Arches

If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!

The Greeks Gave Us Our Dominant
Western Culture and Thinking.
It is an Inherently Weak,
De Facto Method of Thinking.
Essentially, it is Boolean Logic.
"...I will argue that all local, separable theories,
including general relativity, are empirically false when applied to the kinds of
microphysical interactions examined in the Bell experiment;
or rather, that they would have to be false if one elaborated them into theories capable
of describing such microphysical interactions...
local, separable theories are fundamentally incompatible with quantum mechanics,
because of their separable [e.g., Boolean] manner of individuating systems and states...
We confront here a radical physical holism at odds with our classical intuitions
about the individuation of systems and states..."
pp. 227-8, by Don Howard,
'Holism and Separability,' Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory,
UND Press, 1989
 
(Site author's note: I love Howard's quote above. It is one of my favorites and personally,
for me it is a quote filled with almost unlimited potential enlightenment.
However, it stimulates my own effable effuse "but..." "macrophysical is microphysical!"
Macro is micro, not in a classical reductionist sense, but in a quantum holistic sense.)
PDR 19Jul1999


Revisions are marked in text below:  See 7Jun2009 revision to our 24Jul2002 Applied Heisenberg exemplar of "What is wrong with SOM's Logic."
Acronyms used in this treatise:
 DQ  - Dynamic Quality
 MoQ  - Metaphysics of Quality (Pirsig)
 MoQite  - An adherent of MoQ philosophy
 MoQland  - Where MoQites philosophically reside
 O  - Object
 S  - Subject
 SODV  - Subjects, Objects, Data, & Values
 SOM  - Subject-Object Metaphysics
 SOMite  - An adherent of SOM philosophy
 SOMland  - Where SOMites philosophically reside
 SPoV  - Static Pattern of Value
 SQ  - Static Quality
 ZMM  - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

What is wrong with SOM's Boolean logic?

