Arches

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

---

for Adjunct Quantonic Learning including:

In alphabetical order -

A Beautiful Mind, 459 total pages including index, by Sylvia Nasar, Touchstone, 1998. A biography of John Forbes Nash (1928 - )

Nasar's recent book, now made famous by Ron Howard's movie of same title, fits uniquely within our many Quantonic areas of study. John Nash is a near perfect analogue of William James Sidis, Steppenwolf (Harry Haller), Robert M. Pirsig, Kurt Gödel, and countless other quantum beings who struggle while trying to survive in an ugly classical world. Her book is n¤t a novel. Rather it is a documentary of all her biographical notes about John Forbes Nash. Her notes burgeon, literally. As a researcher, she is superb, and amazingly thorough. Her grasp of most concepts (excepting quantum memes) is superb. Extent of her grasp appears, sadly, limited-classical. We are torn: Whether to review this text. Thoughtfully, instead, we choose to offer this brief note, and intend to comment and quote more extensively in our January, 2002 News. More recently, 9Aug2003, we moved our review of ABM to its own separate web page. Read this book only if you have a deep need to know boundless and endlessly repeating details of John Forbes Nash's sad, sad, sad life. Our (few) brightening moments in A Beautiful Mind occur when we glean quintessence of Nash as a genuine quantum being whose greatest need and desire, like Sidis, Steppenwolf and Phædrus, is to somehow escape classical culture's obscene and objective mental tornado. John Forbes Nash intuits quantum reality, even is quantum real, but his classical training and coerced immersion in fundamental legacy cultural contexts (both academic-scientific and religious) impede his commingling cowithin quantum reality. Onset of Nash's 'insanity' coincides his transcohesion among n¤vel quantum realms — as if he has begun emersing his unlimited quantum c¤mplements — and attempts to pattern-categorize and -interpret them classically. However, as Nash apparently found, and as Henri Louis Bergson warns us, one may not use classical mathematics to classically analyze quantum reality. Doug - 29Jan2002, and 9Aug2003.

A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking, Bantam, 1988
A Pattern Language, by Christopher Alexander, Oxford UP, 1977
10. A PreSocratics Reader, by Patricia Curd (ed.) & Richard D. McKirihan Jr. (tr.), Hackett, 1995 (selected fragments & testimonia; both authors appear to us as SOMitic dialecticians - Doug)
About Time, by Paul Davies, Simon & Schuster, 1995
An Introduction to Metaphysics, by Henri Louis Bergson, GP Putnam, Sons, ~1903-1910
Ancient Greek Philosophy - From Thales To Aristotle, edited by S. Marc Cohen, Patricia Curd, and CDC. Reeve, Hackett, 1995
Available Light, by Clifford Geertz, PUP, 2000 (To us, Quantum Light! We reserve that title for a future Quantonics textbook.)
Chaos, by James Gleick, Penguin Books, 1987

Here is a legacy, 1988, review by Doug when he owned SCS, Inc. and was doing consulting at Magnavox Military Systems in Fort Wayne, IN, USA. As you will be able to see, Doug was much more of a classicist then than now. Some changes have been made since this was originally written. Here are some nifty text extractions from Chaos by James Gleick. These will make it clear to you whether you should invest time in reading it. If you want to be current (c. 1988) in systems theory, this is a must for you. It is easy to read. Here are some flavors: 'Linear systems have an important modular virtue: you can take them apart, and put them together again--the pieces add up [are integrable]. "Nonlinear systems generally cannot be solved and cannot be added together." "Feigenbaum was looking at things...and seeing things that physicists had learned not to see." "Lorenz's paper...Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow" (Clearly today, in 2003, we do not view quantum fractals as DNF! Rather we view them as Nondeterministic Periodic Flow (imagine a faucet dripping, and heart sinus rhythm, etc.). Quantum reality, viewed fractally may n¤t use mechanics to do self-reference. Why? Self-reference today literally means both partheno-self-referencing and other-both-local-and-nonlocal-referencings emerging together due their intrinsic coobsfective quantum included-middles.) Quantum reality is an absolute flux reality. Quantum flux self-refers: it is fractally-recursive. Essence of quantum EIMA. It is quantum sophism at its finest. That quantum sophism is source and agency of what makes fermions wobble and fermionic wobbling is what enables what classicists call 'material reality.' To any classicist such quantum phenomena are referred often as infinite regress ("vicious circle"). Classicists see infinite regress as an evil which must be avoided. We find great humor in that classical conspective. A fascinating correlation here is how classical Copenhagen 'Quantum Theory' is classically mechanical and needs to (as Dirac describes so eloquently) zero h-bar in order to make quantum mechanics classically understandable and formal. Another is Riemann's hypothesis which requires 'infinite regress' to generate (fractal-recursively Planck rate sweep) its fermionic 1/2 critical line. Doug 19Mar2004.   "Topology is geometry on rubber sheets. It concerns the qualitative rather than the quantitative. It asks, if you don't know the measurements, what can you say about overall structure." (These statements are much closer to retaining clarity and meaning in terms of today's quantum think-king modes: "qualitative immeasurability" in face of absolute absence of ideal classical state.) Aside - 29Aug2006: We did not grasp a basic classical vav quantum issue in that bullet item way back in 1988. Topology, classically, is a 'mathematics' which studies systemic similitude and verisimilitude of "shape invariance." Topology shares invalid 'mathematical' notions with Einstein's own relativistic foundational presumption: 'invariant geometric interval.' Quantum reality is absolute flux: Consistent - always changes, and Complete - changes all. Classicists can imagine, delusionally, notions of "invariance," through their mental blindness borne of zeroing h-bar. But quantum reality's absolute flux requires h-bar to run forever at Planck's rate. H-bar's absolute presence makes all these classical notions bogus: zero momentum, stopped frames of reference, shape invariance, geometric interval invariance, stopped pendula, measurement of 'objects' which 'hold still,' measurement of phase at a 'point,' this list of classical bogosity is nearly unlimited, etc. Doug. End aside. "Linking topology and dynamical systems is the possibility of using a shape [form] to help visualize the whole range of behaviors of a system. For a simple system, the shape might be some kind of a curved surface; for a complicated system, a manifold of many dimensions...If you can visualize the shape you can understand the system." (In Quantonics, in 2003, we replace 'shape/form' with emerq and 'dynamical systems' with emerscents.) "Nonlinear systems with real chaos were rarely taught and rarely learned...But people have to know about disorder if they are going to deal with it...Yorke...sent a message to physicists: Chaos is ubiquitous; it is stable; it is structured...Complicated systems can be understood in terms of easy discrete maps... Chaos should be taught...It was time to recognize that the standard education of a scientist gave the wrong impression...it inevitably misled scientists about their overwhelmingly nonlinear world." (Yorke's message holds only for radically mechanical classical systems.) "...Scholz believed that his profession was in a quandry. In truth, no framework existed." Compare this to my statement in the FEB (~1987) letter to Daniel D. Nelson at Magnavox MS that "...the foundations have not been laid." "Fractal descriptions found immediate application in a series of problems connected to the properties of surfaces [contexts] in contact with one another." (Compare Doug's use of context here with his Millennium III uses of quantum comtext.) "Fractal geometry...gives you the mathematical and geometrical tools to describe and make predictions." (Classical y=f(t) predictions are simply impossible in quantum reality! Feigenbaum discovered this when he had to reinitialize, to an earlier backed up date, his set of three weather-predicting nonlinear equations after a power failure. He ran them up to where said power failure occurred and results did not match. That power failure was like a butterfly flapping its wings altering subtly all future Earth weather. But what we know today is that butterfly affect is happening ubiquitously at up to Planck rates, thus making any radically mechanical exact predictions simply impossible. But chaotic scaling was still there! And Feigenbaum found a n¤vel natural con(m)stant: 4.6692...! In a population logistics 'equation' this appears as reductions of generational bifurcation spacings by that con(m)stant. See Hofstadter's GEB and Metamagical Themas for good coverage of this topic.) Re: The intent of Infodynamics (a then new corporation founded by Doug). "...the equations of fluid flow [form] are in many contexts dimensionless, meaning that they apply without regard to scale." This is what Doug has been trying to say. This is Doug's intuition. It implies to Doug that there are standard equations (sets of information) for various classes of form. (This illustrates in spades Doug's then deep immersion in classical mechanics. It can show those of you, Mitch, Alais, Henry, AH, Dan,..., who may think it impossible to climb out of SOM's box, that it can be done.) "And theoretical biologists began to speculate that fractal scaling was not just common but universal in emergent/emerscent morphogenesis." (WOW!!!!) (Today, in 2003, we know that nature is a quantum cohesion of countless sophisms. What are sophisms? Animate self-referent recursions. What animates Nature's quantum sophisms? Planck rate quantum vacuum flux and its subharmonics. How do quantum sophisms self-refer? They are all naturally co-aware via their macroscopic and unlimited quantum probability distribution (we should use ¤mnistrihbuti¤n here) included-middles which we call "everywhere included-middle associativity!" We just described a quantum fractal Nature. More and better WOWs! Astutes, adepts, O'gadons will intuit immediately too that we just described a massive multiversal hologram! Doug - 29Aug2006.) "The structures that provided the key to nonlinear dynamics proved to be fractal." (WOW_WOW!!!) "Something about these functions must be recursive, he realized, self-referential, the behavior of one guided by the behavior of another hidden inside it." (And now we know that "the behavior" of any quanton is n¤nclassical and in itself capable of self-modifying emergence..., i.e., photons, electrons, and atoms both self and other refer..., Dirac, Philip R. Wallace, et al., have shown this self reference is source and agency of quantum interference which 'causes' diffraction patterns of light and dark..., See Wallace's Paradox Lost, and Dirac's The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (below), and see Beams of Stuff...if Wallace wets your whistle search for more on Wallace under Satinover's Quantum Brain) "Universality made the difference between something beautiful and useful...Feigenbaum gave it a clothing that physicists would recognize as a tool for calculating, almost something standard...Universality meant that different systems would behave identically ('identical' is an inappropriate term here; natural/physial sophisms are self-similar in several ways that we know about: co-awareness, coobsfectiveness, up to Planck rate animacy, emerscenture, etc.; see identity; see Aristotle) ... he believed that his theory expressed a natural law about systems..." See our law. "It's a general description of what happens in a large variety of systems when things work on themselves again and again." (This is a superb, classical one-line description of quantum reality. We need to fix its "what happens" causality by changing it to "whatings happenings nextings." We need to change 'things' to quantons. It only needs two more qualifiers: Bergson's 1 - Nature is animate, and 2 - 'objects' in Nature compenetrate one another.) "The only things that can be universal, in a sense, are scaling things...What artists have accomplished is realizing that there's only a small amount of stuff that's important, and then seeing what it was." (a la DNA) (We still, 15 years later, find this quote tantalizing... In particular, what does this mean for quantum uncertainty? Zeno tried to show us ~2500 years ago that what we, today, call "quantum uncertainty," scales...Doug. Quantons and their EIMA semper flux scalings are those small multiversal stuffings which are, for Millennium III, important!) Gleick hints at Ockhamistic minimalism here. That classical notion is invalid in quantum reality. DMD helped us to grasp this in his recent July, 2006 dialogues with us. See our August, 2006 TQS News. Also see our A Quantum Pendulum's simplicity. "Behind the particular, visible shapes of matter must lie ghostly forms serving as invisible templates." (a la DNA; WOW!!!) "'Strange Attractors, Chaotic Behavior, and Information Flow' circulated that year in a preprint edition that eventually reached 1000, the first painstaking effort to weave together information theory and chaos." "Chaos was the creation of information... (WOW, WOW, WOW!!!)...But chaos—deterministic and patterned—pulls the data into visible shapes." (There is n¤ classical determinism in quantum real fractals, only in classical, radically mechanistic, mathematical fractals.) AND FINALLY, REAL RESONANCE: "We were trying to come up with a language to quantify it and describe it, but it still seemed as though everything would have to be treated case-by-case. We saw no way to put systems in classes and write solutions that would be valid for a whole class, as in linear systems. Universality meant finding properties that were exactly the same in quantifiable ways for everything in that class. Predictable properties. That's why it was really important." (This entire quote is mired in deluded SOMitic classicism.) Jump to 23Jan2003 — Of course, now, in retrospect what Gleick was writing about in Chaos is what Doug calls today "classical fractals." Gleick is writing about linear and nonlinear classical mechanics. Most of that is inapplicable in a Bohmian non-mechanical quantum reality.

