A Review

of Sylvia Nasar's

Doug's perspective of Sylvia Nasar's A Beautiful Mind
____________________________________________A Millennium III Work of Genius
____________________________________________1998, Touchstone, 459 total pages, including index. -
December2001-February2002, with more to come...
Doug Renselle

Before we continue our review of A Beautiful Mind, please allow us to express our opinion regarding recent hate-filled news about John Forbes Nash as an anti-Semite. Our recently expressed opinion is slightly altered from our Famous SOMites web page:

Doug - 18Mar2002 - Those who call John Forbes Nash "anti-Semitic" obviously have not read Nasar's book. When you hear someone say "Nash is an anti-Semite," be sure to ask them if they read A Beautiful Mind. During his illness, Nash was against everything, even attempting to discard his US citizenship on multiple occasions. He was against his wife, his concubine, his legitimate son, his illegitimate son, his alma mater, his friends, his peers, politicians, authority, employers, Harvard, Princeton,..., virtually everything and everyone. Doug - 18Mar2002.

Back to our review...

We asked some friends to go see a movie with us and we all settled on A Beautiful Mind from a documentary biography of John Forbes Nash (1928 - ) by Sylvia Nasar. Her book's title too is, A Beautiful Mind, 1998, Touchstone. First, let's discuss Nasar's book and Ron Howard's movie about it.

We feel obliged to answer a question about Howard's movie: "Does it capture essence of Nasar's biography of Nash?" In our opinion, "Not at all!" We see little similarity twixt movie and book. But Doug, "Is the movie any good?" Absolutely! Personally, we enjoyed it immensely, and even wish to see it again. Howard's movie is, in our opinion, extraordinarily quantum, with N^th senses' ambiences and auras.

"Is Nasar's book any good?" As a novel, in our opinion, "No!" As a biographical documentary, "Yes." Nasar's book is (we think necessarily) long. There is a lot of redundancy (again, we think, necessary) because Nasar keeps reestablishing important nexuses among a vast array of important and relevant people who touched and were touched by John Forbes Nash's life. This is a rare situation where we think tour de force actually applies to Nasar's work. Her notes alone run to 45 pages! Her bibliography contains between 100 and 200 separate references!

If we interrelate movie and book, we have to say that they are beautiful quantum c¤mplements of one another. And, almost miraculously, both are necessary to grasp John Nash's whole quantum being. This is a far cry from most movies which attempt, and authors which expect, to clone a text. Instead, Nasar and Howard, we think, accomplished a possible first in history:

A_Better_John_Forbes_Nash_Biographyquanton(A_Beautiful_Mind_movie,A_Beautiful_Mind_book).

That quanton is closer to John Nash than book or movie alone. Remarkable! Other more objective, classical reviewers, in our opinion, missed this quantum included-middle c¤mplementarity of both movie and book. As a result they describe movie and book as, "...disjoint, unrelated, about two different and dichotomous views of John Nash." We sense we are entering an emergent entertainment genre — an emerqant quantum entertainment era, of n¤vel quantum c¤mplements of books and books' movie interrelationships.

But Doug, "How can you use a Quantonics animate equal sign? Aren't movie and book both Static Quality?" Good question. Our answer is that each person who reads Nasar's book and views Howard's movie will interpret both separately and together in ways which are widely stochastic across a huge audience. Each sentient's quantum stage creates a new version of book and movie each time they enjoy either one. So our quantum stages animate and hermeneutically animate our quanton! Our quanton represents a heuristic meme whose heterogeneity and animacy are both quantum. We might show that meme like this:

A_Living_John_Forbes_Nash_Biographyquanton(audiences'_memetic_hermeneutics,quanton(ABM_movie,ABM_book)).

Due Nasar's book's style and presentation method, we decided n¤t to review it formally under a separate review title, but to comment here on it and provide a brief note in our Recommended Reading with a link back to this relevant text.

We want to hit what we consider to be high points in Nasar's book. Our high points congregate around these topics: Nasar commendations, Nasar problematics, and quantum Nash.

• Nasar Commendations
  
  Sylvia Nasar is a phenomenal woman. She writes well. She is fearless, as exemplified by her relentless mentions of Harvard's gross and ugly anti-Semitism which has been running rampant now for more than a century. (Amy Wallace in The Prodigy made her own efforts to uncloak just one of Harvard's uglier silhouettes.) What impressed us perhaps most is Nasar's surprising grasp of a wide variety of very difficult classical mathematics. She proffers some clarifying mathematical descriptions which are beautiful/elegant, provocative, and provide valuable reader assistance. We found ourselves envying her skills during these passages of her work.
  
  
• Nasar Problematics
  
  We found one exceptionally irritating problem in her text. It occurs on page 70 of 459 total pages (1998 Touchstone paperback). She says, "Einstein's 1935 attack on quantum theory produced a front-page headline in The New York Times and has never been satisfactorily refuted; indeed, as of the mid-1990s, the latest experimental evidence has breathed new life into his critique."
  
  Amazingly, there is no note, or set of notes, with her statement here. This is a research erratum on her part, especially when what she says appears so blatantly incorrect.
  