  1. SOM's most important problem with logic is that it is suppositional.
  2. Classical suppositional logic is inductive and deludes its practioners that foundational suppositions about historical/past causes, in general, induce unitemporal and unitime-predictable 'effects.'
  3. Classical suppositional logic denies quantum-sentient special event ontologies of: choices, chances, and changes at all scales of reality.
  4. Suppositional logic, via its inductive determinism, denies quantum awareness at ensehmble 'nowings,' which admit stochastic ensehmble choosings at 'nowings' which evoke plural outcome ensehmble affectings based upon plural preconditions ensehmble 'nowings' awareness-mediated/mediating by both l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal ensehmble choices/choosings and absences of ensehmble choices/choosings.
  5. SOM's most important problem with Boolean logic is its underlying presumptions.
  6. Boolean logic assumes one logical dimension (in one assumed 'real' global/universal context): its formal conclusions may only be either true or false. It declares any conclusion of both true and false, "absurd."
  7. It assumes reality's actual part is 'reality.'
  8. It assumes 'objects' exist.
  9. It assumes logical objects exist if they "stand for" 'real' objects.
  10. Boolean logic assumes that logical 'objects' are isolable, separable, and individuated.
  11. Boolean logic assumes that logical 'objects' possess internal (thus 'local') properties which are observable, in isolation.
  12. Most adherents use it as their de facto logic for general thinking and dialogue and get facile, insensate results.
  13. Boolean logic prevents adherents from perceiving real stuff as anihmatæly commingling and interpenetrating (all of reality does commingle and interpenetrate — Boolean logic is incapable of operating on real stuff which anihmatæly commingles and interpenetrates - Why? - Aristotle's 2nd and 3rd syllogistic laws, i.e., contradiction and excluded middle, explicitly deny anihmatæ commingling and interpenetration - they deny quantum reality! Aristotle's syllogisms are the facile parent of modern boolean and propositional logic.).
  14. It deludes adherents that 'objective' analysis and synthesis of actual reality is possible.
  15. It is based upon Aristotle's flawed assumptions (e.g., S-O schism) in his syllogism model of logical argument. Note that every axiom in Aristotle's syllogistic logic is a tautology. Yet, we know for certain that in actual physical reality n¤ two anythings are ever equal! (See Hans Christian von Baeyer's article, 'Tiny Doubles,' in the September/October, 1997 issue of, The Sciences, pp. 11-13.) Further, we know n¤ thing equals itself longer than a few Planck moments!
  16. Boolean logic is based on contradiction (AKA Sheffer stroke, '|,' Binary Alternative Denial, BAD) and opposition (re: Aristotle's syllogistic logic). Assuming Planck ubiquitous rate change throughout all reality — quantum reality claims assessment of contradiction — in a more general quantum reality — is impossible. In order to do proof by contradiction, Boolean logic depends upon an assumption of inanimate and steady classical 'state.' Where classical reality assumes 'state,' quantum reality denies any classical concept of 'state.' In order to provide classical 'state,' Boolean logic and all classical mathematics must 'stop' reality (This was Zeno's main point in his four paradice.) using classical formal notation like y=f(t). There we see 'y' is a classical object whose classical properties are known at some classically stopped analytically homogeneous time, t. There, we also see classicism's identity or '=' sign, which declares both sides of it "identical" for as long as classical scientists or mathematicians need them to be. Where classical reality may be conventionally and anthropocentrically 'inanimate,' quantum reality is absolutely and ubiquitously 'anihmatæ.' Quantum reality cann¤t hold still, n¤r be held still. For philosophical underpinnings of our comments here see good coverage in our review of Henri Louis Bergson's Creative Evolution, and his Time and Free Will. Also see our powerful argument against classical proof by contradiction in our Pirsigean Problematic Memes' Is Proof by Contradiction Proof?
  17. To achieve classical contradiction, Boolean logic assumes negation is classically, radically formal. However, Henri Louis Bergson, et al., have shown resoundingly that negation is, rather, classically subjective (think about it). Any classical 'not' is quantum c¤mplementary. (However, ) In order for Boolean logic to work formally on physical objects, it has to assume negatives of classical objects 'exist.' H5W is 'not' you? H5W is 'not' Earth? H5W is 'not' Milky Way? H5W is 'not' Universe or Multiverse? Read Bergson's prose on 'negation is subjective.' Bergson's prose agrees wholly with modern quantum science! Quantum 'nots' are quantum c¤mplements. A quantum c¤mplement of you is potentially all reality as a quanton(reality,you)! In other words, your 'not' is classically subjective. We can say something similar regarding where or any other meme. For Boolean logic to work, where is <x,y,z>, and minus_where is <-x,-y,-z>. In Boolean/classical logic there is only one, state-ic "minus_where." So where's minus is -where! But how many other wheres can one be that are n¤t where? This latter example may be used on any natural, physial meme. It demonstrates obviously how quantum reality's real negati¤n is subjective and how classical thing-king attempts a sheigmful deign of feign that negation is physically objective. It shows how classical logic is specific, n¤t general. It shows how classical Boolean/Cartesian CTM thing-king fails massively, in general. Now add another anihmatæ aspect of quantum complexity: is where classically 'where' or is it quantum whæræings?
  18. Boolean logic is distributive logic. (Vis-à-vis quantum logic is n¤n-distributive, n¤nfactorizable, comtrafactual definite, orthomodular, n¤n-commutative, et al., logics. Note that quantum reality was discovered by (SOM's "logical absurdity" of) n¤n-commutativity of a Poisson bracket of a quanton's position and momentum. Classically it looks like this: p•m - m•p = [p, m] i•. From our Quantonics perspective it looks like this:

     

    p•m omnifferencings m•pquanton(p,m)

     •
       

    )
  19. Also see our SOM Connection under our Buridan Review. Both show at a more theoretical level what is wrong with SOM's Boolean logic.

A Heisenberg Exemplar of What is Wrong With SOM's Logic

Famous and renowned folk almost irresistibly fall into SOM's logical traps.
It is fun to use their examples, especially because of their high celebrity worship among cultural elites.
Societal values are not about, nor as highly evolved as intellect. Thus society, in its mob worship of celebrity,
at height of a celebrity's fame, seldom questions whether a famous person's renown is appropriate.
We offer an example which seems apropos here:

Werner Karl Heisenberg, a celebrated quantum mechanic writes this in his 1958 book Physics and Philosophy -

"In classical logic it is assumed that, if a statement has any meaning at all, either the statement or the negation of the
statement must be [classically] correct. Of 'here is a table' or 'here is not a table,' either the first or the second statement
must be correct. Tertium non datur, a third possibility [Mu] does not exist [or heterogeneous other possibilities do not exist].
It may be that we do not know whether the statement or its negation is correct; but in 'reality' one of the two is correct."
Page 181 of 213 total pages. Our bold. Our brackets. Our Latin italics.

That quote illustrates beautifully why absolute truth is a classical dialectical dichon(either_true, or_not_true) delusion.
Mitch sent us a statement by one of his acquaintances re absolute truth like this:

"There is war on Earth!" Acquaintance declared that an absolute truth.

Iff that were absolutely true then, "There is no war on Earth" must be absolutely false."

Quantum~ræhlihty sahys, "St¤chastihcahlly thæræ issi b¤th war ¤n Æarth amd thæræ issi apparæntly (ihn s¤mæ l¤ci) n¤ war ¤n Æarth."

Classical negation is objective.

