Return to Previous Page                                               Arches

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

the Rainbow and the Worm

My perspective of Mae-Wan Ho’s the Rainbow and the Worm,
1993, World Scientific paperback, 184 pages. -
22-24June1998 (latest rev - 3Mar2011 - Latest Change and test rev is here.)
Doug Renselle

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho — "undoubtedly the most important writer today in the controversial field of biotechnology" - The Ecologist, August 1997.
To you reader: This is our first book where an author unwittingly conjoins both Pirsigean and Quantum multiverses, and does it wholesomely from a clean, fresh quantum-biological perspective. As others, Mae-Wan Ho demotes classical science and its concomitant Subject-Object Metaphysics (SOM) in her process. For us, this is pure affirmation of Pirsig's and our work. This is not an easy book for those with closed, SOM-like mindsets.
I apologize in advance for any choppiness and length of this review. Both are by necessity (her book is compact but dense). This review is not in a casual (easy to read) form of other reviews you may have perused on this site.
Some material is nearly cutting edge and difficult. Some is just review to build foundation for startling results you encounter later. Keep your mind open and read through some technically difficult parts. Allow your mind to be a sponge and soak it all in, even that which you may think is too tough for you. Enjoy many rewards, many new insights, and an expanded view of reality.
Mae-Wan Ho's book offers you a new perspective of life and life's process. Most of us in Western culture are brain-washed into a one-life centric maxim. This book gives you a quantum perspective of life and supports your and our conjecture that life is forever changing and unending. Our current static pattern of being which we experience for fewer than 100 Earth years is but one coherent phase transition of a never-ending process. We do not die in a classical sense. We endlessly transform. In some cogent terms of Pirsig's MoQ metaphor, we flux twixt DQ and SQ. Really!
From a reviewer's perspective this book is incredible, marvelous...all superlatives rolled into one. Why? Because her book makes cogent points promulgated by our prime Quantonics meme: our new quantum science is a dual of Robert M. Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ). Without saying those particular words, and apparently without any knowledge of Pirsig's work and others' efforts to show a MoQ-Quantum Science duality, Mae-Wan Ho makes her point for us over and over again.
Her book's subtitle is, 'The Physics of Organisms.'
Our author, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, dumps all regard for any reader's classical predilections. From her perspective classical science is passé and she makes that view unambiguous in quotes like this: "But we no longer live in an age of mechanical determinism." p. 2, and "...a Newtonian mechanical view of organisms...has proved thoroughly inadequate to account for life." p. 3.
At this point you may be saying to yourself, "Why did Doug write this review? What is in this for me?" OK, let me electrify you with a few more direct quotes from her book. If these grab you, you probably want to finish our review:
Skip science - go directly to rhetoric? "That would have defeated one of the main purposes of this work, which is to show how science can reveal in a precise way the deeper wonders and mysteries of nature which are currently in danger of being totally obscured by the kind of superficial woolly misrepresentation that many people, especially the young mistake to be 'new age philosophy.'" p. viii.
Science: "It is to initiate us fully into the poetry that is the soul of nature, the poetry that is ultimately always beyond what theories or words say." p. viii.
Contemporary biology lab technique: "...the typical way to study living organisms is to kill and fix them, or smash them up into pieces until nothing is left of the organization..." p. 3. Now does that sound like good old classical SOM, or what?