  We presume she refers Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen's 1935 paper called "EPR." In that paper Einstein, et al., intended to show that quantum theory is "incomplete." To do so they had to show that if one allowed quantum theory to express itself fully, one would have to irrevocably and n¤nclassically conclude both nonlocality and superluminality. History shows that Niels Bohr did not do a good job of refuting EPR, but since then several others, including David Bohm, have shown that n¤nlocality and superluminality are features of quantum reality, plus they are also features of any future quantum sciences, philosophies, metaphysics, and cultures based upon it. See our Recommended Reading for titles containing "quantum" to learn more on this subject. See Aspect, Baggott, Bell, Bohm, Capra, Clauser-Friedman, d'Espagnat, Shimony, Stapp, Zeilinger-Gisin, et al. See our critical review of EPR which we just finished 19Jun2002 - Doug.
  
  For their 1935 EPR paper to hold classically, as Nasar suggests, classicism's 'Principle of Local Causes' and One-to-One-Correspondence (i.e., classical cause-effect AKA classical causality) would have to hold. EPR experiments based upon Bell's Theorem have shown that both Local Causation and 1-1 Correspondence both fail in quantum reality. Few classicists/SOMites will yet (2002) admit it, but, thanks to Einstein (and to his own great horror) — in 1935 classical science died as a valid and trustworthy means of describing reality! Essentially, Einstein never recovered from EPR's self-inflicted wound. He lived long enough to fathom its depth without ever grasping its meaning.
  
  Be aware that in 2002 we anticipate experiments which will superluminally teleport a multi-atomic molecule! During 2000-2001 an atom has already been teleported! Watch both Science and Nature journals. Watch www.lanl.gov's preprint service too.
  
  We are startled and angry to see such a blatant historical error in an otherwise superb documentary text like Nasar's.
  
  
• Quantum Nash
  
  John Forbes Nash, as described by Sylvia Nasar in her book, A Beautiful Mind, and as shown in Ron Howard's movie of like title, appears to us as a quantum being. How can we say that? We offer several quantum affinities which we choose to interpret as evidence for our heuristic:
  
  
  • Nash's apparently quantum c¤mplementary thinking - see Nobel Prize below.
    
    
  • Nash's apparent abilities to tap into reserve energy - see Self Organizing Net below.
    
    
  • Nash's persistent durational thinking - He becomes one with his chosen problem. He is in It and It is in him. He achieves quantum mental coherence and taps into reserve energy at will. He will not ease off until he finds a solution, even if it takes years (similar to Andrew Wiles). He does not tire and his endurance appears unlimited. Nash persisted in his life goals, too, even after repeated rejections (he saw rejection as a price genius must pay), e.g., he sought to enter The Harvard Putnam competition during school (and did not achieve it), he sought The Fields Medal (and did not get it), finally he sought The Bôcher Prize (did not get it). And he never gave up.
    
    
  • Nash's Nobel Prize (1994) winning Nash Equilibrium (doctoral thesis, theorem 1950) - His approach here is almost entirely quantum, except for his use of classical mathematics. He thought of game theory as not just a zero-sum cooperative problem. He added cooperation's quantum c¤mplement and achieved a magnificent historical result:
                    game_theory_equilibrium_theoremquanton(n¤ncooperation,cooperation). (In Quantonics we say, "quanton(defend,cooperate).")
    
    No one else, including John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern even got close to seeing Nash's intuitive quantum approach. We believe, in general, what distinguishes Nash's thinking from his peers is that he uses QTMs naturally and avoids CTMs even though his discipline is classical mathematics. We also think he sees mathematics only as a deficient (due its classical limitations) tool for representing his own personal quantum intuemes.
    
    What is another tell that Nash's equilibrium theory is quantum?
    
    Do you fathom a metaphor of many, dynamic, adaptive, coobsfecting interrelationshipings? Would you laugh if Doug said, "Light?" Isn't light "...many, dynamic, adaptive, coobsfecting interrelationshipings?" Will you agree?
    
    So what is that? An evolving quantum~hologram! Bohm's holomovement as viewed by holographic photons! So will you agree that quantum~evolute~holograms exegetise Nash's equilibrium theory in nature?
    
    Good for you!
    
    Doug's red text update - 22Jul2008.
    
    
  • Nash's reference free (no books, no reference texts) thinking - I.e., he insisted on using his own thoughts, but he always counseled his colleagues to compare ideas. This is a huge tell that John Forbes Nash is a "quantum being," that [His] Beautiful Mind is A Beautiful Quantum Stage.
    
    
  • Nash's quantum intuitions of square and square root - One excellent example is on page 139 where Nasar says, "His lectures were closer to free association than exposition. Once, he described how he planned to teach complex numbers to freshmen: 'Let's see...I'd tell them i equals square root of minus one. But I'd also tell them that it could be minus the square root of minus one. Then so how would you decide which one...'" (Our italics to highlight thelogos.)
    
    To us, in Quantonics, this is yummy! Classicists always assume either one or the other (EOOO). Why? Classicists assume reality's middle is excluded! Classically, an answer has to be either plus the square root of minus one or minus the square root of minus one. No way could it ever possibly be both-all while and-many (BAWAM)! Former is a classical edict. Latter is a quantum epiphany! For comparison comsider Dr. Irving Stein's uses of preference and nonpreference.
    
    Nash is pure quantum genius. But Nasar does not tumble to this. Actually Ron Howard's movie comes closer to capturing quantum Nash than does Nasar's book. Those of you Quantonics students who practice QTMs can read Nasar's book and, we think more fully, fathom quantum Nash.
    