Quantum nægati¤n issi subqjæctih.

On Earth, generally, quanton(war,n¤_war) is true. There is war some places. There is n¤ war other places. Both are partially true and partially false.
Quantum~partiality exemplifies how all
interrelationshipings are both qualitatively and subjectively always both EIMA~quantum~complementary and quantum~uncertain!

That leaves us to fath¤m how classical 'truth' isn't ideally Boolean. Classical truth isn't ideally, Aristotelean-Platonic either-or.
Dialectic is bogus for insisting that either-or is canonically, judgmentally, legally, orthodoxly, veritably, valid logic.

Quantum~rhetoric says, "Coquecigrues is evolutionarily-evidently~valid always and everywhere, since quantum~reality is always partial, and quantum~truthings are comtextually sensitive.

See our Bases of Judgment.

Not only is tertium non datur quantumly~wr¤ng, quantum~reality is genuinely sophist which means "many truthings." OGT and OGC doesn't OSFA!

Doug - 7Jun2009.

Our quote of Heisenberg shows what our list of problematics
attempts to divulge: "Just what is wrong with SOM Logic."

Indeed, in quantum reality, neither of Heisenberg's exemplar statements is classically 'correct.'

Heisenberg, as a physicist, and as most classical and quantum physicists do,
tends to thingk in classically 'logical,' and assumed global, frames of local reference.
(Their 'local' globality is deludedly presumed scalable via mathematical modular induction.)

Too, they tend to view those frames of reference as global for experimental purposes.
Thus Heisenberg, in his "...but in 'reality' one of the two is correct..." sees his table's
classical frame of reference as 'real' and locally expansible to globally 'complete.'

One outcome of his assumption of a local/global reference frame is that his table's momentum is presumed zero.
He classically, logically, and putatively assumes that 'here' is a zero momentum 'location' in his
classical reference frame. That assumption is what makes his classical logic appear to
offer valid affirmation of 'hereness' and its absolute stability as apparently 'real.'

Notice how Heisenberg falls into one of Henri Louis Bergson's pronounced logical pitfalls: an assumption that reality
is stable. Our complaint is Heisenberg's use of 'here' as a stable locus and then claiming that his either/or negation
is valid 'logically' based upon his assumption. And then claiming "...in 'reality' one of the two is correct."

In reality his conclusion is wrong! At its equator Earth's rotation rate is ~500 meters per second.
Earth's orbital rate around Sol is ~30 kilometers per second. Our solar system's orbital rate in our
Milky Way is ~300 kilometers per second! As you may choose to see, 'here' is really unstable.
Heisenberg's conclusion is unreal. His conclusion is merely classical and thus naïve!

Quantum 'hereness' is anihmatæ (for all quantum flux), c¤mplementary, heterogeneous,
and thus qualitative. It is pr¤cessings. It may n¤t be analyzed as Heisenberg, et al.,
wish to do. Why? As Bergson explains to us, we may n¤t stop reality
in order to fabricate and manufacture a conveniently
stopped 'here' as we see Heisenberg just did.

Hope this helps you to see massive and unfortunate classical effects of
SOM 'logic' on thing-king of famous and celebrated classical folk.

Caveat: please do n¤t take our quote of Heisenberg as showing his global () classical naïveté!!

Our quote above comes from near end Chapter 10 of his book. To probe and ponder depths
of Heisenberg's genuine quantum grasp, read his remaining five pages in that chapter.
He shows us that he understands complementarity in a manner much omnifferent
than Niels Bohr. He even intuits Quantonics' included-middle quantum logic.

Indeed, Heisenberg actually describes quantum reality's included-middle like this:

"The other problem concerns the ontology that underlies the modified logical [language]
patterns. If the pair of complex numbers represents a 'statement' [quanton] in the sense just
described, there should exist a 'state' or a 'situation' [ensehmble quantum c¤mplementarity]
in nature in which the statement is correct. We will use the word 'state' in this
connection. The 'states' corresponding to complementary statements are then called
'coexistent [Quantonic coinsident-] states' by Weizsäcker. This term 'coexistent'
describes the situation correctly; it would in fact be difficult to call them
'different states,' since every state contains to some extent also the other
'coexistent states.' This concept of 'state' would then form a first definition
concerning the ontology of quantum theory
." Page 185. Our brackets. Our links. Our bold.

To us, even though we cringe at Heisenberg's usages of words like 'correct,' 'state,'
'logical,' 'connection,' 'contains,' 'concept,' 'definition,' etc., this quote is one of
quantum science's crown jewels if n¤t its most prominent crown jewel!