 

Creative Evolution, by Henri Louis Bergson, Henry Holt & Co., 1911

This book is, in Doug's opinion, mandatory reading for those of you who want to survive an imminent quantum tsunami. To get a quick perusal see our review at link above. Moochos buenoisimo quantum, Pirsigean, Quantonics, etc., perspectives there by Doug.

Charles Renouvier - Philosopher of Liberty, by William Logue, LSU Press, 1993

(Currently (late 2000) all Renouvier's prolific works are available only in French.) Renouvier majorly influenced William James' dramatic conversion from monism to pluralism. James' pluralism affected his growing quantum intuitions which paralleled significantly Bergson's. Doug.

Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead, by Lucien Price, Mentor, 1954, 1st printing, 1956
Early Quantum Electrodynamics - A Source Book, by Arthur I. Miller, CUP, 1994
English Words - from Latin and Greek elements, by Donald M. Ayers, UAP-Tucson, 1986
Fermat's Enigma, by Simon Singh, 1997, Walker and Company

Simply excellent, esp. mathematics' objective dependencies on absolute truth.

Genius, by James Gleick, Vintage, 1992 (Pay attention to Feynman's intuitions re: fermions and 'wobble.')
Grammatical Man, by Jeremy Campbell, Simon & Schuster, 1982.

Nexus to John, ch. 1, v. 1-14 occurred reading this ~1985-7. See The Gold Bug Variations, below. Get that, "You're not alone feeling."

Guidebook to ZMM, by Disanto & Steele, Quill, 1990 (good anecdotes here, ample perspectives)
Homo Faber, by Max Frisch, Harcourt Brace & Co., 1959 (very adult, SOMesque/Randian themes)
I Ching, by Karcher and Ritsema, Barnes & Noble, 1995 (see our Aug99QQA)
In the Beginning, by John Gribbin, Little Brown, 1993
John Buridan on Self-Reference, by G.E. Hughes, CUP, 1982 (A treatise on Buridan's sophisms.)
2. Lila-An Inquiry Into Morals, by Robert M. Pirsig, Bantam, 1991 (see Renselle review at http://www.amazon.com)
Magister Ludi, by Hermann Hesse, Henry Holt & Co., 1943, AKA The Glass Bead Game

1946 Nobel Prize for Literature See our June, 2000 News micro review of this book.

Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, by John von Neumann, Princeton UP, 1955
Matter and Memory, by Henri Louis Bergson, 1908 (Review pending after review of his Time and Free Will.)
Mind, Brain, and the Quantum - The Compound ‘I,’ by Michael Lockwood, Blackwell, 1989
Notes on the Synthesis of Form, by Christopher Alexander, Harvard UP, 1964
On the Interpretation & Philosophical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics, by Anton Zeilinger,

http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/c7/c704/qo/philosop.html (this link is stale; see link directly above)

Order Out of Chaos, by Ilya Prigogine & Isabelle Stengers, Bantam, 1984
Oryx and Crake, by Margaret Atwood, DoubleDay, 2003,

Interesting due Atwood's extreme creativity, imagination, intellect, intuition, and instinct regarding Earth's future. Genius! Our alternate, suggested title might be Disagister Ludi - 'A Look at Corporate Retrophagealism.' Atwood has more ~Celtic succuba in her pen fingers than most authors have, period. Clearly, only Doug's opinion. If you will, please c¤mjur: ~quanton(Atwood,quanton(Hesse,Hemingway)). Also quanton(Soylent_Green,Castalia). Lots of quantum comnections and future bio-product memes. Emphasizes presciently futures of biosciences in quantum-local Earth evolution. She rouses our Geertzian quantum antih-antih too, e.g., on page 284, first full paragraph: "He'd meant well, or at least he hadn't meant ill." Classically, "well" and "ill" are 'exact' predicable 'opposites,' contraria sunt complementa, with SOM's 'excluded-middle' wall ideally 'separating' them. So why does Atwood arbiter such nuance? (As Geertz did, paraphrased, "What does anti anti relativism mean?" A dual: what is minus minus you? What is not not you? What is anti anti you? Anti anti any 'thing?')  We believe she has quantum tendencies. She appears to intuit negation as subjective. Yes! That's it! Atwood has quantum intuitions, like so many other folk we write about here in Quantonics. Her 'not' in "hadn't" is quantum n¤t. But her novel fonts do not yet reflect that aspect of her literary nuance(s). To Atwood, quantum-correctly we believe, 'not' is subjective. To us Atwood correctly assesses SOM's schism as essence of most-all Earth's current negatives and problematics. See large paragraph mid-page 85 of hardbound 1st ed., 379 total pages including Abouts. Our view is that Earth's individuals and societies who believe in (theory) and live in (practice) SOM are generating Babelian objective negations which are self-destructive. Atwood shows us one probabilistic mode of outcomes borne on those negations. However, Atwood's own apparent theory and practice are evolving her away from SOM and toward a more physial reality. How many of us are riding similar actinics of Quantum Lightings? But Atwood isn't there yet. Her cure is, in lieu of quantum individual and social pattern understanding, a pill. She calls it "BlyssPluss!" We can't wait to finish this. How close is Oryx to Orpha? Is Oryx Neo sapiens ne¤ sapiens? Done...Yummm... Atwood's Oryx and Crake quantum-ending: a Schrödinger Cat's Eye. Last time Doug felt like this was after drinking a double sambuca just before bed... not for youngin's... See Victoria Brownsworth's Oryx and Crake review. Aside: Beth and Doug were talking about her book club's potential for reviewing this superb book. While telling Beth about it, Doug had another of those epiphanous flashes from "reserve energy." It occurred to Doug that he had missed a major aspect of what this book is about in terms of Pirsig's MoQ philosophy! Recall that Pirsig's MoQ has four layers: Intellectual (most highly evolved) Societal Biological Inorganic Below his Inorganic layer is what Pirsig calls "chaos." Doug views it as DQ phenomena in quantum isoflux. Above his Intellectual layer Pirsig says is absent, since Intellect is an evolutionary "apex." Many students of Pirsig's MoQ omnisagree, but that is only a technical issue which is fun to debate. For example, if intellect is currently gnostically 'psychic,' AKA dialectical, we are deliriously confident that gn¤stic pneumatic intellect, AKA quantum, lies above it. One of Pirsig's finest examples is one which warns about what happens when Intellect gains its reward of being most evolved and perhaps takes revenge on Society and annihilates it. We, now in retrospect, believe that is just what Atwood describes in this novel! Oryx and Crake describes this happening: Intellectual (most highly evolved) Societal Biological Inorganic Also, we see it starting to cusp in Western societies early in Millennium III. So, Intellect, be forewarned. Change society to become more quantum and less classical, but do not destroy it in y~our own evolutionary processes. Oryx and Crake describes what happens when Biology and Intellect interrelate without Social mediation! Doug, of all people, missed this. Just goes to show how blind we can be even when we are proselytizing others remove their blinders. Touché. End aside. Doug - 5Oct2006.

