This Table is ©Quantonics, Inc., 2002-2009 — Rev. 27Nov2007  PDR — Created 12Jun2002  PDR (1 of 2)

EPR: Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen 1935 paper, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?
EPR: Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen

'com' prefixes









'com' prefixes









'com' prefixes









'com' prefixes









'com' prefixes

Ideal classical objects do n¤t 'exist' in quantum reality.

Ideal, objective notions of classical mathematics do n¤t work, in general, in quantum reality.

QELanguage Problematics

QELanguage Remediation

SOM Logic
SOM Limitations
SOM Connection

Separable classical objects may swap positions without altering their contextual semantic and interpretation.

Classical commutation presumes objective staticity. Classical commutation assumes
dichon(A, B) dichon(B, A). Classical commutation presumes all dichons and their dyads are EEMD.

Any quanton's c¤mplements may (/are) n¤t, in general, be (/...) classically 'identically' and 'isomorphically' commutative. Why?

Better exegetically, quantum n¤nactuality amd quantum actuality mayn¤t/cann¤t classically commute. They may transmute ¤nt¤l¤gically, but they mayn¤t/cann¤t 'logically' n¤r 'physically' 'swap' 'loci.'

T¤¤, any ¤f a quanton's c¤mplements aræ abs¤lutely anihmatæ, s¤ they aræ ¤mnifferent fr¤m themselves amd ¤thers fr¤m Planck m¤ment t¤ Planck m¤ment.

All quantum c¤mplements emerq ensemble quantum uncertainty interrelati¤nships with other quantum c¤mplements. Classical commutation alters quantum umcærtainty interrelati¤nships.

Every quanton's comtext is unique. Classical commutation alters quantum comtexts. Why? Every quantum comtext is an EIMA memetic pragmadigm. By "memetic" we intend intrinsically capable of anihmatæ EEE. All quantons are intrinsically memetic. Quantons are memes.

Quantum reality is anihmatæ. Thus every quantum comtext is anihmatæ. Classical commutation presumes ideal objective staticity.

Quanton Primer

Coined Quantonic Terms

See State

See Object

See Interpretation

See Complement

See Commutative

See QEQI

Quantum reality denies sentients complete final knowledge of itself.

Quantum reality is animate and emerging. What it can become is unlimited in scope, depth and variation.

We cannot capture quantum reality in GUTs and ToEs as classicists believe.

GUT

ToE

'con' prefixes









'con' prefixes









'con' prefixes









'con' prefixes









'con' prefixes









'con' prefixes









'con' prefixes









'con' prefixes









'con' prefixes









'con' prefixes









'con' prefixes









'con' prefixes









'con' prefixes









'con' prefixes









'con' prefixes

See a quantum artistic analogue of classical 'concept' A = B + C.

Try to imagine that artwork as having its quantum c¤mplement in n¤nactuality as this quantum egg attempts to show.

Due axioms of classical causation, EPR believe that we may deduce outcomes from an analytic sequence (what they call a "process;" what Einstein in particular calls a "gedanken experiment") of stepwise 1:1 correspondent, predictable, simultaneous, determinate, logically certain causes and effects.

EPR presume classical reality may be radically final. In other words they believe that classical processes are not just stoppable, but classical process have one beginning and one end.

EPR's presumption of radical finalism imposes another classical edict: that classical reality is closed!

A closed reality has a classical thing-king method advantage of energy conservation.

A presumption of classical closure of reality demands a J. C. Maxwellian closure of thermodynamic energy which drove his conclusion of entropy as only positive and his further conclusion of his three 'laws' of thermodynamics:

1. Universal energy/mass is constant and energy/mass conserve.
2. Disorder always increases (posentropy); thus a unilogical/classical arrow of homogeneous time is imposed on reality.
3. Thermalized, dissipative energy may not achieve a zeroentropy state, let alone a negentropy state.

Quantum reality denies classical causation. Why?

Quantum reality is a plural, animate, included-middle, everywhere-associative, ensemble quantum uncertain reality. Vast ensembles of quantons (e.g., a human being: ~10²⁷ atoms) are heterogeneously interrelating at up to Planck rates (i.e., ~10⁴³ changæs per unit spatial reference). "Whatings Happenings Nextings" thus have n¤ classical 1:1 correspondence, n¤ classical simultaneity, and thus n¤ possibility of any classical concept of single cause and single effect, i.e. n¤ "what happens next!"

