Arches

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

What is Wrong with Probability as Value?
Doug Renselle's
Critical Quantum Assessment
of a
Pirsigean notion of Probability as Value.

'D¤æs Pr¤babilihty Offer a C¤mplæte Quantum Dæscrihpti¤n ¤f MoQ 1 Value?'
by
Doug Renselle

Symbol, rtf, and Wingdings fonts required.

Uhsing ¤ur Quantonics aut¤matæd ediht¤r, wæ ¤ffer Quantonics remediation ¤f s¤mæ problematic English language words as quantum comtextuahlly apr¤pos.

Many other people, some quite well known (e.g., Suppes) are very interested in Bruno de Finetti.
You will see genuine innovations in subjective and quantum stochastics at this website in Italy.
Quantonics is seeing hits from that Italian site, pointing to this
(i.e., y~our) What is Wrong with Probability as Value page, effective now.

Thank you Italy!

Doug - 23May2010.

9Aug2009 - Doug

Here is our most recent 8Aug2009 query from US Army-Navy military personnel in Qatar: "Can Quantonics describe a wrong probability based upon occurrence of an accident?"

We have already answered this in detail, though quite simplistically just below.

Classically 'wrong' is either-or dichon(wrong, right) absolute.

Quantumly wr¤ng is BAWAM partially quanton(wr¤ng,rihght) partial and thus uncertain.

Simply, specific real accidents, due their quantum~absolute omniquenessings, aren't probable, so that means we cann¤t expect specific accidents.
That's why terrorists always have a provisional advantage over their targets.

Whole companies' missions are built around issues of stochastics and quantum~predicability.

Simply, all we can anticipate is a stochastic itself is an evolving expectationing. Why?

This exemplar permits us to use Fuzzonics as an exemplar:

Real quantum~stochastics appear in Fuzzonics somewhat as our peaqlo ensemblings shown above.

Real quantum~computers will perform quanton~processings similar that graph.

Every little 'hair' in our fuzzon represents an ephemeral involved in our stochastc processings for some accident.

Clearly, this is what we intend when we say "quantum~ensemblings."

Classically, our answer will always be wrong! Why? A scalar results from all those ephemera being classically Ockhamized (minimalized).

Quantumly, our answerings will always be quanton(w¤rsæ,bættær). We can only be partially correct and we can only be partially wr¤ng (w¤rsæ).

Why?
(simply, quantum~w¤rsæ and quantum~bættær are c¤mplæmæntary)

All of those ephemera are evolving in real~timings, at up to Planck rates, some of those entirely outside current anthropocentric sensory bandwidth qua.
They are all holographic and have other sub~ephemera affectings them which are n¤t included in our intrinsically~bandwidth~limited quanton~pr¤cæssings.

To answer our Qatar person's question, our quantum answer is better than n¤t having it,
but it will seldom be even close to what classicists expect to achieve, i.e., 'classical ideal scalar perfection.'
To any classicist if it isn't classically, canonically, rationally, exactly, legally, orthodoxly absolute, it is 'false.' To any classicist all partial answers are always 'false.'

To any quantumist, who quantumly~understands how and why reality is always quantum~uncertain, we are delighted to be able to do that well!

Classically strict y=f(t) determinism is a bogus dialectical notion, folks!

Doug - 9Aug2009.

Some of you are asking even simpler questions, e.g.:

"Is 0.35 probability?"

Depends.

Classically yes, we 'can' represent reality as scalars, like David X. Li did and brought world financial systems down in droves.

0.35 is a classical scalar magnitude...

Quantumly n¤, all quantum stochasticings are waves, processings in themselves, thus n¤ scalar magnitude per se can represent them.

Classically we 'can' measure 'waves' at a cartesian point.

Quantumly we can only omnitor waves as animate and emerging and evolving processings.

Just remember it simply, like this: "Stux sux. Flux is crux." Quantum flux issi essence of quantum~reality.

We may n¤t scalarbate nature which is perpetually evolving!

Idiot classicists routinely scalarbate nature. Duh!

Doug - 19,21,23Mar2009.

One of our studentings asked this exquisite quantum~question last week, "What values cannot be probability (probable)?"

Indirectly Doug answers this query in our detail text below, but Doug senses that we should just
answer it outright, before you have to wade through all that detail to fathom an answer for yourself.

All value which has already emerged and existed long enough for its quantum~waves to establish positive flux ensembles whose values
may be quantum~ømnihtøred, are stochastic: they may be assessed in terms of their probabilities (pastings),
plausibilities (nowings), and likelihoodings (to a limited extent, their futurings). We call those stochastic ensemblings PNFings.

Any value which may quantum~ontologically~become (has potentia, has Zayn) but hasn't yet, lacks actual stochastic ensembles, so their PNFings may n¤t bæ assessed.

N¤væl (i.e., "omnique" which is our QELR of classical 'unique') actualities which shall-will-may emerge, but haven't yet, represent: "What values cann¤t probabilistic (i.e., st¤chastic)."

We sincerely appreciate queries of this calibre, since they show us our efforts to help you commence grasping quantum~rælihty aræ w¤rking.

You may find it helpful too if you study Doug's brief opus on Hume's Law.

Doug - 14Oct2008.

More...

Doug intuited that this student's query is important! It is!

Many of you are aware that Doug is in a process of developing a Quantonics' proprietary version of wMBU™, i.e., waveManagement By Uncertainty™.

To do so, Doug has realized that we will have to use memes and memeos resembling real quantum~waves to assess quantum~uncertainty, and use those memes and memeos in our management feedback mechanisms to adjust corporate behaviourings. Our problem here is, "How do we take every day communications, as they have currently evolved, to literally 'make waves?' "

For background material Doug has been gradually developing some individual qua in mind as holographic studies. Enter David Bohm, Karl Pribram, Michael Talbot, Paul Pietsch, and a slew of others with whom Doug is currently only 'scratch level' acquainted.

As a result Doug recently started perusing Pribram's 1971 languages of the brain, 'experimental paradoxes and principles in neuropsychology.'

Fairly recently, something big is going on in our academe which is important, and it is happening now~ings. That studenting's query above is being asked by a multitude of people in a global learning environment. That query is recurring week after week in omniffering emerqancies from a wide variety of Earth loci.

Week ending 16Nov2008, Doug has been sampling Pribram's text. Doug found a reference which is a powerful tell of why said studenting's query is so important. Pribram refers a text by Sir Charles Sherrington (from 1904 Yale Silliman lectures) titled The Integrative Action of Nervous Systems. Pribram refers an eleven item summary by Sherrington, 1947, pp. 13-14. Item five is relevant here and Doug will partially quote said relevance, "...considerable resistance to passage of a single nerve impulse..."

Now let's get down and embarrassingly subtle.

Admit, up front, Sherrington's naïveté due his 1904-1947 likely classical thing-king.

".....considerable resistance..." may be hermeneuted how quantum~holographically?

What does a hologram do with a waveform it doesn't recognize?

What do we mean when we say "re cognition?"

But whatings issings happenings nextings whenings improbable (e.g., single, omnique ævænt) Valuings impinge any hologram?

HotMeme™ "Said omnique Valuings, since they cann¤t be re cognized, are stored everywhere, ubiquitously, in said hologram."™ HotMeme™.

We can describe that storage process as similar sympathetic vibration of a string in a guitar or piano which is impinged by phonons from some other source, nearby. Except those sympathies are n¤t adiabatic, and quantum~mind, quantum~stage~holographic neuronal sympathies are adiabatic.

Any hologram can only re cognize that for which it has already emersced energy wells, and those will be in countless loci in any hologram.

Can you see that Sherrington's classical "...considerable resistance..." is analogous (anacoquecigruecal) "...tentative absence of re cognition?"

O'gadon, do you re cognize how powerful that is? Quantum over classical, we can observe here, is embarrassingly powerful and full of unlimited yet unsaid potentia.

HotMeme™ "Saidings have quantum~c¤hærænt~æntr¤pic Valuæ as æmærging quantum~h¤l¤graphically ænærgy~wællings quantons."™ HotMeme™.

Doug's reaction to that phasement (i.e., "...considerable resistance to passage of a single nerve impulse...") is that it shows a nascent, perhaps proto~predilection in holographic m¤dals of mind to "...reject Value (i.e., n¤t recapitulatively make a Value assessment) which appears improbable (due a meme~memeo of apparent 'single eventness')..." Please obtain a key inference of an apparent intrinsic physial import of nature's own quantum~enthymemeticity and he~r treatment of it! A big query here is whether, as Bergson suggests, that single eventness receives a kind of isoentropic tentative persistence and for how long? We believe that it does and already showed our preference and prejudice toward that belief in our first HotMeme™ above. If that energy is stored everywhere adiabatically, then its storage duration may be viewed as relatively indefinite. (Recall University of Florida's rat brain YF-22 flight simulator!) We have anticipated such in our Quantonics quantum~philosophy. See Doug's descriptions of our isons, isops, isots, and quanta, etc.

For Doug this is just more evidence that our minds are indeed holographic, and even better, they are quantum~holographic. By that Doug intends to imply for our students that a holographic mind's evaluation bases are genuinely quantum~stochastic. Perhaps this is obvious to those of you who are neurophysicists, and perhaps neurophysiologists, but it isn't obvious to Doug as more of a 'philosopher of mind studies' just commencing his own quantum application of quantum philosophy to mind, from less of a bottom up approach, a more classically mechanical 'reduction' approach. See lisr.

Doug suggests that those of you who have been asking this query, read Pribram's first chapter and material he references in Sherrington's text. For a very quick tour of Pribram's text see his end of chapter synopses. Chapter 10's synopsis is just delicious.

Doug - 16Nov2008.

More...

Just below Pribram's 11 item list of Sherrington's 'characteristic di(omni)fferenc[ing]es' among neurons and synapses, and on same page, Pribram writes this paragraph which anticipates in 1971 Quantonics' emergence in 1995-1996:

"In short, the results of electrophysiological study of nerve trunks [neurons] and the results of behavioral investigation of the reflex [fuzzonic energy~welling of quantonic synapses] did not coincide. Nerves seemed to be simple conductive wires for impulses; the reflex [energy~welling synapses] showed a complexity of organization that could not be accounted for by a simple 'wire' model. Sherrington therefore adopted the 'neuron doctrine' that the 'wires' making up the nervous system, instead of forming a continuous network, were slightly separated from each other and joined by a structure that he baptized the synapse [which specifically corresponds much more general quanton]. He then endowed the synapse [quanton] with all of the complexity necessary to account for the behavior of the reflex [quanton]. Thus the properties of the observed behavior became attributed to the properties of the junctions [Doug now, CeodE 2012, refers these behaviors "holograil," which Doug labels in his graphic entitled 'A Reservoir of Wave Functions,' AKA one holograilic behavior which is"recursion." Please observe quanton(synapse,neuron) as holograilic quantum~complementation (another behavior) of both synapse and neuron: both con(m)tain one another, as Pirsig wrote, "...without (classical-) contradiction." I.e., "...absence of classical negation (another behavior)!" Compare quantum~cancellation. Please observe further quantum~recursion in Doug's script. Comma~nospace in any quanton is grail! Synapse in a quantum~holographic brain is grail! We see intrinsic fractal recursion of grail in Doug's script as "synapse~comma~n¤space!" Grail of grail! Hologra[[il][m][ph]]icity of hologra[[il][m][ph]]icity! We sææ quantum~real fractal recursion among wave~functions and their wellings of cosmic energy! Doug - 2Aug2012.] between neurons and not to its conducting 'wire' part." Page 7 of Pribram's 1971 languages of the brain. Doug's brackets to juxtapose Sherrington's "neurons AKA trunks" and "reflex AKA synapses" with Quantonics' fuzzons and quantons, and to comment on synapse behaviors as grail. Bold phrases marked for omniscussion.