Paradigms Lost, by John L. Casti, Morrow, 1989
7. Paradox Lost - Image of the Quantum, by Philip R. Wallace, Springer, 1996

Wallace is just superb! Fathomable understanding here. Better is emerging! We are re-nibbling at this text. It is a real joy. Wallace has some classical moments, but mostly his intuitions are quantum. As a teacher, at McGill, he knows how to describe memes to make them easier to grasp and understand. Would that he were our mentor! Doug - 29Oct2002. See our discussions re: Wallace's work in our review of Jeffrey Satinover's The Quantum Brain.

Parallel Universes, by Fred Alan Wolf, Simon & Schuster, 1988
Perfume, by Patrick Süskind, Penguin, ~1992

We read this text first in Spring-Summer, 1993 (while almost totally miserable in hot and humid Plano). It is a novel, a drama, a murder story and an incredibly fun read. We enjoyed it so much we purchased Penguin's 8.5 hour, unabridged audio of it, rendered beyond competently, by Sean Barrett. If you check Amazon's book reviewers you may find some disenchanted folk. Mostly SOMites and dialectical classicists we suspect. Baggott calls them "naive realists," and Jarrett calls them "local relativists." But from a more quantum and MoQite, sophist perspective... If you grew up listening to Green Hornet, Inner Sanctum, Amos & Andy, ??? of the Royal Mounted Canadian Police, The Shadow, Sky King, Herbert Philbrick Counter-Counter Agent, etc., listening to this audio version might bring tingling déjà vus. You may enhance listening to this in a minimally lighted room while sipping a glass of fine brandy or a B&B with strong and buttery Timor espresso. (One of Doug's favorite ways to read and listen. Of course when he did that as an adolescent, it was very hot and strong real chocolate cocoa with marshmallows. :) We recommend Perfume due its protagonist's extreme quantum olfactory senses, his extreme and recursive schizophrenias, his Salvan Powder-like entry into humanity's multiverses, his stindyanicities, his self-exile, his chimeric creations, his... Beware, violet lovers! Süskind's language is quantum even while recognizing languages' comparable ineptnesses to our other, especially olfactory, quantum communications. In Perfume, we find countless examples of general synaesthesia, yet what that is appears to not be described. Grenouille appears to us as a genuine olfactory synaesthete. His world is synaesthetic. He lives synaesthetically. This is profound! That Süskind can pull this off is profounder! Imagine trying to do this as a movie... And Redford thought it would be difficult to do Pirsig's ZMM. Perfume's protagonist (Grenouille; "Grenwee") reminds us in some very specific ways of Hannibal Lecter. His 'memory palace' is more focused but just as bountifully fledged as Lecter's. Grenouille knows "millions of scents." Grenouille, using tacit intuitions and instincts, can entangle, co-here, and co-inside scents optimally for human pleasure and desire and do it better than any other human. Quantum emerscitecture over mechanical method. Nature over form. Quality over quantity. Great humor too, with one character flinging massive quantities of bull semen in his wheat fields to genetically spawn a milk flower chimera from which he makes a goat-like cheese. You may laugh out loud at this queer but scenetic-apropos prose. We did, with great vigor. This whole sequence, subsequent to Grenouille's debut from self-exile, is loaded with supra, almost protoproemial inelegancies. Sought...the G¤d scent... This book, in our quantum landscape, is delectable, scrumptious. Doug - July, 2003 from Oregon...

Philistine and Genius, by Boris Sidis, Moffat Yard & Co., 1911
Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory, by Cushing & McMullin, UNotreDameP, 1989
Philosophy of mathematics - Selected readings, Edited by Paul Benacerraf & Hilary Putnam, CUP, 2nd ed. reprint 1987 (original 1st ed. was 1964)
Physics of Waves, by Elmore and Heald, Dover, 1969
QED, by Richard P. Feynman, PUP, 1985 (Feynman at his best; one foot rooted in classical physics.)
QED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga, by Silvan S. Schweber, PUP, 1994 (Superb Holtonesque history.)
Quantum Chromodynamics, by F. J. Yndurain, Springer-Verlage, 1983
Quantum Chromodynamics, 2nd ed., by Walter Greiner, Stefan Schramm, Eckart Stein, Springer-Verlage, 1994, 2002 (1st glance: just superb!)
Quantum Electrodynamics - 34 Selected Papers, Edited by Julian Schwinger, Dover, 1958 (The papers which founded QED.)
Quantum Mechanics and Experience, by David Z Albert, Harvard UP, 1992
Quantum Reality, by Nick Herbert, Anchor Books, 1985 (See Nick's site for his other books.)
Quantum Theory and Measurement, Ed. By Wheeler & Zurek, Princeton UP, 1983
Quantum Theory, by David Bohm, Dover, 1951
Rudiments of Quantum Theory, by Prof. Dan Thomas at University of Guelph, Canada

http://www.chembio.uoguelph.ca/educmat/chm386/rudiment/RUDIMENT.HTM

Science and Hypothesis, by Henri Poincaré, Dover, 1905(original)
Science and Method, by Henri Poincaré, Antony Rowe, 1914(original)
Scientific Indeterminism and Human Freedom, Henry Margenau, Archabbey Press, 1968
Six Easy Pieces, by Richard P. Feynman, Addison Wesley, 1963
Six Not-So-Easy Pieces, by Richard P. Feynman, Addison Wesley, 1963
Some Problems of Philosophy, by William James (Sidis' godfather and namesake), Bison Books, reprint from 1911 1st ed.
Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics, by J.S. Bell, Cambridge UP, 1987
Stalking the Wild Pendulum, by Itzhak Bentov, Dutton 1977-8, Bantam - 1979

This is a fabulous little book, except... Its subtitle is 'On the Mechanics of Consciousness.' So we see that this text describes a classically mechanical consciousness. Too, and like Einstein and other classicists, Bentov, assumes classical reality is stoppable. So he describes his luscious phenomena in terms of 'stable classical frames of reference,' and 'rest,' and 'zero momenta.' If one takes Bentov's phenomena, and applies Quantonics' n¤n classical hermeneutics, some really fab and dek EIMA experiences emerge. Bentov describes some phenomena which are n¤vel (we haven't used any hallucinogenics or mind-altering drugs except alcohol and coffee) in our realm, so we find this text worthwhile if one keeps in mind its classical (problematic) underpinnings. Bentov's description of a 'wild' pendulum is purely classical. He Feynmanesque entraps his pendulum in a classically ideal ("quantum unreal") frame of reference which may be stopped, "at rest." As such his pendulum swings at their extremes, classically 'stop.' But quantum reality, we aræ k-nowings issi abs¤lute pr¤cess(ings) amd thus unstoppable in any classical sense. Bentov shows his 'wild' pendulum swinging in an ideal, path-self-replicating arc. Well, in quantonics, that view isn't very wild, certainly not wild enough. No such ideal pendulum arc is possible in quantum reality! And certainly said pendulum does not ideally, classically stop at its arc extrema. Assume pendulum's period is one classical temporal second. Just due earth's solar orbit alone, full period repetitions of said pendulum's arc are about 18 miles apart! It should be clear to you that his description of a pendulum's swing "resting" at arc's 'ends' is classically bogus! If you know of Lissajous, (AKA Bowditch curve; Bowditch is author of a superb text called American Practical Navigator which may be purchased for a song through US gov't. printing office; Lissajous patterns classically ~show 'what happens' when quantum reality mixes its absolute flux; classicists have idealized Lissajous, for example, by saying that two decoherent (ideal transverse) sinusoids may be temporally-indefinitely phase identical; that can only happen in quantum reality among coherent and isocoherent fluxes; and by saying that Lissajous patterns may be closed; quantum reality is absolutely open, and as such ideal classical closure of any Lissajous pattern is quantumly impossible - Doug -7Sep2003.), you may be capable of fathoming what a quantum pendulum's swing quantum-actually looks like, except that no classical beginning and ending 'exists' for quantum pendula. Why? Quantum reality is unstoppable, incapable of any classical notion of rest. Rest is a key concept in Bentov's little book. So we have to question any notions he builds upon any 'classically reproduced' notions of rest. Among all classical texts we have read, this one comes closest to approaching a simile of quantonics. If you find it difficult, even impossible (as, for example, Henry Osho does) to understand Quantonics' version of quantum memes and absolutely emerging quantum realities, read this little book. It is purely classical, but offers classical subtleties which may lay ground work for further facultative forays In Quantonics. Bentov's included-middle metaphor is very quantum. It is a great example of what we, in quantonics, mean by quantum included-middle. Bentov calls it "whole spectrum interaction." However, his included-middle is presented as happening in what we call quantum "actuality." Bentov hints at a Steinian ~notion of quantum nonactuality-nonspace, but attaches it classically to actuality. Typical SOMitian behavior. Doug - 3-7Sep2003. (We just started reading this during August, 2003, during our latest retreat in Oregon. Found it on a previous visit in a Depoe Bay, OR used book store. Bentov offers countless memes similar to quantonics, e.g., mechanical versions of: ubiquitous consciousness, spectral energy included-middle, etc. It should be a fun read for classicists, and an instructive, via quantum c¤mplementary c¤mparis¤ns, read for students of Quantonics.) See link above in book title to our other related and much more critical mini~review, A Quantum Pendulum.