    Another fine example is Nasar's page 97, speaking of Nash's doctoral thesis, "Such circular reasoning would seem to have [again, classically] no conclusion. Nash squared the circle using a concept of equilibrium whereby each player picks his best response to what the others do. Players look for a set [quantum affective ensehmble] of choices such that each person's strategy is best for him when all others are playing their best strategies." (Our brackets, bold, and italics for thelogos.) First, note that what Nasar just described is quantum reality! Again, she does not tumble to this. Next comsider our bold highlight carefully. Try thinking of circle as wave and square as particle. In Quantonics we could show this as a quantum c¤mplementary interrelationship like this:
    
                    quanton(circle_c¤mplement,square_c¤mplement).
    
    So what do we know about quantum transitions in conjugate actuality? What do we have to do to decohere a quantum probability wave function? Square it, right? And what do we have when we square that probability wave function's animate quantum ensehmble? N¤vel decoherent qualitative Value based upon an ensehmble of animate quantum affectors! We have an uncertain quantum probability. A quantum choice!!! Classicists call it "heresy!"
    
    We can describe a similar process when we do quantum transitions from comjugate n¤nactuality to actuality. In Quantonics we describe two classes of squaring and square roots to express these transitions (classically, thus naïvely) using mathematics: quantum square root and classical square root.
    
    What is aptly tantalizing about Nasar's statement is its use of a classical 'impossibility' (square a circle) to describe Nash's approach to achieving a quantum solution to game theory N-quanton(n¤ncooperative,cooperative) equilibria. We infer and believe that quantum approaches like Nash's do perform what appear to classicists as impossible miracles. That is a tell of how important it is for us to learn how to practice QTMs during Millennium III. Yet n¤where in Nasar's text does she offer us a means to appropriately attribute her own apparent quantum intuitions. Perhaps we should see it as progress that she is, at least, having those apparent quantum intuitions.
    
    See our remarks on circularity in our review of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
    
    Wrapping up her Nash equilibrium comments on page 97, Nasar says, "In most games each player's best choice does depend on what the others do, and one must turn to Nash's construct." Again, this is quantum reality: many animate/fluxing coobsfecting and c¤mplementary interrelationships. Notice Nasar's use of "choice" and "best/better" as indicating many possible choices. Also observe her apparently classical use of "depend" as very likely implying unilateral classical independence, which we think Nash's equilibrium would deny (i.e., all players are quantum-interrelated and thus coobsfect one anothers' quantum-codependencies). We see in that one quote both classical Nasar and quantum Nasar, and, again, she appears wholly unaware of her own quantum nature.
    
    Now, reader, does Nasar show us Nash's commencement into a n¤n-classical regime? Is that what Nasar describes? Let's assume Nasar does depict Nash's entry into a quantum regime. What kinds of psychological conflicts may have arisen when Nash's classical training and acculturation to concepts that 'define' reality as:
    
    

    classically independent, unilaterally observable, either-one/or/the-other, 1-1 only locally correspondent causal-effective, determinate, certain, no-free-will, excluded-middle, lisr, inanimate, singular, classically monistic, and butted heads with Nash's (then-) emerging n¤vel memes which describe reality as,

    quantumly codependent, omnilaterally coobsfectable, both-all/while/and-many, many-many both locally and n¤nlocally affective, probable, uncertain, free-will, included-middle, n¤n-lisr, animate, plural, quantumly coherent pluralisms?

    
    In classical science, practitioners are taught that there is only one 'correct' scientific view of reality. They are taught that only one 'true' framework 'exists' which all practitioners must enter in order to ethically understand and describe reality. They are taught that reality is wholly objective, and its objectivity is identical for all observers. Kuhn called this set of 'scientific' beliefs "a paradigm." Kuhn showed how ludicrous this 'scientific' belief system is, and further, that scientists keep changing it because each classical paradigm itself is always "incomplete." Our bullets show how Nash was beginning his own personal departure from classical paradigmaticity! His personal conflict arose from apparent classical paradice twixt those two bullets' listed belief systems.
    
    In Quantonics, and thus in our own heuristic, n¤vel Millennium III quantum philosophy/metaphysics/science/culture, we believe that Nash-conflict, shown in those two massively important bullet items, is what appeared to classical observers as Nash's "insane schizophrenia." Nash had entered a quantum realm without having any quantum philosophical underpinnings to assist his intellectual Chautauquas there. He had n¤ means of psychologically managing his own quantum peregrinations there! Doug - 16Feb2002.
    
    
  • Nash's intuition of integers as variables - his intuition may be regarded as similar to our comments above on quantum squares and square roots. See Nasar's page 113, quoting Alex Mood, "Nash had 'sidestepped the whole induction by regarding integers as variables and sending them to revealing limits.'" Again, in quantonics, we know that induction is close kin of classical delusional concepts like: local causes, 1-1 correspondence, cause-effect, causational determinism, prediction, etc. We also know that there are n¤ classical constants. All is variable in quantum reality because absolute quantum flux is crux! Nash is intuitively avoiding innate classical impediments using quantum memetic "sidesteps." Bravo! Nash. Pure brilliance, Nash!
    
    

    Ponder a quantum epiphany! When Nash intuited integers as variables, what was he doing? He was allowing integers to verbesquely quantum~flux on his quantum stage! What is that? What metaphor does "allowing them to quantum~flux" evoke? How to tap into reserve energy! Nash's beautiful mind used "intuiting integers as variables" as one means of tapping into reserve energy! Doug started doing this in about 1995. He was on a 'date,' in Indiana's Turkey Run state park,with a gorgeous (Reba~esque) redhead who could dance like Li la. She caught Doug staring at a cliff with all its interpenetrating tree roots breaking it up and crumbling said stalwart cliff in a rather fabulous way: n¤t unlike terrorists as they are now crumbling US society and its popularly-elected, 'tragedy of commons sense,' classically-corrupt, and -incompetent leadership. I was tranced. She said, "Doug, what are you doing?" Doug responded, "I am animating natural quantum~evolution in my mind." Doug did n¤t understand what to call it then, but he was "tapping reserve energy" using a mode of quantum~think~king n¤t unsimilar Nash's. Start trying to imagine all you look at as animate, fluxing... Soon, you will habituate and inure-to-own a way, your way, of tapping reserve energy. Doug - 25Jan2006.