Quantum reality is n¤t only unstoppable, but it has n¤ demarcable beginnings and n¤ demarcable endings.

Quantum reality is open, primarily due quantum n¤nactuality's classically n¤nconceptual nature.

Quantum entropies are quatrotomous:

1. posentropy
2. negentropy
3. zeroentropy
4. mixentropy ('mixtures' of items 1-3; fermions 1, 2, & 3; bosons 2 & 3)

Classical, J. C. Maxwellian entropy corresponds only to item one above, but does so classically decoherently (e.g., cann¤t explain BEC).

Classical theories of thermodynamics deny existence of items 2-4.

See our QQA on classical cause and effect.

See our list of Quantonics Acronyms.

See negation.

See not.

See Classical Notions of Time.

See Bergson's Radical Finalism.

Compare Classical and Quantum Notions of Time.

See Maxwell vis-à-vis Snow.

See N¤nconceptual Aspects of Quantum Reality. Scroll down to "conservation."

See entropa and cohera.

See think.

Quantum reality is n¤nlisr.

Quantum reality, as absolutely animate, has no classically stoppable 'states.' Quantum reality is Bergsonian durational. See our QELR of duration.

Quantum reality is n¤t state-ic, rather it is animately phase-ic.

Where classical states are absolutely, lisr-ly, measurably, statically certain, quantum phases are ensemble quantum uncertain.

See Don Howard's comments on how classicism is At Odds with Our Intuitions.

David Bohm quote on quantum reality as n¤nmechanical.

See Absoluteness as Quantum Uncertainty.

See phase.

See Bell Inequalities as quantum n¤nconditions. Search: Quantonics + "Bell Inequalities."

Classical causes have classical effects AKA classical consequences.

EPR's presumptions of classical 1:1 correspondent causation drives out any notions of reality's intrinsic, everywhere associative awareness.

Quantum reality is, "selectings nextings' ensemblings outcomings by Valuing nowings ensemblings affectings."

Quantum reality is ubiquitously quantum aware.

Many folk are currently, at Millennium III's beginning, using a 'new' catch phrase: "unintended consequences." All quantum affectati¤ns have p¤tential t¤ exhibit "unintended consequences," due quantum realihty's ihntrinsic ensehmble st¤chasticity.

See cause-effect.

See Kafatos, Nadeau, and Satinover.

See "Whatings Happenings Nextings."

See select.

In Quantonics, we view classical reasoning and CTMs as fundamentally and generally inept.

Quantum reality is absolute process. Absolute process is not analyzable. It is impossible to stop quantum reality to classically, analytically measure (scalarbate) it.

See What is Wrong with SOM Logic.

See SOM Limitations.

See SOM Assessment of Value.

See ISM Extremes.

See reason.

See scalarbation.

In quantum reality there are n¤ classical constants! Quantum reality is n¤t classically constant!

Adepts may recall how Einstein used classical concepts of objective geometrical 'interval' invariance (say, "constancy") to develop his special and general relativities. He did this even after Leibnitz warned against it. Doug - 28Mar2006.

See Quantum Oneness.

See One is the Loneliest Number.

See N¤mbær.

See Quantum p.

See IGI and RIGI.

See object. See subject. Juxtapose them carefully and well.

In Quantonics n¤ atom, its nuclei, n¤r its electrons are classically containable. Why?

They all have quantum c¤mplementary, included-middle, animate, everywhere-associative, ensemble probability distributions.

Quantum reality is n¤nclassically analytic.

Quantum reality may n¤t be conveniently stopped for classical analysis.

As Henri Louis Bergson says, "For we can analyse a thing, but not a process..."

EPR presume Aristotle's syllogisms are classically valihd, especially his 'law' of contradiction: A, is either A or 'not' A. Classical use of 'not' here presumes that negation is classically objective (A is 'not' -A). Objective negation presumes we can know what a physical object's logical 'negative' is. Thus, classical contradiction, which is the classical basis for Popperian falsifiability, and thus the classical basis for both valihdation and proof of classical propositions and theories depends upon an incoherent classical 'definition' of negation. That incoherent classical 'definition' of negation further depends upon Aristotle's 'law' that any classical object's middle is excluded from all other reality (i.e., A 'cannot' be both A and 'not' A). Observe how classical notions of stability and stoppability are classically decoherent and that is just what 'modern' quantum physicists call "collapse of the wave function:" "decoherence!"

From whence does all this classically incoherent, decoherent thingk-king arise? SOM, SOMwittedness, DIQheadedness, HyperBoole, CTMs, etc.