That is Pribram's, we infer unintentional, omniscription of Quantonics in 1971.

See Doug's description of 'simple' under his A Quantum Pendulum page. There, also take note, lower on that page, of Doug's graphic descriptions of what...
 neurons (fuzzonic QLO attractors), and synapses (dotted-line macro~affectational nexes) link added 13Dec2008 - Doug.
...look like. Compare what Pribram omniscribes here, in our quotation of his text. Now imagine Doug's QLOs in that graphic as HotMeme™ "...evolving self~other~organizing quantum~fractal antennæ networks (ESOOQFANs)™" HotMeme™ AKA "living holograms." You may also wish to see a systemic exemplar of this quantum~meme here. Doug - 30Nov2008.

We want to take two approaches: one to just discuss our emboldened phrases in Quantonics as we grasp them now in November, 2008; and a second approach allowing us to use some 'advanced heuristics' re: this graphic:

Since Doug offers said graphic up front, let's do our second approach first.

Doug seldom goes way out on a conjectural limb. He tends more to hover closer to what titans of thought have assembled as 'leading' but not treacherous.

What Doug wants to say here and now is moving closer to treacherous. However, Doug has some confidencings in it, else he wouldn't broach it just nowings, just hereings.

I want to tie all of this together with memes we are already familiar with in Quantonics, so let's ask ourselves some leading queries.

"In order for our quantum~stages to do what we believe they can do, what do we have to attribute that graphic in terms of that graphic's natural qua?"

Those HotMemes™ Doug wrote above, almost two weeks ago (now is 27Nov2008), give us a clue. Review them and also see entropa and cohera. What is required for quantum~memeoryings to latch unprecedented (improbable) energyings? Let's ask it another way, "What would energy~well(ing)s have to be like in order to well energy they have never 'seen' prior?" (Recall initial impetus for this lengthy treatise from page top, "What values cannot be probability (probable)?")

Is it obvious to you that our quantum~stages energy wellings would have to be adiabatic? Next, you probably ask, "Doug, what does 'adiabatic' mean?" It means that which does not lose energy. Technically, it means that which is zeroentropic (See? You should have read entropa!).

Our diagram shows us what classical science can see now, CeodE 2008.

"How can we describe that 'seeable' bandwidth's quantum~entropy?" One word...

...Posentropic!.

"Is posentropy lossless?" No! All (chromodynamic fermionic (Fermi stochastic; n¤t Bose stochastic) UDU protonic
and DUD neutronic and electronic ensemble) posentropic quantum~reality is always less than 100% efficient.
See Doug's description of fermions as ensembles and as individuals in regards their adiabaticity. 16Oct2009 - Doug.
That's a polite way of saying that classical reality, J. C. Maxwell's posentropic reality, is a "loser." An energy loser.

But we have huge confidence, following Mae-wan Ho's et al.s' lead, that our quantum~stages' energy~wells are
overwhelmingly adiabatic. And, if you are staying with us at this juncture, you are bursting with another query:

Don't know. Am n¤t k~now~ings. So what can Doug do? He has to guess. Reality is intrinsically quantum~uncertain, so guessing is an appropriate response to that which is intrinsically uncertain.

Doug's guess is that flux adiabaticity's onset threshold commences somewhere near middle third of our graphic's logarithmic scale. Mathematics at this scale of numbers, numbers describing bandwidths, is n¤n trivial, so to keep it simpler, let's calculate using exponents in base 10. Current approximate upper limit of what we can sense is shown as 1021 and aligns 271 in octaves (frequency doublings). What we cannot se(ns)e ranges from 1021 to about 1043 and latter aligns 2143 in octaves. On a log scale we can think of thirds in terms of fractions of exponent. That doesn't give us exactly what we want since every octave we move up our scale doubles bandwidth of all of entire scale below it! So in terms of bandwidth all three thirds of entire scale's bandwidth occur between (roughly) 1042 and 1043. So let's stick with thirds of frequency, instead of thirds of bandwidth, while realizing we may be making some big problems for ourselves with which we may have to live later. If we do our dividing in frequency we can take our range from 1021 to 1043 and calculate that range as separated, in base 10, by 22 orders of magnitude. We can divide 22 by three and get approximately seven. Our thirds, in frequency then, would be labeled 1028, 1035, and 1043, latter being one order of magnitude larger that two previous. Those are about 1/3 increments above our seeable range.

Given that Dugger 'classical maths' abomination and his wag approximation, then, adiabaticity onset would start at about 1028 in terms of frequency. (Again, n¤t in terms of bandwidth.)

If that were so, then an implication is that most fermionic (i.e., material) flux from 0 to 1028 would be posentropic. After that and for what range of octaves we, again, are n¤t k~now~ings, adiabaticity might reign in whatever we call fermions "in that range."

Now make a huge assumption, a dramatic and potentially treacherous assumption: as quantum~beings, our quantum~stages have to be able to communicate in that range of frequencies and, not only that, but they have to be able to be aware of and recapitulatively energy~well (store, memeorize) those adiabatic fluxings. (Does our How to Tap Into Reserve Energy white paper take on novel additional semantic now? Doug - 28Nov2008.)

What accoutrements do we need in our brains to accomplish that?

First item on our list is - antennae. What kind? Subatomic, fractal! (See if you can fill in why? We'll work on this together as this text evolves over next months and years...)

Take a quantum~leap! What is most of our quantum~stagings' gray matter doing, anyway? Another treacherous assumption: transceiving adiabatic frequencies in ranges of flux above 1028.

Guess what? What has Doug treacherously, partially~enthymemetically described? A quantum~being's quantum~subconscious! Map WJS' UI onto what Doug is writing here. Was he 'right' on "isomorphism?"

That's a good start, which Doug can see already, can easily evolve into a volume library of 'quantum~mind.'

There is much to be written here and we will evolve it as it appears to us on our quantum~stagings...

Now let's go back to our omniscussion of approach one...

We emboldened Pribram's whole first sentence of our quote, "In short, the results of electrophysiological study of nerve trunks and the results of behavioral investigation of the reflex did not coincide."

Classically, that whole sentence is a problem since an assumption is made that all objective properties must be consistent and 'coincide' in terms of their 'holistic logic.' Pribram's interpretation though is a classical tell of a larger quantum~reality. His objective approach uncloaks a paradox he describes as "...did not coincide." What do we teach you that you should do when this happens? Say, "Mu!" Pribram is saying "Mu!" and he doesn't grasp its deeper quantum~essence. He is in a classical context and he needs to move to a much larger quantum~comtext.

Pribram is treating trunks and reflexes as classically-objective: lisr, excluded-middle, static, etc.

He needs to treat trunks and reflexes as quantum~subjective: everywhere~associative, included~middle, dynamic, etc.

When we change our thinking to do latter we have a quantum~epiphany that trunks and reflexes, like all quantons in quantum~reality, complement one another. They coinside as "...reflex issi ihn trunk and trunk issi ihn reflex..." They do n¤t formally, mechanically "...coincide." Given that, see if you can rewrite Pribram's sentence so that it positively describes his real quantum Mu laboratory experiment results.

Observe that our emerqancy of that new clause applies at a much higher level of evolution too as "...mind issi ihn brain and brain issi ihn mind." As Pirsig so brilliantly wrote two decades ago, "There is n¤ classical contradiction." We see n¤ncontradicting complementarity as quanton(mind,brain). Mind nissin brain and brain nissin mind. It is Doug's view that we can scale that quantum~essence across all level's of quantum~evolution. Bohm and Pribram probably would agree.

As an assignment, see if you can take those other bolds and write one paragraph describing issues surrounding them classical vav quantum:
 complexity of organization (hint: What is a general organization which depends, naturally, on enthymemeticity?) simple 'wire' model (hint: Is a hologram 'connected' by wires?) slightly separated (hint: This one should be simple. Compare excluded-middle vav included~middle.) joined by a structure (hint: "What is brain gray matter's infrastructure?" Describe it.) etc.

For those of you who are new to Quantonics, and you may have heard that Doug wants to emerq a novel quantum~politics, and Pirsig's brilliance is quintessence of Doug's approach. All views of all Earth folk, when superposed as quantum~ensemble SPoVs, are right and they are quantum~complementary one another, "...without contradiction..." We must learn to stop viewing them as objective, formal, analytic, dialectical opposites and start viewing them as quantum~complements of one another. Quantum~complementarity belies classical dialectics and all their bogus 'logical' and 'rational' accoutrements. When we add Mae wan Ho's quanton(coherence,autonomy), we have novel bases of judgment for perpetually good quantum~politics. Doug - 28Nov2008...Giving Thanks.

Today, CeodE 2008, quantons are quantum~holographic nexi among all fuzzonic energy wellings in nature. Latter describes n¤t just our minds, but all of quantum reality! Now that, reader, student...is an quantum~epiphany!

Doug - 27Nov2008.

 "Onæ issi k~n¤wing s~hæ issi d¤ing quantum mæasuræmæntings whæn ¤næ issi making lihkælih¤¤d assæssmæntings ¤f quantum ænsehmblings' n¤wings." Doug Renselle - 12May2004, Revised - 13Dec2005.

Some of you have been asking what Doug means by "quantum assessment" above.

Doug intends: quantum~subjection of mainly classical notions and definitions and possibly quantum metaphors and analogies to Quantonics own quantum tools:

quantum think~king modes
quantum metaphysics
quantum philosophy
quantum politics
quantum science
quantology
qualogos
quantum culture
quantum religion
quantum mathematics
quantum maths' specifics
quantum bases of judgment
quantum language remediation
quantum coquecigrues
quantum poetry
quantum art
memeotics
memeos
wMBU
etc.

Look at our bases of judgment page which offers paracomparisons among quantum~quantonic, Pirsigean, relativistic, and classical SOMitic approaches to judgment as a basis for quantum assessment.

