. He turned them into mathematical identities!

It is a quantum epiphany to understand that quantum space (we should use plural present participle here: "spacings;" see space; spacings are quantum c¤mplementary animate processes) and quantum time (i.e., "timings") are very different (from each other) quantum memes and that they quantum c¤mplement each other. Einstein never had that quantum epiphany! Ditto energy and mass.

Aside - 15Oct2007 - Doug:

Doug used 'di' fferent in 2002. Today, c. 2007, Doug would use omnifferent.

"How are quantum timings and spacings omniffering?"

Elsewhere Doug has written, paraphrased, "...acceleration isn't gravity, acceleration is a symptom of gravity..."

Doug's best current description for spacings omnifferencings timings is similar:

Spacings are symptoms of timings.

But we may also say that gravityings, massings, energyings, spacings and timings are all symptoms of quantum flux and quantum fluxings interrelationshipings which we refer "phasicityings."

Further we might heurist how those may n¤t be symptoms which offer better glimmers of quantum understandings of reality. We use them only due their classical legacy use and for lack of potentially better symptoms for which we lack any novel nomenclature.

Doug - 15Oct2007.

End aside.

End aside.

SOM denies any existence of uncertainty for its followers. Einstein fell into this trap. He fell into a trap of knowable absolute truth in a single SOM context.

What is SOM's source of these biforms? We do not know its primal source, but in SOM one source is its S-O schism. SOM split reality into two divisions: substance and non-substance. If something is not classified in one of those two categories, it does not exist.

Given that foundation, SOM declares substance is the source of objective truth — objective truth the apex of reverence in a singular land of SOM. SOM then enjoins followers to seek objective truth above all else — failure to do this courts failure and heresy — and disciplinary matrix denigration.

Its S-O dichotomy is SOM's big foundational biform. Its S-O biform garners SOM's plethora of ISMs, paradoxes, ironies, and dilemmas. Its S-O biform is a great weakness of SOM which, once recognized by a majority, will aid its subsumption during Western culture's third millennium.

SOM Language:

 SOM language assumes an Aristotelian objective semantic bias. SOM's nouns point to substance-based objects which exist — presumed real, and to insubstantial subjects which do not exist — presumed unreal. Objective SOM tells us to keep that which is real and discard that which is unreal. Viewed from a quantum perspective objective SOM discards most of reality.

SOM language puts its adherents and practitioners in a very limited reality box. Whatever cannot be explained within SOM's box is labeled variously: absurd, unreasonable, paradox, sophism, and so on... Classical physicists are trained in SOM lingo to ignore phenomena and paraphenomena not in the Box. Sadly for SOM, most of reality's magic, wonder, awe, adventure, and value lie outside its Box.

SOM's objective lingual bias manifests as caprice in favor of one over many. We can see this obviously in Western languages' as-practiced misuse of the. We anticipate imminent discovery of other SOM language objective bias tells and give-aways.

See these links which we use to demonstrate SOM problematics with English (and by extension, other languages) 20Feb2002 - Doug:

 Value Free: