What are Sophisms?:

Simply? (It takes years of study to get to this first time. After that, to dialectical stux sux "rules fools" it is obvious.): Sophism is BAWAM many valuedness (Quantonics' "many truthings" AKA Latin omniplex veritas) where, "enlightened" 'science' says veritable logic is EOOO two-valuedness (Bu()sh(), "either you are for us or you are against us..."). Doug - 27Jan2006.

Philosophers and dialecticians before and since Aristotle worried over sophisms. Simply, in SOMthingk, sophisms are illogical logic. If something should be two valued and somehow it appears many valued, that is just absurd to any dialectical SOMite AKA 'objective scientist.' Sophisms appear often, especially to dialecticians, as oxymora. Sophisms result in SOM paradice (paradoxes).

• Dialectic (the model of classical reality) - tautologously assumes and presumes reality is two valued digital: EOOO. DIQheads believe and 'have immutable faith in' this.
• Sophism (a modeling of quantum reality) - both expects and anticipates reality is many valued quantum: BAWAM. QICheads are quantum~cohering this.

See Quantonics' Bases of Judgment.

Sophisms cause mind-numbing, endless recursion in a classical mind. Sophisms usually are regarded as paradoxes/dilemmas/oxymora/chimeras in any classical mind. Buridan defines four classes of sophisms. Essentially, using his own classical training, Buridan declares all sophisms, "False!" (answers, classically, MUST be either true or false).

Recently we received a question from a student about sophisms. You may read our response: Student asks about Sophisms.

Bottom Line: A crucial case can be made - classical assessment of sophisms as false is naïve. SOM declares sophisms 'FALSE.' MoQ declares sophisms as both TRUE and FALSE depending on many contexts. SOM denies existence of many truths/contexts, because its syllogistic logic fails when it loses its foundation assumption of a single, conventional context. SOM's absolute truth may only be achieved when one assumes a single conventional context. Clearly, SOM is naïve to think it. SOM's conventional assumption is a pseudo, contrived, simplistic perturbation of reality. Quantum science shows us there are unlimited contexts for reason, each carrying its own local rules of logic.

However 'quantum logic' itself is an oxymoron, so in Quantonics we call it "coquecigrues," in Latin, "omniplex veritas." Doug - 24Sep2005. Figure 1 - Sophist 'Logic' (rather, coquecigrues) Exemplar Here is an exemplar of what we mean when we compare dialectical logic to sophist quantum~coquecigrues. Figure 1 shows what we intend. Figure 1 is extraordinarily powerful! How? It shows how ludicrous dialectic really is. It demonstrates that negation is subjective. Saying "negation is subjective" is a way of saying "reality is quantum." Compare that to what dialecticians believe, "negation is objective," which means (to dialecticians) "reality is dialectical, formal, analytic, mechanical, concrete, etc." Dialecticians, interpreted literally, force implications that humans and animals may be negated so that horse minus horse equals null, zero, nada, etc. But what is minus you? What is minus any physical entity? Show us a negative baseball! As Henri Louis Bergson said so presciently, "We shall never affirm a thing is not." Amen!!! Notice that Bergson's edict absolutely breaks forever classical dialectic! To grasp that Quantonics normative see our SOM's Bases of Judgment. But Doug, "How does Figure 1 help us?" Let's use our scripts to demonstrate. OK, dialectically: human = mouse is false (i.e., EOOO(human, mouse), and dichon(human, mouse)) human = porpoise is false human = wolf is false human = chicken is false human = horse is false human = chimp is false human = elephant is false human = rabbit is false Notice how pluralism destroys any generality of dialectical 'logic.' Especially 1-1 negational correspondence, specifically human -human. (But be sure to also ask, "H5W is minus human?") I.e., there are many human 'nots,' not just one! Classical certainty simply evaporates. This is part of what Bergson intends when he says negation is subjective. Plurality plus probabilistic and polytemporal (up to) Planck rate pragmatemporal mutability of paired relations forces 'di' alecticians to rethingk what they mean by 'di.' For example are those relations really 'di' stinct? Can their 'di' versity be 'di' agnosed? Can we 'di' scriminate? Perhaps we might weigh 'omni' vis-à-vis 'di?' How many ideal dialectical 'opposites' does any 'thing' have? Are you 'di' vis-à-vis 'omni' stinguishable from you now compared to you an hour from now? (3600•1013 of your body's cells have quanton(self-euthanized,resurrected) during that one hour period!) Is that comparison an ideal dialectical one? Why? Why 'not?' Doug - 30Oct2005. Readers, in that last paragraph we have to change 3600•1013 to 3600•106. See our acronym OEDC to understand why. Doug - 3Apr2006. From a quantum perspective, these many dialectical 'nots' are a weak analog of what we intend by quantum~complementarity. Much more strongly, quanton(reality,human). and following Aristotle's syllogistic 'logic,' A is A ('law' of identity; actually a 'tautological' sophism) A is not B ('law' of contradiction) A is not both A and not A ('law' of excluded-middle) "then dialectically, classically: human is human human is not mouse human is not both human and mouse etc., for porpoise,..., rabbit. "but sophism demands our coquecigrues bæ quantum~ræhl: human issi b¤th human amd mouse (i.e., BAWAM(human,mouse), amd quanton(human,mouse)) human issi b¤th human amd porpoise human issi b¤th human amd wolf human issi b¤th human amd chicken human issi b¤th human amd horse human issi b¤th human amd chimp human issi b¤th human amd elephant human issi b¤th human amd rabbit In Quantonics we generalize this by saying "Wæ aræ ihn Iht and Iht issi ihn us." That's real quantum sophism! Figures 2 & 3 summarize graphically what our scripts show in detail:  Figure 2 Dialectics' Plural Dichons  Figure 3 Quantum Plural Quantons In quantum reality there is n¤ ideal classical objective negation! Why? Quantum reality is flux AKA waves. Waves are quantum likelihood omnistributions (QLOs; see peaqlo). In quantum reality likelihood zero and one do n¤t 'exist.' Quantum reality is positive (n¤n negative) without classical idealizations of one and zero! See probability. Further, waves compenetrate ubiquitously: their middles are included and everywhere animately associative and sorso~organizing~networks with profligate kinds of QLO interrelationships including entropa and cohera. Sophist reality is wholly positive. Dialectic reality manufactures contradictions! Sophism emersces success and happiness. Dialectic conceives dread and hatred. Sophism qualitatively and proflectively affects. Dialectic quantitatively and retroflectively effects. Doug - 24,27Sep2005.