Stephen Hawking's Universe, by John Boslough, Quill, 1985
Steppenwolf, by Hermann Hesse, Henry Holt & Co., 1929

Samuel Rosenberg, in his The Come As You Are Masquerade Party, saw many strong resemblances twixt William James Sidis and Harry Haller, Hesse's protagonist in Steppenwolf. Having just finished our own first time pleasurable read of Steppenwolf on 5Aug2001, we agree. Our own heuristics regarding William James Sidis align well Hesse's depiction of Haller. We can list a few examples here for your consideration: Schizophrenia (Hesse: "schizomania," wolf-and-human Harry), which we see as a precursive quantum tell of Neosapiens, i.e., Homo sapiens' next imminent emergence (one example of our Quantonics evidence for this is relentlessly emerging n-somias on all 23 pairs of chromosomes). Connections: WJS - many people thought William, at times, appeared lupine, even lycanthropic; Pirsig - his former pre-annihilation-ECS 'therapy' self he refers "Phaedrus." "Human life is reduced to real suffering, to hell, only when two ages [e.g. paradigms], two cultures and religions overlap." P. 24, Steppenwolf. Hesse shows Haller (as was Sidis) in midst of a culture overlap of Subject-Object Metaphysics (essentially Victorianism) and its successor Cultural Relativism. Please consider how, 100 years later, we are now in another culture overlap of CR and MoQ/quantum. "No prospect was more hateful or distasteful to him than that he should have to go to an office and conform to daily and yearly routine and obey others. He hated all kinds of offices, government or commercial, as he hated death, and his worst nightmare was confinement in barracks. He contrived, often at great sacrifice, to avoid all such predicaments. It was here that his strength and his virtue rested." P. 52, Steppenwolf. This fits WJS to a tee. "He who is developed far beyond the level possible to the bourgeois, he who knows the bliss of meditation no less than the gloomy joys of hatred and self-hatred, he who despises law, virtue and common sense, is nevertheless captive to the bourgeoisie [i.e., middle-classes] and cannot escape it." P. 61, Steppenwolf. Hesse describes a bourgeois as what we call a SOMite, however, in Quantonics all classical thinkers (aristocrats, bourgeoisie, and proletariat) are SOMites regardless of social class status. "If we pause to test the soul of the Steppenwolf [wolf of the steppes; phædrus], we find him distinct from the bourgeois in the higher development of his individuality—" P. 61, Steppenwolf. "Humor has always something bourgeois in it, although the true bourgeois is incapable of understanding it. In its imaginary realm the intricate and many-faceted ideal of all Steppenwolves finds its realization." P. 62, Steppenwolf. Reader, please consider Sam Rosenberg's decoding of Sidis' fine hewn humor and others' inabilities to fathom it. Hesse describes humor's essence as quantum, indeed Hesse describes humor as a quantonic cohesive c¤mplementation (our quantum interpretive spin) of all reality's countless cultural values. E.g., humor is: o quanton(without_renunciation,renounce), o quanton(without_possessing,possess), o quanton(as_though_it_were_not_the_world,live_in_the_world), o etc. Our omniadic fluxors are Hessean quotes from page 63 of Steppenwolf. So now we see, using Hesse's prose, humor is sentient coawareness cowithin quantum reality. See our aside on WJS' complex/quantum humor in Unconscious Intelligence. "...the souls that dwell in [us] are not two, nor five, but countless in number." P. 69. Another Hesse reference to classicists' "schizomania." Quantum humans are, he says, intrinsically schiz¤manic. It is 'normal.' SOMiticism and CTMs detend us into a single 'being' and call all those who are quantum n¤rmal "insane." WJS had countless personalities and moved among them with ease and grace. Indeed, William Sidis is a true and n¤rmal quantum being. "The passing years had stripped me of my calling, my family, my home...I was all the same an utter stranger to this world in all I thought and felt...The pomposity of the sciences, societies, and arts disgusted me...I had paid dearly for it; and at every turn my life was harsher, more difficult, lonely and perilous." P. 78 This is so close to a life analogue of William Sidis! "For the first time I understood Goethe's laughter, the laughter of the immortals. It was a laughter without an object." P. 176. If you read Amy Wallace's The Prodigy well and read Sam Rosenberg's The Come As You Are Masquerade Party, you will know that WJS' laughter was "...the laughter of the immortals." When William pulled a cartoon out of his pocket to show it to you, and then he broke out in roisterous bellows, and then you could not understand what he found so hilarious...William was showing his laughter had no object. Amy tells us this happened over and over and over again. William was not trapped in classicism's detention center of 'normal' singular, 'sane,' 'healthy' mind. To classicists, even his own father Boris, William was "in-sane." William had thousands of personalities, and all of them were outside SOM's OGC/OGT, outside SOM's "one size fits all" mythos. But he could pretend...and so he did. Thanks for reading, Doug - 7Aug2001.

Our brackets inside some of our quotes of Hesse's text.                            

Studies in Subjective Probability, ed. by Henry E. Kyburg, Jr. and Howard E. Smokler, Wiley, 1964; this text is exceptional; reality is quantum subjective!
3. Subjects, Objects, Data, and Values, by Robert M. Pirsig, Einstein-Magritte Conference paper, 1995
Taking the Quantum Leap, by Fred Alan Wolf, Harper & Row, 1981
The Age of Analysis, by Morton White, Mentor, 1955 (Very SOM, except excerpts from Wittgenstein sec's. 65-77 of his PI!)
The Animate and the Inanimate (AIA), by William James Sidis, 1920 (Review pending after our three remaining Bergson reviews.)
The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins, Norton, 1986, 1987, 1996
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, edited by General Editor Robert Audi, CUP, 1995
The Come As You Are Masquerade Party, by Samuel Rosenberg w/Buckminster Fuller foreword, Prentice-Hall, 1970
The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics, by Irving Stein,

Volume 6, of the San Francisco State University Series in Philosophy, Peter Lang Publishing hardbound, 1996

9. The Conscious Universe, by Menas Kafatos & Robert Nadeau, Springer-Verlag, 1990; newer 2000 ed. now available too

This text appears to us as metastatic dyslexia. Both authors describe quantum reality and its profound miracles superbly. Problem is...they are both Bohrian SOMites. As such they keep dragging quantum reality's miracles back into SOM's box. Why? Why do we call them Bohrian SOMites? Why do they keep dragging quantum miracles back into SOM's box? Our answer exposes their book's greatest problematic: Bohrian complementarity! Bohr thought that quantum complementarity's middle is classically "exclusive." That view is pure Aristotelian HyperBoole! In Quantonics, quantum c¤mplementarity's middle is quantum "inclusive." See our brief treatise on two kinds of quantum c¤mplementarity. Also see our Quantonic English Language Remediation of 'complement.' Doug - 19Jan2002. Since we wrote our words above, we have finished chapter 9 of The Conscious Universe (interrupted by our reading of Sylvia Nasar's A Beautiful Mind). We find that, except for Kafatos' and Nadeau's dyslexic views of quantum complementarity as Bohrian "exclusive," we agree, and, most of Quantonics' efforts correspond their works in chapter 9 of TCU. Chapter 9 of TCU really uncloaks their work as narrowly approaching what we would call "Quantonic." If you are like us, and your precious personal times disallow your reading promiscuously, at least consider a careful read of TCU's chapter 9. They wrap up and essentially summarize their entire text in that one chapter. By "careful" we intend that you alternatively consider our "inclusive" version of quantum c¤mplementarity for each occurrence of their use of Bohrian "exclusive" complementarity. If you do, you will find that chapter 9 of TCU aligns extraordinarily well with our efforts in Quantonics. Please, with caveats stated above, consider chapter 9 of The Conscious Universe an essential read for all students of Quantonics. 30Jan2002 - Doug.