    
    
    
  • Nash's apparent entrancy into quantum schizophrenia - Nasar describes it like this, on page 221, "It was this attempt [to revise Heisenbergian quantum theory, especially quantum uncertainty] that Nash would blame, decades later in a lecture to psychiatrists, for triggering his mental illness — calling his attempt to resolve the contradictions in quantum theory, on which he embarked in the summer of 1957, 'possibly overreaching and psychologically destabilizing.'" (Our brackets, bold, and italics for thelogos.)
    
    This is very telling. Nash was raised and proselytized in pure classicism: home, culture, school, MIT, Princeton, peer relationships, et al. Mathematics, his forte, is purely classical and axiomatically, predicate logically objective. Quantum reality simply denies classicism and its axioms. Nash's mind, though somewhat quantum intuitive, still could not deal with quantum reality's many 'contradictions.' And from a classical perspective he became 'insane.' In quantonics we know that classical contradictions are impossible in quantum reality. Why? There is n¤ such classical concept as objective negation! Quantum negati¤n is subjective! Why? Quantum reality's middle is included, which denies Aristotle's classical foundational syllogisms (in quantonics, we call them "sillygisms"). All quantons have n¤n-Bohrian included-middle c¤mplementary interrelationships with, potentially, all other quantons. We can say this another way, "All quantons are in n¤nactuality's reserve energy, and n¤nactuality's reserve energy is in all quantons." See our Quantum Connection, Aristotle Connection, SOM Connection, Sophism Connection.
    
    

    Begin aside: A fairly easy way to see what Quantonics calls "quantum cowithinitness," is to think about atoms. Now think about electrons in their "energy shells" around their atom's nucleus. Now imagine those electrons' probability distributions (s, p, d, and f (or k, l, m, n, o, p, q) shells' probability distributions are different, but all are spatially asymptotic). For simplicity we may treat all electron shells' distributions as 's' shell distributions. Each electron's probability mode (maximum probability) corresponds, roughly, a Bohrian classical orbit. But any atom's electrons have loci probabilities which extend arbitrarily in ~Hilbert space. Unlikely to be distributed at great distances from an atom's nucleus yes, but indeed possible to occur. All atoms thus commingle, to greater and lesser proximity extents, their electron probability distributions! This is another way of perceiving quantum reality's middle as included! What mediates such wide, local and n¤nlocal, probability distributions? Quantum Vacuum Flux (QVF). End aside. 16Feb2002 - Doug.

    
    Bottom line here is that quantum reality's many animate comtexts and many animate truths, all potentially incommensurable and notably comtrafactual definite, appear to classical minds, practicing CTMs, as "schizophrenic," even "insane." Yet, in quantonics, we have shown that quantum reality imposes its schizophrenia on 'normal science' too.
    
    Comsider Nash's similarities to other geniuses, including Robert M. Pirsig and William James Sidis. Pirsig was reprehensibly committed, by family and local governments, to a mental hospital and had His Beautiful Mind ECS-annihilated! William James Sidis' Beautiful Quantum Stage had many rooms, and he built and visited all of them frequently. Sidis' father, Boris, wrote four books on schizophrenia. Many think he did that out of concern for his son. William ended up a recluse. We might offer other examples too, like: Gödel, Turing, several candidates from Nasar's book, famous chess players, and so on...
    
    In quantonics, we think schizophrenia is quantum c¤mplementary to what classicists call "genius." In other words, to be a genius one must make vastly more nexuses with reality. When one does that, one appears classically 'insane.' When we make more nexuses with reality, by necessity we must exit whatever the current paradigm or classical mythos is. One may n¤t be a genius by voluntary entrapment in a current paradigm! Neither Nash n¤r Sidis were "good boys," authority bound, entrapped by any local cultural mores, confined to or within any provincial church of reason. They were willing and thrilled to exit dogma, doctrine, paradigm, province, and parochialism to experience reality's quantum delights. Classicists call it "schizophrenia," "insanity," etc. Classicists, due their "either insane or not insane," judgments, are really superb at denigration. It gives them self-decreed absolute and Neandertalibanic, Rush Dimbaughlbian, Bill Either OR'eilly control and power. Times are nigh to efface their classical and ugly hegemony.
    
    Our greatest emphasis here must be that we believe Nasar's John Nash example of classical 'schizophrenia' arose from his early indoctrination in classical culture, mathematics, scientific, metaphysical, and philosophical concepts. We think his 'schizophrenia' arose from stresses caused by his own belief in those classical concepts. Further, we think his 'schizophrenia' was exacerbated by unanticipated — apparently paradoxical — threats to those beliefs which emerged when he encountered a larger realm of quantum memes.
    
    We also believe that, if our culture were to promote and adopt quantum memes, occurrences of Nash's brand of schizophrenia would decline. Similarly, we see a vast rise in cases of schizophrenia as Millennium III's natural quantum tsunami proceeds.
    
