 |
Acronyms and symbols used in A Quantum Connection:
| CTM | - Classical Thinking Method (Cartesian analytic abstraction.) |
| MoQ | - Metaphysics of Quality (Pirsig) |
| OGC | - One Global Context |
| OGT | - One Global Truth |
| QTM | - Quantum Thinking Mode (Suaresean rqcs hologralq situation and role.) |
| SODV | - Subjects, Objects, Data, & Values |
| SOM | - Subject-Object Metaphysics |
| ZMM | - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance |
A Quantum Connection:
Reader, please note: your reviewer of Hughes' treatise on Buridan's work attempts to subsume Hughes' and Buridan's smaller, limited, illusory SOM realm in a larger reality. A larger reality near Earth's 20th century's end, one best reality we know at this yet primitive stage of humankind's evolving epistemology, is quantum reality. We want to use a capital 'R' each instance we write 'reality' following 'quantum' because it feels to us just now as ultimate reality; however, we fight our urge. Probably quantum reality as we know it today is but a rung on a scientific ladder of reality models. Science's reality-model ladder interrelates an infinity of rungs. So when you read quantum reality perceive it as one best and largest, most comprehensive reality humankind knows scientifically now at year-end 1998.
As we aver in several works here on this site, change is the crucial underlying concept of a larger reality. Many of our de facto mentors repeatedly emphasize this to us. Pirsig introduced Dynamic Quality as essence of a larger reality. Irving Stein introduced a change mime of random walk step lengths to achieve his new quantum ontology. Our mentors chortle SOM and classical science have no way to recognize, understand, or classify change.
Pirsig says it thus: [According to SOM...] "Substance doesn't change." Page 305, ZMM, Bantam paperback, 1982 (28th printing).
Reader, Pirsig's quote is profound. He makes a statement in SOMese. Dialectic truth depends upon existence of unchanging substance.
Pirsig gives a more quantum, extended view of a balance between stasis and dynamis, "That's the whole thing: to obtain static and Dynamic Quality simultaneously. If you don't have the static patterns of scientific knowledge to build upon you're back with the cave man. But if you don't have the freedom to change those patterns you're blocked from any further growth." Page 210, Lila, Bantam hardbound, 1991 (first edition).
Stein propounds: "Thus, what is called determinism turns out to be analyticity or identity and what is called change appears to be inexplicable in classical physics; i.e., change appears to be only the existence of time." Page 35, The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics, Peter Lang Pub., 1996.
(Reader, did you just read this sentence with your SOM blinders on? Did you fail to grasp Stein's profundity? Classical determinism depends on formal logic. Any formal logic for any formal proposition has a problem. It creates an (anti~metabolicq, n¤n evolutionaryq) identity twixt left and right parts of any propositionc! It declares left (subject) equal to right (predicate)! That is n¤t possible in quantum reality! Any quantum-real thing represented as left (subject) or right (predicate) changes asynchronously (from its complementary - a rest of - quantum reality) at multiple Planck rates. Perhaps as profound - any real thing is nonisolable from its ubiquitously changing quantum complement - both unknown and known. Once you arrive at this quantum-logical epiphany, you suddenly see extreme naØvet© in Western science's current use of formal notation. Heads up, reader. Grasp many new memes in our mentors' keen-edged knowledge. As one excellent example, our more careful thinking here shows precisely why no formal machine will ever be able to emulate artificial intelligence or artificial mind, AKA AI. In your reviewer's opinion, quantum-logical (i.e., qubital) machines (in Quantonics we call them quantum "emerscents") will be able to do that, however.)
And Stein says further, "...to define the concept of change, classical physics then can produce no basis for a concept of change. Such a basis can only be produced, if at all, by another physics, such as quantum mechanics. A concept of change, itself, will then probably be considerably different from how we normally understand it. It is not that I deny that change exists, but simply that I do not find it, as yet, a coherent concept — certainly not in classical physics." Page 38. See Doug's Change can explain state, but state cannot explain change. Also see Doug's What is Simple What is Complex Why? Explain.