The Cosmic Code, by Heinz R. Pagels, Bantam, 1983
The Dancing Wu Li Masters, by Gary Zukav, Quill, 1979

We offer a Quantonic Chautauqua through Zukav's Dancing Wu Li Masters' Bell Theorem Flow Chart here.

The Dreams of Reason, by Heinz R. Pagels, Simon & Schuster, 1988
The End of Science, by John Horgan, Addison Wesley, 1996
The Fabric of Reality, by David Deutsch, Allen Lane, 1997 (also see abbreviated Renselle review at http://www.amazon.com)
The Feynman Lectures on Physics - Volumes I-III, by Feynman Leighton & Sands, Addison Wesley, 1963
The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science, by Errol E. Harris, Humanities Press, 1965, 1st ed.
The Fractal Geometry of Nature, by Benoit B. Mandelbrot, WH Freeman & Co., 1983
The Gold Bug Variations, by Richard Powers, Morrow, 1991. First ed., hardbound, 639 p.

An ascendant book! Your site author read this first time in Sep-Oct, 1991. Title is a take-off on Bach's Goldberg Variations and Poe's The Gold-Bug. Book has a 4x8 codon (i.e. 32 triplets) dedication, Aria (alpha, omega), and 30 chapters (Variations).This book is everything beyond phenomenal. A team of Ph.D.s unravels a mapping of a 64 element table of DNA/RNA codons to amino acids. Powers is one other human I know who made a nexus (p. 568) to John, chapter one, verses 1-14. When you fathom this your 1st time, back of your neck hair stands up. One out-of-park love scene. Connections: Glenn Gould, morals, software, time, cryptology, art, etc. Endless variations on variations. Wonderful! Author Bob Shacochis says Powers is, "...first in a class of one," and "...there isn't a writer today, and not many beyond the pale, who approach the candlepower of this guy." We agree. Powers makes Hofstadter appear naïve. WSJ, 3Sep91 Richard Locke review titled Music and Molecules says, "...wonderful indeed, eminently worth wrestling with, filled to overflowing with now-unburied treasure." Our favorite book of fiction. Powers shows us Value in interrelationships. Why include this book in our recommended reading? Sophism and paradice! Locke quotes Powers, "Ultimately the Goldbergs are about the paradox of variation, preserved divergence, the transition effect inherent in terraced unfolding, the change in nature attendant upon a change in degree. How necessity might arise out of chance. How difference might arise out of more of the same. By the time the delinquent parent aria returns to close out the set, the music is about how variation might ultimately free itself from the instruction that underwrites it, sets it in motion, but nowhere anticipates what might come from experience's trial run." (1Dec2000 rev - Doug note: Few classicists will ever grasp Powers' intueme of emergence as quantum c¤mplementarity, i.e., sophism. It takes minds like Bergson, James, Pirsig, Sidis, and Powers to understand what a pluralist-paralogosist means when s-he says, "classical negation is classically subjective." See Bergson's discussion of this  in his Topic 39 of his Creative Evolution. Consider what enormous philosophical and scientific impact that recognition has for classical thinkers and their CTMs.)   A great Powers Resources link.

The Great Books — 54 Volumes, by various, UCP, 1952 (predominately old, arrogant, classical/SOM, et al., passé philosophical nostrums)
The Greeks, by HDF Kitto, Penguin Books, 1951, 1957
The Holographic Universe, Michael Talbot, Harper Collins then Harper Perennial, 1991 hardback, 1992 paperback
The Illusion of Reality, by Howard L. Resnikoff, Springer-Verlag, 1989
The Improbable Machine, by Jeremy Campbell, Simon & Schuster, 1989
The Magus of the North - J. G. Hamann and the Origins of Modern Irrationalism (read, quantum sophism), by Isaiah Berlin, John Murray Ltd. (Fabulous!)
The Mathematical Experience, by Philip J. Davis & Ruben Hersh, Houghton Mifflin, 1981
The Matter Myth, by Paul Davies and John Gribbin, Simon & Schuster, 1992
The Meaning of Quantum Theory, by Jim Baggott, Oxford UP, 1992