To exemplify and qualify our hermeneutics of our Heisenberg quote,
allow us to interpret part of that quote using Quantonics lingo, "If any pairs
of quantum c¤mplements represent quantonic scripts in any sense just described,
there exist many quantonic comtexts [ensehmble quantum c¤mplementarity]
in nature in which our example statement [quantonic script] is correct."

Where Heisenberg's statement is dialectical, and thus exhibits formal logical OGC/OGT unilogical definiteness,
our re-interpretation of it in Quantonics lingo alerts us to quantum reality's comtrafactual definiteness.
(See our Bell Theorem Study on co(m)ntrafactual definiteness.)

And our emboldening of Heisenberg's words shows that in 1958 he already knew what
an organization like Quantonics should be doing some two score years later.

While we are praising Heisenberg, allow us to quote another text segment from these
last few pages of Chapter 10:

"There is still complete equivalence between the two levels of language with respect
to the correctness of a statement, but not with respect to the incorrectness." Page 184.
Our bold.

Quantonic student adepts will recognize Heisenberg's words as transmogrifying
Henri Louis Bergson's "...we shall never affirm a thing is not..." and "...negation is subjective."

But Heisenberg appears not to grasp even greater depth of his own words. And sure enough,
in his next Chapter 11, he jumps right back into SOM's box with this blatant SOMwittedness:

"...scientific ideas spread only because they are true. There are objective and final criteria
assuring the correctness of a scientific statement." Page 194.

Here, we view Heisenberg as a pure classicist emitting HyperBoole. Quantum reality is neither
classically objective, n¤r mechanically, radically final. Classical notions of scientific, objective truth are
at best naïve. In general quantum reality there is n¤ classical objective truth.

See our comments (especially June 25, 2002 red text) under that Creative Evolution
page 291
link above for what Heisenberg apparently missed. Even today at
Millennium III's commencement, few classicists understand what both
Bergson and Heisenberg have said.

Heisenberg intuited much of what Quantonics is about.
Too, he did n¤t understand much of what Quantonics is about.

Doug - 24Jul2002.

 
Philosophical Presumptions:
         
 Absolute  Deduction  Heterogeneous  n¤nl¤cal  Reducible
 Affect  Definite  Homogeneous  No/Not/Negation  Reversible
 Boolean  Determinate  Homology  Objective  Rhetoric
 Causal  Dialectic  Ideal  Observable  Schism
 Coherent  Divisible  Induction  One  Separable
 Commingle  Distributive  Interrelationships  Paralogy  Tentative
 C¤mplement  Effect  Isolable  Persistence  Time
 Commutative  Equal  Length  Preference  Truth
 Context  Factor[iz]able  l¤cal  Property  Uncertain
 Contradict  Falsifiable  Many  Quantity  Value
 Contrafactual  Gravity  Mass  Quality  Zero
         
         
 Item Term Presumption
   Absolute

Definition: Absolute* ( Also see our Quantonics remediated absolute.)

Philosophy.
a. Something regarded as the ultimate basis of all thought and being. Used with the.
b. Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else.
 

SOM: SOM presumes that absolute truth is accessible by anthropocentric intellect using rational thought and logic. SOM presumes that, in general, an objective question about any SOM 'object' may be answered unambiguously either true or false. The concept of one universal, knowable truth is axiomatic to SOM.

SOM's two prime axioms are:

  1. Logical, objective truth is absolute.
  2. Quality is relative.

MoQ: MoQ presumes that singular, absolute truth is n¤t comsistently accessible by finite sentient intellect. A meme of many truths is axiomatic to MoQ.

A many truths meme is based on Pirsig's two prime axioms:
  1. Quality is absolute (p. 341, ZMM Bantam paper)
  2. Logical truth is relative, and there are many logics and corresponding truths, from which we infer many l¤cal logical truth islands commingling and interpenetrating other l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal logical truth islands. (See ZMM, Lila, and esp. SODV.)

MoQ's meme of many truths, one may infer many comtexts. In MoQ we can show absolute truth is inaccessible via an uncertainty principle between comsistency and c¤mpleteness of any arbitrary comtext. Per Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems (see Decidable Gödel Meme at The Memes), a more c¤mplete comtext is less comsistent, and a more comsistent comtext is less c¤mplete. In MoQ, an absolute system must be simultaneously c¤mplete and comsistent. By a MoQ uncertainty principle, n¤ comtext is absolute, therefore finite sentient intellect may n¤t comsistently access or assess absolute truth.

(Author's note: MoQ's DQ is undefined. We can describe it, but we cann¤t define it. DQ is n¤t a comtext. To make it a comtext would be to define it. MoQ's SQ constitutes l¤cal aggregations of SPoVs in l¤cal quantum comtexts.)

return to term list

   Boolean

Definition: Boolean*

adjective
Of or relating to a logical combinatorial system treating variables, such as propositions and computer logic elements, through operators AND, OR, NOT, IF, THEN, and EXCEPT: information retrieval involving Boolean searching.
[After George Boole.]