An easy way to test whether someone is doing quantum assessment is to see whether they are using classical dialectical metaphysics, philosophy, etc. to do assessments. If so, they are n¤t doing quantum assessments. Classical assessment is a rote tote running on automatic methodology which accepts state-ic accretive stux sux know ledges as bases of rational reason and analytics.

Dialectic is a defective basis for reason. Thus classical approaches are, in general, defective.

Doug - 4Sep2006.

See our relevant Margenau's Refutation of the Quantum Projection Postulate.

Also, you may wish to see our, What is Measurement? page which refers back to this page.

For a superb corollary text to Margenau's work read Michael Talbot's The Holographic Universe, Chapter 7, 'Time out of Mind.'
(Chapters 1-4 are fairly quantum~quantonic.)
For a, to us, technically excellent subjective view of probability, see Bruno de Finetti's 'Foresight: Its Logical Laws, Its Subjective Sources.'
Our parent reference here is Studies in Subjective Probability, by Kyburg and Smokler, 1964, Wiley.

"We only apply the notion of probability in order to make likely predictions..." Bruno de Finetti.

De Finetti's apparently classical use of 'predictions' exposes his view of future as potentially determinate induced from historical data.
Of course we disagree with that premise. So does de Finetti. Quantum mechanics only 'predicts' probability based upon ensembles of data.

We need some qualification here.
N¤n mechanical quantum qubitation (coined in Quantonics, 10May2006) only 'predicts' n¤n scalar (qubital) ensemble quantum~likelihood omnistributionings.
Doug - 10May2006.

If we are doing quantum measurementings as described in Doug's quote just above, our data are quantum~ensemble nowings~sourced
and avoid any classical notions of historical induction, thence classical determinism.

We think you will like de Finetti's thoughts and beliefs re: subjective reality, regardless. For us they are just spectacular.

Here's a classical science show stopper example, "We are sometimes led to make
a judgment which has a purely subjective meaning,
and this is perfectly legitimate;
but if one seeks to replace it afterward by something objective,
one does not make progress, but only an error
."
Bravo! Buenoissimo! Muchas Bueno! Quoted from near beginning of Chapter VI. Our bold.

Due de Finetti's prescience, see our recent 'subjectiv.' (Yes, that is spelled without an 'e.')

De Finetti shows us how his view of subjective probability is very close to what
Pirsig means when he talks about "probability as Value."
De Finetti writes that his subjective point of view is
"...to show that there are rather profound psychological reasons which make the exact or approximate
agreement that is observed between the opinions of different individuals very natural, but that
there are no [classical] reasons, rational, positive,
[n]or metaphysical, that can give this fact any meaning

beyond that of a simple agreement of subjective opinions." Our bold. Our brackets. Our sic.
Very quantum indeed: Value cannot be stuffed into SOM's axiomatic box.

Worse, SOM's axioms always remove value, they never add value!
Classicists refer removal of value as "simplification," "formal analysis," "clarification,"
"analytic mechanization," "minimalization," "adhering Ockham's rule," etc.
In Quantonics we call classicists' removal of value, "DIQheaded scalarbation."
See DIQ and scalarbation.
Doug - 13Dec2005.

More clearly, "It is a question of showing that there is no need to admit, as it is currently held,
that the probability of a phenomenon has a determinate value, and that it suffices to know it."
De Finetti.

(De Finetti, here, uncloaks one of the major flaws with EPR. EPR did assume that
classical reality had to exhibit a measurement probability "equal to unity.")

Further, probability and its Value are animate EIMA ensemble (e.g., opinions) quantum process,
absent any static know-ledge-able classical notion of scalar magnitude.

De Finetti is essentially telling us that if say 100 individuals observe a presumed
'scientific' fact, each gains potentially inconsistent and incommensurable
observational information which itself is distinct from said fact.

Essentially de Finetti agrees with Heisenberg, et al., that science
and its tools, currently, offer no direct connection with reality.

His solution, amazingly, is similar ours in Quantonics!
Make "...the classical laws participate in the subjectiv[e] character of the statistical laws."
Our sic. See both subjectiv and subjective links above. Essence? Interim remediation of classicism!

If we distill this using QTMs we can say "There is no classical law which is both consistent and complete."
To believe that scientific 'law' is both consistent and complete, as current
physics does, is what we would call "classical pseudoscience."
Kurt Gödel and P.A.M Dirac agree.

But current physicists call what we, de Finetti, Bergson, James, Pirsig, et al., are saying, "pseudoscience."

Who is right?
(That is a classical query. Quantumly, "Which perspective is better?")

De Finetti suggests we read David Hume on cause, "which I consider the highest peak that has been reached by philosophy."
See Hume's An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and focus on his Section VII, 'The Idea of Necessary Connection.'
For us, and we have not read Hume thoroughly, he misses — a classical putative of 'stoppability' — as problematic.
To simplify what we mean here, do your best to fathom classical cause-effect as normatively stoppable,
thence as non classically intuitive absolute process. See our Quantonics' cause and affectation.

To directly be in quantum processings of seeings why classical notions of state-ic probability
are inane and inviable, ponder Doug's future Quantonics Question & Answer:

"What is 'probability' of 'heads' on a flip of a coin in absence of gravity?"
"Likelihood?"
"Likelih¤¤dings?"

Assume classically ideal 'absence of gravity' is possible.

Doug - 22-28Oct2004.

Unremediated Text

QELRed Text

Margenau2 on Probability - a mostly classical view, with subtle quantum avatars and intuitions

Margenau di-stinguishes probability as a posteriori and likelihood as a priori5.

Students of Quantonics will find this classical notion similar our own memeotic interrelationships among classical cause and quantum affectation. Both views (pastistic decidability vis-à-vis nowistic choosings, chancings, and changings) also appear somewhat akin Will Durant's interpretation of Charles Sanders Peirce's pragmatism which appears in Durant's Story of Philosophy.

Margenau offers valuable examples and gedankenments. Most of his jargon, though as recent as 1968, is still and yet classical but he uses it to introduce quantum memes. We see and intuit his own mind in a process of evolution away from classical stuckness toward quantum freedom.

Margenau2 on Probability - a mostly classical view, wihth subqtle quantum avatars amd ihntuihti¤ns

Margenau di-stinguishes probability as a posteriori and likelihood as a priori5.

Studænts ¤f Quantonics wihll find this classical notion similar our ¤wn mæmæ¤tihc ihnterrelati¤nships am¤ng classical cause and quantum affectation. Both views (pastistic decidability vis-à-vis n¤wistihc ch¤¤sings, chancings, amd changings) also appear somewhat akin Will Durant's interpretation of Charles Sanders Peirce's pragmatism which appears in Durant's Story of Philosophy.

Margenau offers valuable examples and gedankenments. Most of his jargon, though as recent as 1968, is still and yet classical but he uses it to introduce quantum memes. We see and intuit his own mind in a process of evolution away from classical stuckness t¤ward quantum frææd¤m.

Probability - a posteriori (see a priori, below under Likelihood)

Margenau shows us unambiguously that probability is about ensembles. Classically, any ensembles must be ensembles of ideally homogeneous and state-ic actuality3. Certainly then, classicists resist any notions of ensemble probability. It, quite simply, denies any classical notions of absolute determinism.

Margenau offers a simple yet crucial observation: "Probability is not about single events." We can make an inference here, "Single events are improbable."4 Stronger: "We cannot predict single event probabilities." (Note a fine point that "single events" only occur once; they are quantum novel.) However we can predict probabilities of events which appear to recur. Why do we say, "...appear to recur?" In quantum reality classically ideal ensemble recurrence is simply impossible. Classicists ineptly force an appearance of ensemble recurrence using stoppable reference frames and 'reproducible,' 'identical,' 'conventional-conveniently-Flatland-limited,' 'initial conditions.' These are just more classical delusions (even when viewed macroscopically and cosmically). Reality is not stoppable! However, reality is quantum sophist! Quantum reality is fractal~sorso.

So Quantonics can extend Margenau's observation. "Probability is not about novel events." Probability demands heterogeneity! Probability has no meaning in an entirely homogeneous, i.e., classical, system.

Latter blends a quantum hue into chance: affective local and nonlocal ensemble choosings.

Classical chance is about actuality (its 'known' constituents) and offers no capability of assessing any novel emergent events. Notice how this nicely explains why classicists have been unable to describe interstate process. Interstate processes always harbor some quantum novelty! We call it "quantum chaos." Yes! You are correct, to retain our quantum chastity we must say, Bergsonian durationally, "There is no (ideal classical) state."

Quantum chance shows us that novel realities may emerge which we have not seen before, which have had no prior existence. First 'time' this happens, it is apparitionally, only apparently a classical, single 'event' and classical probability has no means of anticipating it. Students of Quantonics, however, are vividly aware of quantum times as heterogeneous. So in quantum reality, apparent classical single events, are rather, animate EIMA quantum ensembles. We call them "peaqlos." See our discussion of peaqlo at our 3D Fuzz¤n. This added text is relevant our page top box, re: "nowings." Nowings imply heterogeneous ensemble timings.

So what do we intend when we say, "heterogeneous ensemble timings?"

In Quantonics we intend "all hermeneutics and perspectives which are quantum affectings nowings and nowings' CH3ings." So, then, what are those? Are (none, some, any, most, all) ensemble pastings' ensembles affectings nowings? Yes. Are (none, some, any, most, all) ensemble nowings' ensembles affectings nowings? Yes. Are (none, some, any, most, all) ensemble futurings' ensemble potentia affectings nowings? Yes. Again, we see an extraordinary and unusual trichotomous quanton(pastings,nowings,futurings) which is a more fuzzonic quantum animate, heterogeneous, EIMA analogue of classical reality's unitemporal time line and Einstein-Minkowski's space-time light cone.

"But Doug, how can ?" Via memeos of quantum expectation, quantum anticipation, quantum a priori. Margenau calls it "likelihood." We quantumly think of quantum reality as capable of qubital (Bohm might say, "holographic") computation. If that is so, then quantum reality "quantum computes" all potentia, all likelihoods. Quantum reality anticipates all potentia more and less. Now some essence. Doesn't this show explicitly "why ('classical') quantum theory ('mechanics') quasi~works?" We say, "Yes!" Doug - 14Aug2004.

Probability - a posteriori (see a priori, below under Likelihood)

Margenau shows us unambiguously that probability is about ensembles. Classically, any ensembles must be ensembles of ideally homogeneous and state-ic actuality3. Certainly then, classicists resist any notions of ensemble probability. It, quite simply, denies any classical notions of absolute determinism.