And Stein says further, "Change, therefore, is...the [a] transformation of potentiality into actuality and the creation of a new potentiality. The [a] concept of change therefore makes sense only as a quantum mechanical concept." Page 98.
As we have seen in Irving Stein's work, reviewed nearby, he attempted to adhere SOM's classical object and logic, but was forced into larger quantum reality's both/and epiphany. He invoked Buridan's Ass sophism as symbolic of his own epiphany.
Stein derived, invented and recognized a simple object-driven quantum epiphany, a dual of Pirsig's many truths. In your reviewer's opinion, a many truths' dual quantum epiphany is crucial to understanding quantum science. In a similar way, many truths is crucial to understanding quantum, Galois, et al. logics, and their impact on any new philosophy which might claim a new parenthood. Stein saw deep importance of a single instance of his own quantum leap, but we think he missed a point. It signified something more general: a fatal flaw in SOM. That fatal flaw is dialectic's OGT-OGC reality architecture illustrated and described above. SOM's architecture is born of assumed subject-object dichotomy. It results in a SOM delusion that one can use substance-based formal logic to absolutely ascertain truth.
In summary then we now juxtapose classical reality and quantum reality on issues of change. Classical reality says substance does not change. Classical reality says change is determinate, or analytic, and it is a function of time. Classical logic's foundation rests on assumed absence of change in substance. Logical truth depends upon stable substance. Aristotle's laws of syllogistic logic, his tautologies, depend proemially on existence and stability of substantial objects.
By comparison, quantum reality is flux. Quantum reality is change. Quantum reality issi metabolicq. All of what we know, what we call reality's actual part, consists of latched quantum objects whose constituents are systems of primal quantons. Every quanton and its aggregates are wedded to complements in nonactual reality, and thus interpenetrate and commingle pure flux. All of what we know is subject to a continuous infinity of Planck rate concurrent possibilities for change. Quantum substance is not stable, period. Aristotle's laws of syllogistic logic do not work in a more general quantum reality. Any formal logic which depends on stable substance will not work in a more general quantum reality. 25Dec2016 rev - Add link to systems of primal quantons.
A New Approach to Logic -
Now we know substantial, materialistic, objective logic is flawed. However, we can learn more from SOM logicians' machinations. We can learn from Buridan's treatment of sophisms, and especially from self-referent sophisms which tied minds of SOM in knots. It is critical to understand sophisms arose from a concrete subject-object dichotomy and its consequential split of our multiverse into real and non-real. They arose from SOM assumptions: what is real exists and what is not real does not exist. Given those assumptions SOM added more Babel: what is real is substance and what is not real is not substance. Real is objective, etc. Not real is subjective, etc. Then more Babel: absolute truth or falsity of logical propositions is possible within one selected, conventional context. SOM assumes one global context and one global truth for assessment of propositions. Sophisms arose from this Babel because SOM reality is contrived, not real. Sophisms are warnings that something is fundamentally wrong with SOM logic. We need to fix this. Part of a fix is recognition sophisms are quantum phenomena. So, acceptance of a new quantum reality is part of a fix.
Pirsig's MoQ philosophy and quantum science tell us unambiguously that a fix is one unified reality whose constituents are actualized reality (known) and non-actualized reality (unlimited possibilities). When we adapt our new logic to admit many logics with many truths in many commingling and interpenetrating contexts, we can begin to think without quantum sophisms tying our thoughts in knots.
We can build on Buridan's logic and step-change (quantum leap) our thinking from classical logic to rudiments of quantum logic. (Note: your reviewer's position is that classical logic may not evolve to quantum logic. In our opinion, we need a step revolution in thinking. We need a paradigm shift from CTMs to a set of newer, vastly different QTMs.)