Also look at Sophism Connection, SOM Connection, and Quantum Connection, where your reviewer shows additional evidence for our bottom line statements above. See especially our revisions to Quantum Connection in early paragraphs about Pirsig's and Stein's comments about change.

See Buridan's 20 sophisms. See our 2002 Riemann Hypothesis work re: i as a sophism. I.e., i as a sophism assumes, classically, i2 = -1 = ei, (also see our Planck quantum at that pi link) implicitly, self-reference when Planck rate clocked offers animate EIMA quantum~recursion. Self-referent calculation of factorial is a mathematical, mechanical implementation of a sophism. Ditto Fibonacci series, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5,... (Note that you can start with any two numbers. If you want to just calculate Fibonacci's ratio, (AKA phi, the "God Number," e.g., from movie PI and Dan Brown's Demon's and Angels; weigh adelphia: — a del phi a; Greek phi is 'love' and 'emergence;' a in Latin is 'of;' de in Latin is 'God;' so Philadelphia may be viewed as "Love of God's [quantum~]emerging~love~Qualities!" No mention of quantity here; no mention of objectification here; n¤thing Aristotelian-Constantinian-Thomist here; n¤thing dialectic (hate) here, (except for mathematics' own dialectical foundations; ugh)! Quantum!), you need not start with zero and one. You can start with 1000, 1000, 2000, 3000, etc., and 4096, 8192, 12288, 20480, etc. Regardless, said limit ratio is 1.618... Phi: (Why? m = 1 + 1/m. And m2 - m - 1 = 0. Take a square. Bisect it. Swing diagonal arc. Stretch square in that dimension. Long side is 1.618... times short side! Do Pythagoras on said figure! (sqrt(5)/2+0.5=1.618...; note that '5' is in phi!) Check positive root (just did in that parenthetical). Now what about quantum~square~root impact?) Phi, a number itself of — a number which issi — quantum~sophist~evolution. (You techies should check out delta modulation! Optimum slope for signal integration is phi! And delta mods are quantum~hermaphroditic: a single switch changes goes outta into goes inta! Ponder that in light of cuneiform! Earth's WWW internet is beau coup mazes of delta mods! Delta mods are WWW's, sort of, quantum~included~middle. Now ponder Doug's favorite, a zenith of quantum thinking: phil¤s¤phy! L¤ve ¤f s¤~phi~sms...love of~self~awareness, ~self~reference, ~fractal~fibo~recursion, ~quantum~adaptive~evolution,... Doug - 17Sep2005.) Also said population logistic equation from Doug Hofstadter's Meta Magical Themas, especially Chapter 16 (you'll love this stuff!!! Feigenbaum's 4.6692... natural chaos bifurcation spacing 'constant.'). Any 'equation' can be made sophist like this: xn+1 = f(xn). See attractor of Henon. Also see Benoit Mandelbrot's The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Everything in there is a classical version of sophist self-(other?)-reference-recursion. See our Fractal Connection. Doug - 15Sep2005. Note that Quantonics' version of quantum reality is sophisms of sophisms. Quantum reality is quantum~self~referent, ~recursive, and quantum~pan~self~aware. Too, it is ~animate and REIMAR based upon its quantum flux, quantum wave, QLO physiality. That's how David E. Pritchard was able to "diffract sodium atoms!" See our precis of Discover's Beams of Stuff.

A Crucial Case: Your reviewer calls this a crucial case, because of its importance when Western culture grasps its essence. It will change our underlying philosophy of Western culture beyond imagination. Future impact of understanding, fundamentally, what this means is simply enormous. It will change virtually everything we know, virtually every aspect of our daily lives at every level of being and inquiry. Return.