Margenau offers a simple yet crucial observation: "Probability is not about single events." We can make an inference here, "Single events are improbable."4 Stronger: "Wæ cann¤t 'predict' single event probabilities." (N¤te a fihnæ p¤ihnt that "sihnglæ ævænts" ¤nly ¤ccur ¤nce; they aræ quantum n¤vel.) H¤wævær wæ can predihct pr¤babilihties ¤f ævænts which appear to recur. Why do we say, "...appear to recur?" Ihn quantum ræhlihty classically ideal ensemble recurrence is simply impossible. Classicists ineptly force an appearance of ensemble recurrence using stoppable reference frames and 'reproducible,' 'identical,' 'conventional-conveniently-Flatland-limited,' 'initial conditions.' These are just more classical delusions (even when viewed macroscopically and cosmically). hlihty issi n¤t st¤ppable! H¤wævær, ræhlihty issi quantum s¤phist! Quantum ræhlihty issi fractal~sorso.

So Quantonics can extend Margenau's observation. "Pr¤babilihty issi n¤t ab¤ut n¤vel ævænts." Pr¤babilihty dæmamds hætær¤gæneihty! Pr¤babilihty has n¤ mæaning in an entirely homogeneous, i.e., classical, system.

Lattær blænds a quantum hue ihnt¤ chance: affæctihve l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal ænsehmble ch¤¤sings.

Classical chance is about actuality (its 'known' constituents) and offers no capability of assessing any novel emergent events. Notice how this nicely explains why classicists have been unable to describe interstate process. Ihnter phasæ pr¤cæsses ahlways harb¤r s¤mæ quantum n¤velty! Wæ cahll iht "quantum cha¤s." Yæs! Y¤u aræ c¤rrect, t¤ rætain ¤ur quantum chastihty wæ muhst sahy, Bergsonian durationally, "Thæræ issi n¤ (ideal classical) state."

Quantum chance sh¤ws uhs that n¤vel ræhlihties may æmærgæ whichhave n¤t sææn bæf¤re, which have had n¤ pri¤hr eistænce. Fihrst tihmings this issi happænings, iht issi apparitionally, only apparently a classical, single event and classical probability has no means of anticipating it. Studænts ¤f Quantonics, h¤wævær, aræ vihvihdly awaræ ¤f quantum tihmings as heterogæne¤uhs. S¤ ihn quantum ræhlihty, apparænt classihcal sihnglæ ævænts, aræ rather, anihmatæ EIMA quantum ænsehmbles. Wæ cahll thæm "peaqlos." Sææ ¤ur ¤mniscuhssi¤n ¤f peaqlo at ¤ur 3D Fuzz¤n. This addqæd text issi rælævant ¤ur pagæ t¤p b¤x, re: "n¤wings." N¤wings ihmply heterogæne¤uhs ænsehmble tihmings.

S¤ what d¤ wæ ihntændings whæn wæ sahy, "heterogæne¤uhs ænsehmble tihmings?"

Ihn Quantonics wæ ihntændings "ahll hærmænæutihcs amd pærspæctihvæs which aræ quantum affæctings n¤wings amd n¤wings' CH3ings." S¤, then, what aræ th¤se? Aræ (n¤næ, s¤mæ, any, m¤st, ahll) ænsehmble pahstings' ænsehmbles affæctings n¤wings? Yæs. Aræ (n¤næ, s¤mæ, any, m¤st, ahll) ænsehmble n¤wings' ænsehmbles affæctings n¤wings? Yæs. Aræ (n¤næ, s¤mæ, any, m¤st, ahll) ænsehmble futurings' ænsehmble p¤tæntia affæctings n¤wings? Yæs. Again, wæ sææ an extra¤hrdinary amd umuhsual trihch¤t¤m¤uhs quanton(pahstings,n¤wings,futurings) which issi a m¤re fuzz¤nihc quantum anihmatæ, heterogeneous, EIMA analogue of classical reality's unitemporal time line and Einstein-Minkowski's space-time light cone.

"But Doug, how can ?" Via mæmæos ¤f quantum æxpæctati¤n, quantum antihcipati¤n, quantum a prih¤hrai. Margænau cahlls iht "lihkælih¤¤d." Wæ quantumly thinkq ¤f quantum ræhlihty as capablæ ¤f qubihtal (Bohm might say, "holographic") computati¤n. Ihf that issi s¤, then quantum ræhlihty "quantum computes" ahll p¤tæntia, ahll lihkælih¤¤ds. Quantum ræhlihty antihcipatæs ahll p¤tæntia m¤re amd less. N¤w s¤mæ æssænce. D¤æsn't this sh¤w explihcihtly "why ('classical') quantum theory ('mechanics') quasi~works?" Wæ sahy, "Yæs!" Doug - 14Aug2004.

Likelihood - a priori

Here, we would essentially repeat our above a posteriori discussion while emphasizing affectation above cause. Essence: likelihood (looking forward and choosing potential better) bears more quantum intrinsic hermeneutics than probability (looking backward and deciding 'what happened'). Quantum likelihood advances pastistic probability to nowings.

See C. S. Peirce's (pronounced Purse's) abductive logic (as compared to inductive and deductive logics). "Abduction...makes its observations without reference to any previously propounded question, but, on the contrary, itself starts a question, or problematically propounded hypothesis, to explain a surprising observation." C. S. Peirce, from Memoir 19, Draft E: On Arguments, 1902.

See Doug's much more recent Peirce's Abduction vav Deduction and Induction. Doug - 5Jul2012.

Likelihood - a priori

Hæræ, wæ w¤uld æssæntiahlly ræpeat ¤ur ab¤ve a p¤stærih¤hrai ¤mniscuhssi¤n while emphasizing affectation above cause. Æssænce: lihkælih¤¤d (l¤¤king forward amd ch¤¤sing p¤tæntial bættær) bæars m¤re quantum ihntrinsihc hærmænæutihcs than probability (looking backward and deciding 'what happened'). Quantum lihkælih¤¤d advances pahstistihc pr¤babilihty t¤ n¤wings.

See C. S. Peirce's (pronounced Purse's) abductive logic (as compared to inductive and deductive logics). "Abduction...makes its observations without reference to any previously propounded question, but, on the contrary, itself starts a question, or problematically propounded hypothesis, to explain a surprising observation." C. S. Peirce, from Memoir 19, Draft E: On Arguments, 1902.

See Doug's much more recent Peirce's Abduction vav Deduction and Induction. Doug - 5Jul2012.

Classical Cause

You may notice how probability as a classically a posteriori notion begs attending notions of classical causation which further begs maltuitions of determinism.

Classical Cause

You may notice how probability as a classically a posteriori notion begs attending notions of classical causation which further begs maltuitions of determinism.

Quantum Affectation

You may also notice how likelihood as a quantum a priori meme simply shows us that quantum emergent and novel "whatings happenings nextings" are always quantum uncertain and outside any likelihood assessment while affective ensemble "whatings happenings nextings" offer extraordinarily good likelihood assessments. What does that mean?

It means that quantum emergent creation and novel creation are outside our capabilities to assess their likelihood. When we do ensemble likelihood assessments we intrinsically leave out any means of assessing them.

Quantum Affæctati¤n

Y¤u may als¤ n¤tihce h¤w lihkælih¤¤d as a quantum a prih¤hrai mæmæ sihmply sh¤ws uhs that quantum æmærgænt amd n¤vel "whatings happænings netings" aræ ahlways quantum umcærtain amd ¤utsihde any lihkælih¤¤d assæssmænt while affæctihve ænsehmble "whatings happænings netings" ¤ffer extra¤hrdinarily g¤¤d lihkælih¤¤d assæssmænts. What d¤æs that mæan?

Iht mæans that quantum æmærgænt cræati¤n amd n¤vel cræati¤n aræ ¤utsihde ¤ur capabilihties t¤ assæss their lihkælih¤¤d. Whæn wæ d¤ ænsehmble lihkælih¤¤d assæssmænts wæ ihntrinsihcahlly læave ¤ut any mæans ¤f assæssing thæm.

Quantum Emergence and Likelihood

Classically, likelihood and probability are about actuality, what we know.

Quantum emergence is a process of creation, a process creating that about which we have no know-ledge and direct experience. Quantum emergence creates that which is wholly novel and previously non existent.

Classical notions of likelihood and probability which are based upon actuality have no means of anticipating novel emergence. (Classical-causal-determinism essentially says, "If you cannot predict it, it shall not, indeed cannot happen." HyperBoole!)

Quantum Æmærgænce amd Lihkælih¤¤d

Classically, likelihood and probability are about actuality, what we know.

Quantum æmærgænce issi a pr¤cæss ¤f cræati¤n, a pr¤cæss cræating that ab¤ut whichhave n¤ kn¤w-lædgæ amd diræct epæriænce. Quantum æmærgænce cræatæs that which issi wh¤lly n¤vel amd prævi¤uhsly n¤n eistænt.

Classical notions of likelihood and probability which are based upon actuality have no means of anticipating novel emergence. (Classical-causal-determinism essentially says, "If you cannot predict it, it shall not, indeed cannot happen." HyperBoole!)

Scaling and Sophism as Tells

Margenau tells us that quantum probability, at atomic and subatomic scales, is quantum uncertain, but classicists insist that quantum 'uncertainty' becomes insignificant at classical superatomic scales of reality.

If that were so, probability would be less uncertain (more certain, ideally classical deterministic) at macroscopic scales of reality. But, again by observation, by direct experience, we understand that microscopic uncertainties can and do assemble and aggregate and scale to macroscopic uncertainties.

q = h/2· (the minimum, specific, quantum uncertainty under ideal classical measurement conditions)

where p is position, q is momentum, h is Planck's constant and pi is a natural irrational 'constant' 3.1415926...

q h/2· (a more general quantum uncertainty; a quantum tell here: uncertainty is usually 'larger' and usually not 'minimum')

Classicists misinterpret and misuse latter to 'prove' Heisenberg's uncertainty is insignificant at macroscopic scales, as we shall show below.

In Quantonics we believe our following is a better interpretation of above (and offers a better hermeneutic of classicists' misuse of it shown further below):

q N·(h/2·) ( a Quantonic, scaling of animate general quantum uncertainty )

where is our animate EIMA quantonic "equalings" semiotic, N is a scaling 'factor' for macroscopic ensemble~aggregate quantum systems.

Ponder how our assumption attends Planck's own epiphany about any actual system's total energy:

E = Nhv

where E is total system energy, N is number of (h issi least energy with composites of n·h) subsystems composing a system, h is Planck's constant, and v is frequencyj of subsystemi.

In Quantonics script:

Esystemq Nsubsystemsqhqvq.