Are we teaching people how to think in a new, better way? "Our education already suffers from a surfeit of facile, simplistic answers which serve to explain away the phenomena, and hence to deaden the imagination and dull the intellect." p. 4. How's that for an indictment of today's Western classical SOM education system?
The Lila dance? Science is " adventure of the free, inquiring spirit...the enigmas, the mysteries and paradoxes that take hold of the imagination, leading it on the most exquisite dance." p. 5.
Life: " is a process of being an organizing whole...a process and not a thing, nor a property of a material thing or structure."
If that does not hook you, then retroreflect...get back to your decohering SOM. Or, better yet, see an extended list of quotes with the reviewer's comments. (See 29Mar2000 rev's. titled 29Mar00 note; see 17May99 revisions titled New note at this link.)
She starts out by telling us what life is and how our current ways of thinking about life are manifestly weak. Life activities we take for granted, like moving one's arm, cannot be explained by classical science. Chemical processes and signaling require non-local and superluminal communication to work. Any muscle-moving or other coherent biological process is nearly 100% efficient. Only quantum science can explain this innate biological capability living systems possess.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho spends her first two brief chapters on problems of classical thermodynamics theory and shows its inadequacy in explaining living system processes. (If you are a non-technical person, her first few chapters are tough going. But don't give up! There are gems in here which you will grasp, and they are worthy of your effort. She saved best for last. You need her foundational concepts, however roughly you gather them, to see her brilliant actin of light building in the later chapters.)
In chapter three, she shows us how classical thermodynamics is about inefficient bulk phase transfer of thermalized (heat) energy among macroscopic entities. In comparison, living systems are ensembles of quantum systems whose activities are nearly 100% efficient, and coordinated over large distances, instantaneously [Said instantaneity implies ideal adiabaticity! Doug - 19Jun2005] via the metaphysics of quantum coherence.
(It became clear to your reviewer distributed living tissue systems may replace vehicle-monolithic high-torque, reciprocating internal combustion positive torque sources sooner than we think.)
To aid your understanding of coherent behavior she spends chapter four showing you real world examples of transitions to and from coherent macro behavior of systems. She explains why coherence is so important for you to understand. Coherent systems: "...despite large fluxes of materials and chemical transformations in the system, the net change in entropy of the system is zero...entropy does not accumulate in the system...provided the cycles are [coherent]."
Cycling coherent systems are manifestations of the underlying quantum nature of our reality.
She describes her cycles much as we do in Reality Loops I & II. To our delight, she shows a picture on page 48 which shows a natural ecological cycle in a form nearly identical to ours. Water and carbon dioxide create and discreate in a (h-bar granular) photon-driven loop to-from carbohydrates and oxygen.
She tells us, "The coupling can be so perfect that the efficiency of energy transfer is close to 100%." And, "Coupled cycles are the ultimate wisdom of nature." p. 49.
In chapter five, she quotes Schrödinger's famous statement about life. Curiously, after careful re-reading of Schrödinger's remarks in a context of Pirsig's MoQ you see new light. You see a new connection to Pirsig which was not there before.
Remember, Schrödinger and his pals were pioneering quantum science in 20th century's first quarter. They carried even more SOM baggage than we do today. It was very difficult for them to deal with intricate and ironic concepts like free energy (their philosophical choices were only Subject and Object, and free energy which, in SOM, is a subjective concept). However, if we substitute Dynamic Quality for those words in her Schrödinger quote about life we get something that makes enormous sense:

