'equilibria'
'equilibrium'

Etymology - Classical

Etymology - Quantum

Synonyms - Classical

Synonyms - Quantum

In Other Languages: Arabic (old) - Chinese - Deutch - French - Greek - Hebrew - Japanese - Italian - Latin - Portuguese - Russian - Spanish - Swedish - Swiss -

This QELR of equilibria and equilibrium is in progress until further notice - Doug - 20,22,24-30Mar2011 and 1,5,10,12-13,15-16,20-21,24Apr2011,1-13Sep2011.

Begin a Doug 8Mar2014 Equilibrium vav Classical Definiteness Aside:

For Doug, perhaps his most significant impetus for remediating equilibria from classical to quantum is a simple classical-notion (presumption) that equilibria_c are (can be) definite. 'Reasons_c' for this presumption_c are numerous, but bogus. Why bogus? They violate a quantum~meme that reality is quantum~uncertain (stochastically_q indefinite_q). Bear in mind: change is absolute and uncertainty is stochastic!

When we think_q of equilibria_q we must embrace indetermination_q and reject all other (quantumly~)bogus "static classical optimisms." 21Mar2014 rev - Add missing 'reject.' Add missing link to Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Doug.

Simply: Quantonics HotMeme™ "All equilibria_q are tentative_q, tenuous_q, and indeterminate_q across all quantum spectra and their quantum~wave~functions."™ Quantonics HotMeme™

Definiteness_c is a classical apparition! Equilibria_q are indefinite_q (uncertain_q)! This makes clearer another Doug HotMeme™ "Chaos_q masters equilibria_q."™ HotMeme™.

Doug - 8Mar2014.

End a Doug 8Mar2014 Equilibrium vav Classical Definiteness Aside.

We have a major challenge here in our attempts to remediate 'equilibrium.'

Why? Why remediate equilibrium? Classical 'equilibrium' omniffers radically quantum~equilibrium. From near end of Doug's online FEP textbook, Chapter 4, Topic 1, paraphrased for use here, "Key to grasping why all this is necessary...quantum reality is evolving and all its relationshipings are n¤nlinear, due quantization and scintillation, and we need to be 'saying, writing, doing' capable of moving into and out of quantum~equilibrium and show us ways of omnitoring said changes." Doug - 22Feb2012.

Classical 'equilibrium' assumes immutable, perpetual, absolute, concrete 'state.' Classical equilibrium assumes reality can be stopped and analyzed mechanically in 'zero momentum reference frames,' which themselves have 'equilibrium' of an ideal classical formality.

Begin a Doug 26Jul2011 Equilibrium vav Reversibility Aside:

Doug has written, many timings in many placings, a quantum~parable~fable that, paraphrased,

HotMeme™ "Movement (quantum: wolf eating said lamb) is radically quantum~absolute,
and Rest (classical: wolf and lamb as concrete objects) is only a classical apparition."™ HotMeme™.

In general movement is absolute, quantumly. Classically and specifically, when viewed locally and naïvely, concrete rest only appears 'real.'

Classicists are "Earth Chauvinists." They believe Earth is 'reality.' They objectively and concretely deny evolution as absolute. Why? A static and concrete reality may be conveniently-conventionally described completely by dialectic. Trouble is, that's (status quo is) just bogus!

Here is a graphic which shows cosmic proportions and scale of absolute cosmic movement, and Qycloidal™ quantized, Noun~finalNoun movementings:

A Quantum~Hologramic Cosmic~Metabolic Quantum~Flux in Cycloidal Motion

Movement and Rest

Doug - 25-26Jul2011, 22Sep2015.

When we view that graphic's absolute cycloidal movement as a m¤dal of Earth's solar system orbit in its milky-way orbital travels, we have to admit to absolute motion of all on Earth from any cosmic perspective as moving in excess of 200 miles per second. Doug believes total motion is much greater than that, perhaps thousands of miles per second. Doug assumes it is apparent to most readers that Doug's "...all on Earth..." refers actuality's portion which is massive: fermionic (spin 1/2) and posentropic. This is what inept classical hylics deludedly refer 'state-ic, immutable, objective, material, substantial, formal, mechanical reality.' Adepts grasp that photons (bosons, spin 1, integerentropic, etc.) may travel much faster and explicate much of quantum~evolution's transmutative processing on Earth. Allow Doug to use quantonic script to show quantons for both entropa and cohera: both quanton(mixentropa,quanton(negentropa,quanton(zeroentropa,posentropa))), and quanton(mixcohera,quanton(isocohera,quanton(cohera,decohera))). Allow Doug to show latter in terms of quantum flux spin nomenclatura: quanton(mixspin,quanton(isospin,quanton(integer_spin,fractional_spin))). In terms of adiabaticity we can script quanton(mixadiabatic,quanton(isoadiabatic,quanton(adiabatic,n¤n_adiabatic))).

An exotic exemplar of mixing in real quantized timings is a neutrino which quarter cycloidal~cycle alternates self-spins of (iso)integer and fractional. This facilitates one of quantum reality's great miracles of a partial fermion (neutrino as quanton(boson,fermion)) penetrating enormous masses and mass densities at near light speeds without apparent self-other 'damage.' Of course that is 'motion.' However, it isn't in cosmic cycloidal motion 'class' which Doug is using relevant equilibrium here. We should, though, be capable of describing other classes of 'motion' using quantiques autsimilar those desnoured here. Doug - 21Feb2012.

28Jun2012 Begin Spatio~Temporal Folding Aside:

In that prior paragraph Doug introduced quantum~memeos of "...other classes of 'motion.'" Specifically, neutrino motion as plausibly n¤n cycloidal.

Ever watch that fab flick Dune? (For Doug) Its most intriguing exegesis is teleportation as a quantum~phenomenon: "...folding time and space." Doug would ask adepts to read that as "...foldings of timings and spacings." Latter is a more holographic complementarospective. Too it offers quantum~stage isohologra[[il][m][ph]]icityings of Hugh Everett's multiverse(ings).

We can even make inferences re Bohm's enfoldment, specifically, exposed in one of many ways ostensibly~potentially as, "neutrino n¤n cycloidal motion."

We know neutrinos are real. We can imagine quantons similar neutrinos which aren't limited to light speed.

Catastrophe theory needs some quantum~memeos autsimilar these to offer heuristic actual views of space(ings) and time(ings) foldings.

Now stretch your quantum~stage noodlings!

What are implications of quantum~enfoldings~unfoldings nissin quantons(chaos,equilibria)?

Chaos theory come to mind? Butterfly affectings? Quantum~partiality of chaos in equilibria and equilibria in chaos? What about rqcsings of those partialityings?