Hughes shows us Buridan's suppositional logic distills to something we can show as four rules of a general form:
And, in more specific form:
Buridan bases his logic, as we can see here, on Aristotle's three syllogistic laws:
| 1. A is A | law of identity |
| 2. A must be either A or not A | law of contradiction |
| 3. A cannot be both A and not A | law of excluded middle |
Aristotle's own syllogisms look remarkably similar to Buridan's minus supposition and correspondence:
Buridan only extended Aristotle's syllogistic logic.
Let's move from syllogistic logic forms to more modern forms.
In Figure 1, we see great similarity twixt Buridan's and Aristotle's syllogistic logic and a simple example of modern formal symbolic logic.
|
|
In Figure 1 we see five formal logic symbols in a formula. Not much changed when we moved. A is subject. An equals sign replaced 'is' and B plus C is a compound predicate. That's about it. Subject and predicates still point to objects, SOM substantial objects which exist.
A predominate SOM classical view tells us that these symbols may be used two different ways:
Regardless we may presume objects are SOM objects, i.e., separate, isolated, individuistic, and possess properties.
What does our last sentence mean? It means a SOM classical view is reductionist. We know a SOM view is analytic. Now we see it is reductionist, too. What does SOM think 'equals' in our above figure means? It thinks that 'A' is literally equal to a sum of 'B' and 'C.' Explicitly, then, SOMthink denies synergy. 'A' can only be ('A' is equal to) 'B' plus 'C.' 'A' cannot be more than or different from 'B' plus 'C.' Explicitly, SOMthink denies any synergistic effects of addition. 'B' must be exactly 'B,' i.e., separate, isolated, individuistic and possess its own unique properties. We can repeat identical observations for 'C.'
For example, each of our 'mentioned' symbols possesses properties of font, font size, font aspect ratio, bold/regular, italic/plain, etc. A SOM classical view also tells us whatever our symbols represent or stand for, i.e., how they are 'used' may be thought of a similar way.
Whatever we 'use' our symbols to represent are objects which exist too, and those objects have properties. Classically, those existing, real world objects possess mass (m), space (l, i.e., length), and time (t) properties. Those classical real world objects move analytically in space-time as a defined function of time (a space-time identity imposed by our schismatic equals sign). Those same objects, too, are separate, isolated, and individuistic.
Note an implicit assumption that if you know what all of our symbols represent dialectically, you have enough information to assess absolute truth or falsity of any statement. Do you see what is happening here? Do you see our symbols, plus what they objectively represent, plus any properties possessed by any objects represented is a sum total of what you need to make an assessment of absolute truth! Well almost! Buridan, and a few others eventually had to admit you also need to know any properties of any objects as functions of time, plus context (normally one conventional context) of any objects under consideration. That is much better! But there are serious problems with our two new additions!
Let us look at them one at a time:
Now Hughes tells us Buridan's formal logic admits (we, appropriately, agree) truth is a function of time, and it admits truth is a function of a conventional, selected, global context (One Global Context, OGC). But he retains, and most logicians today retain, an Aristotelian concept of observable and isolable, separate and individuistic classical objects. Compare 'quantum logic' as coquecigrues. Beware any classical phrase, 'quantum logic.'
In any quantum realm Aristotelian assumptions simply n¤ longer hold. Figure 2 illustrates in two dimensions, for simplicity, how we might visualize formal logic of Figure 1 in any quantum realm. Notice reductionism is impossible in any quantum realm. Notice how any classical notions of localization, isolation, and separation are impossible in any quantum realm. Any subject and predicates possess animate, synergistic, Gestalt, included-middle, everywhere-associative quantum c¤mplementary interrelationships which are n¤nseverable. Quantum reality is n¤nclassically unified! We must refer quantum 'unification' as quantum~omnification! Omnification is ~unlimited holographic nexi potentia of all quantons with their l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal quantum~holographic environs. See Doug's Strange Story of the Quantum review graphics and rant on unification. Doug - 5Aug2008. Everything in quantum reality potentially shares interrelationships with everything else in quantum reality. Figure 2 does n¤t show it, but also imagine any subject's and predicates' (standing for quantum objects A, B, and C) c¤mplements in n¤nactuality. (Reviewer note: Most of us, trained well in SOM principles, wear SOM blinders. As a result we ignore, or are too SOM-invalid to observe and recognize any quantum interrelationships. When they do impose their affects on our psyches, we brush them off as anomalies or paraphenomena. A whole new world opens for those of us SOMites who are willing to take our SOM blinders off, depart SOM's cave into new light, efflux SOM's dialectic prison: Pirsig's Church of Reason, and enter a quantum realm and begin our new learning processes of QTMs.) Text, link, and local text Quantonic English Language Remediation added for our EPR Review - 19Jun2002 - Doug.