SOM: Classical binary logic is used almost exclusively as legacy SOM default rational thought technique. George C. Boole formalized classical binary logic in early-mid 19th century. Its predecessors include:

  • analysis/synthesis
      - analysis assumes that any real whole may be broken into constituent parts each of which is ideally individuate, separate, isolate;
      - synthesis assumes that constituent parts may be assembled to form a new whole
  • contradiction
      conflict of opposing primary, and secondary forces in a (Boolean) logical argument about any properties of (ideal) logical objects
  • dialectic (dialogical dialogue )
      logical (SOM-absolute) truth achieved by contradiction via logical argument constructing:
      • noncontradicting theses, and
      • contradicting antitheses
  • dichotomy, disjunction, disunion, scission, etc.
      these terms are essentially equivalent in a logical world to a term dialectic described nearby
  • induction
      - use of particular (SOM) facts to make general conclusions
      - use of historical evidence to predict future events
  • opposition
      see contradiction
  • schism
      in SOM, a fundamental division of all reality into either Subject or Object
  • syllogism
      Classical deductive, or Aristotelian, logic is a predecessor to SOM's Boolean logic. Source reference documents tell us that classical logic concerns itself with formal, objective properties but not objective facts. Aristotle taught his students that any logical argument could be reduced to a sequence of three logical statements including two premises and one conclusion. Aristotle called this a SYLLOGISM. He formulated three basic laws for all logical thought:
      • a law of identity -
        (A is A);
      • a law of contradiction -
        (A cannot be both A and not A);
      • and a law of an excluded middle -
        (A must be either A or not A).
      (See the MoQ notes on Aristotle's syllogism below.)
  • tautology
      a logically true (always), logically empty statement based upon an either/or dichotomy, e.g., either A is true or A is not true

MoQ: MoQ subsumes Boolean logic as one of its many classes of logic. From a MoQ perspective SOM thinking is so primitive that we like to say, "SOM is just a lot of classical Boole."

Quantum reality, as an example, simply cann¤t be described using a very limited SOM-Boolean logic.

MoQ on Aristotle's syllogism - Aristotle's laws have deluded SOMites for (~23) centuries! Given input from his antecedents: Parmenides, Plato, Socrates, etc., Aristotle based his syllogism on a Subject-Object reality scission (vis-à-vis a union of S-O and further augmentation as SQ in MoQ). His law of identity assumes ideal logical objects which are ideally measurable and observable, i.e., isolable, separable, individuate. This law holds only approximately in a macro realm and it does n¤t hold at all in a quantum realm. His law of contradiction does n¤t hold in general. Actualized physical patterns of value in a real multiverse commingle, interpenetrate and are actually co-within one another to a greater or lesser extent, in general. His law of an excluded middle does n¤t hold, again, in general for reasons already stated. Yet SOM's delusion goes on. MoQ will bring this delusion to an end during Earth's third millennium.

MoQ on schism - MoQ mends SOM's Subject-Object reality schism by unifying all of SOM's S-Os as SQ. SQ constitutes all actualized reality as a single class called Static Patterns of Value.

return to term list

   Commingle

Definition: commingle* verb

commingled, commingling, commingles verb, intransitive

To become blended.
 
verb, transitive

To cause to blend together; mix.
 

Synonyms - Interpenetrate, Co-within, etc.

SOM: SOM assumes real stuff may be analysed into distinct, separate, individuate 'objective' parts. In SOM, these parts do not commingle or interpenetrate, nor are they co-within one another. Boolean and Aristotelian logics do not work, in general, on parts that commingle and interpenetrate. This conclusion permits aware SOMites to anticipate a collapse of our whole rational foundation of SOM as a premier Western philosophy!

MoQ: MoQ assumes reality composes thus:

  1. All unknown, partially describable, undefinable, unactualized reality, AKA DQ
  2. All known and unknown, actualized reality, AKA SQ

See our Map of a New Reality.

MoQ further assumes that all of DQ commingles, interpenetrates and is co-within SQ. By extension all of SQ may commingle and interpenetrate itself via DQ.

return to term list

   Distributive

Definition: distributive*

Mathematics
Of or relating to a rule that the same product results in multiplication when performed on a set of numbers as when performed on members of the set individually. If a × (b + c) = a × b + a × c, then × is distributive over +.
 

SOM: SOM assumes a single ascertainable truth in an unlimited universal context. SOM assumes de facto Boolean distributive logic. SOM assumes A*(B+C) = A*B+A*C.