If I were a young person and wanted to choose an area for my life's opus, this just might be it. It has much to do with cosmic subjects, but biology and medicine too: equilibrium as potential health (also tentative remission), chaos as change into quantons(better,worse) health, etc.

Doug - 28Jun2012.

28Jun2012 End Spatio~Temporal Folding Aside.

As you may choose to surmise then, no 'anything' can be said to have "zero momentum," period. Too, no anything can ever return to its 'original locus.' Further, all 'anythingings' are self~other~evolving at up to Planck rates.

That implies, at least to Doug, that reality in general is absolute change. Change borne of absolute quantum~flux. A great quantum~miracle is that quantum~flux may be viewed stochastically: uncertainty reigns and chance reigns. Being stochastic, though, implies that chance and uncertainty aren't absolute: their frequencies, changes, and gradients near to and far from equilibrium are quantum~guessable.

"But Doug, what about reversibility?"

In general, absolute movement~motion cannot be 'reversed.' Most processes cannot be reversed! Earth can never 'return' to where it was. Ditto Milky-Way. Ditto galactic clusters. Classical reversibility is an apparition. We can never 'reestablish initial conditions,' especially cartesian locus. Our comtexts are always changing, perpetually evolving, absolutely.

'Stability' is a wet dream of Keynesian, Marxian, Socialist, and classically retarded hylic minds.

Clearly then, a huge issue in omniscussing classical vav quantum~equilibria is that we must no longer view classical-equilibrium as 'state.' We must adapt quantumly to viewing equilibria as absolute 'change.' Those are two cosmic views vastly omniffering one another.

More to come...

Begin 14Sep2012 Extended Omniscussion on Reversibility Aside:

Following Doug's approach just above (under cycloid graphic) on spin, cohera, entropa, and adiabaticity, allow Doug to write a similar script for reversibility. In terms of reversibility we can script:

quanton(mixreversibility,quanton(isoreversibility,quanton(reversible,n¤n_reversible))).

Philosophical, metaphysical, scientific, physical, logical, and pneumatic implications of that script (combined with others above) are enormous.

Permit Doug to repeat his 'in general' summary, "In general, absolute movement~motion cannot be 'reversed.' Most processes cannot be reversed! Earth can never 'return' to where it was. And so on..."

I wish you share Doug's dawning_q here. Reversibility HotMeme™ "Reversibility and its partial quantum~complement n¤n(un)reversibility mimic certainty and its partial quantum~complement uncertainty."™ Reversibility HotMeme™.

Quantum~reversibility issi quantum~uncertain. Why? Quantum~absolute change, as n¤nabsolute-stochastic quantum~unreversibility mimicking n¤nabsolute-stochastic quantum~uncertainty.

Compare classical repeatability...nowings. Then compare classical canonic OSFA 'definitions' of verifiability, analyticity, formality, mechanicity, truth, proof, scalar measurement, state, stability, concrete, stoppability, equilibria, chaos. List is endless...

Doug has said, "Digital is dead." Why? Digital is 'certain,' formal, mechanical, analytic, objective, reversible, repeatable, etc. Doug also claims, "Classical maths are dead." What shall we do? Quantum~computing and quantum maths.

Quantum~reality is perpetually and ubiquitously hologra[[il][m][ph]]ic, alive, aware, con(m)scious, and forever evolving, changing...the account, the logos.

Heraclitus re the account,

• "On this account which holds forever men prove uncomprehending, both before hearing it and when first they have heard it. [B 1] (Diels Kranz B-Texts), and
• "For that reason you must follow what is common. But although the account is common, most men live as though they had an understanding of their own. [B 2] (Diels Kranz B-Texts)."

Doug ciphered Heraclitus' B2 using Bergson and Suares like this,

• "For that reason you must follow semasiologies of cosmic energy, cosmic flux. But although the account is one of cosmic flux, most men live as though they had a dialectical state-ic interpretation of their own."

In general, and this is Doug's linguistic condensation here, chaos, equilibria, and their gradiencings are quantum~uncertain, and quantum~n¤n~reversible.

Doug.

End 14Sep2012 Extended Omniscussion on Reversibility Aside.

Doug - 26Jul2011.

End a Doug 26Jul2011 Equilibrium vav Reversibility Aside.

Now we know...classical notions of 'state' as equilibrium are a totally bogus way of thing-king about reality. It is contrived, convenient, provincial, parochial, patriarchal, polemic, proscriptive ("thou shalt 'nots'..." spewing forth abundantly), unitemporal, bivalent (essence of classical opposition and contradiction), and literally unwise...it is classical binary, either-or dialectical stupidity at its most glaring manifestation of Error.

Classical notions of 'equilibrium' are just plain bogus.

All of classical 'science' is like that, however. That must change! It is imperative to change it and to remediate it.

To do so, Doug has to invoke some quantum~n¤nmechanical assumptions. Two big assumptions are that:

1. quantum~reality is absolute change born of absolute flux as its core memeo of reality, and that
2. all change involves heterotemporal and heterostochastic quantized quantum~phase~encodings of all absolutely changing flux.

Omniqueness(ings) emerge(s) here (thus denying classical notions of, for example, 'identity') which declares all phase~encodings complementarily omniffer (a way of saying, "ubiquitous and perpetual many to many quantum~holographic~antinomialism - Doug - 5Dec2014) all other phase~encodings in quantum~reality.

Autsimilarity 'exists,' but there are n¤ identities in quantum~reality!

So Doug's challenge here is to remediate static and objective classical 'equilibrium' notions with stindyanic and quantonic quantum~equilibrium memeos.

Now, reader, please realize how 'equilibrium' of 'state' appears simple. Comparatively, and these are wholly novel memes we are encountering, æquihlihbria of absolute change may appear complex. There are enormous challenges here. That means our efforts will be incomplete, i.e., quantumly~partial. We only need rudiments of omniscrimination twixt classical and quantum, however. Doug can do that!

Begin a Doug 16Jul2011 Equilibrium vav Stability Aside:

Classically, equilibrium and 'state' are close kin. Classical equilibrium is Keynesian 'stable,' it holds still and One Equilibrium Fits All (OEFA). Worse, classicists assume that Keynesian 'stability' can be controlled (TQC of a fiscal sort) and planned-made perpetually stable. If you grasp essentials of quantum~reality you also fathom how incredibly retarded a notion of Keynesian 'stability' is.

This is a core issue of Quantonics' position on FEP equilibria notions (classical) and memeos (quantum), and how perpetually evolving quantum equilibria are hyper a classical notion of Keynesian 'planned' and perpetually static-stable, ideally status quo, OEFA equilibrium.

Doug can make this more clear and apparently easy to grasp using two bullets:

• Keynesian classical 'equilibrium' is 'planned,' 'ideal,' and perpetually stable, vis-à-vis
• Quantonics' quantum equilibria are tentative and perpetually evolving from one (previous) equilibrium to another evolved and newer one.