 |
Quantum reality is n-dimensional or omnimensional. Its logic is omnivalent. Figure 2 only shows two dimensions for simplicity, however, you might wish to imagine one more dimension as shown in Figure 3. I.e., vis. Figure 2 something like a Klein bottle in three dimensions, something like this:
 |
Clearly our old formal symbology is inadequate to deal with nonreducible quantum objects. As a start, your reviewer uses notation in Figure 4. Our funny-looking diamonds are Wingdings font lower case 'v.' (Imagine our delight when we realized 'v' is symbolic of Value which Pirsig tells us surrounds and interpenetrates all of reality.) We chose this symbol because it looks like a multidimensional interrelationship. Note it may be used n-dimensionally above and below, in front of and behind quantum objects as well as left and right, etc. A great power of this notation is its implicit presumption of many truths and many contexts. You may wish to visualize an infinity of contexts and truths off your screen above and below our five symbols shown on a single context surface of your viewing area. All of these contexts and truths may be interrelating with one another depending upon possible extent of their mutual entanglements or quantized interrelationships with pure, coherent, non-actuality.
 |
To illustrate a classic single context paradox let us use:
2 + 2 = 5
Clearly in a SOM realm of one truth and one context our above proposition is false, however, if we quantum leap to a meme of many contexts our paradox evaporates. In one context 2 is added to 2, but in second, third, and fourth example contexts, 1 is added to one term like this:
|
|
|
There is no paradox, there is no falsity, there is no contradiction in our example equation when one admits a quantum reality of many truths and many contexts. When paradox arises it is a powerful clue one has a context-limited view of a problem. Rather than declaring naïvely and arrogantly as SOM does an answer is just wrong, we ask what contexts are involved, which we may be ignoring, that might produce any answer we see?
Amazingly, a similar thing happens with sophisms! When we allow many truths and many contexts, sophistic paradice evaporates!
So after all of our discussion on many problems with classical logic and better, more realistic approaches of quantum logic and quantonic logic, what do we do? What do we have to do to visualize a new Quantum reality? How can we imagine quantum objects, or depict them to evoke a new, better way of thinking?
Assuming quantum science is correct (correct in a quantum sense; n¤t in any classical sense of absolute truth), i.e., it is our best representation of reality that we have today, we can say this: REAL objects are quantum objects! What do we mean when we say 'real?' We mean that our mental/quantum-stage modelings of quantum reality have two quantum c¤mplemenatry partitions: actual quantum reality and nonactual quantum reality. SOM's objective (substance) portion of any actual partition (to see what we intend by our use of partition here, see comtext) of quantum reality is what we previously called 'reality' in Aristotelian Subject-Object Metaphysics — classical objective reality. It missed c¤mplementary reality because of its philosophical assumption of a subjective-objective schism. Now you can see why we say SOM is not real. SOM is not whole. SOM is 'incomplete,' n¤t as EPR insisted: quantum theory! SOM denies (our largest, most significant) part of REALITY, and thus denies any possibility of establishing its own 'completeness.' Red text comments, links and QELR added 19Jun2002 - Doug.
Let us take a formal logic classical object 'C' from Figure 1 above and morph it.