To illustrate classicists' misinterpretation of a 'nonscaling' quantum uncertainty, let's quote Margenau; classicists assume:

 "...that the indeterminacy of [the quantum microcosm's] atomic events is ironed out in the macrocosm. The assertion is respectable for since we do not understand the function of physiological complexes in terms of atomic processes it can not be disproved. "Another, slightly different consideration, leads to the same result. If the principle of indeterminacy is written for position (x) and velocities (v) it reads "x·v h/2·m "m being the mass of the object whose motion is being studied. Now for an electron the quantity on the right of this inequality is about 1 (in c.g.s. units). Hence if we assume its position to be wholly uncertain within the volume of the atom, where it usually resides, and assign to x the value 10-8 cm (size of an atom), v must be about 108 cm/sec; the indeterminacy in velocity amounts to more than 100 times the speed of an ICBM. Many unforeseeable things can happen within that range of ignorance. "For a brain cell, m is at least one trillion times as great as it is for an electron, hence the uncertainty is a billion times smaller. Even if we assume again that x = 10-8 cm, we find v = 1 millimeter per sec. But for something as large as a cell it is unreasonable to allow x so small a value, which is far beyond the limit of detection. If we increase it 1,000-fold, the indeterminacy in velocity goes down to 10--3 mm/sec, a value so small as to be quite uninteresting." Pp. 74-76. (Our brackets and link.)

Notice how classicists divide by m! Quantonics says scaling reigns and we must multiply (i.e., due quantum heterogeneous, affective, animate, EIMA subsystem aggregation) by N! Classicists are guaranteeing their belief-prescribed, thus presumed, macroscopic outcome by dividing instead of multiplying.

("Multiply and prosper, divide and suffer." Modern 'enlightened' science is a formal metastasis of dialectic. You can see that here on a small scale. To see it on a larger scale notice how classical quantum scientists apply dialectic thus:

dialectical_reality = dichon(microcosm, macrocosm).

SOM's wall is erected substantially twixt macro and micro. An easy way to noodle this: "animate EIMA multiplicity, AKA quantum rhetoric, attends heterogeneity (quantum pluralism)," where "inanimate EEMD division, AKA classical dialectic, attends homogeneity (classical monism: see Doug's September, 2007 QELR of whole.).").

We believe classicists are wrong! Microcosmic atomic events are not schismatically walled off and "ironed out in [any] macrocosm!" Classicists want atomic events to be "ironed out in the macrocosm," else their classical 'laws' and 'determinisms' fall apart.

All atoms, indeed all quantons (Margenau calls them "onta") have arbitrary heterogeneous spatial and heterogeneous temporal probability distributions. They quantum superpose to greater and lesser extents. To us, in Quantonics, that allows us an important inference of a quantum included-middle. When we add absolute quantum animacy, quantum flux, semper flux, we can further infer quantum reality's sophism, its quantum fractal recursion, its means of entanglement and interference which we call self~other~referent~sophism, sorso. When we use such QTMs, and subsume CTMs, we realize probability and likelihood scale. Further, heterogeneity scales. Heisenberg's uncertainty scales. Quantum uncertainty scales.

What we believe we see here is another classical delusion. Classicists appear to assume that bullets, arrows, baseballs, golf balls, rockets and planets are Newtonian-homogeneous aggregates. See our Newton Connection. However they are not! All macroscopic chunks of material reality are quantum heterogeneous ensemble~assemblies. Their constituents are atoms and atoms' electrons. Such an aggregate~ensemble quantum system is fermionic. What does that mean? Fermions wobble! They exhibit quantum spin 1/2 rotational nonsymmetry. From a quantum indeterminacy~uncertainty perspective wobble is a huge affector. Now ponder how every atom's nuclei and electrons are all, each, fermions and all of them wobble. And their wobblings are asynchronous, actually polychronic, as Dirac suggested in his meme of "many times." Such an aggregate of heterogeneous internal wobblings, as it passes through quantum vacuum flux, generates chaotic micro affects which are unpredictable for a system's ultimate journey. We can predict a probability distribution, however we cannot predict a single outcome for said ensemble. Now that is quantum real!

That is why we say we must multiply by N vis-à-vis divide by m (mass).

Are we right? Are we wrong? Ask and answer some questions: What will Earth do next? What can be scope of any nextings? Solar system? Milky Way? Speed up Earth's history cinematographically so that you can view it in one hour? Do you see any scaling macroscopic quantum uncertainty eventings? Is there any way those can be classically determinate? What do you have to presume to make it so? Are your assumptions valid? Prove it.

Classicists exhibit similar errors of judgment. Other examples we offer include Didenko and Suslick's maltuitions against Sonoluminescence as a means of accessing free energy, and A Quantum Pendulum. Also See American Physical Society Executive Board's attempts to 'outlaw' "perpetual motion." There are countless other examples to offer here.

Students of Quantonics may note that Didenko and Suslick's thingking is extraordinarily similar Margenau's. Didenko and Suslick claim an SL pulse's energy when made macroscopic (energy budgeted, spread out, over full SL bubble acoustic cycle) shows no excess energy. Margenau essentially says that uncertainty at an atomic level when 'spread out' over a macroscopic range shows no excess macroscopic uncertainty! HyperBoole!

In quantonics we use some new memes which you may pursue if you want to dig deeper. See Zeno (esp. his first paradox), EQCx, ECOo, EQEG, EQI, IPAC, MTBUE, PSIUE, QEQI, QTP, QVP, sorso, EIMA, etc. See an applied discussion of most of those terms here. Study equilibrium and far from equilibrium systems.

 How does Doug think about this? Doug asks, "What are some quantum tells of macroscopic quantum uncertainty?" To Doug, these are all direct experience exemplars: Indonesia's 9 Richter quake and solitonic quantum tsunami which killed hundreds of thousands of humans and spawned devastation 'measured' in billions of dollars. (This is our best and most recent example. It also shows why people using classical mechanics and CTMs who attempt to predict Earth's future re: any scalarbative CTM-methods are simply pseudoscientists! Doug - 4Jan2005.) Columbia space shuttle (this disaster was avoidable, in our opinion, if NASA hadn't taken a classical view of reality) Challenger space shuttle (environmental qualities, e.g., temperatureq, are massively quantum uncertain) 1929 stock market crash Shoemaker-Levy comet crashing into Jupiter Automobile accidents (and ponder specifically human abilities to avoid them: we are quantum beings!) Target practice Golf Baseball Tennis etc. Another way is using Mean Time Between Failure, MTBF. Doug looks at MTBF like this: Macroscopic_Quantum_Uncertainty_of_Failure MTBF ± MTBF/Nq where Nq is macroscopically quantum uncertain. To widen our scope of quantum qualitative sensibilities use MTBE where our E is for macroscopically quantum uncertain Events.

Scaling and Sophism as Tells

Margenau tells us that quantum pr¤babilihty, at at¤mihc amd subqat¤mihc scalæs, issi quantum umcærtain, but classicists insist that quantum 'uncertainty' becomes insignificant at classical superatomic scales of reality.

If that were so, probability would be less uncertain (more certain, ideally classical deterministic) at macroscopic scales of reality. But, again by ¤bservati¤n, by diræct epæriænce, wæ umdærstamd that mihcrosc¤pihc umcærtainties can amd d¤ assæmble amd aggrægatæ amd scalæ t¤ macr¤sc¤pihc umcærtainties.

q = h/2· (the minimum, specific, quantum uncertainty under ideal classical measurement conditions)

where p is position, q is momentum, h is Planck's constant and pi is a natural irrational 'constant' 3.1415926...

q h/2· (a m¤re gænæral quantum umcærtainty; a quantum tæll hæræ: umcærtainty issi uhsuahlly 'largær' amd uhsuahlly n¤t 'minimum')

Classicists misinterpret and misuse latter to 'prove' Heisenberg's uncertainty is insignificant at macroscopic scales, as we shall show below.

Ihn Quantonics wæ bælihævæ ¤ur f¤ll¤wing issi a bættær ihnterpretati¤n ¤f ab¤ve (amd ¤ffers a bættær hærmænæutihc ¤f classicists' misuse of it shown further below):

q N·(h/2·) (a Quantonic, scaling ¤f anihmatæ gænæral quantum umcærtainty)

where is ¤ur anihmatæ EIMA quantonic "equalings" mæmæ¤tihc, N issi a scaling 'fahct¤r' f¤r macr¤sc¤pihc ænsehmble~aggrægatæ quantum systæms.

P¤ndær h¤w ¤ur assumpti¤n attænds Planck's ¤wn epiphany ab¤ut any ahctual systæm's t¤tal ænærgy:

E = Nhv

where E issi t¤tal systæm ænærgy, N issi n¤mbær ¤f (h issi læast ænærgy wihth c¤mp¤sihtes ¤f n·h) subqsystæms c¤mp¤sing a systæm, h is Planck's constant, and v is frequencyj of subqsystæmqi.

Ihn Quantonics scrihpt:

Esystæmq Nsubqsystæmsqhqvq.

To illustrate classicists' misinterpretation of a 'nonscaling' quantum umcærtainty, let's quote Margenau; classicists assume:

 "...that the indeterminacy of [the quantum microcosm's] atomic events is ironed out in the macrocosm. The assertion is respectable for since we do not understand the function of physiological complexes in terms of atomic processes it can not be disproved. "Another, slightly different consideration, leads to the same result. If the principle of indeterminacy is written for position (x) and velocities (v) it reads "x·v h/2·m "m being the mass of the object whose motion is being studied. Now for an electron the quantity on the right of this inequality is about 1 (in c.g.s. units). Hence if we assume its position to be wholly uncertain within the volume of the atom, where it usually resides, and assign to x the value 10-8 cm (size of an atom), v must be about 108 cm/sec; the indeterminacy in velocity amounts to more than 100 times the speed of an ICBM. Many unforeseeable things can happen within that range of ignorance. "For a brain cell, m is at least one trillion times as great as it is for an electron, hence the uncertainty is a billion times smaller. Even if we assume again that x = 10-8 cm, we find v = 1 millimeter per sec. But for something as large as a cell it is unreasonable to allow x so small a value, which is far beyond the limit of detection. If we increase it 1,000-fold, the indeterminacy in velocity goes down to 10--3 mm/sec, a value so small as to be quite uninteresting." Pp. 74-76. (Our brackets and link.)

Notice how classicists divide by m! Quantonics sahys scaling ræihgns amd wæ muhst multiply (i.e., duæ quantum heterogæne¤uhs, affæctihve, anihmatæ, EIMA subqsystæm aggrægati¤n) by N! Classicists are guaranteeing their belief-prescribed, thus presumed, macroscopic outcome by dividing instead of multiplying.

("Multiply and prosper, divide and suffer." Modern 'enlightened' science is a formal metastasis of dialectic. You can see that here on a small scale. To see it on a larger scale notice how classical quantum scientists apply dialectic thus:

dialectical_reality = dichon(microcosm, macrocosm).

SOM's wall is erected substantially twixt macro and micro. An easy way to noodle this: "animate EIMA multiplicity, AKA quantum rhetoric, attends heterogeneity (quantum pluralism)," where "inanimate EEMD division, AKA classical dialectic, attends homogeneity (classical monism).").

bælihævæ classihcists aræ wr¤ng! Mihcroc¤smihc at¤mihc ævænts aræ n¤t schismatically walled off and "ironed out in [any] macrocosm!" Classicists want atomic events to be "ironed out in the macrocosm," else their classical 'laws' and 'determinisms' fall apart.