In Quantonics we refer Aristotle's syllogisms as Aristotle's sillygisms. J

Aristotle's three syllogisms distill, in quantum reality, to
A is both A while and n¤t A.

That statement says that any quanton A is both its animate self and its animate quantum c¤mplement commingling one another. Generally, then, we can say, "We are in It and It is in us!" We are in our quantum c¤mplement and our quantum c¤mplement is in us.

Thus in quantum reality it is impossible to have a classical negative of minus you, 'or' minus anything. Classical negation does n¤t exist!

Quantum negation is subjective. As such, in general, classical contradiction is impossible, classical falsifiability is impossible, and classical provisional proof based upon contradiction and falsifiability is impossible.

See Aristotle Connection.

See Negation is Subjective.

See What is Absurd?

See think.

causation









causation









causation









causation









causation









causation










causation










causation










causation










causation










causation










causation










causation










causation










causation

In Quantum reality, every actual c¤mplement of a quanton has an unlimited n¤mbær of potential actual and n¤nactual quantum c¤mplements.

This quantum real 'fact' denies any possibility of classical 1:1 correspondence.

When one comsiders another quantum real 'fact' that all quantons in quantum reality are absolutely quantum animate, one realizes even more vividly how deluded any notions of classical 1:1 correspondence really are.

See Quanton Primer.

See Cause-Effect.

See C¤mplement.

See N¤mbær.

Quantum reality is n¤t classically determinate. N¤ classical equation or function which depends upon and presumes a stable, objective, independent, predicate logical classical reality can adequately represent quantum reality.

Quantum reality is an ensemble reality whose animate everywhere associative qualitative affects are at best stochastic.

See correspond above.

See SOM's box; y=f(t).

See affectation.

See our QELR of ensemble.

Result B follows causally from condition A.

EPR presume that nature is classically causal.

EPR presume that 'condition' A is a 'causal' single valued scalar magnitude, or that A is a 'causal' 'state' vector of single valued scalar magnitudes.

EPR presume that after some arbitrary temporal latency t, B just happens due natural 'causation.'

EPR presume, too: B is a quantitatively 'effected' single valued scalar magnitude, or that B is a 'state' vector of quantitatively 'effected' single valued scalar magnitudes.

In quantum reality animate everywhere c¤mplementary associative quanton ensemblings animately emerge at up to Planck rates via per intera stochastic phasings of interrelationships among ensemblings.

See correspond above.

To us in Quantonics, nature, by observation, is in general n¤ncausal.

See per intera.

See this GIF of per intera quantum ensembles of timings

In quantum reality, given (i.e., known, state-ic, invariant) preconditions are impossible since quantum reality is in absolute flux, and it is impossible to stop reality to 'create' classically static "given conditions."

In quantum reality any animate memetic notion of 'condition' needs an appellation something like "comditionings." So, reader, you may see how and why we remediate nouns which need explicit animation as present participle plural — even though that representation will n¤t pass your classical grammar checker's rule base.

See Whatings Happenings Nextings.

See Cause-Effect.

In Quantonics, we deny state-ic know-ledges' capabilities having any chance of representing absolutely animate quantum reality.

To claim know-ledges valid, one would have to say, e.g., that a picture is valid. Are pictures real? Are movies real?

In quantum reality, qualitative affecting outcomings are always ensembles.

Quantum ensembles are intrinsically potentially everywhere associative, and part of their everywhere associativeness is their statistical c¤mpenetration (e.g., as qubits) across all 'scales' of reality from Planck scales up to extreme macro- cosmic-scales and greater.

Quantum aware choosings are happenings on all scales of quantum reality, and 'apparent' outcomings on any particular awareness level vary, yet are greater and lesser affected due quantum included-middle c¤mplementary c¤mpenetration of levels.

At any 'level,' 'apparent' outcomings are thus locally stochastic, and as such n¤nlocally n¤r multiversally EPR 1:1 correspondent cause-effect unipossible. Rather they are ¤mnip¤ssible!

See cause-effect

See whatings happenings nextings

EPR presume that they can predict any formal system's behavior, due their presumption of analytic causality.

Specifically they are correct. Key word here is formal. Classical systems are formal systems. As a result they 'work' in classical contexts. Generally they are incorrect. Why? Reality is n¤n-classical.

Why do classical systems work specifically and fail, in general? Mostly due their classical designs and classical design assumptions.