It is interesting to take a moment
at this juncture and notice exactly what your reviewer said in
his last sentence.
Aside on a new term - sobject:
To morph (incorrect grammatical use as a verb) something (in this case an irreducible SOM classical object, i.e., 'C') means to change its shape, while retaining a whole. But that is not what we want to do. We want to extend it.
But what does that mean? In SOMese it means add to it. Notice how our SOMese almost forces us to keep things separate? So what we want to do is depict a classical object and turn it into a new kind of object which allows us to practice a new kind of thinking, i.e. QTMs.
But when we go on a word search to try to find one right word to describe this morph-extension-without-separation, we find no single word in SOMese language which expresses this. One nearly perfect word is syncretize. (another is cohere, but it has unique legacy meaning in quantum science now)
Our dictionary defines intransitive verb use of syncretize as, "To combine differing elements with a heterogeneous result." Now we are closer to what we want, but syncretize still has a problem! It specifies different objects. Western Aristotelian SOMese still attempts to keep things logically separate!
Heterogeneous in our definition of syncretize means, "Consisting of dissimilar elements, not homogeneous."
Now, at this juncture, Niels Bohr becomes a key visionary in our little story. Remember how Bohr was accused of being "subjective" when he used terms complementary or complementarity? (See Pirsig's SODV paper.) Bohr's use of complementarity evoked an archetypal linguistic hermaphrodite, one that is from a SOM perspective both object and subject!
That is our 's-object' we want to depict for you here, albeit incomplete and insufficient.
Let us change our definition of syncretize here, just for local and current purposes to, "Consisting of dissimilar, complementary sobjects." We replaced a SOMese word, element, with our coined MoQ/quantum term sobject. Too, we replaced homogeneous with complementary. But you get our idea by now, so we will defer further discussion on any weaknesses of our current Western SOM linguistics and proceed with our own intentions.
Let us create a new sobject, a quantum 'C' object, an example which will enable you to see (anthropocentrically) a model of a quantum object. Please take a little time to study this quantum object before you read our text below it. C if you can understand what our model depicts. Compare what you think our model of a quantum object shows with what our text tells you. Our quantum object 'C' looks something like Figure 5 shown here:
 |
Before we interpret what our picture shows, let us state some caveats. Your reviewer is not a professional artist. As with its above described linguistic limitations, SOM imbued us with very limited 1D-2D-3D perspectives of objective reality. Figure 5 models a quantum object in 2D. Also, there is no known way in your reviewer's limited artistic repertoire to show N-dimensional co-within-it-ness with which a true quantum object interrelates reality. (If a professional artist visits this site and knows a better way to do this, we are definitely open to suggestions.)
Let us talk about some big aspects of our artwork in Figure 5. There is a centerline which divides actuality from nonactuality. We depict actuality above centerline and nonactuality below it.
Sobject's envelope is intentionally (also intensionally) egg shaped. This symbolizes creation (using Irving Stein's jargon, '...measurements which cause actual objects to arise...').
Actuality represents one presumed complete SOM objective classical reality. Note it is bounded with a hard line. Note part 'C' above centerline is also solid, hard, harsh. Sobject's solidness represents objective, separable, individuistic, isolable, observable 'C' object. It represents only part of a quantum object you see as a principled, well-disciplined SOMite wearing your SOM blinders.
Nonactuality is everything below centerline. Nonactuality represents unknown, that which SOM cannot classify or describe because SOM says it is subjective. SOM declares nonactual part of reality does not exist because it is not substantial. Your SOMitic blinders are extraordinarily effective in warding off queer sensory affects of any nonactual parts of quantum objects.
Our nonactual 'C' below centerline represents complement of our 'C' quantum object. Note its envelope is not bounded. You should imagine some rope-like waves extending through all of quantum reality. Stuff below complements stuff above centerline. (Yes! This does say every actual part of any quantum object has potentially all of nonactuality as its complement!) Classical 'C' above centerline is a bold, nonitalic, Arial 'C.' Its complement below represents all other possibilities: regular, italic, all possible fonts, and any other interrelationships 'C' archetype has or may have in future (even interrelationships SOMites might say have nothing to do with symbolic letters, e.g., taste or smell, or one's ability to see or C or sea — imagine a right-leaning lazy 'S' here blended at top to an upright 'C' to get a quantum wave — See? C? Sea? :).