'It is by avoiding the rapid decay into the inert state of equilibrium that an organism appears so enigmatic...What an organism feeds upon is [Dynamic Quality]. Or, to put it less paradoxically, the essential thing in metabolism is that the organism succeeds in freeing itself from all the [Static Quality] it cannot help producing while alive.' (The reviewer substituted DQ for negentropy and SQ for entropy.)

This almost exactly paraphrases Pirsig. Life organisms (SQ) need to latch and temporarily free themselves from DQ, but they also need (to feed on) DQ to change, emerge, grow, and survive. Again, a Lila dance, stated from a slightly different viewpoint by Schrödinger himself. Schrödinger's view also shows SQ in commingling interrelationships with DQ.
At end of chapter five, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho says we need an extended thermodynamics which allows for, " systems [that] contain isothermal equilibrium machines, non-equilibrium machines, [and] quantum molecular machines." Why? Living systems are not classical thermodynamic engines.
In chapter six, she describes music nature composes for its Lila dance. It is a wide ranging score. Nature's known electromagnetic spectrum ranges from wavelengths of <10^-14 meters on its short end to >10^8 meters on its long end, a span of >10^22. This span corresponds to >2^73 frequency doublings or octaves. Nature's musical score for her Lila dance spans at least 73 octaves!
In order to dance, she shows us Dynamic Quality latches Static Quality patterns of both particles and waves, as conjectured by Prince Louis de Broglie (say de Broy) in 1924, and shown experimentally many times since. Not only that, but particles and waves are complementary to one another, and their SQ duality remains complementary to DQ. So nature's dance partners are SQ in interrelationships with SQ, and SQ in interrelationships with DQ, just like Pirsig's MoQ! This dance, conducted to nature's 73 octaves of music, produces a reality we know. And as you can see again, it is not an objective reality. It is a wave-particle reality, a quantum reality. SOM objects cannot dance nature's Lila dance!
In chapter seven, music for Lila's dance plays on as Mae-Wan introduces us to concepts of living systems' non-equilibrium phase transitions and quantum coherence across all of nature's musical score. She says, "What we must imagine is an incredible hive of activity at every level of magnification in the organism - of music being made using perhaps two thirds of the 73 octaves of the electromagnetic spectrum - locally appearing as though completely chaotic, and yet perfectly coordinated as a whole. This exquisite music is played in endless variations subject to our changes of mood and physiology, each organism and species with its own repertoire." p. 92.
Coherent behavior in living systems account for these recognizable characteristics (p. 92):
  1. long range order
  2. long range coordination
  3. rapid energy transfer
  4. efficient energy transfer
  5. extreme sensitivity to specific signals
We can see some effects of quantum coherence in oar synchronicity of long boat racing, synchronized swimming, grebes mating, pleasure of music and other stimuli that resonate with our being, etc.
She tells us, "The idea of coherence is so foreign to most Western-trained scientists that there is a lot of resistance to it from the mainstream. It is easy to blame this just on the reductionistic tendencies of Western science for which cooperativity and coherence are anathemas." p. 93. But she also sees it is more of a problem methodologically than just reductionism. There is the "violence of homogenization."
SOM's mindset, ever so prominent during 1960s (and still so today), taught biologists that a cell is just a bag of enzymes awaiting a cuisinart and 100k g centrifuge. So much for destructive testing and analysis. This is SOM, pure and simple. Brain dead, facile, inept. She tells us, "On account of their important role in metabolism, much of biochemistry is given over to the study of the mechanism of enzyme action in vitro, [objectively in glass,] although how they actually work in vivo, [subjectively] within the cell is still a mystery." She goes on to describe objective violence SOM biologists do to cellular contents in order to overcome obstacles of a subjective cell itself. More simile to MoQ.
Living systems' cell structures are extraordinarily complex and coherent. They cannot be studied effectively through SOM's myopic lens of objectivity. A cell's structure is a quantum system composite which must be studied whole, non-invasively, and non-destructively. Also, we have a great deal of trouble using our SOM language to describe and explain quantum organization and behavior of living structures.