If you concur with those con(m)clusions by Doug, then you may grasp how impossible it is for Keynesians to achieve FEP 'stability' using 'planning.' Classical dialectical 'reality' is a ruse, a 'ç a t h o l i ç' (universal) 'equilibrium' Keynesian Ponzi of unbelievable proportions. See wikipedia on Ponzi.

Hayek and von Mises have warned us about this. Their warnings are about to bear actualization, and most of us (alive today) are fortunate enough to be living in a time of huge change from an old and worn Keynesian equilibrium to many n¤væl~but~only~tentative and quantum~ensemble of vicissitudinal evolving quantum equilibria.

More narrative imminent here during next week or two...

End a Doug 16Jul2011 Equilibrium vav Stability Aside.

. . . 25-30Mar2011...

Doug is using Prigogine's and Stengers' (P&S') text titled Order Out of Chaos, Bantam, paperback, 1984 as a reference for most of his work here. Their opus now, in that text's regard is over 27 years ancient. They are classical mechanics broaching quasi~quantum memeos using dialectic's problematic French (translated from their native tongues) and English languages. Their work needs quantum~remediation, in Doug's opinion. However, their minds are superb and Doug wants to extend their opus in areas surrounding memes and memeos of 'equilibrium,' both classical and quantum. As a result, Doug finds it valuable to review that text in parallel with his efforts here and in his own new textbook. It will slow us down, but long term results will be extremely valuable and inimitable as quantonics' novelty. Far From Equilibrium, FFE-work in and of itself. Apropos!

To assist Doug's efficiency, he wants to introduce some new intra quantonics acronyms: FFE (Far From Equilibrium), NTE (Near To Equilibrium), and SAE (Stoppability AKA Atemporality At Equilibrium). We need to omniscuss FFE and NTE both classically and quantumly. Just now it appears to Doug that SAE only applies in classical contexts.

P&S' opus associates many other memes with 'equilibrium.' A key meme is one of reversibility. Their version of reversibility is classical. Their view of time is classical too. Time to them is a monism: One Time Fits All (OTFA). Their non classical notions and ideas are yet unitemporal. But for them that is a big leap forward since they claim that classical hard 'science' is actually atemporal: Doug calls this "stoppability." (This is a large part of Einstein's total failure in his construction of mechanical Special- and General-Relativity Theories.) They also claim that soft sciences have made most progress in temporal views of reality, so in that sense they are far ahead of hard science itself. Of course hard sciences simply do not 'work' (are not viable) without assumptions of atemporality and stoppability. Their laws and analytic (i.e., formal decomposition) tools fail when applied to quantum~evolving systems! P&S refer Henri Louis Bergson, however, they miss what Mae-wan Ho observed: Bergson's metaphysics calls for heterotemporalityings. That's quantum! See Doug's review of Bergson's Creative Evolution.

If equilibrium is omnifficult to explain...well, I'm unsure whether explaining 'reversibility' is as omnifficult, perhaps more, perhaps less so. Doug has done a QELR of 'reversibility,' but it is inadequate for issues which arise here. Since these two memes are so 'intertwined' with one another, Doug senses he should keep them together here until most unsaids have been desnoured to our own satisfaction.

P&S only speak of unitime as ideally reversible near classical equilibrium. They claim that unitemporal irreversibility (again, classical) only appears under FFE contexts. Most of their reasoning is spawn of classical thermodynamic theories. Classical thermodynamics assume unitime and single gradient posentropy, i.e. an arrow of time which inevitably carries actuality to an imminent and certain 'heat death.' In their text, though, they well convince readers that posentropy has two gradients: a 'negative' one which generates actuality itself, and a 'positive' one which conservatively degenerates ('reverses') actuality back to ultimate chaos. Issues born of these last five or so paragraphs are horrendous.

You may recall that Pirsig used a notion of 'latching.' See Doug's recent CeodE October, 2012 QELR of 'latch.' Reality's creative evolution, to Pirsig, latched novelty. We may choose to see latching as irreversibility. And for this local work effort, it simply explains what P&S are calling 'irreversibility.' We can hermeneut this in agreement by saying, "Novel creation AKA latching occurs at FFE." Placing that in currency's lime light, "Death of Keynesianism is a FFE process of countless ensemble affectings." And that is happening now as we watch! Doug - 30Mar2011.

Allow Doug to start a list of issues for further omniscussion (Doug is showing main issues first, then will go more specific on reversibility vis-à-vis irreversibility next):