Now it is important to understand, here, that in our old reality, SOM's classical objective reality, 'C' above centerline was all there was, period. Font, boldness, italicity, etc., are properties of SOM objects, properties possessed by SOM objects.
In a new reality, font, boldness, and all possibilities for 'C' are interrelationships of any actual part of reality and any nonactual part of reality. Now, when we look at any sobject in any actual part of reality, we view it as only partial. Also see enthymeme. It has a potentially unlimited complement in nonactual quantum reality. Original of this page is now about ten years old. A lot of water... To view some more recent work of Doug on similar issues look at Fuzzons to Fermion Onta and Generation III Reality Loop. Doug - 10Mar2008.
(First sentence of next paragraph revised 17Aug2001; see text on choices and outcomes. Here, microlocally to reduce potential intimidation, we commence an introduction of Quantonics' Remediation of English Language for Millennium III. Doug.)
Üvæntings (see 'event') in b¤th an actual part of our 'C' object, its l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal comtexts, amd a nonactual part of our 'C' object create quantum hiatuses, preceding which any interrelationship preconditions become values upon which any quantum choices (see quantadulation, quantum~assessmentings, and quantum assessment) select n¤vel, emergent, quantum ensemble outcomes. We must recognize those interrelationship preconditions are n-spatial, infinite, and ubiquitously changing (we ken they occur at a Planck rate of approximately 1043 cycles/'times' per unit spatial reference) stochastic multiversal values. We must also realize some of those values carry more weight than others in any choice made. When we speak of omnicomtextuality of quantonic interrelationships, weighting is one aspect we consider. Clearly, some aspects of context have no weight in event hiatus, but others carry great weight. We do not know how weighting asserts its values; we conjecture quantum entanglement and space-time proximity are part of weighting. We also conjecture quantum awareness and quantum coherence of quantum selection processes (See our aside below:) assert their values in quantum rate choices. We must also realize choice is (to be both-all plurally while/and-many animately "quantum correct" here we should say, "choosings are..." Doug - 31Dec2001) n¤t unilateral, but multilateral coming from preconditions in both actual and n¤nactual parts of quantum reality.
Aside:
Classically, we see a brain as source of mind, much like we see a heart as source of soul. When you allow your classical mind to enter any quantum realm, you can see all quantum systems scale awareness and choice. Thus what you previously called your mind, objectively-classically, is both actually and n¤nactually our ubiquitous quantum mind. Visualize your classically objective mind extended in a model similar to our quantum 'C' shown in Figure 5. (Your reviewer thinks this relates to Boris Sidis' claim he found n¤vel ways to tap great intellectual and physical energy sources. See, The Prodigy Review, nearby.)
This is an entirely new way of thinking. It eliminates paradoxes, mitigates SOM's intrinsic opposition, contradiction, and violence, and offers us countless benefits and opportunities. A downside is we need new tools, new QTMs, to help us deal with this new way of thinking. Examples are: a new language, a complete new architecture for our current Western philosophy and culture, new mathematics, logic, epistemology, etc. Most artists and musicians, practitioners of aesthete, will probably say, "Amen!" at this point. As Pirsig showed us, they grooved this stuff long ago. They cannot understand why some of us are unable to see what we just described above.
Risking superfluity, I ask you again reader, "Can you see how invalid classical formal logic is? Can you see how Aristotle's, et al.', founding assumptions cripple any possibility of SOM logic ever dealing with quantum reality?" In classical reality, SOMites deign by edict objects, "are not quantum objects!" To SOM, any quantum realm is a sophism...
Thanks for reading,
Doug.