We are just now re-reading Baggott's fine work, and wish to offer some sporadic but Value-able quotes and Quantonics relevant comments: Preface, p. ix - Why did Baggott write this book? "...there is a problem...I needed to know why there is a problem..." Preface, p. x - "It is my opinion, expressed in this book, that quantum theory is philosophy." And, "Beneath the [quantum mechanical] formalism must be an interpretation and the interpretation is pure philosophy." Baggott poses five questions which he answers in this text: (Our bold and brackets.) "Why is quantum theory necessary? "How does it work? "What does it mean? "How can it be tested? "What are the alternatives?" ... P. 8, "Planck was led to the unavoidable conclusion that the finite energy elements e had the form e=hv. The world of physics would never be the same again." Planck's e=hv are packets or what he called "quanta" of energy. Classical physics assumes energy is continuous, not quantal. Baggott's implied Planck usage of 'finite' may carry a physical, materialistic, classically objective tenor. Readers must note that e=hv is physially quantum-n¤nobjective, which is why we show it instead, like this: eqhq•vq where each packet appears in Quantonics script as a better, more realistic quantum anihmatæly EIMA variable and Planck's 'constant' and packet frequency are quantum variables too. When we call quantum n¤mbærs "variable" we mean they do n¤t have ideal quantitative propertyesque objective classical state. Quantum n¤mbærs and thus our quantum-staged symbol(ing)s which represent them are stindyanic and unstoppable! Further (yes Jamal, we use it appropriately), each e packet (e.g., a photon, electron, etc.) has an essentially arbitrary probability distribution in ~Hilbert space. Philip R. Wallace in his Paradox Lost has made that excellent and pedagogic observation which, as a result, implores us to consider each e as a macroscopic quantum phenomenon (which uncloaks essence of our quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality)). This notion offers only a partial explication of Quantonics' denials of any general validity of Aristotle's syllogisms in quantum reality and our frequent uses of our acronym, EIMA. Potential exegeses of memetics underlying our denials are many. But from a Quantonics perspective Planck's thing-king was still classically, wholly, physically objective (as an example his use of a classical equal sign uncloaks his tendentious and proscriptive classicisms; here we use proscriptive in a combination of its ancient etymology and its more modern antinomy: we intend both biased (tendentious) and written before (ancient) in a sense of precluding-banishing (modern proscription of) any evolute successor notations; e.g., "academic disciplinary matrices tendentiously proscribe any quantum-leaping out of SOM's box"; "one paradigm fits all and all contenders banished."). Just prior to that previous quote, on page 8, Baggott says, "In applying Boltzmann's ideas to the theory of black-body radiation, Planck had to assume that the total energy could be split up into a collection of indistinguishable but independent elements (or 'packets'), each with an energy e, which were then statistically distributed over a large number of distinguishable oscillators." Readers may fathom how similar Planck's more quantum and statistically qualitative imaginings are to what we call "quantons." Our complaint with this quote is Baggott's uses of 'indistinguishable' and 'independent.' They smack of very classical notions of 'identity' and lisrability. When said classicists represent such notions in radically formal mathematics we may see results like this: hv - hv = 0, and hv/hv = 1. Of course in classical mathematics ideal zeroes and ones can and do 'exist' for stoppable and conveniently enduring latencies. But in quantum reality n¤ such naïveties can be. Here is an applied example of what we intend. Our point (a very big point) is that we agree with Planck's protoworks and notions, but n¤t their classical form. His quanta come in packets, but n¤ two of them, in general — in quantum reality, are ideally classically 'identical.' Perhaps Baggott's and our most quantum point here is that quantum energy packets are energy "chunk-ensehmbles." "Quanta." Their n¤nclassical energies are frequency and thus wavelength (~reciprocal proportion to frequency) analogies. These chunks of energy are important in QED since they show what quantum qualitative energy(ings) an inbound photon must carry (quantum energy packet) to ensehmble affect (actually coobsfect, and assuredly n¤t cause) an electron in an atom's energy shell to (qualitatively agree to) "quantum jump," "quantum change" to a next level or to 'return' in a H5W-uncertain and qualitative manner (i.e, uncertain when, where, etc. and locally 'quasi-reversibly;' n¤nlocally 'irreversibly') to its 'former' level with a qualitative (n¤t quantitative) 'spontaneous' emission of an analogous photon. A Planck quantum's qualitative (our use of qualitative here is a crucial distinction twixt quantum and classical notions of reality — of course classicists claim our memes are absurd and we are fools for promulgating them ) energy analogy, frequency, offers what physicists call "emission spectra" which are both self-similar and unique for countless atoms and their widely varying energy shell configurations and probabilistic energy distributions. (A utile reference is CRC's Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.) All of this is "quantum-unique" mostly since classicists represent energy as waveform 'amplitude' and 'area' vis-à-vis waveform 'flux.' And classical waveforms are continuous with continuous/smooth/linear variations in energy possibilities. And classical electron shell jumps are (must be, due Newtonian physics) unreally posentropic (locally nonreversible, usually thought due Maxwell's 2nd 'law' of thermodynamics). Quantum jumps are zeroentropic (at least: lossless and '~latency (immeasurable to arbitrary precision with 2003 accoutrements) free'). Baggott says it like this, "Newtonian physics said that energy was continuously variable, and yet the statistical approach seemed to suggest that energy must be 'quantized.'" Page 9. On page 11 Baggott discloses Bohr's major problem with his classical atomic model, "Bohr developed a theory of the atom in which the electrons move around the nucleus in fixed, stable orbits much like the planets orb the sun. In terms of classical physics, such a model is impossible. A charged particle moving in an electrostatic field radiates energy. An orbiting electron would therefore be expected to lose energy continuously, eventually spiraling into the nucleus." However, in quantum reality, an electron is, from a classical mechanical perspective, impossibly a, "perpetual motion machine." Students take serious note here: quantum reality issi a pærpætual m¤ti¤n n¤n-machine. Page 12, "...By fusing this 'impossible' classical mechanical picture with Planck's quantum theory, Bohr was able to argue that only certain orbits are allowed..." Of course any notion of orbits is itself problematic. But that is how classicists see reality. Page 13, "Bohr's idea of stable electron orbits had a further consequence. Transitions between the orbits had to occur in instantaneous 'jumps...'" Hence that popular phrase "quantum leap." All of this, of course, commences a dawning that quantum reality is n¤n classical. That dawning is taking well over a hundred years, however, to shine. To Einstein, a n¤n classical reality is bogus. In 1935, his, Podolsky, and Rosen's EPR paper was supposed to show that. Page 15, "We must be a little careful in our discussion of causality...In quantum theory, the direct link between cause and effect appears to be severed." Baggott's "a little careful" is vastly understated in its astronomical bigness. Few scientists today understand, use, and believe what Baggott just said. Understanding absence of classical causality provides at least partial exegesis for countless quantum-notional phenomena, including: c¤mplementarity, ihncluded-middle, everywhere-ass¤ciativity, entanglement, superluminality, "Bell's ihnequalities," uncertainty, ensehmble heter¤geneity, c¤¤bsfecti¤n, and on and on and on... Page 17, Baggott shows how de Broglie (dee Broy) derived what is now famously known as "the de Broglie" relation. De Broglie said this: e=hv=pc Where e is a least Planck energy quantum, h is Planck's constant, v is frequency (need to discriminate whither spatial vis-à-vis Einsteinian 'light speed' temporal), p is 'linear' momentum, and c is a 'constant' for 'the speed' of light quanta in a 'vacuum.' De Broglie's insight followed this line of thought: v=c/, therefore =h/p Keep on your quantum stagings, that, to any classicist 'classical linear motion' is not quantum flux! But it 'effects' classical frequency! Latter being "the de Broglie relation." is wavelength of a light quantum. Apparently de Broglie used this to suggest that electrons may be diffracted. That is a big deal. It became reality. In about 1997 David E Pritchard at MIT diffracted sodium atoms, and said that we could diffract baseballs and anything else if we only slowed them down enough (exceedingly longer than any meager human life...eons). One might wish to dwell on that thought a while and whither and thither any quantum pr¤cessings like that are happening now and why it is they are n¤t obvious to us. See our Quantum Sensory Bandwidth Perspicacities and Perspicuities. Ponder too whither c above is classically 'absolute' vis-à-vis Poincaréan relative? That is a very large problematic which classicists tend to sweep under any handy, nearby carpet. Recall Einstein's Special Relativity and its classically 'absolute' Cartesian reference frame (i.e., there is only one <0,0,0,0> in 4D). His General Relativity removed it, but made 'light speed' absolute (?) and made "geometrical interval" classically-objectively invariant. Einstein exchanged absolute locus in favor of absolute 'light speed.' (Need to discriminate 'speed' and 'velocity.' Latter integrates conservative Cartesian distance (return to origin is 'no distance;' yes, classically you really stood still), so any velocity with a return to origin is "zero velocity." (dx/dt where dx is ideally, classically, 'zero') Classically 'speed' is average velocity. Notice how quantum reality as e=hv makes much of this Einsteinian twattle "irrelevant" as Dirac has told us. I.e., v and its analogue in e are n¤t classically 'transverse' sinusoidal area. This is why we suggest to you that undefined classical measurables like mass, length, time, and gravity (m, l, t, g) must be re-described (n¤n 'transversely') in terms of quantum flux. De Broglie started and we need to continue that effort following, at least, Bergson's, Dirac's, and Tomonaga's leadership. Only then will we approach capabilities of partially understanding and describing quantum realities' abundant and miraculous phenomena. Baggott then discusses Schrödinger's wave equation and how to derive it. Oversimplified, Schrödinger's work is just too subjective (too quantum) for most physicists. Physicists today, mostly ignore Schrödinger's work — wave mechanics — in favor of more objective, spatial, familiar — matrix mechanics. In our view a Bohmian n¤nmechanical quantum-chimera of Schrödinger's wave mechanics shall reemerge a winner. For our story, as we tell it in Quantonics, Baggott makes a perhaps most imposing intueme: "...quantum numbers...are an intrinsic part of Schrödinger's wave equation and hence, also, of the energies associated with these [wave] functions. The quantization of energy therefore follows from the standing wave condition applied to the [, e.g., an] electron in an atom." Page 24. Our brackets. Why? Quantized quantum reality corresponds what we call "quantum actuality" and Pirsig calls "Static Quality." Pirsig's use of Static corresponds standing portion of "standing waves." Notice how "standing waves" is classically oxymoronic, a paradox, a sophism, Zukavian nonsense, Bohrian subjective, c¤mplementary, and so on... Gives n¤vel semantic head to our seldom used "standingunder," doesn't it? standing_wavesquanton(wavings,standings)quantons(nonquantized,quantized)quantons(nonactuality,actuality) We may choose to grasp and fathom that ideal, naïve classical realism sees only quantum reality's standing part. Without our 'ing.' CTMs for accomplishing this classical feat include 'zeroing' Planck's constant, assuming stoppability ("zero momentum"), mandating immutability to achieve 'absolute' determinism, excluding reality's middle, dissociation of classical objects except for 'mechanical interaction,' etc.   under construction... (We are doing this work so that we may continue our review below of Dirac's The Principles of Quantum Mechanics and Jammer's The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, both so that we may pursue our more distant goal of commencement of understandings of both QED and QCD and their quantum/quantonic interrelationships...we sense there is much classical and thus much problematic with QED and QCD...ultimately, all this comes back to our review of William James Sidis' The Animate and the Inanimate...perhaps you thought we forgot, hmmmm? ) Doug - 2-20Jul2003.

The New Pioneers, by Tom Petzinger-Jr., Simon & Schuster, 1999 (See our review at amazon.)
The Omega Point, by John Gribbin, Bantam, 1988
The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, by Simon Blackburn, Oxford UP, 1994, 1996
The Philosophical Computer, by Patrick Grim, Gary Mar, & Paul St. Denis, Bradford Book MITP, 1998
The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, by Max Jammer, Wiley Interscience, 1 ed., 1974 (See our review of Ch. 8, Quantum Logic)

If you read Pirsig's SODV paper, you know that this is one of Pirsig's reference texts for that paper which Pirsig presented in May-June, 1995 at The Einstein Meets Magritte Conference in Brussels, Belgium.   Just recently we were able to acquire our own personal copy of this fine text for our quantum/MoQ research library.   Though this text is a tad classical it is of great value to us from historical perspectives. Especially, Jammer spends much time on Bohr's own percepts regarding quantum complementarity. That is valuable to us.   Further, as we read, we shall share tidbits from this text with you. As an example, you can see our 21Jun2003 Jammer quotes added to our Zeno's Paradice web page.   We are just perusing now, and will decide how much and whether to review this text at a later date.   Doug - 21Jun2003.

The Physical Principles of Quantum Theory, by Werner Heisenberg, Dover, 1930
6. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, by Paul Adrian Maurice Dirac, 4^th ed., 314 total pages including index, paperback, OxfordUP, 1958. The quantum scientists' bible. Chapter XII is a complete re-write of QED and contains vast similarities to Quantonics. Chapter I offers a good foundation for Quantonics after language remediation. See text below for examples and Dirac's anti-classical quotes.