• State vis-à-vis flux,
  • Basic classical theory assumes 'state.'
    • This has immense bogus (low 'value') implications for classical notions of equilibrium and reversibility (and all other classical thing-king).
  • N¤n mechanical quantum empiritheory assumes ubiquitous up to Planck rate flux (isonic n¤n~spins, plus bosonic zero, integer, and fermionic 0.5 spins).
    • This puts Value back into all human think_qing about reality, including memeos of equilibrium and reversibility.
    • Ubiquitous quantum~flux, hyper classical notions of state, offers many notable implications for classical vis-à-vis quantum hermeneutics of equilibrium and reversibility.
      • Classical reversibility implications:
      • Quantum reversibility implications:
      • Classical atemporality implications:
      • Quantum atemporality implications:
      • Classical equilibrium implications:
      • Quantum equilibrium implications:
• Certainty vis-à-vis uncertainty (see Doug's quantum vis-à-vis classical measurement),
  • Basic classical mechanical theory assumes ubiquitous certainty.
  • Basic classical mechanical quantum theory assumes microscopic uncertainty and macroscopic classical certainty.
  • N¤n classical quantum~empiritheory assumes EIMA holographic Ensemble~Quantum~Uncertainty (EQU): quantum~uncertainty reigns all scales of quantum~reality.
    • Ubiquitous quantum~uncertainty, hyper classical notions of certainty, offers many notable implications for classical vis-à-vis quantum hermeneutics of equilibrium and reversibility.
      • Classical reversibility implications:
      • Quantum reversibility implications:
      • Classical atemporality implications:
      • Quantum atemporality implications:
      • Classical equilibrium implications:
      • Quantum equilibrium implications:
• Monism vis-à-vis pluralism,
  • Classical continuous 'state' informs and immanates all monistic classical thought with dialectical bivalency.
  • Quantum~flux, with up to Planck rate complementary quantization, emerqs, pluralizes, and holografies all heterogeneous quantum~think_qing with quantonic~omnivalencyings.
    • Ubiquitous quantum~pluralism, hyper classical notions of monism, offers many notable implications for classical vis-à-vis quantum hermeneutics of equilibrium and reversibility.
      • Classical reversibility implications:
      • Quantum reversibility implications:
      • Classical atemporality implications:
      • Quantum atemporality implications:
      • Classical equilibrium implications:
      • Quantum equilibrium implications:
• Classes of time,
  • classical time as temporal monism, time as homogeneous, ideal absence of quantization, Planck's clock intentionally turned off, etc.
  • quantum~time as radical and stochastic quantized~timings as spawn of quantum flux enabled by Plancks clock's perpetual ticking
    • Ubiquitous quantum~timings, hyper classical notions of monistic time, offer many notable implications for classical vis-à-vis quantum hermeneutics of equilibrium and reversibility.
      • Classical reversibility implications:
      • Quantum reversibility implications:
      • Classical atemporality implications:
      • Quantum atemporality implications:
      • Classical equilibrium implications:
      • Quantum equilibrium implications:
  • quantization of time (all flux is quantized so then too are mass, space, and gravity, etc.)
  • etc.
• What about phase?,
  • quantum~phase~interrelationshipings are quintessence of all quantum~evolution, thus all emergent quantum~creation and novelty
  • spontaneous (free will; n¤n inert) phase~interrelationshipings depend intrinsically upon massively plural and ensemble quantization of all quantum~flux
    • gravityings now may be viewed as one quantum~stochastic~holographic kind of quantum~phase~interrelationshipings
    • massings now may be viewed as one quantum~stochastic~holographic kind of quantum~phase~interrelationshipings
    • spacings now may be viewed as one quantum~stochastic~holographic kind of quantum~phase~interrelationshipings
    • timings now may be viewed as one quantum~stochastic~holographic kind of quantum~phase~interrelationshipings
  • entanglement and its partial presence~absence is key to quantum~scintillation's creative changings, e.g., Higgs boson and creatio ex nihilo aperio and QED and QCD
  • classical absence of quantization leaves all flux unquantized (as closed, static-tautological transverse y=f(t) classical sinus flux) and Bergsonian 'inert,' not spontaneous (absence of free will: causally determinate; ideal absence of quantum~chance and ~uncertainty)
    • Ubiquitous quantum~phase~quantization, hyper classical notions of scalar phase, offers many notable implications for classical vis-à-vis quantum hermeneutics of equilibrium and reversibility.
      • Classical reversibility implications:
      • Quantum reversibility implications:
      • Classical atemporality implications:
      • Quantum atemporality implications:
      • Classical equilibrium implications:
      • Quantum equilibrium implications:
  • etc.
• Thermodynamics,
  • As Doug has vociferously explained in Quantonics, classical thermodynamics theories are mostly and simply bogus:
    • single class of entropy: posentropy
    • assumes a single degenerative gradient to posentropy
    • entropy as a static scalar classical dialectical concept
    • assumption of classical 2^nd 'law' as general to all reality (it is only partially specific to material, posentropic reality)
    • assumes conservation and closure of universality
    • assumes that mathematics are adequate to describe entropy
    • assumes that English, French, German, and other dialectical languages systems are adequate to describe entropy
    • etc.
• Analyticity,
• Positive,
• Negative,
• Entropa,
• Cohera,
• Conservation,
• Closure,
• Scalars of measurables,
• Newton's atemporality as a primrose lane,
• Etc.
  

Doug - 24-30Mar2011.

Chapter 2 Review Summary of P&S' Order Out of Chaos - 1Apr2011 - Doug:

Classical dynamics theory is based in Galileo and Newton, plus a few others' classical notions. That is essence of what P&S narrate in Chapter 2.

Doug's assessment re: classical dynamics is...that is what current Keynesian thought uses. So we can express a strong opinion that Keynesianism is doomed. At this juncture that opine is essentially cliché, and Doug acknowledges such. What is important is that we cannot use classical dynamics notions to extract valid memes of real equilibrium. We have to move past-passed classical dynamics in order to provide a Quantonics QELR of 'equilibrium' which is at least potentially more valid than what most currently use now.

"Doug, what's wrong with classical dynamics?" Doug's list should seem familiar, and it emerges from his draft review of Chapter 2 of OOoC:

• objectivity,
• stoppability,
• lisrability,
• quantity,
• negation implying unitemporal reversibility (more important here, though, is an intrinsic that quantum~reality is only positive),
• predication,
• unitemporality implying continuous y=f(t) (big issue with Keynesianism),
• time as homogeneous delta-space/space proxy (no valid 'concept,' no valid understanding of time),
• change as temporal 'motion,' (no valid 'concept,' no valid understanding of change),
• static 'completeness' as easily achievable and assessable under canonic classical dynamics theory,
• closure,
• conservation,
• commutability, commutativity,
• equivalence- and other -relations, (i.e., identity, reflexivity, symmetry, inequalities, associativity, distributivity, normative assignment, signification, etc., re: classical identities 'should be' 'classically Aristotelian-tautologously' 'reversible-commutative,' but they are n¤t due quantum reality's real and absolute change)
• etc.

Classical dynamics canonically assumes all of those. Many of those list items involve even other implicit assumptions too.

What is crucial to grasp is that Quantonically and quantumly all of those are "simply and demonstrably bogus."

'Modern Keynesianism' assumes all of those and more. Keynesianism is bogus! Indubitably, Keynesianism is bogus. We may say then, Keynesianism is in its death throes as Doug writes this. It is only a matter of timings.

"Doug, can you list quantum~memeotic complementaries of those classical notions?" Yes, but we must not treat them as classically bivalent 'opposites:'

• subjectivity,
• absolute change, perpetual change, plural changings,
• holographicity, middle~inclusion, everywhereings~everywhenings~associativityings,
• quality,
• cancellation of positive only fluxings,
• evolution,
• perpetual and ubiquitous quantization of all reality,
• all quanta and all of their ensembles have their own local~n¤nlocal omnique massively heterogeneous timings,
• all quanta and all of their ensembles have their own local~n¤nlocal omnique massively heterogeneous omnivalently evolving changings,
• any quantum~assessment of systemic completeness is always quantum~partial, Links added 10Mar2012 - Doug.
• perpetual and ubiquitous openness,
• quantum~reality's potentia are unbounded,
• autsimilarity of quantum~EWings,
• autsimilarity of EWings' EIMAssociativityings,
• etc.

Neither of those lists is even close to being 'complete,' and they likely never will be. What we have though are lists which can be compared in our assessments of valid views of a more innovative approach to systemic equilibrium and transitions among equilibrial quantum~modalityings.

This 1Apr2011 narrative of OOoC's Chapter 2 is only intended as a brief summary of classical vis-à-vis quantum dynamics' comparative issues.

End Chapter 2 Review Summary of OOoChaos - 1Apr2011 - Doug.

. . .

Chapter 3 Review Summary of P&S' Order Out of Chaos - 5Apr2011 - Doug:

P&S' OOoC Chapter 3 is a kind of brief history of people of interest who participated in 'developing' classical dynamics theory. Included as transitionals from classical to quantum dynamics are a select few others.