It is easy to use probability theory to counter any notion of absolute classical predictability.

Probability theory offers us a classical clue that reality is quantum uncertain and, in general, unpredictable. (Airplanes, trains, trucks, buses, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, tricycles, et al., wear out, crash and fail, in general. Maxwell's 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to classical formal analytic systems, but not specifically to quantum reality.)

It is worthwhile to comsider how Deming's TQM, TQS, TQC only increase classical formality. They do n¤t inure any implicit understanding of underlying quantum real emerscence, emerscitecture, emerscenture, and emerqants.

EPR presumed that they could reliably suppose classical gedanken experimental results are causal, i.e., what one supposes causes what one effectively thinks, and thus is classically inductive, self-deluding (due its n¤n generality) causal thinking.

Supposition arises from Latin putare which spawned 'putative' in modern Western cultural languages.

Aristotle's logic and subsequent Aquinas (13^th century), Buridan (14^th century), et al., efforts to develop formal logical systems depend enormously on notions of putative, suppositional, predicable reasoning.

certainty

Classical 'certainty' is only an apparition in quantum reality.

Quantum reality issi not classically 'deterministic,' rather, quantum reality issi animate, REIMAR QLOistic.

Classical causation arises from an assumption that one may use "historical events" to predict future events. Notice how that assumption further presupposes a y=f(t) unit history of time sequential zero momentum framed events (Bergson's "movement by immobilities"). Quantum 'historyings' are massive Planck~rate~to~nearly~unchanging~flux~and~isoflux complementary polypragmatemporalings' ensemblings. Think hologramings.

For excellent coverage of classical state-event thingking see Chapter 3 of our review of Daniel C. Dennett's Breaking the Spell.

Doug - 10Apr2006.

See our QELR of 'certain.'

See our QELR of 'uncertain.'

See our Ensemble Attractors.

See our Spectra and Bandwidths' Sensory Perspicacities and Perspicuitites.

See our QELR of duration.

exclusion










exclusion











exclusion










exclusion

EPR's use of alone in EPR, parlays classical convention. To them it means we can uniquely, objectively identify reality with human experience. And worse, that experience is our "alone" only experience. To them classical reality is OGC in which they can ascertain OGT called a GUT and a ToE.

Note here their anthropocentricity! Only human experience "alone" can describe and formalize reality.

Note their naïveté. In terms of maximum, assisted aggregate sensory bandwidth, humans can only classically, measurably sense less than 1 part in about 10²¹ parts of reality! And EPR presume that is enough to adequately, classically describe reality. Even ughlier, they append their classical adjective 'complete' to their human description of reality.

See lisr.

See excluded-middle.

See Quantonics' included~middle.

EPR assume that reality is dichotomous and that reality spawns ideal opposites. Examples are: true versus false, right versus wrong, good versus evil, up versus down, A versus -A, proven versus disproven, etc.

For every classical concept there exists an ideal classical opposite.

Either 'concept' or 'opposite.' Either 'subjective' or 'objective.' Classical reality dogmatically insists that reality may never be: both A and not A, both subjective and objective, both wave and particle!

So, to EPR, classical reality logically conserves, just as they presume it physically conserves.

An interesting historical note is how a classical notion of 'either' as enforced by EPR induced Niels Bohr to declare his quantum complementarity as "exclusive."

And thus we see 'either' is more spawn of Aristotle's excluded-middle 'law.'

See EOOO.

See BAWAM.

See EEMD.

See EIMA and REIMAR.

identity










identity










identity

EPR presume Aristotle's first 'law' is tautologous. A = A is an ideal classical identity.

Equality presumes classical reality is both stable and objects in classical reality are independent from one another.

Equality presumes A is stable and objectively independent. If A changes, it is only via classical analytic 'motion' in classical 'time.'

Equality presumes that A can be still, hold still, have 'zero' momentum. When A is still, it is unchanging and unchangeable except by local, radically mechanical 'interactions.'

Equality, given those classical presumptions, is a valid, proven, reliable classical notion.

See our QELR of time.

See our QELR of object.

See our Zeno's Stoppability.

See our QELR of independent.

See our QELP on identity.

independence






independence

EPR presume that objects in classical reality are independent, but that analytically, causally, deterministically, certainly 'what happens next' to an object in motion depends upon what has previously happened, historically.