As soon as we cover essentials of Chapter I 'Superposition' and Chapter XII 'QED' here in our recommended reading, we will move this text to a full and separate review web page where we will review all of Dirac's TPoQM, chapter by chapter, section by section. That process should commence during our return to and extended stay in Oregon starting 1Jul2003. We elevated this book and Philip R. Wallace's Paradox Lost to sixth and seventh places in our recommended reading ahead of three others which we moved to positions 8, 9 and 10. This reading order is an approach among several (Sep2001QQA, How to Become a Student of Quantonics, etc.) we use in assisting students of Quantonics to most efficiently acquire foundations of Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ I) and its parenthood and interrelationships with quantum science's Mechanics of Quanta (MoQ II) and Quantonics' merger and extensions/remediations of both as a combined philosophy/n¤n_mechanical_science of nature. I.e., both MoQ I and nMoQ II together with philosophy interpreted literally as philo-(love-) of sophy(sophism). We have said elsewhere that Dirac was one of our heroes, until we read in Schweber's QED and the Men Who Made It that Dirac did not believe in philosophy as a foundation of science. (See our penultimate paragraph in our September, 2002 News.) Having commenced a reading of this fine text (Dirac's own TPoQM), we re-elevate Dirac to hero status. His words here (with Quantonics English Language Remediation, QELR) are so close to our own views of quantum reality that we have to label him a potential MoQite. He literally denies almost all classical concepts and classical views of reality as "...a very striking and general example of the breakdown of classical mechanics..." Page 3 of TPoQM. We are intentionally not remediating most of this text, yet. We will do that later, so that some of you who are still ~classicists will not be put off by our QELR. In about six months, we will remediate (QELR) this text to make it more Quantonic. In one case, below, we do a side-by-side comparison of Dirac's language vis-à-vis our less dense, less Babelian QELR version of it. Allow us to quote some specifics from 4th ed. and 1st ed. Prefaces and some from Chapter I on Superposition. From Dirac's TPoQM 4th ed. Preface, "In present-day high-energy physics the creation and annihilation of charged particles is a frequent occurrence. A quantum electro-dynamics (QED) which demands [classical] conservation of the number of charged particles is therefore out of touch with physical reality." Our parentheses and brackets. From Dirac's TPoQM 1st ed. Preface, "It has become increasingly evident in recent times, however, that nature works on a different plan...[nature demures her] substratum of which we cannot form a mental picture without introducing [subjective, qualitative] irrelevancies...one should learn to hold [] physical ideas in one's mind without reference to [] mathematical form." Our bold, brackets and also our empty brackets to efface Dirac's thelogos. Weigh Dirac's comments regarding physical (physial/natural/real) ideas (we call them "memes" and "quantons") vis-à-vis mathematically and radically mechanical, anti-memetic "form." Compare your thoughts with Dyson's and Feynman's remarks about Einstein losing his intuitive and creative talents when he stopped doing that. Before we commence quoting Chapter I 'The Principle of Superposition,' we must warn readers that quantum notions of superposition are nontrivial and certainly nonclassical. Begin Quantum Superposition Caveat Aside: One omnifference among classical and quantum notions of superposition we can show like this: Classical superposition is a radically mechanical function of wave amplitudes and phases, while Quantum superposition is analogous EIMA, quantum c¤mplementary wave flux(ings') rates, where waves in both examples are energy proxies, but classical energy is waveform 'area' and quantum energy is flux rate. Intellectual den¤uements of omnifferences among these two notions of superposition are vast in their proportions. Science is still shuddering from their impacts. One den¤uement exemplar offers intellectual potential for "quantum teleportation" within memes of quantum superposition. But under conventional province and "common/normal sense" dogma of classical superposition such notions are deemed "absurd, ludicrous, impossible, unreasonable, nonsense, etc." Indeed, we can meekly unveil nature a tad further while remarking quite confidently that ~all quantum phenomena (all that we know of, e.g., mass, space, time, gravity, OEDC evolution, and their innumerable derivatives like temperature, pressure, velocity, acceleration, momenta, inertia, entropa (Quantonics' coined plural of entropy), etc.) are manifestations of quantum flux rate (and Quantonic animate EIMA interrelationships of quantum flux rates). Too, we can state with a modicum of self-assurance, given our own personal hermeneutics of quantum reality, that ~all cloaked (in Quantonicsese: "n¤nactual") phenomena are manifestations of quantum flux (isoflux) rates. Classical superposition is essentially Fourier summation of wave amplitudes with a result that energy is represented by 2D waveform area and any sum is a holistic linear alteration/modulation of multiple waves to analytically form a single complex waveform, it too being classically analytic. Complex classical waveform summations we often call 'modulated' waves. It is nontrivial to demodulate (Fourier analyze) classically amplitude-summed waveforms, often requiring a nonlinear (e.g., a diode, rectifier, DSP, etc.) function to do so. We can never classically retrieve those exact waveforms which were used to make a classically-superposed combination. We can retrieve/demodulate very close approximations of those waveform addends, however. Quantum superposition is, amazingly to us, n¤namplitude-additive. In classical superposition we represent any wave addend as a rotating vector whose amplitude and phase determine how addends are added together. In quantum superposition we must understand that waveform amplitude and phase are, as Dirac says, paraphrased, "...direction and amplitude are irrelevant." See mid-page 17, Ch. I, Sec. 5 'Mathematical Formulation of the Principle.' Aside - 23Aug2006: We have to be very careful here when we say "amplitude is irrelevant." If we move a packet of energy at some speed (note 'direction irrelevance' of speed vis-à-vis velocity), like a photon moving at speed of light, said photon's energy "rate" is increased by its speed. Theoretically a photon's self~energy despite its 'speed,' can approach Planck's rate, which in a single photon represents nearly boundless energy. Now move that at light speed and its energy increases by ten orders of magnitude. Ponder how many of those it would take to destroy a universe! If we move an atom at some speed, said atom's constituent ensemble rates are increased by their speed. Now, do we want to call 'speed' "amplitude?" Usually we do not think that way. Quantumly ensemble flux rate 'intensity' memes displace classical notions of amplitude. See Philip R. Wallace's Paradox Lost. What about loudspeakers? They rapidly, via 'sound amplitude,' increase and decrease speeds (flux rates) of atoms and molecules in air. So energy of air is increased by ensemble increases in atoms and molecules constituent flux rates. Here we have to view 'amplitude' as ensemble flux rate change. But we can fathom that ensemble flux rate embodies what we mean by 'energy' and 'power,' n¤t amplitude. Classical amplitude is merely a naïve proxy for energy, eidetically, ad oculos. During July-September, 2007 Doug has done considerably more work on issues of sound energy here. Use that to extend comments above. Doug - 24Sep2007. Doug - 23Aug2006. What made Doug think about this was watching Myth Busters turn a diesel Mercedes into a 51" speaker which was able to produce 161 db of pressure at about 30 Hz prior to self-destructing. MOAB (10 tons of high explosive) does something similar as a huge loudspeaker! Decibels (pressure wave hemispherical intensity and speed) in that case, roughly, are approaching three orders of magnitude! End aside. Further, as any prism can show, mixtures of light frequency spectra are easily uncloaked by flux rate, n¤t amplitude n¤r phase. As Philip R. Wallace tells us "intensity" of light is an ensemble of photons. Greater ensemble is greater "intensity." Individual photon energies are flux rate (not classical amplitude) relevant. Photon packets energy 'levels' are quantized. And further, in quantum reality, from a perspective of quantum superposition, red, blue and green are red, blue and green regardless their amplitudes and phases. (Any photon's intrinsic flux rate is an inverse of its wavelength lambda. Any photon's flux rate at light speed (or any other specific speed) is light_speed divided by lambda and is much higher. You can see this aspect of light at our Quantum Sensory Bandwidth Perspicacities and Perspicuities. Try an interesting exercise: show why 'mixtures' (superpositions) of similar intensity 'levels' of red, blue and green quantum photons produce ~white light. What happens when you collimate this quantum superposition and shine it through a prism? Why? How? Imagine our collimator moving synchronously at light speed with our superposed light. What is happening? Just below light speed?) In Quantonics we have yet to understand how and why classical amplitude (quanta have intensity) and phase (lasers, BECs, tsunamis, solitons, quatrocoherency, etc.) are irrelevant to quantum superposition. I.e., to grasp and fathom; e.g., an exemplar which appears to us to disagree with Dirac's statement is a meme of quantum dispersion which requires directions attending quantum 'numbered' flux and their s, probably due in this case absence of quantum superposition in quantum dispersion. For us, notions of quantum superposition have yet to become an inured c¤mplement of our current intuitions, except that we have been treating our quanton symbols intuitively that way (which we currently also do not wholly understand). We wonder whether our lack of quantum superposition intuition is just another artifact of our human tendencies toward CTMs. Our instincts warn us that Dirac's classical mathematics played a large and problematic role in his conclusions about amplitude and phase irrelevancies in quantum superposition. We shall share our experiences with you when we believe we are on a journey of understanding quantum superposition. To be sure, quantum superposition is full of miracles and epiphanies (e.g., rainbows, atomic spectra, quantum interference, quantum superluminal correlations (J. S. Bell, Friedman-Clauser, Gisin-Zeilinger, et al.), quantum coherence/condensation/solitonicity/etc., quantum 