This chapter is a blunt indictment of classical science. It repeatedly narrates importance of ditching classical science and moving on to something better: a whole new way of thinking about non classical dynamics. P&S appear to miss classicists' core satan of classical dynamics: dialectic. However, they narrate much of what falls in a category of 'dialectical thing-king' as what is wrong with classical dynamics. They do us a great service! They name names. Those most in error include:

• Kant (a dialectician; Kant bivalently split Subject and Object, noumenal and phenomenal, philosophy and science...Kant is an epic failure: "scientific choice is heresy"),
• Hegel (a dialectician),
• Diderot (though Doug would put him in both lists, for a variety of reasons),
• Descartes (a dialectician),
• Newton (a materialist dialectician mechanist),
• Lagrange,
• Hamilton,
• Duhem,
• Poincaré,
• Kirchoff,
• Mach (minimalism as economy of thought),
• Plus positivists, in general, e.g., Reichenbach (mathematical physics as a last resort of understanding time and reality and denial of nature as our partner since man is above god, rather "there is no god," and man is above nature...this is simply incompetent humanism gone awry, gone amok...),
• etc.

These 'people' shared a common flaw in their thing-king: "Preserve science at all costs. Control nature using 'science.' Humans are above nature and god."

Doug loves Prigogine and Stengers mostly since they defy and deny said views for what they really are: intrinsically flawed. They challenge classical science as essentially bogus, and they narrate how classical 'science' is mostly just humanly-convenient lies. Doug agrees both in spirit and belief. It may be clear to readers that this old human 'mindset' is an agent of those classical humans' imminent self-extinction.

Comparatively we may juxtapose a few transitionals, those commencing a quantum~journey:

• Bergson (he understands vast problematics of classical science, he understands: the account, AKA the logos, and he appears to say "one must find one's inner before one can even begin to understand nature;" Bergson somewhat like James appears as a gnostic; for Doug that is a prerequisite for grasping a modal of reality as quantum~holographic),
• Stahl (Doug lacks familiarity with Stahl),
• Whitehead (essentially process as natural which is implicitly quantum if we view all processings as quantized),
• Diderot (he straddled classical and quantum which puts him in both camps, for a variety of reasons...)
• Plus all quantumists (non dialectical ones) whom Doug attempts to uncloak in Quantonics (most of these, like Diderot, tend to straddle(new_quantum,old_classical) so it isn't trivial to assess them as pure...we may, only as a reference, consider Quantonics, Gnosis, the logos, and Autiot as nearer 'purety'),
• etc.

I highly recommend OOoC as Quantonics student "must reading." Read it over and over and over until you commence grasping much deeper issues here.

End Chapter 3 Review Summary of OOoChaos - 5Apr2011 - Doug.

. . .

10,12-13April2011: Begin - A comment on classical vis-à-vis quantum 'reasoning.'

I do n¤t enjoy saying this, but I feel have n¤ alternative...it must be said. In Doug's opinion, anyone who thingks we can use classical logic to understand economics and equilibrium (in terms of inflation, deflation, and hyperinflation) is just plain retarded.

Just to set our tone and tenor for what follows...

Prior Doug's continuing his review of Chapter 4 of OOoChaos, he wants to offer some novel memeos regarding classical 'logic' vis-à-vis quantum coquecigrues.

If you read current pundits' descriptions of inflation vis-à-vis deflation and hyperinflation, you will hear them talking and writing about those comparisons using logic, using rational reason. Doug wants to reiterate: we will never understand inflation vis-à-vis deflation and hyperinflation as long as we continue using classical models of reality and classical logic to describe them. Regardless what Lira and Ferguson say, classical dialectical logic and reason are simply bogus. They are bogus to their very core. Dialectical and dialethic logics are demonstrably bogus when we leave SOM's Box and enter quantum~reality.

Doug has another new graphic to help explain why. He calls it, "Equilibria (Equilibrium) as Many Interrelationshipings." All equilibria are quantum~ephemeral. Their comtextings are multiplicate, quantized and evolving. Let's take a look:

"Evanescent neural organizations take place as each neural aggregate recodes its input[s]."

Karl Pribram in his languages of the brain, Prentice-Hall, 1971.

See Chapter 4, p. 82 'synopsis.'

---

o,~ quanton(o,~)

¤,~ quanton(¤,~)

10,12-13April2011: End - A comment on classical vis-à-vis quantum 'reasoning.'

. . .

15-16April2011: Begin - A comment on classical vis-à-vis quantum 'gradience.'

Doug had another of those immense epiphanies last evening.

Allow me to attempt a reconstruction of events...

I had just finished my evening snack of ripe olives, cattiatore, and mozzarella with champagne. I decided to restart my rereading of Chapter 4 of P&S' OOoC. This is about my third possibly fourth pass at this chapter. My epiphany arose when I read this:

"...As for the birth of the 'science of complexity,' we propose to date it in 1811, the year Baron Jean-Joseph Fourier, the prefect of Isère, won the prize of the French Academy of Sciences for his mathematical description of the [mechanical, formal, analytic] propagation of [classical] heat in [classical] solids.

"The result stated by Fourier was surprisingly simple and elegant: heat flow is proportional to the gradient of temperature. It is remarkable that this simple law applies to matter, whether its state is solid, liquid, or gaseous. Moreover, it remains valid whatever the chemical composition of the body is, whether it is iron or gold. It is only the coefficient of proportionality between heat flow and gradient of temperature that is specific to each substance.

"Obviously, the universal character of Fourier's law is not directly related to [classically] dynamic interactions as expressed by Newton's law, and its formulation may thus be considered the starting point of a new type of science. Indeed, the simplicity of Fourier's mathematical description of heat propagation stands in sharp contrast to the complexity of matter considered from a molecular point of view..."

Transcribed from p. 104, Chapter 4, OOoC by Doug. Doug's brackets. Doug's bold violet [classical problematics] and green [quantum precursors] highlights.

In spite of its bold violet objective dialectics this segment of text is prescient, to say a least. Prescience is available to us, at a very least, in dark green bold text Doug highlighted.

A key surmise by P&S in that text which might easily be overlooked is their claim of "simplicity." Our nexus here is Bergson's, paraphrased by Doug, "...state is complex and flux is simple, since state cannot explain flux but flux can explain state." We see Bergson's implicit claim that exegesis is a hallmark of simplicity in terms of one's being enabled to understand.

That nexus becomes a fulcrum for Doug's epiphany!

Do you recall Doug's more than a decade-old epiphany which he described in his web page titled, Have a DQ Moment?

Essence of that page is this: mass, length (space), and time as plural participling quantons are all quantum manifestations of quantum~flux!