MoQ: MoQ assumes many truths and complex quantonic interrelationships among an unlimited number of multiversal comtexts. MoQ subsumes SOM's Boolean logic and also uses other types of n¤n-Boolean, n¤n-distributive logic including:

  • quantum
  • orthomodular
  • gaggle
  • etc.

return to term list

   Ideal

Definition: ideal*

noun
1. A conception of something in its absolute perfection.
2. One that is regarded as a standard or model of perfection or excellence.
Philosophy
adjective
a. Existing as an archetype or pattern, especially as a
    Platonic idea or perception.
b. Of or relating to idealism.
 

SOM: SOM's ideal is absolute truth in a knowable universe where value is an unworthy subspecies of that assumed absolute truth.

MoQ: MoQ's ideal is absolute Quality in a forever changing and thus statically unknowable multiverse where Value reigns over many comtextually relative truths. Truth is a subspecies of Value in MoQ. In MoQ, truths are just one class of emerging and changing Static Patterns of Value. They come in infinite varieties.

MoQ tells us that l¤cally, within very limited and less c¤mplete but more comsistent macroworld comtexts — l¤cal ideal, absolute truth may be approached, but n¤t achieved as a limit. This limited absolute truth is always subject to change imposed by DQ and competing islands of truth in MoQ reality. Truth is always a DQ-changeable Static Pattern of Value.

(Author's note: SOM philosophy delivers bogus statements of fact. By contrast MoQ's Quality delivers emergence and change. As I said above, "Truth talks — Quality walks!" Doug Renselle.)

See our SOM ISMs page on idealism.

return to term list

   Interrelationships

Definition: interrelate* verb, transitive & intransitive
interrelated, interrelating, interrelates

To place in or come into mutual relationship.
 

SOM: In SOM interrelationships are formal, determinate, classic-Boolean-logical, local, definable, known, etc.

In SOM, interrelationships are limited. They may only exist between whole individuated 'objective' parts of larger wholes. SOM's requirement for Boolean logic constrains interrelationships among its parts of wholes. In our Quantonic view, SOM's Boolean requirement derives demonstrably from its underlying presumed philosophy of a subject-object schism.

MoQ: In MoQ, interrelationships are quantonic.

In MoQ, interrelationships are unlimited. SOM's idea of whole objective 'Parts' fades away and we replace it with Pirsig's Static Patterns of Value (SPoVs). In MoQ SPoVs may be co-within other l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal SPoVs, and they may affect other l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal SPoVs with which they are both co-within and n¤t co-within. SPoVs in MoQ are described and affected by both their observable latching into actuality and their unseeable DQ c¤mplements of which there may be an infinity.

We show some n¤n-distributive and other characteristics of quantonic uncertainty interrelationships like this:

  • quanton(comsistent,c¤mplete),
  • quanton(deterministic,n¤ndeterministic),
  • quanton(l¤cal,superluminal),
  • quanton(SQ,DQ); prefer quanton(DQ,SQ),
  • quanton(truth,reality); prefer quanton(reality,truth),
  • quanton(absolute,relative),
  • quanton(particle,wave); prefer quanton(wave,particle),
  • quanton(energy,time),
  • quanton(bandwidth,duration),
  • quanton(timelike,spacelike),
  • etc.

Here we see each pair of terms shares complex combinations of uncertainty, c¤mplementarity, complexity, etc.

See our new pages on Quantonic notation:
Quanton Primer
Quanton Notation
Interrelationship Models

Rev. 20Sep99, added preferred order quantons above. N¤t sure why yet, but it appears useful to place terms more static to right of comma, and terms closer to DQ/n¤nactuality on left of comma. Also, absence of space after comma is significant. It indicates commingling, interpenetration. On 18Sep99 we introduced a new SOM term to distinguish twixt Quantonic interrelationships and classical relationships. We call it a dichon. Here are examples:

  • dichon(true, false),
  • dichon(up, down),
  • dichon(right, wrong),
  • dichon(good, bad),
  • dichon(left, right),
  • dichon(black, white),
  • dichon(true, false),
  • etc.

These are dichotomies based upon classical bivalent thought. Space after comma is significant. It shows SOM's classical, innate, Aristotelian assumption of objective locus, separation, isolability, individuicity, analyticity, etc. Not to be cute, but we could show another type of SOM logic like this: fuzz(true, false). In this case fuzzy logic simply moves us from bivalence to infinite-valued SOM logic. Neither approaches quantum logic's more realistic: islandic, n¤n-distributive omnivalence.  