" make a more general point about the scourge of the language we have to communicate in. If we let this language dominate our thoughts, as some philosophers seem to believe we must, it will surely reduce us all to idiots who take everything literally. Actually, we never take anything just literally, even in ordinary discourse. If we did, we would not only lose all the meaning behind the words, but also the unfathomable magic."
As we recall Niels Bohr understood well this problem of language Mae-Wan intuits.
She goes on to tell us we must not only change how we work, how we think, and how we use language, but we must also begin to see living systems' foundations as coherent electrodynamic fields underlying all living organization. Coherent fields are necessary to all recognizable characteristics listed above.
In chapter eight she shows us how we can recognize coherence in living systems. Already we mentioned characteristics listed above, and here she adds: frequency coupling in coherent modes, and coherent fluctuationless functioning of entire populations of molecules.
"There is as yet no direct evidence organisms are coherent, although there are already signs of it from many areas of biological research. Part of the difficulty is that we do not yet know what we should be looking for...Another difficulty is...until quite recently, there have been very few experiments set up to observe a living system...Biology has a long tradition of fixing, pinning, clamping, pressing, pulping, homogenizing, extracting and fractionating; all of which has given rise to, and reinforced, a static and atomistic view of the organism. It is no wonder that most biologists still find it difficult to even think of coherence, let alone contemplate how to go about investigating it." p. 111. She gives much inferred evidence for coherence in living systems.
[Cell death: see bold green text below...Doug.] In chapter nine she exposes new turf. She tells us biophoton emission is universal to living systems. We all emit light, but at levels usually below bioluminescence. Given some type of energy input, a living system will increase its biophoton output. What is interesting here is a living system's distribution of output biophotons over time. Its distribution is hyperbolic. It is a unique kind of stimulated emission distribution. Its hyperbolic distribution is a sufficient condition for a coherent light field! "What this implies is that photons are held in a coherent form in the organism, and when stimulated, they are emitted coherently, like a very weak, multimode laser." p. 124.
This result leads to conjecture, "...the living system is one coherent 'photon field' which is bound to living matter...As will be made clear in the description of quantum coherence in the next chapter, coherence does not mean uniformity, or that every part of the organism must be doing the same thing or vibrating with the same frequencies. There can indeed be domains of local autonomy such as those that we know [do] exist in the organism...some parts of the system are temporarily decoupled from the whole." p. 126. Sound like MoQ's many contexts and many truths?
Sometimes this decoupling can be of a negative sort. E.g., cancer cells in any living system will decouple from a coherent field and as a result emit (lose) extra biophotons to an environment. "While normal cells emit less light with increasing cell density, malignant cells show an exponential increase in light emission with increasing cell density...The difference between cancer cells and normal cells may lie in their communicative capability which in turn depends on their degree of coherence." p. 127. Star Trek's images of a physician scanning one's body leaps to mind. We will be able to detect this anomalous increased emission in our futures as a diagnostic aid.
In a healthy system where broad band coherence is maintained, biophotonic energy transduction is efficiently coupled and kept within a system and very few biophotons are emitted and lost to an environment. Photons are coherently trapped or stored co-within a system.
"In connection with the trapping or storage of photons, it has been observed that death in organisms invariably begins with a sharp increase in the intensity of light emission (1000x) which can persist undiminished for more than 48 hours." p. 135.
Your reviewer speculates here. From an MoQ perspective this is discreation of SQ back into DQ. It is transformation, decoherent (mixed) to coherent (pure) phase transition from SQ to DQ. This shows a transformation of static living systems back into their pure source: DQ. DQ is an isotropic-omnicoherent-omniflux-equivalent-complement of a latched (mixed) decoherent particle equivalent SQ.
"The above phenomena of light emission from living organisms are so unusual that they would certainly be dismissed as curiosities or artifacts were it not for the existence of a general theory of coherence in biological systems within which these phenomena could begin to be understood. There is another deeper reason why new theories in general are important for science: they direct us to new observations which may very well not be made otherwise...All of the most recent discoveries in my laboratory have been inspired by the theory of coherence; in particular, I am very interested in the role played by coherence in body pattern determination..." pp. 135-6.