Ahll at¤ms, ihndææd ahll quantons (Margenau calls them "onta") have arbihtrary heterogæne¤uhs spathial amd heterogæne¤uhs tehmp¤ral pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤ns. They quantum supærp¤sæ t¤ græhter amd læssær etænts. T¤ uhs, ihn Quantonics, that ahll¤ws uhs an ihmp¤hrtant ihnferænce ¤f a quantum ihncludæd-mihddle. Whæn wæ addq abs¤lutæ quantum anihmacy, quantum flux, sæmpær flux, wæ can further ihnfer quantum ræhlihty's s¤phism, ihts quantum frahctal ræcursi¤n, ihts mæans ¤f æntanglæmænt amd ihnterferænce which wæ cahll sælf~¤thær~referænt~s¤phism, s¤rs¤. Whæn wæ uhsæ such QTMs, amd subqsumæ CTMs, wæ ræhlihzæ pr¤babilihty amd lihkælih¤¤d scalæ. Further, hætær¤gæneihty scalæs. Heisenberg's umcærtainty scalæs. Quantum umcærtainty scalæs.

What wæ bælihævæ wæ sææ hæræ issi an¤thær classical delusion. Classicists appear to assume that bullets, arrows, baseballs, golf balls, rockets and planets are Newtonian-homogeneous aggregates. See our Newton Connection. H¤wævær they aræ n¤t! Ahll macr¤sc¤pihc chumks ¤f matærial ræhlihty aræ quantum heterogæne¤uhs ænsehmble~assæmbliæs. Their comstihtuænts aræ at¤ms amd at¤ms' electr¤ns. Such an aggrægatæ~ænsehmble quantum systæm issi fermi¤nihc. What d¤æs that mæan? Fermi¤ns w¤bble! They exhibiht quantum spihn 1/2 r¤tati¤nal n¤nsymmætry. Fr¤m a quantum ihndætærminacy~umcærtainty pærspæctihvæ w¤bble issi a huge affæct¤r. N¤w pondær h¤w æværy at¤m's nuclæi amd electr¤ns aræ ahll, each, fermi¤ns amd ahll ¤f thæm w¤bble. Amd their w¤bblings aræ asynchr¤n¤uhs, ahctuahlly p¤lychr¤nihc, as Dirac suggæsted ihn his mæmæ ¤f "many tihmæs." Such an aggrægatæ ¤f heterogæne¤uhs ihntærnal w¤bblings, as iht passes through quantum vacuum flux, genæratæs chaotihc mihcro affæcts which aræ umpredihctable f¤r a systæm's ultimatæ j¤urney. Wæ can predihct a pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤n, h¤wævær wæ cann¤t predihct a sihnglæ ¤utc¤mæ f¤r saihd ænsehmble. N¤w that issi quantum hl!

That is why we say we must multiply by N vis-à-vis divide by m (mass).

Are we right? Are we wrong? Ask and answer some questions: What will Earth do next? What can be scope of any nextings? Solar system? Milky Way? Speed up Earth's history cinematographically so that you can view it in one hour? Do you see any scaling macroscopic quantum uncertainty eventings? Is there any way those can be classically determinate? What do you have to presume to make it so? Are your assumptions valid? Prove it.

Classicists exhibit similar errors of judgment. Other examples we offer include Didenko and Suslick's maltuitions against Sonoluminescence as a means of accessing free energy, and A Quantum Pendulum. Also See American Physical Society Executive Board's attempts to 'outlaw' "perpetual motion." There are countless other examples to offer here.

Students of Quantonics may note that Didenko and Suslick's thingking is extraordinarily similar Margenau's. Didenko and Suslick claim an SL pulse's energy when made macroscopic (energy budgeted, spread out, over full SL bubble acoustic cycle) shows no excess energy. Margenau essentially says that uncertainty at an atomic level when 'spread out' over a macroscopic range shows no excess macroscopic uncertainty! HyperBoole!

In quantonics we use some new memes which you may pursue if you want to dig deeper. See Zeno (esp. his first paradox), EQCx, ECOo, EQEG, EQI, IPAC, MTBUE, PSIUE, QEQI, QTP, QVP, sorso, EIMA, etc. See an applied discussion of most of those terms here. Study equilibrium and far from equilibrium systems.

 H¤w d¤æs Doug thinkq ab¤ut this? Doug asks, "What aræ s¤mæ quantum tælls ¤f macr¤sc¤pihc quantum umcærtainty?" T¤ Doug, these aræ ahll diræct epæriænce eæmplars: Indonesia's 9 Richter quake and solitonic quantum tsunami which killed hundreds of thousands of humans and spawned devastation 'measured' in billions of dollars. (This is our best and most recent example. It also shows why people using classical mechanics and CTMs who attempt to predict Earth's future re: any scalarbative CTM-methods are simply pseudoscientists! Doug - 4Jan2005.) Columbia space shuttle (this disaster was avoidable, in our opinion, if NASA hadn't taken a classical view of reality) Challenger space shuttle (environmental qualities, e.g., temperatureq, are massively quantum uncertain) 1929 stock market crash Shoemaker-Levy comet crashing into Jupiter Automobile accidents (and ponder specifically human abilities to avoid them: we are quantum beings!) Target practice Golf Baseball Tennis etc. An¤thær way issi uhsing Mæan Tihmæ Bætwææn Failure, MTBF. Doug l¤¤ks at MTBF lihkæ this: Macr¤sc¤pihc_Quantum_Umcærtainty_of_Failure MTBF ± MTBF/Nq where Nq is macr¤sc¤pihcahlly quantum umcærtain. T¤ wihdæn ¤ur sc¤pe ¤f quantum qualihtatihvæ sænsibilihties uhsæ MTBE where ¤ur E issi f¤r macr¤sc¤pihcahlly quantum umcærtain Ævæntings.

Is Probability Value?

Consider:

• classical:
• probability
• likelihood
• quantum:
• probability
• likelihood

Classical probability and likelihood are non quantum for countless 'reasons:'

• formalism
• mechanics
• analytics
• lisrability
• stability
• independence
• identity
• tautology
• EEMD
• dialectics
• EOOO
• etc.

Pirsig's version of probability as Value is closer to being quantum since his MoQ demands probability is quanton(DQ,probability). But that script is quantum real regardless what SQ pattern we place right of our quanton's comma~nospace. Here too MoQ agrees. SQ is Value which is always in DQ and DQ is always in SQ. What is essential is Pirsig's memeo of cowithinitness which is one of many analogues of quantum reality's included~middle (refuting ideal classical independence). DQ de facto is quantum animacy (refuting ideal classical stability).

"Is Probability Value?"

If probability is based upon animate EIMA quantum numeric qubital monitorings, yes. However, as soon as we take this approach we have switched from a quantum memeo of probability (pastistic) to a quantum memeo of likelihood (nowistic).

Quantum science, unlike classical science, does not predict single, non ensemble 1:1 correspondent, stoppable, state-ic, inanimate, number-latched, scalar 'events.' Quantum science predicts a probability (Quantonics' version anticipates~expects QLOs; latter superposes and coheres quantons(pasticity_fuzzons,nowicity_fuzzons,futuricity_fuzzons)). See fuzzon. However that probability and its parent distribution are not classically state-ic, and classically stoppable. They too are animate processes which are evolving durationally. A quantum predictions' probability distribution(ings) ensemble has countless ensemble affectors and attractors whose own ensembles are quantum animate EIMA processes each of which offers hermeneutics of its animate probability distribution(ings).

Is Probability Value?

Consider:

• classical:
• probability
• likelihood
• quantum:
• pr¤babilihty
• lihkælih¤¤d

Classical probability and likelihood are non quantum for countless 'reasons:'

• formalism
• mechanics
• analytics
• lisrability
• stability
• independence
• identity
• tautology
• EEMD
• dialectics
• EOOO
• etc.

Pirsig's version of probability as Value is closer to being quantum since his MoQ demands pr¤babilihty issi quanton(DQ,pr¤babilihty). But that script is quantum real regardless what SQ pattern we place right of our quanton's comma~nospace. Here too MoQ agrees. SQ is Value which is always in DQ and DQ is always in SQ. What is essential is Pirsig's memeo of cowithinitness which is one of many analogues of quantum reality's included~middle (refuting ideal classical independence). DQ de facto is quantum animacy (refuting ideal classical stability).

"Issi Pr¤babilihty Valuæ?"

Ihf pr¤babilihty issi basæd uhpon anihmatæ EIMA quantum n¤mærihc qubihtal ømniht¤rings, yæs. H¤wævær, as s¤¤n as wæ takæ this appr¤achhave swihtched fr¤m a quantum mæmæo ¤f pr¤babilihty (pahstistihc) t¤ a quantum mæmæo ¤f lihkælih¤¤d (n¤wistihc).

Quantum scihænce, umlih classical science, d¤æs n¤t predict single, non ensemble 1:1 correspondent, stoppable, state-ic, inanimate, number-latched, scalar 'events.' Quantum scihænce predihcts a pr¤babilihty (Quantonics' værsi¤n antihcipatæs~æxpæcts QLOs; lattær supærp¤sæs amd c¤heres quantons(pahstihcihty_fuzz¤ns,n¤wihcihty_fuzz¤ns,futurihcihty_fuzz¤ns)). Sææ fuzzon. H¤wævær that pr¤babilihty amd ihts parænt ¤mnistrihbuti¤n aræ n¤t classically state-ic, and classically stoppable. They t¤¤ aræ anihmatæ pr¤cæsses which aræ æv¤lving duhrati¤nahlly. A quantum predihcti¤ns' pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤n(ings) ænsehmble has coumtless ænsehmble affæct¤rs amd attrahct¤rs wh¤se ¤wn ænsehmbles aræ quantum anihmatæ EIMA pr¤cæsses each ¤f which ¤ffers hærmænæutihcs ¤f ihts anihmatæ pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤n(ings).

"Is Likelihood Value?"

Quanton(Yes,No)Mu. Why? Quantum likelihood works (i.e., squareing of an ensemble's affective probability distribution) as long as emergent novelty doesn't impose itself on our processes. At issue here is quantum reality is always creating novelty. That means, in our opinion, that our likelihood assessments always harbor some quantum uncertainty. Why? As we stated above probability~likelihood of unique events is indeterminate. We need to include (novel, emergent aspæcts of) DQ in our SQ likelihood assessments, however we do not know operationally how to do that...yet. Regardless, we will never be able to predict a first occurrence of a novel quantum event. In Quantonics, our view is that quantum computers whose qubits are quantum real, not artificially superposed 'pairs' of classically-analogue 'fuzzy' states, will permit us to move closer to better likelihood assessments. However, we must remember that even reality, from our Quantonics quantum perspective, does not know what novelties will emerge next. (Students please ponder our composite of remarks on this web page from omniffering Quantonics sorso perspectives: "Quantum flux issi simple, classical state is complex." "Quantum~individual freedom issi (ISP¤Vs are) simple. Classical social con(notso)finement is (SSPoVs are) complex (plus, expensive and inhumane)." If you di-sagree, then we must quote Heraclitus, "You thus are not [yet] standingunder quaLogos.")