SOM sees its substance based S-O dichotomy as either/or. Take any adjective in SOM and consider how SOM interprets it: either/or, versus, contradictory, opposite, etc. SOM's dialectic cuts all its language into primitive, bipolar, naive, Church of Reason pairs. SOM disallows any included middle. A SOM 'thing' is either evil or good, right or wrong, black or white, up or down, true or false, etc. SOM is versus thinking. SOM dialectically denies anything can be both good and evil.
End Rev. 20Sep99.

return to term list

   Isolable

Definition: isolable* also isolatable ( Also see our Quantonics remediated isolate.)

adjective
Possible to isolate: isolable viruses.

Synonyms - Separate, Individuate, etc.

SOM: SOM assumes its constituent 'objective' parts are isolable, separate, individuate and characterized by properties each part possesses.

MoQ: MoQ assumes SQ (all SPoVs in actual reality) is n¤n-isolable from DQ. DQ creates and changes all SPoVs in SQ and thus forms interrelationships among all SPoVs in SQ. MoQ assumes both DQ is in SQ and SQ is in DQ.

return to term list

   l¤cal

Definition: l¤cal* ( Also see our Quantonics remediated l¤cal.)

adjective
1. Two def's:
  • Of, relating to, or characteristic of a particular place: a local custom; local slang.
  • Of or relating to a city, town, or district rather than a larger area: state and local government.
2. Not broad or general; not widespread
 

Author's note: in quantum science, we say that l¤cal affects are mediated and that they diminish with distance (i.e., inverse square, et al.). Einstein imposed a requirement that 'local' interactions are limited to light speed, or to say it another way, he told us superluminal interactions are "unreasonable."

SOM: In SOM, constituent 'objective' parts are local, and unaffected by properties of nonlocal parts.

MoQ: In MoQ, l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal are quantons, with quantonic interrelationships, i.e., quanton(l¤cal,n¤nl¤cal). Static Patterns of Value in MoQ have potential affective interrelationships with all of MoQ reality l¤cally and n¤nl¤cally (latter corresponds to action-at-a-distance also called superluminality in quantum science).

return to term list

   N¤nl¤cal

Definition: n¤nl¤cal ( Also see our Quantonics remediated n¤nl¤cal.)

adjective
A good definition here is a quote from Nick Herbert's, Quantum Reality, p. 214, Anchor paperback:
"A nonlocal interaction is, in short, unmediated, unmitigated, and immediate." N¤nl¤cal interactions do not diminish with distance, "They are as potent at a million miles as at a millimeter." N¤nl¤cal interactions are not delayed in time. "Nonlocal influences act instantaneously." N¤nl¤cal interactions are unmediated. "...no amount of interposed matter can shield this interaction."
He tells us n¤nl¤cal interactions are n¤t limited to light speed.

SOM: SOM assumes no action-at-a-distance. Therefore, no nonlocal part may affect any other nonlocal part.

MoQ: MoQ assumes all (i.e., DQ-SQ, SQ-DQ, and SQ-SQ) interactions and interrelationships may be both l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal.

return to term list

   Objective

Definition: objective* ( Also see our Quantonics remediated object.)

adjective
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3. Two sub-def's:
  • Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
  • Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
noun
1. Something that actually exists.
 

SOM: SOM assumes reality divides into no more than two categories, variously known as: substance-nonsubstance, object-subject, matter-mind, etc.

SOM presumes factual, analytic truth flows from unilateral observation of local, isolable properties of local, isolable SOM objects.

SOM presumes its objective realm's complement, its subjective realm, offers no objective properties which one may observe, thus its subjective realm is unclassifiable and offers no objective value.

MoQ: MoQ reality unifies SOM's subjects and objects into a single class of patterns which constitute one of two MoQ categories: Static Quality.

In MoQ use of words 'subjective' and 'objective' only takes users back into SOMland. We try to avoid using these terms except when we are helping SOMites transition into MoQland. Instead of 'subject/object' we call MoQ's constituents of Static Quality, 'Static Patterns of Value (SPoVs).'

MoQ presumes value emerges (mediated by DQ) from interpenetrating, co-within, commingling interrelationships among both quanton(l¤cal,n¤nl¤cal) and quanton(isolable,n¤nisolable) SPoVs.

In MoQ reality, interrelationships among SPoVs are quantonic. Quantonic interrelationships express at least some following: uncertainty, c¤mplementarity, complexity, etc.

return to term list

   Observable

Definition: observable* ( Also see our Quantonics version obsfect.)

adjective
1. Possible to observe: observable phenomena; an observable change in demeanor.
2. Deserving or worthy of note; noteworthy: an observable anniversary.
noun
Physics.
A physical property, such as weight or temperature, that can be observed or measured directly, as distinguished from a quantity, such as work or entropy, that must be derived from observed quantities. (Author note: This is a classical physics definition. It assumes physical objects contain innate objective properties.) See Quantonics' QELR of physics.
 