Essentially, in 1935, EPR's beliefs here are what we call today, "positivism." You may wish to distinguish their brand of positivism from realism. See also logical positivism.

mechanics & measurement













mechanics & measurement













mechanics & measurement













mechanics & measurement













mechanics & measurement













mechanics & measurement













mechanics & measurement













mechanics & measurement













mechanics & measurement













mechanics & measurement













mechanics & measurement













mechanics & measurement

EPR presume that point objects 'exist' in classical reality. Point object B may lie between point objects A and C.

Again, this presumption depends upon a decoherent classical view of reality as stable and having independent objects in a homogeneous, state-ic space.

EPR use mechanics only as a hyphenated suffix to quantum, e.g., quantum-mechanic.

To classicists, like EPR, this should appear as an oxymoron. Why? Quantum reality is not mechanical!

Classical mechanics are inapplicable to quantum reality. Why? Classical mechanics presume reality is inanimate and objectively/dichonically, excluded-middle, oppositely independent. Quantum nonmechanics presume reality is animate and quantonically, included-middle, c¤mplementarily interrelated.

EPR presume that objects in classical reality may have either zero or nonzero momentum.

EPR presume that they can use classical mechanics to measure a particle's momentum to arbitrary precision.

EPR presumes that classical number is a state-ic concept. Numbers in classical reality are objective, and thus are stable and independent of one another.

EPR presume that numbers represent inanimate point objects in homogeneous, stable space.

Classicists like EPR presume that numeric intervals in homogeneous space are arbitrarily divisible.

Since classical time is classical space, all presumptions regarding classical space apply to classical time.

Classicists use numbers to measure space and to measure time as space rate.

Classicists' absent understanding and description of time as a n¤nclassical percept/meme is what prevents them from fathoming, let alone understanding, quantum reality.

See our QELR of point.

See our QELR of line.

See our QELR Of circle.

See our QELR of probability.

See our Quantonics Symbol 'fuzzon.'

See our QELR of understand.

EPR presume that an operator is a repeatable, reusable classical analytic process which reinterprets state-ic data in a radically mechanical-designed manner.

Classical operators are essentially formal mathematical macros which implement complex transform functions.

EPR presume that classical reality is physical: Aristotelian substantial, objective, analytic, radically mechanical, synthetic, state-ic, excluded-middle, inanimate, homogeneous, etc.

EPR presume that reality pre-exists, and physical materials of reality may be manipulated and used to manufacture 'new' physical things. New is a classical notion which cannot defy classical reality's presumption of physical conservation of energy and matter.

EPR presume that physical reality is reality. As such it is entropic, and only posentropic. EPR deny existence of any memes of negentropy and zeroentropy and mixtures of pos-, neg-, and zero-entropies.

As such EPR's physical reality may only be decoherent. EPR deny any memes of coherent and isocoherent reality, or mixtures thereof.

Therefore EPR's presumed physical reality only can understand thermalized energy and thermalized energy 'interactions' and transformations.

EPR's presumed science, which they call physics, as you can see is extremely limited in its abilities to describe physial reality.

EPR presume classical positivism, logical positivism, and scientific empiricism.

Latter EPR presumption is classical sciences' disciplinary matrix catholicism, its Kuhnian paradigmatism. It is how they forced Bohr to call his flavor of quantum complementarity "exclusive."

EPR presume that classical process is formal, i.e., classically analytic, radically mechanical, stoppable, symbolic-inanimate, state-ic process.

We can exemplify by quotes:

"This, according to quantum mechanics, can be done only with the help of further measurements, by a process known as the reduction of the wave packet. Let us consider the essentials of this process."

...

And, "On this point of view, since either one or the other [EOOO], but not both simultaneously, of the quantities P and Q can be predicted, they are not simultaneously real. This makes the reality of P and Q depend upon the process of measurement carried out on the first system, which does not [classically] disturb the second system in any way. No reasonable [classical] definition of reality could be expected to permit this."

Our brackets, color, bold, links, and italics on thelogos, etc.

See process

See fundament on reduction

See excluded-middle

See Negation is Subjective

See SOM Limitations

See What is Wrong with SOM's Boolean Logic

See coobsfection

EPR presume that classical reality is a quantitative reality.

EPR deny that classical reality has quality which compenetrates quantity. An example of what we mean here is that particle and wave are both analytic concepts to EPR. They deny any subjective qualities in particle and wave.

See our SOM (classical) Assessment of Qualitative Value.

reduction(2)
reduced(1)

EPR presume that classical theory describes and predicts functional analytical systems.

EPR presume that classical scientific method can absolutely disprove a theory or provisionally prove a theory.