    A classical response to our position here might be to say, and we can even hear Einstein taking such a position, "Doug you have just explained why we must avoid quantum science and quantum memetics!" But we know that classicists have a long history of over-simplified and naïve (i.e., cultural/ideal and ideological/paradigmatic) views of reality. Above, under Nasar Problematics, we show how we intuited and inferred Einstein, et al., were naïve in their EPR, and now we know they were wholly wrong in their EPR Gedanken experiment intentions. Too, Einstein was naïve using classical mathematics when he developed his special and general theories of relativity. Einstein was problematic in applying many of his classical 'ideas.'
    
    So could we trust him were he to advocate our exemplified "...stay away from quantum science..." position? We think n¤t.
    
    On page 167 Nasar says, "[John Nash's] life resembled a play in which successive scenes are acted by only two characters. One character is in all of them while the second changes from scene to scene." (Our brackets.)
    
    
  • Nash's mind as a Self Organizing Network (SON) with biases adjusted optimally for genius
    (sometimes temporarily self-adjusted into 'classical insanity') -
    
    We direct you to Jeffrey Satinover's new book, The Quantum Brain, p. 70, and to our SONs Tapping Reserve Energy web page.
    
    
  • Nash's "Probability is everything!" - Nasar tells us that both Neuwirth and Newman blew off this statement of Nash's as "crazy!" (See Nasar's ABM, p. 243 of 1998 Touchstone paperback.)
    
    Guess what reader. Pirsig's MoQ tells us that real Quality is Value and that "Value is everything." Quantum science tells us that real "Value is probability!" Decide for yourself. Was Nash quantum epiphanous or classically "crazy?"
    
    See our more recent, 2004, What is Wrong with Probability as Value, QLO, peaqlo, and fuzzon.
    
    
  • Nash's attempts to escape classical reality - On page 271 Nasar writes, "Nash particularly desired to supersede the old laws that had governed his existence, and, quite literally, to substitute his own laws, and to escape, once and for all, from the jurisdiction under which he had once lived."
    
    This is so Sidisesque!
    
    We wrote in a side-bar on this page our own effable prose, "In a way that higher dimensions of manifolds smooth wrinkles and creases of lower dimensional realities' interpretations, sophism and its quantum rhetoric smooth schizophrenic dementias of radically mechanistic dialectic."
    
    
  • Nash as Kafka's K - See page 273. Nasar writes, "Nash's ambiguous and self-annulling efforts resembled nothing so much as the anti-quest of the land surveyor in Kafka's novel The Castle, probably the most compelling rendering of the schizophrenic consciousness in all of literature." (Our italics to highlight Nasar's thelogos, excluding book title.)
    
    In Quantonics, we believe that 'schizomania' is a natural consequence of using radical formalism (e.g., mathematics, predicate logic, Aristotelian/Newtonian ontology, CTMs, et al.) to attempt to 'understand' reality. See Bergson's Radical Mechanism and his Radical Finalism.
    
    
  • Nash's highly experimental, try everything, even do it over from scratch, thinking -
    
    This is our last bullet item under Quantum Nash. We saved it for last, because it is somewhat challenging to grasp. Those of you who may be more deeply involved in some difficult quantum and classical mathematical issues may enjoy this last bullet. Those of you who felt even slightly challenged so far may wish to skip past this bullet to our review wrap-up.
    
    This aspect of John Nash arose in his interrelationships with people, including his promiscuous omnisexuality. But, most importantly, and most vividly Nasar describes this aspect of Nash's personality when he apparently correlated The Riemann Hypothesis with quantum reality. This is his most awesome stroke of instinct, intuition, and intellect. Trouble is...(we think inept) psychiatrists used annihilation-ECS to wipe away his I-cubed.
    
    Why did Nash intuit correlations twixt Riemann's works and quantum reality? Hint: See pp. 230-1. Note Riemann's 's' represented as a complex number (s = u + iv; where i = square_root(-1)). Next recall how Nash solved Alex Mood's left-over problem from WWII on page 113 via "sidestepping the whole [Peano] induction." That was a spectacular quantum epiphany on Nash's part! His other less epiphanous approach on a Riemann solution was to use indirect, analogical or quantum multi-comtextual modelings of Riemann's zeta function. Riemann's 'puzzle' appears somewhat paradoxical, so we know Nash is on a superb track. How? We know that quantum multi-comtexts, properly applied, will resolve any paradox or set of paradice. (Not like, but similar to a manner that higher dimensional manifolds smooth out wrinkles and creases of lower dimensional manifold modelings. Viz. square_root(-1) as a "wrinkle" or a "crease." To exemplify, and for fun ask yourself, "What is a quantum comtextual analogy of a higher dimensional manifold representation of square_root(-1)?" J) Let's try something similar here to see if we can, for a few moments, QTM-think like Nash and accomplish something notable.
    