Years ago, in Bergson's Creative Evolution, topic 25, we attempted to show, using classical mathematics what Quantonics' version of quantum uncertainty looks like. We repeat it here FYE:

ensemble quantum uncertainty,

i.e., u1 q(complement1·complementsn),

(Our use of classical analytic mathematics is inappropriate here, and we do so only to bequeath a heretofore and yet wanting semantic of real ensemble quantum uncertainty.)

where our plural use of "complements" represents heterogeneity of other quantum complementsn which have ensemble affective quantum uncertainty interrelationships with complement1, including complement1's uncertainty interrelationships with itself.

 A Doug 6May2006 aside: We need to be really careful here. Let's do some innovative quantum~thinking similar our process in our review of Itzhak Bentov's Stalking The Wild Pendulum. Our classical mathematics above do a kind of recursive radical mechanics on c¤mplements which are n¤n mechanical. See our reviews of Bohm's EUUaC, PandP, and QIoN papers. Further, those c¤mplements are n¤t probabilities (scalars), rather they are animate durational probability omnistributionings which, in Quantonics we show as peaqlos. Each QLO too represents absolutely changing interrelationshipings among a variety of local and nonlocal quantum~attractorings. So how do we quantum~think of those interrelationshipings? Quantum~holograph memes, memeos, and memeotics help us here. Quantum~holographic attractorings (energy~wellings) are ensemble quantum~phase~encodings. We understand that waves (quantum~flux) are quantum~likelihood~omnistributionings. We infer that quantum~phase~encodings then are some kind of, for lack of a better word, phase~relative 'aggregationings' of attractive, energy~welling, QLOs. Once we commence epiphanous quantum~thinking like that we commence grasping the ludicrity of classical maths which we weakly exemplify above. All of this begs what appears to us now as a omnifficult question, "How do we represent memeotically and semiotically aggregate quantum uncertainty in a real quantum system." We cannot recursively multiply scalar probabilities else what Margenau wished for 'mechanically happens.' Take note here that quantum probabilities apparently are always less than one minus Planck's least action (our smallest representation of quantum~uncertainty) and greater than zero plus Planck's least action. Thus when we multiply two probabilities our result is always smaller. Recursive multiplication mechanically drives a mechanical limit approaching zero. That, by observation, isn't what happens in quantum reality though, is it? Some-how we have to take a system's ensemble quantum~phase~encodings and predict (estimate) a macroscopic system's quantum~uncertainty QLO. It gets really challenging when we ask "uncertainty of what?" Why? Recall what this page teaches about Quality as stochastic Value. Retroflection classically encourages us to expect more of same. Nowflection says anything can happen. Proflection turns a deaf ear and says "we have n¤ way of k~now~ing." Uncertainty is uncertain...but experience does show us that it scales...uncertainty is in uncertainty is in uncertainty...uncertainty(uncertainty(uncertainty(uncertainty(uncertainty(...)))))... Humanity has an enormous amount of challenge, opportunity and effort awaiting here. Doug - 6May2006, recursive red text added 28Jul2006 - Doug. End aside.

That 'model' of Quantonics' quantum uncertainty is too specific for our immediately prior discussion. It only shows one quanton in all its potential interrelationships. For a baseball or a planet, we would have to iterate over all fermions in said 'entity' to 'calculate' total quantum uncertainty. That is a shear impossibility for classical, von Neumann architectured computers. It is relatively trivial for a general quantum computer. And as we observe, routinely, Nature does it with ease: s-he is quantum!

What does MoQ say about quantum novelty? It issi MoQ's highest formation of SQ Valuæ, and it cannot happen without DQ's Bergsonian vital impetus.

Doug - 6-8May2004.

"Is Lihkælih¤¤d Valuæ?"

Quanton(Yæs,N¤) Mu. Why? Quantum lihkælih¤¤d w¤rks (i.e., squarqeing ¤f an ænsehmble's affæctihve pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤n) as l¤ng as æmærgænt n¤velty d¤æsn't ihmp¤sæ ihtsælf ¤n ¤ur pr¤cæsses. At ihssue hæræ issi quantum ræhlihty issi ahlways cræating n¤velty. That mæans, ihn ¤ur ¤pihni¤n, that ¤ur lihkælih¤¤d assæssmænts ahlways harb¤r s¤mæ quantum umcærtainty. Why? As wæ phasæd ab¤ve pr¤babilihty~lihkælih¤¤d ¤f ¤mnihquæ ævænts issi ihndætærminatæ. Wæ nææd t¤ ihncludæ (n¤vel, æmærgænt ashpæcts ¤f) DQ ihn ¤ur SQ lihkælih¤¤d assæssmænts, h¤wævær wæ d¤ n¤t kn¤w opærati¤nahlly h¤w t¤ d¤ that...yæt. Rægardless, wæ wihll nævær bæ able t¤ predihct a fihrst ¤ccurræncæ ¤f a n¤vel quantum ævænt. Ihn Quantonics, ¤ur vihew issi that quantum computers wh¤se qubihts aræ quantum hl, n¤t artihfihciahlly supærp¤sæd 'pairs' ¤f classically-analogue 'fuzzy' statæs, wihll pærmiht us t¤ m¤ve cl¤ser t¤ bættær likelih¤¤d assæssmænts. H¤wævær, wæ must ræmæmbær that ævæn hlihty, fr¤m ¤ur Quantonics quantum pærspæctihvæ, d¤æs n¤t kn¤w what n¤velties wihll æmærgæ next. (Students please ponder our composite of remarks on this web page from omniffering Quantonics sorso perspectives: "Quantum flux issi simple, classical state is complex." "Quantum~ihndihvihdual freedom issi (ISP¤Vs aræ) simple. Classical social con(notso)finement is (SSPoVs are) complex (plus, expensive and inhumane)." If you di-sagree, then we must quote Heraclitus, "You thus are n¤t [yet] standingunder quaLogos.")

Yæars ag¤, ihn Bergson's Creative Evolution, topic 25, wæ attæmpted t¤ sh¤w, using classical mathematics what Quantonics' værsi¤n ¤f quantum umcærtainty l¤¤ks like. Wæ ræpeat iht hæræ FYE:

ænsehmble quantum umcærtainty,

i.e., u1 q(c¤mplæmænt1·c¤mplæmæntsn),

(Our use of classical analytic mathematics is inappropriate here, and we do so only to bequeath a heretofore and yet wanting semantic of real ænsehmble quantum umcærtainty.)

where ¤ur plurahl uhsæ ¤f "c¤mplæmænts" ræpræsænts hætær¤gæneihty ¤f ¤thær quantum c¤mplæmæntsnq which have ænsehmble affæctihve quantum umcærtainty ihnterrelati¤nships wihth c¤mplæmænt1q, ihncluding c¤mplæmænt1q's umcærtainty ihnterrelati¤nships wihth ihtsælf.

 A Doug 6May2006 aside: Wæ nææd t¤ bæ ræhlly caræful hæræ. Læt's d¤ s¤mæ ihnnovatihvæ quantum~thinkqing sihmihlar ¤ur pr¤cæss ihn ¤ur review of Itzhak Bentov's Stalking The Wild Pendulum. Our classical mathematics above do a kind of recursive radical mechanics on c¤mplæmænts which aræ n¤n mechanical. Sææ ¤ur rævihews ¤f Bohm's EUUaC, PandP, and QIoN papers. Further, th¤se c¤mplæmænts aræ n¤t probabilities (scalars), rather they aræ anihmatæ durational probability ¤mnistrihbuti¤nings which, ihn Quantonics wæ sh¤w as peaqlos. Each QLO t¤¤ ræpræsænts abs¤lutæly changing ihnterrelati¤nshipings am¤ng a variæty ¤f l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal quantum~attrahct¤rings. S¤ h¤w d¤ wæ quantum~thinkq ¤f th¤se ihnterrelati¤nshipings? Quantum~h¤l¤graph mæmæs, mæmæos, amd mæmæ¤tihcs help uhs hæræ. Quantum~h¤l¤graphic attrahct¤rings (ænærgy~wællings) aræ ænsehmble quantum~phase~ænc¤dings. Wæ umdærstamd that wavæs (quantum~flux) aræ quantum~lihkælih¤¤d~¤mnistrihbuti¤nings. Wæ ihnfer that quantum~phase~ænc¤dings then aræ s¤mæ kind ¤f, f¤r lack ¤f a bættær w¤rd, phase~relatihve 'aggrægati¤nings' ¤f attrahctihvæ, ænærgy~wælling, QLOs. Once wæ c¤mmænce epiphan¤uhs quantum~thinkqing lihkæ that wæ c¤mmænce grashping the ludihcrihty ¤f classihcal maths which wæ wæakly eæmplihfy ab¤ve. Ahll ¤f this bægs what appæars t¤ uhs n¤w as a ¤mnifficult quæsti¤n, "H¤w d¤ wæ ræpræsænt mæmæ¤tihcahlly amd mæmæ¤tihcahlly aggrægatæ quantum umcærtainty ihn a ræhl quantum systæm." Wæ cann¤t ræcursihvely multiply scalar probabilities else what Margenau wished for 'mechanically happens.' Takæ n¤te hæræ that quantum pr¤babilihties apparæntly aræ ahlways less than ¤næ mihnuhs Planck's læast ahcti¤n (¤ur smahllest ræpræsæntati¤n ¤f quantum~umcærtainty) amd græhter than zær¤ pluhs Planck's læast ahcti¤n. Thuhs whæn wæ multiply two probabilities our result is always smaller. Recursive multiplication mechanically drives a mechanical limit approaching zero. That, by ¤bservati¤n, isn't what happæns ihn quantum ræhlihty though, issi iht? S¤mæ~h¤w wæ have t¤ takæ a systæm's ænsehmble quantum~phase~ænc¤dings amd predihct (estimatæ) a macr¤sc¤pihc systæm's quantum~umcærtainty QLO. Iht gets ræhlly chahllænging whæn wæ ask "umcærtainty ¤f what?" Why? Ræcahll what this pagæ teaches ab¤ut Qualihty as st¤chastihc Valuæ. Rætroflecti¤n classihcahlly ænc¤uragæs uhs t¤ æxpæct m¤re ¤f samæ. N¤wflecti¤n sahys anything can happæn. Pr¤flecti¤n turns a dæaf æar amd sahys "wæ have n¤ way ¤f k~n¤w~ing." Umcærtainty issi umcærtain...but epæriænce d¤æs sh¤w uhs that iht scalæs... umcærtainty issi ihn umcærtainty issi ihn umcærtainty...umcærtainty(umcærtainty(umcærtainty(umcærtainty(umcærtainty(...)))))... Humanihty has an en¤rm¤uhs amoumt ¤f chahllænge, ¤pp¤rtuhnihty amd eff¤rt awaihting hæræ. Doug - 6May2006, recursive red text added 28Jul2006 - Doug. We'll enable QELR on this after 30-60 days... End aside.