See system, above.

negation









negation









negation

Note: EPR used 'cannot' one time as italicized.

See negation, below.

EPR presume that classical objective negation permits a derivative classical concept of contradiction.

EPR presume that classically objective predicate logical negation applies to:

• logical propositions,
• symbolic scripts, and
• mathematical equations,
• etc.

describing physical reality, and thus applies in general to physical reality.

EPR presume that contradictory propositions in a hypothesis/theory falsify a hypothesis/theory.

EPR presume that absence of evidentiary contradiction in any hypothesis/theory is 'provisional' classical 'proof' of said hypothesis/theory.

objectivity










objectivity










objectivity










objectivity

EPR presume that classical, physical reality consists of objects which interact according to classical radically mechanical/measurement 'laws' and that mechanical interactions of objects in physical reality may be described by:

• logical propositions,
• symbolic scripts, and
• mathematical equations,
• etc.

EPR presume that classical reality is objective.

EPR presume that classical reality adheres substantial, objective 'laws' promulgated by Aristotle:

1. law of identity
2. law of contradiction
3. law of excluded-middle

EPR presume that classical physical particles are classical objects.

See object, above.

I.e., "such a thing," "such a one," "such an effect," "such an object," "such a particle," etc. Pointing to a specific classical entity/property or a specific classical category of entities/properties.

Akin ultra-specific the.

See object, above.

observation










observation

EPR presume that one may unilaterally observe classical objects in local isolation as stable observables.

EPR presume that observables are unaffected by external and nonlocal affectors.

EPR presume that observables do not coobserve and coobsfect observers.

EPR presume that observers may classically re-cognize stable observables.

EPR presume that classical observation (cognition) of an observable at t₁ is identical to classical observation of an observable (re-cognition) at t₂. (I.e., reality is stable and conveniently stands still for classical observers. Subtle aside: classical time is space/space.)

quantitative










quantitative










quantitative










quantitative










quantitative










quantitative










quantitative










quantitative

EPR presume that 'one' is a classical knowable.

EPR presume that Peano's classical mathematical axioms are valid.

EPR presume that theoreticians can know concept 'one' in terms of physical reality. We interpret that to mean that physical reality has some physical manifestation of a stable, independent 'one.'

EPR use 'second' as a counter in four cases:

• second case,
• second particle,
• second question, and
• second system.

EPR presume that 'second' corresponds classical concept 1+1=2. Classical two corresponds classical 'second' as they have used 'second' in EPR. Colloquially we could say:

• twoth case,
• twoth particle,
• twoth question, and
• twoth system.

But physical reality offers no physical manifestation of a stable, independent 'two.'

In Quantonics, we do n¤t deny an abstract notion of countability. We deny an apparent practice of physicists and other scientists to presume that classical Peanoan notions of 'one,' 'two,' and modular induction exist in physical reality. They do n¤t! Our view is that confusion and classical error of reason and judgment from assuming that they do is enormous. (Our best examples are Einstein's consistent use of 'one' in his theories of relativity.)

EPR use 'set' as an aggregator of conditions and functions.

EPR presume that classical objects and their classical propertyesque conditions may be analytically grouped and aggregated mechanically. Their presumption depends upon a prerequisite that classical reality is stable and independent and that objects and their propertyesque conditions in reality are classically stable and independent.

EPR presume that classical functions may state-ically represent physical reality with fidelity.

EPR presume that it is possible to aggregate any 'set' of classically stable and independent objective conditions and functions.

EPR presume that classical objects have conveniently stoppable properties which stoppably vary with classical uni-time. These properties may be shown as functions of classical uni-time a specific times, t₁, t₂, t_n...

EPR deny any classical conception of unstoppable absolute flux of which time is a derivative.

EPR presume that classical variables are classical processes.

EPR presume that classical processes are analytically stoppable.

reality









reality









reality









reality









reality

EPR presume actuality is reality. They presume real is actual. Classically then, if real is actual, then actual is real. Why? Is is a classical identity!

EPR implicitly, then, must presume that reality and actuality must both hold still (except for potential analytic uni-temporal classical motion) for them to be identical to one another. Too, then, each must be identical to itself for arbitrarily long periods of classical uni-time.

See our QELR of reality which compares rather well classical and quantum descriptions of reality.

That QELR attempts to answer three questions:

• What is reality?
• What is classical reality?
• What is quantum reality?