If that is so, What about temperature, and temperature gradience? Yes, temperature and its gradients as plural participling quantons are all quantum manifestations of quantum~flux! All measureables (ømnihtørables in quantumese) as plural participling quantons are all quantum manifestations of quantum~flux!

Flux simplicity, as Bergson instructed, rears itself and sparkles in its majesty over (hyper) classical 'state.'

"What is such a big deal here, Doug?" P&S describe all physical measurables above as 'classical scalars:' temperature, heat flow, gradience, etc. They describe classical dynamics as an event-state ontology. Fourier did too. Why? That is what mathematics do! Bergson instructed us well on that issue too. Ditto Keynesianism. Ditto Ferguson and Lira's classical 'logic' and 'reason.' Ditto all classical 'economics pundits.' Ditto classical notions of equilibrium and reversibility.

Implications of what Doug has written in this 'gradience commentary' are astonishing! Doug will spend several days here showing you that.

16Apr2011...continue...

In our quotes from beginning of Chapter 4 above, P&S (like all classicists) treat physical measurables conventionally as scalars and at best as Newtonian formal motion of stoppable (atemporal) 'state-events.' Allow Doug to requote those bold green text segments and cipher them both classically and quantumly:

• classical heat flow ciphers:
  • "...classical scalar heat flow is scalar-proportional to the scalar gradient of scalar temperature..."
  • "...the classical scalar coefficient of classical scalar proportionality between scalar heat flow and scalar gradient of scalar temperature that is specific to each substance..."
  • "...the starting point of a new type of science..."
• quantum heat flow ciphers:
  • "...quantum~evolving heat as flux flow is quantum~relatively~phasemental to fluxing gradientings of temperaturings as flux..."
  • "...flux phasemental relativityings among heat as flux flow and gradient of temperature as flux that is specific to each energy wellings' ephemeral fluxings comtextings..."
  • "...the starting point of a new type of quantum~flux think_qing..."

Yes reader, "There is a new philosophy in town." Quantum~philosophy hyper classical-philosophy.

Doug's essence here is that classical thought and language always ciphers reality as 'scalar state.' However, quantum~think_qing always ciphers reality as fluxings' interrelationshipings. As Bergson wrote, in Dougese, "flux hyper state." Recently, CeodE 2015, Doug has been writing a white paper regarding What is Consciousness? In it Doug used a Fourier approach to describing flow of thought as quantized processings. He derived his memeset there from his prior work here. It seems Valuable now to Doug to revisit his work here and con(m)temporize it analogously from describing only classical vav quantum 'heat flow' to omniscribing classical vav quantum 'thought flow' as essence of What is Consciousness?

30Mar2015 - Begin Aside Comparing Heat_c and Heat_q Flow to Thought_c and Th~ought_q Flow:

Allow Doug to repeat, to reuse bullet lists just above and evolve them from memes of heat into memes of con(m)scious thought:

• classical thought flow ciphers:
  • "...classical scalar thought_c flow is scalar-proportional to the scalar gradient of scalar thingking..."
  • "...the classical scalar coefficient of classical scalar proportionality between scalar thought_c flow and scalar gradient of scalar thingking that is specific to each substance..."
  • "...the starting point of a new type of science..."
• quantum th~ought flow ciphers:
  • "...quantum~evolving th~ought_q as flux flow is quantum~relatively~phasemental to fluxing gradientings of think_qings as flux..."
  • "...flux phasemental relativityings among th~ought_q as flux flow and gradient of think_qings as flux that is rqcs to each energy wellings' ephemeral fluxings comtextings..."
  • "...the starting point of a new type of quantum~flux think_qing..."

30Mar2015 - End Aside Comparing Heat_c and Heat_q Flow to Thought_c and Th~ought_q Flow.

If we apply that to Economics Theory, "Equilibria as flux is hyper equilibrium as state." Doug believes we may then bootstrap "flux hyper state" to most aspects of economic theory. For example, "Reversibility as flux is hyper reversibility as state." And "Inflation, Deflation, and Hyperinflation as fluxings are hyper inflation, deflation, and hyperinflation as states."

More essence here is that, Quantonics HotMeme™ "All changes in Value, in quantum~reality, may be assessed using quantum~gradience of energy~welling ensembles of quantum~fluxings' interrelationshipings."™ Quantonics HotMeme™. Energy~welling ensembles link added - 10Mar2012 - Doug. That link is crucial to eidetically, ad occulos understanding aspects of quantum~equilibrium being described here.

many nexi

We may view changes in quantum equilibria, then, as evolving rqcs changings in evolving Value. Quantum~Value evolves.

Gradience from left to right: higher to lower energy gradience.

Gradience from right to left: lower to higher energy gradience.

Recall: quantum~energy is flux rate...shorter wavelengths have higher relative energy.

Doug - 14Sep2012.

Classical 'value' seeks state-ic 'stability,' AKA 'state' as 'absence of evolutionary change,' as 'immutability of forms except for linear motional-state-event analytics as change in scalar value.'

Flux is Value. State is 'value.' Evolving flux Value "middle~includes." Static immutable 'value' 'middle-excludes.' Quantum coquecigrues hyper Aristotelian sillygisms.

This appears a good time to check our 'equilibrium' QELR progress. What did Doug write at beginning of this QELR? This:

"Classical notions of 'equilibrium' are just plain bogus.

"All of classical 'science' is like that, however. That must change! It is imperative to change it and to remediate it.

"To do so, Doug has to invoke some quantum~n¤nmechanical assumptions. Two big assumptions are that:

1. quantum~reality is absolute change born of absolute flux as its core memeo of reality, and that
2. all change involves heterotemporal and heterostochastic quantized quantum~phase~encodings of all absolutely changing flux.

"Omniqueness(ings) emerge(s) here (thus denying classical notions of, for example, 'identity') which declares all phase~encodings complementarily omniffer all other phase~encodings in quantum~reality.

"Autsimilarity 'exists,' but there are n¤ identities in quantum~reality!

"So Doug's challenge here is to remediate static and objective classical 'equilibrium' notions with stindyanic and quantonic quantum~equilibrium memeos."

How are we doing? Doug is confident we have a partial QELR of equilibrium. This 16Apr2011 segment has taken us a long way toward remediation of classical 'equilibrium' notions.

Doug...

...16Apr2011...end

. . .

20-21,24Apr2011: Begin - Chapter 4's title is 'Energy and the Industrial Age.' Its subtitle is 'Heat, the Rival of Gravitation.' Commentary.

Doug ignored said titles when he first started reading P&S' OOoChaos. It just didn't seem important then. But now it does!

Why did P&S' use those titles for Chapter 4?