That 'model' of Quantonics' quantum umcærtainty issi t¤¤ spæcihfihc f¤r ¤ur ihmmædiatæly pri¤hr ¤mniscuhssi¤n. Iht ¤nly sh¤ws ¤næ quanton ihn ahll ihts p¤tæntial ihnterrelati¤nships. F¤r a basæbahll ¤hr a plahnet, wæ w¤uld have t¤ ihteratæ ¤vær ahll fermi¤ns ihn saihd 'entity' to 'calculate' t¤tal quantum umcærtainty. That is a shear impossibility for classical, von Neumann architectured computers. Iht issi rælatihvely trihvial f¤r a gænæral quantum computer. Amd as wæ observe, r¤utinely, Nature d¤æs iht wihth ease: s-he issi quantum!

What d¤æs MoQ say ab¤ut quantum n¤velty? Iht issi MoQ's highest æmærqancy ¤f SQ Valuæ, amd iht cann¤t happæn wihth¤ut DQ's Bergsonian vital impetus.

Doug - 6-8May2004.

Notes:

Note 1 - In Quantonics, MoQ has at least two flavors: MoQ I and MoQ II. MoQ I is Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality which, in Quantonics, we view as a parent quantum philosophy of MoQ II (which we usually think of as nMoQ II) Quantum Science AKA quantum (non)Mechanics of Quanta. Our non prefix in latter flavor acknowledges and abides David Bohm's belief that quantum reality is non-classically-mechanical.

Note 2 - Our reference here is Henry Margenau's 1st ed. Scientific Indeterminism and Human Freedom, 1968, ArchAbbey Press, 111 total pages including errata. This text is somewhat unique, among our experiences with textbooks of this calibre, in that p. 63 is missing. In its place is p. 73 which appears twice both in p. 63's place and in its standard sequence. Margenau attained his Ph.D. from Yale in 1929. He became Eugene Higgins Professor of Natural Philosophy and Physics. Students of Quantonics should also read Max Jammer's The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, in which Jammer offers countless comments about and by Margenau. Most appear at and after p. 226 in TPoQM's 1st ed. Also see our brief on Margenau's Rejection of the Projection Postulate.

Note 3 - That is, a Newtonian reality with an "enlightened" Newtonian ontology. A monotemporal reality. A monological reality. A monocontextual reality. An immutable, impenetrable reality. An ideally lisrable reality (which is essentially an Aristotelian reality), and so forth... In such a reality heterogeneity is a manifestation of infinite objective spatio-temporal divisibility: ideal formal mechanism attended by ideal radical onset and finality with initial conditions identifiable and effective analytically everywhere (e.g. Newtonian gravity). From this set of classical notions, thingkers might imagine a demon of unlimited omniscience who could predicately orchestrate all formal activity everywhere. Of course in retrospect we view that reality as naïve and local and inarguably anti-quantum. One must also observe that most classical scientists, a la Einstein's ilk, are classicists wallowing in this naïve 'realism.' Further, that same naïve 'realism' is what makes Einstein's brand of Relativity bogus. He assumed and required objective invariant geometric interval to make it classically viable, and that made it quantum dopey.
Doug - 7May2004.

Note 4 - Astute readers may find a nexus here with Bergson's memes of Radical Mechanism and Radical Finalism and Quantonics' criticisms of classical notions of 'begin' and 'end,' and Aristotelian notions of events as non process state transitions (e.g., apple on tree state; transition to apple on ground state; classically, Aristotle did not view apple on tree as process nor apple on ground as process, and Aristotle completely ignored change from apple on tree to apple on ground as process latter which became a precedent for all 'enlightened' 'scientific' endeavor which dominates now at Millennium III's commencement) and more recent 'scientific' notions of events simply as states without any capability and concern regarding real interstate process description (e.g., Errol E. Harris' descriptions of Relativity in his The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science, Ch. III, Relativity). Latter we refer as analytical strobing and analytical sample and holding. But Bergson showed us that real durational process is nonanalytical. Zeno of Elea showed us real durational process is unstoppable. Reality never holds still! Gives a cold chill when one hears 'scientists' speaking of "natural constants," and "geometric invariants," (upon which Relativity depends, enormously) doesn't it? Doug's neck hair actually stands up now when he hears 'scientifically disciplined and ethical experts' speak in such terms.

Note 5 - "The first recorded occurrence of the phrases is in the writings of the 14th-century logician Albert of Saxony. Here, an argument a priori is said to be "from causes to the effect" and an argument a posteriori to be "from effects to causes." Similar definitions were given by many later philosophers down to and including G.W. Leibniz, and the expressions still occur sometimes with these meanings in nonphilosophical contexts. It should be remembered that medieval logicians used the word "cause" in a syllogistic sense corresponding to Aristotle's aitia and did not necessarily mean by prius something earlier in time. This point is brought out by the use of the phrase demonstratio propter quid ("demonstration on account of what") as an equivalent for demonstratio a priori and of demonstratio quia ("demonstration that, or because") as an equivalent for demonstratio a posteriori. Hence the reference is obviously to Aristotle's distinction between knowledge of the ground or explanation of something and knowledge of the mere fact." From Encyclopedia Britannica, 2003 CD-ROM. Keyword "priori." Our bold for easy visual access. Our Quantonics quantum hermeneutics for these terms include: a priori as futurisitc and a posteriori as pastistic. We need novel quantum linguistics for nowistic. (See red text box there. We shall leave that red text box for several months for your convenience. 11May2005 - Doug.) Of course, in Millennium III, we understand that quantum reality is non classically causal-effective. Quantum reality is affectational, which this page demonstrates with contemporary quantum thinking modalities, QTMs.

Go to top of page

Doug - 6-8May2004
(stimulated by our first reading of Margenau's 1968 Scientific Indeterminism and Individual Freedom).

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
USA
1-317-THOUGHT

©Quantonics, Inc., 2004-2029 Rev. 4Sep2015  PDR — Created 6May2004  PDR
(10May2004 rev - Repair some punctuation. Adjust some QELR comtexts. Add red text near page bottom.)
(18May2004 rev - Add parenthetical on classical-causal-determinism.)
(20May2004 rev - Extend remarks surrounding "Classicists ineptly force...")
(21May2004 rev - Extend note 2.)
(26May2004 rev - Minor grammatical corrections: a missing 'are' in "These are just..." Similar problem in Note 3 a missing 'are' and need for plural present participle "classicists wallowing.")
(23Jun2004 rev - Add page top link to our What is Measurement? page.)
(2Jul2004 rev - Add "easy way to noodle" on quantum multiply vav classical divide.)
(7Jul2004 rev - Add a link to our QELR of 'forward' under a priori.)
(10Jul2004 rev - Improve our Planck E=Nhv statement re: N and n systems.)
(11Jul2004 rev - Add red text block on How Doug Thinks about Macroscopic Quantum Uncertainty.)
(14-15Aug2004 rev - Reset legacy red text. Add red text on "why quantum theory works.")
(16Sep2004 rev - Add anchor to 'Probability' section. Reset legacy red text.)
(18Sep2004 rev - Add red text under 'Probability.' Add red text boxes under scaling. Fix a plethora of typos and grammatical errors.)
(21Oct2004 rev - Correct typos and some blatant unQELR mistakes.)
(22-28Oct2004 rev - Add page top red text box on de Finetti.)
(1Nov2004 rev - More unQELR mistakes.)
(3Nov2004 rev - Add note 5.)
(21-22Dec2004 rev - Correct a bad QELRed 'Included Middle' link. Reset red text. Add ensemble 'affectors' and 'attractors' links under Is Probability Value?)
(27Dec2004 rev - Add a 'tell' link under 'Quantum Uncertainty and Sophism as Tells' topic.)
(3-4Jan2005 rev - Repair QELR of 'subscripts.' Add red text under 'scaling.')
(1Feb2005 rev - Repair note 3.)
(11Mar2005 rev - Add 'likelihood' anchor.)
(11May2005 rev - Resource 'le.gif.' Reset legacy red text. Add some links to Note 5, plus red text explication.)
(15Jul2005 rev - Add a 'Margenau's Ironing' anchor.)
(26Sep2005 rev - Add trichotomous quanton(p,n,f) link to our QELR of 'time' under 'a posteriori.')
(11Dec2005 rev - Add 'qubit' link near Doug, "How can quantum futurings beings affectings nowings?")
(9Feb2006 rev - Reset legacy red text.)
(6,9May2006 rev - Add pink text boxes near page bottom. Add qualification re: 'quantum prediction' near page top.)
(17,28Jul2006 rev - Add 'simplification' link under D. Finetti discussion near page top. Repair typo. Reset legacy red text. QELR 6May2006 update.)
(4Sep2006 rev - Update to show and explain what Doug means by 'quantum assessment.')
(5Mar2007 rev - Repair spelling of 'heterogeneous.')
(19Jun2007 rev - Reset legacy red text.)
(24Sep2007 rev - Add link to QELR of 'whole' under Scaling and Sophism as Tells.)
(15Jun2008 rev - Add 'Macroscopic Uncertainty' anchor.)
(14Oct2008 rev - Near page top answer student query, "What values cannot be probability?")
(16-17,27-28,30Nov2008 rev - Add 'Pribram Sherrington Nexus.' Replace wingdings and symbol fonts with gifs. Reset legacy markups. Pribram Nexus 1. Add green text ESOOQFAN exemplar update and links.)
(4,7,13Dec2008 rev - Change 'it' to 'them' under our two approaches description near page top. Add 'quantum~essence' link. Update double bullet neuron~synapses with 'affectational' link.)
(14Dec2008 rev - Add 'What Values Cannot Be Probable' anchor to near page top text which omniscusses a student's query of this omniquely quantum artefact.)
(31Jan2009 rev - Add 'Plancks Total Energy of a System' anchor.)
(23Mar2009 rev - Add 'point' and 'simply' links under latest update on "Is 0.35 probability?")
(9Aug2009 rev - Add page top answer to Qatar Military personnel query re "Can Quantonics describe a wrong probability based upon occurrence of an accident?")
(16Oct2009 rev - Reset legacy markups. Make page current. Add '(ensemble)' in description of non adiabaticity of 'posentropic reality.')
(12Mar2010 rev - Add 'Evolving Stochasticings' anchor.)
(7May2010 rev - Add 'work on this' link to our recent "Quantum Fractal" efforts.)
(23May2010 rev - Recognize link from Bruno de Finetti site in Italy.)