Thanks to MicroSoft Bookshelf and The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.

SOM: SOM presumes all internal properties of all objects in objective reality are observable in local isolation.

MoQ: MoQ presumes all Static Patterns of Value (SPoVs) in actual reality have potential, comtext-dependent quantonic interrelationships with all other SPoVs co-within and via DQ. When a comtext is chosen for observation of a SPoV its c¤mplement(s) are n¤t observable in that particular comtext, but may be observable in other comtext(s).

return to term list

    *Thanks to MicroSoft Bookshelf and The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms marked * are from these sources.
Arches


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., 1998-2012 — Rev. 27Oct2009  PDR — Created 10Jul1998  PDR
(17Jan2000 rev - Change "Method of Thinking" to "Mode of Thinking." See title.)
(16Nov2000 rev - Add anchor to Don Howard quote at top of page.)
(21Nov2000 rev - Add link to Uncertainty of Consistency and Completeness under 'Absolute.')
(21Nov2000 rev - Add 'n¤nfactorizable' and 'contrafactual definite' to quantum attributes.)
(21Nov2000 rev - Revise & extend Author's note under 'Absolute.')
(23Nov2000 rev - Add 'assess' to note added on previous edit.)
(26Nov2000 rev - Alter title, slightly.)
(26Nov2000 rev - Added comments and links to our list item at top on Boolean logic.)
(29Dec2000 rev - Add many new term to our index of Philosophical Presumptions.)
(16Jan2001 rev - Add link in top page quote to Doug's Bell Theorem Study. Add new list item.)
(25Oct2001 rev - Add four new 'suppositional logic' statements at top of list.)
(25Oct2001 rev - Add recent Quantonics remediations and coined versions to selected terms.)
(11Feb2002 rev - Add our Aug2001 'Cause & Effect' QQA link to our newest list items.)
(11Feb2002 rev - Add top of page frame-breaker.)
(18Feb2002 rev - Remediate quantum comtextual occurrences of '...omplemen...' to '...¤mplemen...')
(18Feb2002 rev - Remediate quantum comtextual occurrences of '...non...' to '...n¤n...')
(3Jul2002 rev - Add C3 link to "Classical suppositional logic denies choice, chance change ontologies.)
(3Jul2002 rev - Adjust table format.
QELR some text. Change MoQ comtextual occurrences of 'concept' to 'meme.')
(4Jul2002 rev - Remove old red highlights from top of page list. Add some new red text there.)
(9Jul2002 rev - Add link to
TaFW in our page top list of problematics.)
(21Jul2002 rev - Change QELR links to A-Z pages.)
(24Jul2002 rev - Add red text SOM logical exemplar of a Heisenberg quote.)
(26Jul2002 rev - Extend our Heisenberg remarks with a Chapter 11 quote.)
(6Aug2002 rev - Repair typo.)
(26Sep2002 rev - Remediate all quantum comtextual occurrences of 'ensemble.')
(25Oct2002 - Repair typo. Remediate all quantum comtextual occurrences of 'animate' to 'ani
hmatæ.')
(3Nov2002 rev - Minor typos/rev's., and add Zeno reference. Add minus where subjective negation example.)
(24Nov2002 rev - Upgrade page top Poisson bracket list item problematic.)
(10Jan2003 rev - Add Zenos_Paradice link under problem list near page top. Add Sheffer stroke paren.)
(31Jan2003 rev - Add anchor to page top item, 'Classical Negation is Radically Formal.')
(31Jan2003 rev - Add 'However,' parenthetical in same item.)
(5Feb2003 rev - Add remediation of 'commutative' link under Boolean Logic is Distributive. Repair typos.)
(30Dec2003 rev - Add 'thingk' link to Heisenberg aside.)
(14Sep2005 rev - Reset legacy red text. Adjust page colors. Add 'processings,' 'science,' and 'truth' links under Heisenberg. Add 'physics' link under 'observable.')
(24Jan2006 rev - Typos.)
(23Mar2006 rev - Change 'equals' sign in our quantum uncertainty 'equation' to 'greater-than-equals.')
(2May2006 rev - Add 'suppositional' link. Respelling.)
(3Jul2007 rev - Reformat. Massive respell.)
(14,25Aug2008 rev - Reformat. Fix page top acronym table width.)
(6,21Dec2008 rev - Add 'omnivalent' link. Add 'Quantum Awareness' anchor. Reset legacy markups. Change some fonts to gifs.)
(2Mar2009 rev - Under 'ideal' add link to 'idealism.')
(7Jun2009 rev - Add red text aside under Heisenberg exemplar.)
(27Oct2009 rev - Fix a smiley.)