An easy answer is Gravity is Newtonian and also any 'then-new' theories of heat, entropy, and thermodynamics were 'not' Newtonian. To a casual reader, that may seem unimportant. However, it is a tell. P&S declare said 'tell.' A tell of a new science, perhaps a n¤væl n¤n 'scientific' way of thinking, a new — perhaps Bohmian — n¤n mechanical psychic~pneumatic quantum~pragmadigm emerging in an evolutionary manner. (That is what Doug believes, and that is H5Wings Doug sees what is happening k~now~ings.)

Essence here is crucial to Quantonics' New Way of Think_qing. Grasping this isn't so tough if you accept a quantum meme of energy as quantum~flux...and very key to this...quantum~flux is n¤t classically mechanical. Newtonian (similar Einsteinian) thought and theory is classically mechanical. Naïvely Newton treated energy as mechanical, 'not' quantum. Quantum~flux is n¤t mechanically 'objective,' rather quantum~flux is n¤n mechanically quantonic, i.e., quantum. Fourier, similar Balmer, happened upon one tiny essence of quantum reality. P&S recognized this happenstance.

• Balmer happened upon quantization as a wave~flux ladder in 1855, and
• Fourier happened upon heat flow based upon temperature gradience just prior 1811 (date taken from P&S' OOoC text).

Quantum~flux nissin ænærgy, n¤n classically mechanical 'energy.' Very basically said quantum~flux expresses itself as bosons and fermions. Heat is gradient bosonic flux. Fourier partially 'got' that. Gravity isn't heat, just like Doug has shown that gravity isn't Einsteinian acceleration either. Gravity is co~fermionic attraction. Note two other omnifferencings twixt heat and gravity. Gravity is atemporal and its gradience is atemporal. Heat gradience flow, similar acceleration due gravity is temporal and its temperature gradience is temporal. So, to be more correct, P&S might have shown their Chapter 4 subtitle as 'Heat, the Rival of Acceleration.' 5Jul2015 rev - Change Heat gradience to Heat flow. Doug.

But we can generalize more than that. We can say that, Quantonics HotMeme™ "All quantum~omnitorables are gradient interrelationshipings among various kinds of quantum~fluxings."™ Quantonics HotMeme™.

So 'gradient' as used in this section of our review, is both temporal and atemporal, depending. Some aspects of quantum~reality are atemporal. Let's summarize some quantum~fahcts about what we have written thus far:

• heat flow is temporal,
• heat (temperature) gradience is temporal,
• acceleration is temporal,
• acceleration gradience is temporal,
• gravity is atemporal (i.e., zero latency 'action at a distance'), and
• gravity gradience is atemporal.

Notice how classical notions of atemporality imply stoppability, zero-momentum, state, reference frames, etc. Quantum~atemporality has to do with memeos of superluminality (zero latency regardless distance of separation) of communications (quantum~correlation) at a distance and action (e.g., gravity) at a distance.

Gravity is superluminal, in this case though we say and write, "atemporal." Heat isn't. So heat isn't a rival of gravitation.

Doug...

...20-21,24Apr2011...end

More...over next several days...Doug.

15-16April2011: End - A comment on classical vis-à-vis quantum 'gradience.'

. . .

Minor rev's to this section 13Apr2011:

So wave number, (energy level) of EWings in a larger EWing, is quantized, and
thus so is many EWings emerqing a larger EWing quantized. Quantization scales and we can show
(classically rendered Planck) systemic energy as E_sNih.

Doug's Quantonics QELR of Equilibrium ©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2029
Issue	Classical Equilibrium Issues	Doug's Classical-Concision	Quantum~Equilibrium Issues	Doug's Quantum~Comcision
perpetual state as 'stability'	state not flux		quantumly there is n¤ne
perpetual evolving equilibria	classically no such notion 'exists'		flux n¤t state flux may n¤t be negated flux may be canceled by other ideally out of phase (entangledq) positive flux all quantum flux is positive
middle-exclusion	SOM's Wall		quantumly there is n¤ne
middle~inclusion	classically no such notion 'exists'		we are ihn iht and iht issi ihn us
linear change	all classical change is closed y=f(t) motion Doug - 2Dec2014.		quantumly there is n¤ne; all motional change is at least compound cycloidal, e.g., planets; all planet systems are ihn their planet's cycloidal changings	Doug coined Qycloid as a meme for quantized and thus quantum~n¤nlinear Quantum~Cycloid. This meme is useful in making more apparent cosmic levels of quantization, e.g., galaxies and clusters of galaxies. A stellar exemplar of macroscopic Qycloidal quantization is rings of Saturn and Neptune. Imagine Saturn's rings as macroscopic quantized wave~functions: Choose to Value highly what this means for solving one of classical physics' most profound and worrying problems: the many body problem. Now we may heretically choose to m¤dal said problem using ensemble wave~functions and their absolute change, stochasticq chanceq ontologicalq uncertaintiesq to fathom said problem's depths. Doug - 2Dec2014.
quantized change	classically no such notion 'exists'		All actual quantum reality change is quantized.	Smallest quantum of change is a tiny packet of Planck rate fluxings which we may choose to thinkq about as h~bar and (h~bar)/2. See Planck quantum. So all real change occurs at Planck's frequency and subharmonics of that frequency. There is a problem, though: it likely isn't classically sinusoidal transverse flux. Packetization almost assures that. Too it is absolutely adiabatic: 100% energy efficient. Now, what is interesting is that superatomic nucleonic ensembles of protons and neutrons are n¤t adiabatic as ensembles. See quanta. Also see quantization as and of free will. See Doug on "instability issi measurement." Quantization explains directly reality's edict of volitional vicissitudinality everywhere, everywhen. This is a quantum~miracle currently and widely unrecognized.
open	classically no such notion 'exists'		quantum~reality is open naught in quantum~reality is classically conserved n¤r closed
closed	classical reality must canonically conserve and therefore must assume ideal systemic closure		quantumly there is n¤ closure; islandicity and coherence, but n¤ closure
entropy	classical posentropy is the only entropy and it only has a single gradient: positive		quantum~entropy is an complex ensemble of memeos; at least four classes of entropy all evolving at up to Planck rates	See entropa.
far conditions	far removed from previous classical 'state'		when a quantum~system evolves into a radically n¤væl system we may call it "far from its former equilibrium" heart sinus fibrillation is a good exemplar; death is a permanent far from equilibrium condition; if defibrillation is possible then heart may (only apparently) 'return' to near normal sinus rhythm 'condition'
near conditions	close to but not at ideal classical 'state'		see above
quiescent conditions	ideal classical state		this is what Doug means by quantum~equilibrium key here is to realize all evolution evolves both gradually and n¤t far from its former quiescence; quiescence though, is subject to evolution which may not be apparent until it is viewed over long periods of timings; our hologramic minds do this when we sleep; see Bohm and Pribram, et al. Doug - 2Dec2014.	Ponder a video of Earth's evolution over last one to two billion years. Say, approximately, one frame per 50k years. Evolution would be made apparent, and you should imagine that as SEP of real quantum~evolution. Doug - 2Dec2014.
initial conditions	classical systems can be reset to initial conditions		quantumly there is n¤ne fathom quantum~reality as unstoppable and unresetable
productive gradience	classically no such notion 'exists'		all quantum~classes of entropy except classical single gradient posentropy are productive	See entropa. See Doug's fuzzon to fermion ontology. See Doug's Gen III Quantum Reality Loop. Read Ilya Prigogine and Isabel Stengers' Order Out of Chaos.; they show that posentropy has two gradients: classically positive (heat death), and generative.
dissipative gradience	classical thermodynamics and entropy theory canonically prescribe posentropy's perpetual dissipation of high entropy systems (systems which have used up much energy flow and thus entropy in their 'creation')			See classical vis-à-vis quantum dissipation.
emergence role	classically no such notion 'exists'		OEDC is real in quantum~reality
deemergence role	systemic death AKA eschaton		OEDC is real in quantum~reality
energy wells	mechanical and formal versions only		all EWings in quantum~reality are quantonic
attraction	mechanical and formal versions only		quantum~attraction takes many subjective, qualitative, fluxic guises: fermionic, bosonic, quarkic, gluonic, coherence, gravity, similarity, selection, omniscrimination, ontic, energy~welling, holographic, interference, entanglement, cognition, recognition, awareness, etc. Doug - 2Dec2014.	Compare di-scriminationc and omni~scriminationq as means of selecting 'attraction.' See 'discriminate' and its QELR. Doug - 2Dec2014.
logic	bivalent either-or only allowed AKA bivalent alternative denial; ideal paired opposition of all concepts		quantumly there is n¤ne ideally classical
coquecigrues	classically no such notion 'exists' except in Voltaire's Gargantua and Pantagruel		quantum~logic is naught at all like classical logic	See Doug's coquecigrues.
Doug's Quantonics QELR of Equilibrium ©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2029