EPR presume that classical reality is:

• stable & inanimate (except for uni-temporal classical motion),
• objective & independent,
• unilaterally, peeping Tom, "I can see you, but you cannot see me," observable,
• objectively lisr,
• homogeneous,
• absolute,
  • consistent,
    • always states the truth,
  • complete,
    • states all truths,
• singularly contextual (OGC),
• analytic,
• infinitely divisible,
• conservative,
• closed,
• excluded-middle,
• objectively negatable,
• contradictable,
• falsifiable,
• provisionally provable,
• certain,
• decidable,
• GUTable & ToEable,
• and so on...

First of all, real issi n¤t reality.

N¤ real quanton can be representing multiversal reality's c¤mplete quantum pr¤cessings! All any quanton ever 'sees' (at most) is its quantum comtexts' emerging ensehmblings' quantum interrelationships, and those of which fall within said quanton's quantum sensory perceptual bandwidths.

Classicists assume/presume classical 'reality' may be 'modeled' mechanically. We claim they are incorrect, and misguided. Reality is n¤t classically mechanical!

We believe that quantum reality may only be in anihmatæ per intera pr¤cessings of c¤¤bsfectings (what we call "Quantonic interrelati¤nships," which are themselves quantons) by real quantum pr¤cess ensehmblings we call "quantons."

But any real quanton issi n¤t reality. It is a l¤cal, anihmatæ, emergent, pr¤cessing comtextual descrihpti¤ning of reality.

As an aside, what we just said also explains why classical notions of 'gauge invariance' are ludicrously incorrect. From a quantum reality perspective, classical 'gauge invariance' is really silly! J

See Gödel on c¤mpleteness.

See Renselle on partiality.

quanton(n¤nact,act)

where n¤nact is an abbreviation for n¤nactuality and act is an abbreviation for actuality. This quanton is an inc¤mplete representation of reality, . It is inc¤mplete in a real sense (for example, we do n¤t (cann¤t) k-n¤w all of actuality, plus it is always changing; our quantum sensory perceptual bandwidths are extremely limited; etc.) that we cann¤t c¤mpletely represent all of actuality. Further, there are many issues surrounding to what extent our actual representationings of reality are partially descrihbing reality.

But philosophically our descrihpti¤n of as a quanton is more complete than any classical description of reality as merely a dichon(subject, object) or dichon(mind, body). So our quantum descrihpti¤n is better, and more c¤mplete than any classical description. This is what Robert M Pirsig meant when he said "MoQ is complete."

Our quanton, then, is epistemologically inc¤mplete, but its scope (via inclusion of an unlimited n¤nactuality, i.e., a Pirsigean DQ, a quantum vacuum flux) is potentially c¤mplete.

EPR presume that classical real-ity is rational. See real, above.

EPR presume that a rational classical real-ity is a reasonable reality: finite intellect sentients can use objective logic, semantics, grammar, and propositions to fully describe reality. See real, above.

Einstein (E) uncloaked his antagonistic presumption polemics of classical reality's reasonableness via defensive and abusive remarks (to invoke fear in his opponents — which were notably often ineffective against Niels Bohr and his supporters) like:

"God does 'not' throw dice."

"Subjectivity is absurd." (Which induced Bohr to declare his Copenhagen quantum complementarity "exclusive.")

"Nonlocal action at a distance is unreasonable."

Etc.

space-time










space-time










space-time










space-time










space-time










space-time










space-time










space-time










space-time










space-time










space-time










space-time

EPR presumed that a priori is classical deductive reasoning: reason by deduction based upon historical evidence is valid.

EPR presumed that valid, evidentiary, singular history, is valid cause for 1:1 correspondent deducible, predictable effect.

EPR presumed a classically unitemporal before/cause predicts a 1:1 correspondent after/effect.

EPR presumed there is one 'now' in classical unitime. Concomitantly they presume their one 'now' is local. Then decoherently, they further presume their local 'now' may be bootstrapped via logical induction to full globality (which due classical space-time and light speed limitations permits "global locality," i.e., a local experiment may be viewed as having inductively global application and semantic).

EPR saw 'now' as a unitemporally motional vertex twixt classical space-time's singular, determinate light-monoconic past and future.

Richard Feynman simplified this in two dimensions as a Big Lazy X whose vertex is 'now' and whose left triangle is past and right triangle is future.

One decoherent implication of this, whether viewed as an X or as one space-time light cone, is that there must be one (space-time monoconic) 'now' for all 'whens' and 'wheres.' (EPR dogmatically deny plurality and heterogeneity of when and where. Only way we know they can do that is to decoherently assume OGC and OGT.)