In chapter 10, she continues her unintended affirmation of an MoQ (parent) philosophy and quantum (child) science duality. In our following quote dualities for each MoQ term are shown in brackets immediately after Mae-Wan Ho's equivalent quantum science terms:
"The fundamental picture of a particle [Static Pattern of Value, SPoV] in quantum mechanics is that all alternative possibilities open to the system co-exist in a 'pure state' [Dynamic Quality] rather than a mixture of states until the instant when we observe it [Quality Event]. It is important to get this distinction between a 'pure' and a 'mixed' state. A pure state is indivisible, it is a unit which we can represent as a 'superposition' [Dynamic Quality] of all the possible alternatives. The mixed state, however, is a mixture where the different states really exist [Static Quality, or what we call 'actuality,' 5Jan2000 PDR] in different proportions. The act of observation [Quality Event] seems to put an end to this almost dream-like pure state [Dynamic Quality] into one of the [SPoV] possibilities that previously existed only as a potential. Hence, the observer seems to somehow determine the fate of the particle by 'collapsing' [Quality Event] all the possibilities into a state of definiteness [SPoV]." pp. 144-5.
In this chapter and ones preceding it, one has an impression she uses a classical interpretation of time. This appears to be a major failing, however, in her last two chapters she makes it unambiguous she decries Western SOM's time interpretations. Skillfully, she uses a normal interpretation of time, because that's one we can understand. It is interesting one feels discomfort with an old definition of time as she tells us what quantum science means for a new way of thinking about whole, coherent quantum systems. It is difficult to move old-think to new-think completely, in an instant. Your mind must evolve and catch up with where new thinkers are — a better place.
In a new MoQ and Quantonic thinking one must begin to think, as she tells us, something like this: "A coherent system has neither space nor time separations, so the 'collapse' of one part is 'instantaneously' communicated to the other part, regardless of how great a distance exists between the two parts...the two parts could be light years apart, and still the 'collapse' of the wave function of one [part] instantaneously collapses that of the other as well." p. 148.
In order for this coherent, superluminal, non-local behavior to occur two parts must be 'entangled.' Prior to reading this book, your reviewer thought entanglement could only occur via a common source, e.g., two correlated photons emitted from a common light source. This, if true, placed a great limitation on usefulness of superluminality (i.e., as a communications technology). Mae-Wan Ho says our concern is misplaced, "It turns out that the two [parts] do not even have to be prepared together so that they are originally one system. Experimentally, one can even allow any two [parts], neutrons, electrons or photons, [any quantum system] to be produced at distant and unrelated sources. As soon as they have come together and interacted, they become entangled with each other long after they have collided and separated. They have become one coherent quantum system. This result is very significant, and I shall come back to it in the last chapter." p. 149.
This chapter (10) is incredibly rich and full. One may not briefly review its fullness — best way is for you to read it, but here are a few quotes which will grab attention and provoke you to read her book: "...the coherent state is a pure state and not a mixture of states..." "...any two points in a coherent field will behave statistically independently of each other." "A coherent state thus maximizes both global cohesion and also local freedom." p. 151. This is identical to Pirsig's MoQ model of reality! Pirsig tells us that SQ is co-within DQ, and vice versa. He just didn't say how: coherence!
Here is a recent (c. 2004-2006) graphic of Mae-wan's words shown Quantonically:
Line solidity shows what Mae-wan refers "autonomy." Line dottedness shows what Mae-wan refers "coherence."
Students of Quantonics we ask you to imagine each of four fluxoid's single QLO as a
phase~encoded, minimal (i.e., only one probability omnistribution 'line' shown) fuzzon.
Doug - 6Jan2007.
Forgive your reviewer's exuberance, but — WOW!
CRUX: "We may now offer a tentative answer to at least part of a question which was posed at the beginning of this book: what is it that constitutes a whole or an individual? It is a domain of coherent, autonomous activity." p. 153. Isn't this a dual definition for WWW's Internet? Inference? As speculated by others, WWW's Internet is almost a living system. Again, WOW!