    Well let's just review some simple transemerqant aspects of quantum reality
    (Our single quotes below belie classical notions of reality):

    1.	How do we transition from complex to 'real' conjugates in actuality?	Via latching chiral mathematical EOOO square of "exclusive" complementary probability wave function.
    2.	How do we transition from 'real' to complex conjugates in actuality?	Via unlatching chiral mathematical EOOO square root of actual wave function. Note how EOOO classical square_root(-1) is always involved here.
    3.	How do we transition from n¤nactual to actual comjugates in quantum reality?	Via isotropic quantum BAWAM square of "inclusive" c¤mplementary probability wave function. See our recent, 2004, fermionta. Read text below graphic for a quantum heuristic of square.
    4.	How do we transition from actual to n¤nactual comjugates in quantum reality?	Via isotropic quantum BAWAM square root of actual wave function. Note how BAWAM quantum (possible quantum-Nash-analogous meme here: "higher dimensional manifolds") square_roots(-1) are always involved here.
    5.	What do we mean when we talk about decoherent quantum reality?	Usually we are talking about fermions. Fermions represent what we call "posentropy" reality. Fermions, essentially, make reality possible! How? They wobble! Why do they wobble? Their quantum spin is 1/2! Fermions have what we call 720o rotational n¤nsymmetry AKA "wobble." See one of our Quantonic quantum-Riemannian aphorisms here. Fermionic actuality is what J. C. Maxwell saw as 'classical reality' when he developed his 'laws' of thermodynamics. Maxwell ignored both coherent quantum actuality and quantum reality's n¤nactual, isocoherent quantum c¤mplement. Plus, he ignored mixtures of these quantum c¤mplementary coherencies. Many of you are showing significant interest in our work here. We have just recently been able to make another important and, we believe, historic heuristic nexus to Nash, Riemann's Hypothesis, and quantum reality's aggregations of fermions. See if you can understand why we comjecture that all fermions and systemic/mixed fermions in quantum reality are prime! This just offers more reinforcement to our approach in using QTMs to try to think about quantum reality and Riemann's Hypothesis as John Forbes Nash may have thought about them. Doug - 27May2002.
    6.	What do we mean when we talk about coherent quantum reality?	Usually we are talking about bosons and, interestingly, fermions which are John_Forbes_Nashquanton(Jekyll,Hyde) acting schizophrenically like bosons. Bosons and their aliases make up what we call "zeroentropy" reality. Where fermions have ½ spin, bosons have "integral" spins (0, 1, ..., n), with photons having spin 1, and fermionic boson spin 0 aliases like BECs and cooper pairs, and some atomic nuclei having spin 0. Some theories of quantum gravity have gravity with bosonic spin 2. Bosons do n¤t wobble as fermions do. But bosons are measurable, coobsfectable quantum constituents of actuality just as fermions are. Best example of a boson is a photon. Photons come in nearly unlimited quantum flavors and energies, perhaps most well known of which are light photons which permit some/most biological life forms to see fermionic reality directly. When fermions, like bullets, arrows, baseballs, etc., travel through Quantum Vacuum Flux (QVF), they always follow a path of least energy/action which is always a conic section. Bosons travel in straight lines, apparently little- or un-affected by QVF. Boson's motions/behaviors, due their zeroentropy quantum coherence, are lossless and reversible. J. C. Maxwell's 'laws' of thermodynamics deny 'existence' and classical 'reality' of lossless, reversible processes. Those of you interested in the Riemann Hypothesis, and Nash's nexus of RH and quantum theory will be interested to know that Riemann's Zeta function has n¤ zeros at s = 1 + i•v! This requires some quantum interpretation, we think. Classicists will never figure this out physically! It tells us that bosons are n¤napparent physically in classical reality: i.e., bosons do n¤t wobble; boson's are n¤t Möbius entities — fermions are (see our discussions and Q/As on fermions as Möbius entities). It also tells us that RH (probably, very likely) needs extension, if it is to express both decoherent and coherent (conjugational, i.e., actual) c¤mplements of quantum reality. In our Quantonics perspective, RH amazingly appears to already show isocoherent (comjugational, i.e., nonactual) c¤mplements of quantum reality; however, this could just be our own local isorecursive interpretation of i as quantum_sqrt(ei). Also comsider how (we show elsewhere) fermions are prime. Boson's, as n¤nphyiscal phenomena, have n¤ prime physical factors. Our Quantonics heuristic here is that Boson's are n¤t prime. It will be interesting to see if it appears valid to comsider BECs and Cooper Pairs n¤n-prime. Riemann note added 5Jun2002 - Doug. Readers, FYE, we are working on Möbius models of RH issues. Our anticipative comjecture from last June, 2002, "Our Quantonics heuristic here is that Boson's are n¤t prime. It will be interesting to see if it appears valid to comsider BECs and Cooper Pairs n¤n-prime," appears valid. Allow us to quote from a superb text we are using to study both QED and QCD, "5. Pauli's proof of the connection between spin and statistics, namely that particles with zero or integer spins must obey Bose statistics, whereas those with odd half-integer spin had to obey Fermi statistics (Pauli 1940 - The connection between spin and statistics. Physical Review 58:716-722.)." p. 78, by Silvan S. Schweber, in his QED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga, 1994, PUP. From this we infer a more general statement which abets our, et al., beliefs that RH's 1/2 critical line has to do uniquely with prime half-integer spin fermions: Even half-integer spin statistics are Bosonic: nonprime! BECs are fermionic atomic condensates which act like bosons as they become zero entropic near 'absolute zero.' Cooper pairs are pairs of electrons (which we comjecture comtrarotate) which act like bosons and superconduct (become position uncertain: superpose) in various conductors over a range of temperatures in a range of plain and exotic materials. Odd half-integer spin fermions are always decoherent and thus posentropic. RH makes us ask are they always prime? Many odd numbers are non-prime. Our work elsewhere, here in Quantonics, attempts to show — at least help start those of us interested down a pathway to show — how fermions are always prime. Looks like our studies in QED and QCD are paying off. Doug - 7Feb2003.