EPR presume that 'place' is a stable independent location, position or reference frame in space-time.

Their prior presumption depends upon their presumption that classical reality is lisr.

Classical space-time is 1T3D and shown as an n-tuple <t,x,y,z>.

Quantum spacings~timings are NTND phase~encodings of quantum~flux.

See: fuzzon, holograph, peaqlo, phase, time, etc.

EPR presume that 'point' is a stable independent infinitesimal in a reference frame in space-time.

See place, above.

See point.

See local.

EPR presume that 'position' is a stable independent coordinate (usually expressed as an n-tuple) in classical n-space-time.

See place and point, above.

EPR presume that state-ic classical events have occurred previous to 'now.'

See 'now' and 'after,' above.

EPR presume that we can return to a stable, unchanged, independent past, i.e., declaring an implicit acceptance of classical temporal reversibility.

This EPR presumption is either decoherent from its getgo, or they imply nonclassical aspects of reality which other scientists and physicists, e.g., J. C. Maxwell would deny.

It is easy to see how they might make this apparently decoherent classical assumption: con(m)sider both y=f(t) and y=f(-t) which presumes time may be both positive and negative.

EPR presume that time is space. More specifically they presume that time may be expressed as space/space.

EPR further presume that all objective properties must be simultaneously measurable.

Their most specific example of this presumption is a classical mandate that we must be classically capable of simultaneously measuring a classical object's position and momentum "simultaneously." In EPR's classical reality measurables must be simultaneously real.

This mandate is the basis of EPR's EPR claim that quantum theory's insistence that we cannot measure a quanton's position and momentum "simultaneously" implies that quantum theory is, according to EPR and EPR, "incomplete."

Here we have a sublime opportunity to obviate issues and problematics involved.

Quantum reality is n¤t stoppable, We cann¤t stop an 'object,' let alone 'stop' two 'or' more 'objects' 'simultaneously.'

This tiny 'cell' of discussion is, ultimately, a whole text and perhaps even a whole library of discussion and exegesis. We are oversimplifying and focusing on only a single issue: time.

A major issue is that EPR's assumption of 1T-3D is bogus! Their supposition that 1T and 3D are objectively, mechanically, formally, quantitatively, scalarbatively 'stoppable' is bogus!

Recall that Dirac offered his many times version of a multi-electron wave function. Doug. (See last item in that table.)

Quantum reality demands that we monitor he-r. S-he makes it abundantly apparent that we cann¤t 'stoppably' measure he-r.

Quantum reality is Hilbertian in spacings and timings! NT-ND, but n¤t classically transverse n¤r ideally periodic. Quantum flux is n¤n deterministic n¤n transverse-periodic flux! Quantum flux is radically stochastic: Brownian. In NT-ND Hilbertian fluxings-spatialityings.

There is n¤ classical unitime!!!

There is n¤ classical 'arrow of unitemporal flow.'

Let's do a (an overly simplified) simple classical Einsteinian relativistic example.

Einstein's theories of relativity claim that as a 1T-3D modeled object approaches light speed mass-energy approaches infinity.

How can Einstein surmise such? His relativistic equations permit a divide by zero. I.e., '1' minus light speed divided by 'object' speed in a denominator goes to zero.

But in quantum reality we are n¤t limited to 1T! To keep this simple, lets just allow 3T-3D. When we do that, our object does n¤t unitemporally 'collapse' its volume in T's 'direction.' Instead, our object now can quantum~temporally spread out in 3T 'dimensions.' Mass and mass density of 'object' n¤ longer volume 'collapse' unitemporally-directionally. We avoid an infinite mass-energy result mandated by Einstein's formulaic 'relativistic divide by zero.' We still get a zero in our subtraction of '1' minus light speed divided by object speed when object speed achieves light speed, but we can now noodle how mass-energy-density do n¤t, consequentially, go to infinity. Quantumly, we can (just like speed of sound's barrier) fly through light speed without Einstein's phony dialectically 'relativistic' mass-energy 'consequences.'

This makes quantum sense while being classically, dialectically "nonsense," "absurd," "ludicrous," etc.

Is Einstein right? Is quantum think-king right?

Use your own free will and freedom of thought to select a better answer.

Many times to you, dear reader,

Doug - 31Mar2006.

"There are more times than which we see on our timepiece." Doug.

See duration