'material' diffraction, and so on...) beyond any "dark switch on," "stay in SOM's cave/mythos," blindered classical notions of superposition. Dirac's "...direction and amplitude are irrelevant" edict explains one Quantonics enigma some of you may have noticed. We usually show our quanton symbols with circle c¤mplements of like diameters. When we show other circle diameters, we only use them as wavelength and quantum flux/isoflux proxies, n¤t as classical amplitudinal 'numeric' scalar metrics. We will spend much more effort on this topic during our reviews of subsequent sections of this chapter. It is important for you to know that some quantum scientists do not agree with much of what Dirac says here. We often disagree too, but for reasons much omnifferent those of some other, especially those more classical, 'quantum' scientists. As an example, Dirac is what quantum specialists call a "mathematical physicist." In Quantonics, we view classical mathematics as problematic (Dirac explains his keen awareness of mathematics' physical think-king vis-à-vis logical thing-king limitations. See our emboldened text above under our quotes of his first edition preface.) in any attempts to portray quantum reality. Most often we find trouble with Dirac's work, even though he assiduously adheres 'physical' quantum experimental results, when he tries to use those maths to trap quantum reality in SOM's box. However, to us, Dirac's more rhetorical prose is, when animated on our quantum stages, beautifully quantum real, especially when his rhetoric is Planck rate spun using our own QELR. He only has real omnifficulties when he attempts to imprison his animate prose in state-ic maths' detention centers of classical thought. For some of you, our Quantonics work is too hot to touch. Our Planck rate spin on quantum reality is just too fast for many others' sensibilities and percepts. Fine. Just like any radio or TV, you can always just turn us off...surf out of quantonics. Mayhaps as our favorite little philosopher, Rose is Rose's Pasquale might say, averse his own philosophy, "Mom, please turn d'dark switch on." End Quantum Superposition Caveat Aside - 4-7Apr2003 - Doug. Quantum superposition has been called, due its classical amplitude-phase irrelevancies, "...action without reaction." See Robert S. Fritzius. Readers and students of Quantonics should note how quantum superposition's phenomena are radically nonmechanical. Any quantum notions of "action without reaction" defy classical, e.g., Newtonian/Aristotelian, 'laws' of reality. And there is much more to it than that. Indeed, we are still and yet beginning to grasp quantum reality's many vast manifestations of superposition as they relate coherence, uncertainty, energy quantization, probability and probability distributions, and so on... Quantum Hesse HotMeme™ ••• Laughter... ei ...of the Gods ••• HotMeme™ Let's continue with our review of TPoQM's chapter I, where Dirac assists us, using quantum superposition as an exemplar, in answering one of science's most challenging questions, "Do classical mechanics adequately describe quantum reality?" From p. 1, Ch. I, "The necessity for a departure from classical mechanics is clearly shown by experimental results..there exist general principles of classical mechanics...leading to results in direct disagreement with observation." Our italics on Dirac's thelogos. Readers may want to make a worthwhile observation here. Dirac said "...departure from classical mechanics..." He did not say "...departure from mechanics..." It is worthwhile since, in Quantonics we agree with David Bohm that nature is not mechanical, and thus we need, as Bohm recognized, not a new quantum mechanics, rather we need a novel quantum non mechanics of reality. Doug - 17Apr2003. Our reading of Dirac's TPoQM offers us opportunity to share one of our recent novel quantum epiphanies. For some time we have been pondering related issues of entropy, entropy gradients, reversibility, Mae-wan Ho's description of mammalian limb flexure absent nearly any thermalized energy transfer, Rolf Landauer's (IBM fellow; deceased) use of macroscopic quantum reversibility in dense RAMs to prevent extreme energy consumption and ultimate meltdown, reversible macroscopic processes like Bénard convection etc., perpetual motion of photons, electrons, and protons, and so on... Now we believe we are beginning to see some light. Allow us to describe what happened... One of our pass times is thinking physially (i..e, not symbolically nor mathematically) how gravity can be a spin 2 quantum superluminal (i.e., time independent) phenomenon and how that relates to classical light speed vis-à-vis ether, plus isospin (QVF), spin 0, spin 1, and spin 1/2 and how all that relates to Riemann's Hypothesis (RH). So...we decided to start over... Back to Physics 101. Ugh! How can a process be reversible? Why do reversible processes not manifest entropy gradients? Do you know? We grabbed our University Physics text by Sears and Zemansky, 3rd ed., 1964, Addison-Wesley. Prior to Quantonics we worked as Controls Director for a Fortune 200 diesel engine manufacturer. One good result of that experience is that we learned that to make any engine more efficient we have to prevent heat loss to its environment. 15 litre diesel engines, at their best, are only about 53% efficient. I.e., 53% of combustion energy turns its prop shaft. All other energy is lost to an engine's environment through radiation, exhaust, friction, etc. If we could build a diesel engine which lost no energy, thus is 100% efficient, we would call it "adiabatic." Answer to "Do you know:" we may think of reversible process as almost adiabatic. Perfect adiabatic processes transform all process energy into useful work without loss. We call these processes "zero entropy" processes. Why? They have no measurable thermalized heat gradients. On page 416 of Sears and Zemansky we read something very important, "...flow of heat is a fairly slow process, so that any process performed quickly enough will be practically adiabatic." For us that is quantum epiphany! Adiabaticity increases roughly with flux rate (we suspect ~hyperbolically; nexus - see Mae-wan Ho's the Rainbow and the Worm). We might anticipate zero entropy-gradient adiabaticity for any process running at Planck's frequency. Too, we might anticipate nearly-zero entropy-gradient adiabaticity at a wide range of Planck rate sub-harmonics. How can photons travel huge distances in apparent perpetual motion? Quantum apparent adiabaticity due any photon's own Planck harmonic flux interrelationships with QVF, essentially very rapidly borrowing, iteratively, of energy from QVF to keep moving "zero entropically" at light speed through isospace. (In a physial sense, this is what photonic bosons do.) Now we are set-up for and prepared to quote Dirac on mid-page 2 of Ch. I of his TPoQM. "In fact the observed specific heats at ordinary temperatures are given fairly well by a theory that takes into account merely the motion of each atom as a whole and assigns no internal motion to it at all...This leads us to a new clash between classical mechanics and the results of experiment. There must certainly be some internal motion in an atom to account for its spectrum, but the internal degrees of freedom, for some classically inexplicable reason do not contribute to specific heat." (Students of Quantonics, try removing Dirac's thelogos. What happens to his semantics when you do that? Note that it isn't easy to do for his "the motion." That 'the' isn't simply wasted, due classicists' presumption of unitemporal motion. If we assume motion is absolute EIMA heterogeneous quantum flux, then that 'the' is wasted.) Our heuristic conviction is that quantum quasi-Planck rate flux apparent adiabaticity explains what Dirac sees as problematic. It is important for students of Quantonics to intuit how our animate Planck Quanton attempts to show presence of flux-apparent adiabaticity and reversible-energy-borrowing from QVF. On page 3, Dirac broaches classical reductionist Einsteinian relativity without acknowledging that he is doing so. We find this text simply incredible, and are unsure whether we agree, "So long as big and small are merely relative concepts, it is no help to explain the big in terms of the small [Poincaré made this point ~100 years ago. Poincaréan relativity is dissimilar Einsteinian relativity.]. It is therefore necessary to modify classical ideas in such a way as to give absolute meaning to size." Our brackets. We need to ponder deeply Dirac's "...give absolute meaning to size." At first blush it appears as just another naïve classical trick. We see reality as relative, but n¤t based upon Einstein's assumptions of a space-time identity with space and time as magnitudinal homogeneous spatial and unitemporal extensities. (Many, plural) Relativities in our view phenomenally OEDC heterogeneously in durational EIMA quantum-real absolute flux interrelationships (i.e., mostly superposing "action without reaction," and with some interfering "action with reaction" quantum interrelationships). Next page 3 paragraph, "At this stage it becomes important to remember that science is concerned only with observable things and that we can observe an object only by letting it interact with some outside influence." Our bold violet classical problematics. Those classical problematics innately invalidate any 'science' that adopts them. Why? Quantum reality is n¤t objective, n¤r is it entirely, n¤r unilaterally observable. N¤r is quantum reality classically 'dichotomously' inside vis-à-vis outside lisr! On page 4 Dirac's genius re-erupts, "...we must revise our ideas of causality. Causality applies only to a system which is left undisturbed." Our interpretation of what Dirac just said is that there is n¤ classical causality in quantum reality. Why? Quantum absolute semper flux changes all and always changes. Thus n¤ actual system is ever left "undisturbed." And, indeed, that is just what we observe in our own Millennium III notions of reality. Reality offers us n¤ notions of classical 'zer¤ momentum.' N¤ classical 'reference frame' has 'zer¤ momentum,' n¤r may it have/acquire by any means 'zer¤ momentum.' Crux: there is n¤ classical causality in quantum reality. (There are classical apparitions of causality (rocks, classical sinusoidal 'orbits,' classical self-delusions of unicontextual 'repeatability,' etc.) which classicists interpret as absolute, radically mechanical 'causality.' See OGC and OGT regarding our usage here of "unicontextual.") On page 5 and beginning of page 6 Dirac offers us an experiment which uncloaks one of quantum reality's greatest mysteries. You need to read these pages yourself. We cann¤t wholly reproduce them here. Essentially his gedankenment uses (classically presumed) 'repeatable' single photon