    7.	What do we mean when we talk about isocoherent quantum reality?	Usually we are talking about Quantum Vacuum Flux, AKA: DQ (Pirsig), nonspace (Stein; we did n¤t quantum remediate his 'o' in "nonspace" because Stein's modeling of quantum reality retains Bohrian "exclusive" complementarity), undifferentiated aesthetic continuum (Northrop), VES, Zero Point Flux, n¤nactuality (Renselle), isotropic omni-isoflux, etc.. In Quantonics we call VES, "actuality's n¤nactual compenetrating quantum c¤mplement." We show this as quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality), and call that quanton a representation and "modeling" of reality. In Quantonics, isons/isoflux/fluxors are classically n¤ncomceptual quantum comstituents of n¤nactuality. Isons have self-canceling isospin. As such they have n¤ actual, measurable quantum spin. We infer their 'existence' based upon our assumption that QVF 'exists.' We infer their 'existence' because quantum actuality arises from QVF/n¤nactuality via a quantum ontological process which involves quantum-squaring select isons in QVF. This ontology uncloaks itself when we observe quantum tunneling, virtual particle transitions in QED, particle creation in accelerator/colliders, sonoluminescent cavitation, biological emergence, etc. Maxwell's thermodynamic 'laws' do n¤t work here, in isocoherent n¤nactual quantum reality. They only work in posentropy, decoherent domains of quantum reality which possess/have thermal energy, i.e., temperatures above absolute zer¤ (minimum classical temperature corresponds Planck's least action). Pure quantum vacuum flux has n¤ thermalized energy! Why? Because it is isotropic omni-isoflux. It is wholly self canceling! That is how quantum vacuum flux can be so enormously power-full, yet (dis-)appear as wholly cloaked and stealthy to classical observation/measurement. QVF has n¤ apparent temperature, mass, length, time, or any other physical measurable attributes. It is a quantum 'domain' of quantum miracles called "tunneling," "superluminality," "n¤nlocality," "superposition," etc. To a classical mind, QVF does objectively-not 'exist,' thus making "tunneling," "superluminality," "n¤nlocality," "superposition," all "classically absurd quantum ideas" as Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen attempted to show in their classically conceived, but unintentionally quantum-prescient 1935 EPR paper. And, comsider dear reader, what we just said explains why Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward Williams Morley were unable to find or measure aether. They declared (~1887) that aether (drift) does not (classically) exist. Further note that Einstein based both his special and general theories on assumptions that aether does not exist. (Subsequently, ~1948, Casimir has shown that it does exist.) So, you may now see that, among many other profound changes, we need a whole new quantum-set of describings/modelings to extend/replace Maxwell's classically decoherent 'laws' for quatrotomous quantum decoherence, coherence, isocoherence, and mixcoherence.
    8.	What do we mean when we talk about mixcoherent or partially coherent quantum reality?	Usually we are talking about how various entropic/coherence aspects of quantum reality commingle, compenetrate, interpenetrate, fuse, coinside, etc. VES/QVF mixes with and coinsides all reality. We cann¤t "see" it, but it is there and power-full almost beyond human imagination. We cann¤t "see" it because it is "cloaked" or "hidden" by its (what we call for lack of a better term) manifold isotropicity (which we animately depict using contrarotating blue-dotted circles). This is what we mean when we say, "We are in It and It is in us." Nucleons in atoms are n¤t purely fermionic. They have some "spin zero," bosonic, zeroentropy phasicities, along with their co-inside-nt isospin n¤nactual quantum c¤mplements! Fermions "are in It and It is in fermions." We also mean that under select affective, qualitative comditions, bosons and fermions can and do "mix." And those mixtures always compenetrate quantum n¤nactuality. A real world example of quantum partial coherence is solitonic tsunamis. (See our Classical Quantum Tells.) Tsunamis are enormous aggregate fermions whose constituents share partially-coherent wave-energy domain alignments. An easy way to perceptualize partial coherence is to understand: that only certain quantum 'numbers' (in Quantonics, we call them "animate or stindyanic phasicities"), of a quantum aggregation's potential infinity of quantum 'numbers,' are in quantum coherent superposition, Aside: Meaning literally, "spread-out everywhere." To help you see this crucial quantum epiphany, try to realize that your mind's/quantum_stage's thoughts are in quantum coherent superposition. Why? Your neurons quantum c¤mplement all reality; your neurons and their quantum c¤mplements emerq a vast self-organizing associative network! End aside. while most other quantum numbers/phasicities are acting like n¤nsuperposed/n¤ncoherent/decoherent fermions (e.g., in our tsunami example, n¤n wave-energy polarized quantum qualities of water).
    9.	Etc.	Etc.