Allow us to offer a more extensive quote from page 153, (this text is from p. 215 from Mae-wan's 2nd edition) a quote relevant to our 2003-2004 feuilleton Chautauqua:

Any quantum system described " a domain of coherent activities, opens the way to envisaging individuals which are aggregates of individuals, as, for example, a population or a society engaging in coherent activities. As coherence maximizes both local freedom and global cohesion, it defines [inter]relationship[s] between the individual and the collective which has previously been deemed contradictory or impossible. The 'inevitable' conflict between the individual and the collective, between private and public interests, has been the starting point for all social as well as biological theories of western society. Coherence tells us it is n¤t so 'inevitable' after all. Eminent sociologists have been deploring the lack of progress in sociology, and saying that it is time to frame new questions. Perhaps sociology needs a new set of premises altogether. In a coherent society, such conflicts do n¤t exist. The problem is how to arrive at such an ideal state of organization that in a real sense, nurtures diversity (and individuality) with universal love." (Our brackets, bold, quantization of 'not,' and italicization of thelogos. We left out footnotes 22 and 23 from Mae-wan's 2nd edition. We corrected US spelling to 'premises.' All other punctuation and marks are hers.)

Percy Bysshe Shelley would love this!

Doug - 12Mar2004.

Interpreting her words from a Quantonic perspective, she goes on, near end of chapter 10, to speculate our social systems [especially SOMland and totalitarianism] are a mess.
  1. She describes for us this new quantum systems natural model of scaled, layered, nested, fractal, and autonomous parts all in global cohesive Quantonic interrelationships.
  2. She thinks this model is a better sociological model.
And, finally, she speculates quantum molecular machines (MoQ's SPoVs) are stores of energy (Value)! pp. 153-4
For those of you into computing, consciousness, entropy vis-à-vis information, knowledge, etc., you will love chapter 11. Again, there is too much here to give a concise review, so allow your reviewer to quote areas that also confirm Mae-Wan Ho's MoQ intuitions.
She tells us classical science's isolable, objective observer observing isolable objects is all wrong. It is based upon a SOM presumption of Subject-Object dichotomy. "Thus, the subjectivist-objectivist [AKA Value, fact; see Hume's Law...Doug - 28Jul2007.] dichotomy is falsely drawn. Subjectivity is an anthropomorphic, anthropocentric concept, and suffers from the same human chauvinism that attributes to the human observer alone that power to make definite things happen in the act of quantum mechanical measurement." p. 159.
We agree. In Quantonics we have been saying most primitive quantum systems must be able to spawn (via Quantonic interrelationships) MoQ Quality Events or equivalent quantum science special events. Without this axiom, there is no way to bootstrap [actualized, SQ] reality from DQ or equivalent 'pure state' superposition. 3Mar2011 rev - Add '...quantum systems must be able to spawn' link to Fuzzons to Fermionta Ontology page. Doug.
She tells us more on her perspective of SOM's dichotomy, near end of chapter 11: "There is another important implication as regards knowledge acquisition. The dilemma of the absolutely ignorant external observer betrays the alienation from nature that the traditional scientific framework of the West entails, for Western science is premissed on the separation of the observer as disembodied mind from an objective nature observed. This is also the origin of the subjective-objective dichotomy, which, when pushed to its logical conclusion, comes up against the seemingly insurmountable difficulty that in order to have sufficient information about the system, one has in effect to destroy it." p 167.
We agree here, too, except for her statement about an origin of SOM's S-O split. Those of us in Quantonics, as serious students of Pirsig, MoQ, and origins of SOM, know her statement is at best misguided. SOM's S-O dichotomy originated with The Birth of SOM approximately 2.5 millennia ago via diligent efforts of Parmenides, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, et al. In last nine years since Doug wrote this review, Doug has learned that either-or thing-king existed prior to Greeks, but it remained unacknowledged as "dialectic." Apparently most users did not have a name for what later became known as dialectic. Gnostics' topos for at least 10 millennia prior Greeks offered three 'levels' of thought, bottom to top: hylic, psychic, and pneumatic. Hylics and psychics exhibited some dialectical either-or thing-king. They could not understand pneumatics whose think~king was more quantum. We see hylic-psychic thing-king as state-ic EEMD. Comparatively pneumatics were much more animate EIMA quantum~thinkers. In a religious context of those times about 2000 years ago, compare: Jesus, John~Mary, and Didymos (pneumatics) vis-à-vis other 10 disciples (hylics and psychics). USA today is roughly 99.9% hylic-psychic! This is of huge import! Hylicism and psychism are tipped and ready for massive short term extinction! Current chaos we see is a semaphore of its now cusping Millennium III beginnings. Doug - 6Jan2007.
Finally, she agrees with Richard P. Feynman's conjectures: only way to make SOM science's intractable problems tractable is to use quantum computers! And what are nature's best quantum computers to use to emulate reality? Living, quantum systems!
Well, gentle reader, chapter 12 is best, better than all the rest! You will not read this without your reality becoming and being altered.
This chapter gives you new perspectives on time. She tells you traditional time concepts we have been so carefully taught by classical mechanics are wrong. You will have to change your thinking to accept a new perspective of time which is a very root of our perceptions of reality.
Mae-Wan Ho introduces us to a new re-formulation of quantum science which for this reviewer personally, answers many issues seen in other current interpretations of quantum science. It is quantum science reformulated by a German scientist Wolfram Schommers. It is elegant! It fits Mae-Wan Ho's perspective and model of quantum reality, and it fits both MoQ and Quantonics perspectives of reality!
She relates this new perspective of reality to, among others, Bohm, Bergson, Whitehead, Camus, Sartre, and TS Eliot. Aficionados of Pirsig will appreciate many strong interrelationships shown here between science and art.
She admittedly unbridles her own scientific horse and lets its imagination run tilt. Aphorisms, similes, metaphors abound. Elegance! And she repeatedly attaches Pirsigean Quality affinity to her conjectures ('quality' appears most frequently in this final chapter). Again, those of you with at least one foot in MoQland will love this read.
We leave it to you to discover how and why Dr. Mae-Wan Ho chose her title for this book. In those reasons are essence of life, MoQ, quantum science, and reality.
That's it for this review. This book moves to number 5 on our recommended reading list, behind Pirsig's three works and Eugen Herrigel's Zen in the Art of Archery.
Conclusion: If you are serious about Quantonics, Pirsig's MoQ, and its duality with quantum science, you should read this book.
Thanks for reading, and
Many truths to you,