    
    John Nash may have intuited some or most of what we summarized above. There are countless other ways to intuit and interpret what we summarized, so perhaps his intuitions were/are analogous our summary. Anyway, what does our summary have to do with Riemann's Hypothesis? Well, Riemann's Hypothesis states (From Eric Weisstein's Treasure Trove of Mathematics. See Eric's newer pages at www.wolfram.com.) that the nontrivial [classical] roots of the Riemann zeta function, zeta(s) as an infinite sum of integer fractions with their n^th denominators raised to 's' power, where s is an element of all complex numbers, all lie on [classically] real numbers' critical line: ½!
    
    In Quantonics, our heuristic is that this is a classical mathematical way of describing fermionic/decoherent quantum reality. To us it represents fermions' and their aggregations' ½ integer spin, and plus 'or' minus represents EOOO spin chiralty in classical actuality. (Note that P. J. Marcer, BSc, DPhil, FBCS agrees (at least partially) with us in his A Quantum Mechanical Model of Evolution and Consciousness . Our thanks to Dr. Matthew R. Watkin at Exeter for his link to Marcer's work which we found on 30May2002.) Quantum science shows us that classical square and square root (note powers of 2 and ½) model classical-ontological transitions twixt classical wave function conjugates. Our Quantonics heuristic is that quantum (omni-/manifold-)square and (omni-/manifold-)square root, taken together, model quantum-ontological transitions twixt quantum wave function n¤nactual and actual comjugates. (Our comma-n¤space in our quanton script notation represents an included-middle, quantum manifold, c¤mplementary, BAWAM, punctuational c¤pulum.)
    
    For those of you heavily into a quantum Riemann Hypothesis study, you may find it fun to consider this: s = ½ + square_root(ei)•v. Try to view it as John Nash did. I.e., as a BAWAM vis-à-vis an EOOO. For a graphic example, see our novel Riemann Quanton. View square root n¤t as either/or plus or minus, rather as both/while/and plus amd minus. Latter assumes (due quantum vacuum flux, Heisenberg uncertainty, quantum c¤mplementarity, probability as inclusive (see Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy, pp. 46-7 of 213 total, step 2 - probability), etc.) that reality's middle is quantum included, n¤t classically excluded. Then view n¤t as classically 2D and state-ic, rather as quantum isotropic and animate. To grasp our larger semantic here, take a look at our quantum . When we animate in our complex zeta 's,' we can almost see Riemann's zeta function expressing itself isoconically (Dr. Mathew R. Watkin's fabulous Critical Strip Explorer shows this behavior animately; pay particular attention to fermionic latchings depicted there as reversals; these should each correspond fermionic primæ Möbius arousal/emergence/creation). One more semantic: when we substitute i = square_root(-1) = square_root(ei), what else are we doing? We are redefining i as a quantum sophism, a recursion of self, i.e., i as a function of itself! It becomes obvious then that i too, as we would expect, is generatively variable over many, many, quantum comtextual manifolds. Here is a graphic of what we intend, mathematically:
    
    
    You may recall Stein's one dimensional quantum random walk in his nonspace where Buridan's ass quantum-walked simultaneously in both directions.
    
    

    As we have evolved since we wrote that review (October, 1998; you can easily see Doug's own, then-more-classical thelogos there.) of Stein's fabulous text, we have unearthed essential problematics with Stein's approach. He assumed that Einstein's relativity is valid. It is, in general, n¤t valid! Why? Einstein was a classicist, a dialectician, an objectivist, a naïve-realist-naïve-localist. Einstein insisted on IGI and RIGI in his SR and GR theories (Special and General Relativity Theories). Quantum reality refutes any permanence, any invariance, any classically exclusive SQ of any kind. Einstein's presumed and assumed IGIs and RIGIs are impossible in quantum reality. See terms change, essence, middle, and stability at that link. Stein used them to 'construct' his mechanical random walk objects. Doug - 17Sep2005.

    
    
    Our graphic above may be thought of as a Riemannian, unlimited recursive isoflux quantum analogue of a classical N-space version of Stein's pre-quantum one dimensional n¤npreferential random walk. This quantum recursion, using our Quantonics' heuristics, is what spreads a Riemannian fermion's wave function's n¤nactual quantum c¤mplement through all reality! We see this as analogous Stein's pre-quantum Schrödinger Object n¤npreferential walk in his nonspace analogue of Quantonics' n¤nactuality. Visualize our above-graphed recursion recurring each measurement of each Riemannian fermion in quantum reality! Keep reminding yourself that this is our Quantonic hermeneutic for Riemann's zeta function s-parameter. Remember that our Quantonics goal here is to try to QTM-think as we imagine John Nash would have thought in his I-cubed correlations of The Riemann Hypothesis and quantum theory.
    
    Nash, we think, was close to seeing how important an animate and quantum sophist BAWAM perspective (vis-à-vis a classical, state-ic EOOO perspective) of quantum squares and square roots really are. Classicists take an analytic (1-1 correspondence, cause-effect, local causes) excluded-middle "exclusive" view of mathematics and especially in this case square roots (as Nasar vividly explains). Nash, we think, was beginning to see how problematic those classical views are. N¤ one could understand what he was intuiting. He felt even more alone, more isolated, classically detended. His only escape is what classicists call schizophrenia, or what we call many 'truths,' many comtexts, many worlds. Here is another quantum epiphany! Now reconsider that...what we just said. Do you know how we can solve any paradox and any set of paradice? By establishing many comtexts, each with their own set of local 'truths!' (Our use of 'truth' is classical here. We deny absoluteness of classical 'truth.') Carefully read our SOM Connection. But, realize, Western culture's classical mythos declares people like Nash who visit and iterate many quantum comtexts, "insane."
    
    People who listened to Nash's descriptions of what he was trying to do said they thought he was "losing it." 50-60 years ago, had they read what we just wrote, they probably would have said we are "losing it."
    

That pretty much wraps up our mini-review of Sylvia Nasar's A Beautiful Mind biography of John Nash. If you wish to talk with Doug about Nash, et al., call 1-317-THOUGHT. Alternatively, write Doug at The Quantonics Society, 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Suite 18, #368
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730. Except for active students in Quantonics, we have to limit email communications...we no longer publish Doug's emails...legacy TQS email addresses which have yet to be deleted are currently invalid.

We will extend this review as time permits…

Thank you for reading,

Doug - 3Feb2002