Doug Renselle.

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

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

©Quantonics, Inc., 1998-2029 Rev. 19Jun2015  PDR — Created: 22Jun1998  PDR
(5Jan2000 rev - Changed Quantonics' description of DQ to more recent isoflux perspective.)
(29Mar2000 rev - Indicate changes to Raw notes.)
(1May2000 rev - Repair Arches return links. Add Coherent_Autonomy anchor.)
(30May2001 rev - Add 'SOM language problematics' link to our May, 2000 QQA. Add 'Remediation' link to later uses (chap. 10) of 'state.')
(15Dec2001 rev - Add top of page frame-breaker.)
(21Jul2002 rev - Change QELR links to A-Z pages.)
(29Mar2003 rev - Add 'Hyperbolic' anchor to Chapter 9 comments.)
(23Oct2003 rev - Change 'Start Trek' to 'Star Trek.')
(12Mar2004 rev - Reset legacy red text. Extend p. 153 quotes on individual and societal quantum coherence.)
(12Mar2005 rev - Add page 10 'muscle' anchor and link.)
(19Jun2005 rev - Add 'ideal adiabaticity' note and 'quantum coherence' link just above "high-torque.")
(6,13Jan2007 rev - Adjust color, format, and dates. Reset legacy red text. Add single QLO 'simply peaqlo' link to our A 3D Fuzzon page.)
(28Jul2007 rev - Add 'Value, fact; Hume's Law' comment.)
(21,23Dec2007 rev - Add 'Topos and Dialectic' anchor. Reset legacy red text.)
(19Jan2008 rev - Reformat slightly.)
(16Jan2011 rev - Add 'Mae wan Cuisinart Centrifuge Violence' anchor. Adjust colors. Make page current.)
(3Mar2011 rev - Add '...quantum systems must be able to spawn' link to Fuzzons to Fermionta Ontology page.)
(9Sep2013 rev - Add text and color under anchor Hyperbolic.)
(19Jun2015 rev - Add another version of 'coherent autonomy' anchor.)

Return to Previous Page                                               Arches