As you may choose to see, Doug has a huge amount of work here to lay foundation for understanding equilibrium in systems theories both from classical and quantum~systems viewpoints.

This is going to take awhile. Please be patient. I want to finish it, but...more...I want to get it as close to better as is possible for limited~me to do. We do have some emergent progress, however!

Doug - 20Mar2011.

Begin 22-24Sep2011 Equilibrium Update:

An issue of order...

Classical order is stable-state-ic cartesian-locality. This is reference-frame (contextually-free) referred "classical physics' absolute 'order.' "

Quantum~¤rdær issi fluxing complementary n¤nl¤cality. This is comtextually dependent quantized~¤rdær. It is dynamic, evolving order borne of two quantum miracles: quantization and scintillation at up to Planck rates.

Doug has been reviewing selected texts from his private library for index references to 'equilibrium.' Doug's first choice under Bohm is his and B. J. Hiley's The Undivided Universe. Doug could find no index item for 'equilibrium.' That seemed strange to me. Alternatively I looked at their Chapter summaries. Chapter 15's title is 'Quantum Theory and the Implicate Order.' In that chapter they omnistinguish classical Cartesian static 'order' from a much needed, and newer dynamic and evolving quantum~order. As I was reading, it dawned on me (something as simple as this prior escaped my attention) that Prigogine and Stenger's book's title is Order Out of Chaos. Then I tried substitution as my usual intuitive habit as Equilibrium Out of Chaos. More... Quantum Theory of the Implicate Equilibrium. Those substitutions appear quasi relevant in Doug's search for new ways to ponder quantum vav classical issues of equilibrium.

Some huge philosophical issues emerge here. Is quantum~order hyper quantum~equilibrium. Does order have higher Value than equilibrium? Is high~rate change of equilibrium analogous disorder? Is that classical 'di'sorder? Is that quantum~disorder? Could we better describe it as high rate evolution of equilibrium? See? 'Disorder' is a dichon. Quantum remediation requires that we QELR it as omnisorder, perhaps omnisorderings. If we make 'order' hyper 'equilibrium' it appears to Doug that our memes of order must encompass equilibrium, equilibria, and all their unlimited and vast ephemeral variations. Should we allow quantum~equilibria to encompass semantically and heuristically all its potential holographic manifesta? Then, what would we mean by "quantum~order?" Until now, Doug had tended to keep 'order' and 'equilibrium' autsimilar one another. Does that make any sense? Why? What do we mean by 'disequilibrium?' Should we QELR it "omnisequilibria?" Now similarly use your noodle to ponder issues surrounding 'stability,' 'coherence,' 'quiescence,' 'stochastic modality,' 'chaotic attractors,' etc. (Read Gleick's Chaos on 'chaotic attraction.') Doug - 24Sep2011.

Bohm and Hiley agree with Doug's approach that a Cartesian model of order (and apparently of equilibrium) is simply bogus and no longer adequate.

They seek a new way of m¤daling both quantum~¤rdær and (via Doug's inference) quantum~equilibrium (compare quantum~omnisequilibrium).

We see Doug's previously claimed need for omniscrimination (classical vis-à-vis quantum) rearing its head right here in Bohm and Hiley's (quantum~cosmic) River City.

Doug had another glimmer earlier: equilibrium issi quanton(FFE,NTE). Try as I might, I cann¤t find anything proemially inadequate with that script except its incompleteness which I take as a given. But one meme stands out: dichon(FFE, NTE) radically omniffers quanton(FFE,NTE)! What makes this fascinating for Doug is how classical FFE and NTE omniffer quantum FFE and NTE. And we may choose to take that further: classical quiescence omniffers quantum~quiescence. See NTQ.

So what is going on here?

What do classicists mean by 'order?' If a system has 'order,' what does that mean classically? One answer is, "It is stable." Classically order has stability and stability implies state under classical assumptions of reality's linear motion as stoppable. So a classical system which possesses order and stability as canonic properties is linear and stoppable (both necessary to do valid and verifiable classical analysis and measurement of said system).

Hopefully you are keeping pace here. Quantum~systems are n¤t canonically linear n¤r stoppable! Quantization and scintillation are perpetually stochastic nonlinear processings: positive wave energyings!

What Doug has just accomplished is to show that when we talk about classical terms like order, stability, and equilibrium our interpretations vastly omniffer what we can say and write about quantum~order, ~stability, and ~equilibrium.

You may choose to see here how classicists have oversimplified their models of reality by assuming (conventionally and conveniently) reality is state-ic and stoppable.

Classical 'order' is already, by assumption, static. Ditto stability and equilibrium.

When we talk and write about quantum~order, ~stability, and ~equilibria, we are assuming a wave~based perpetually changing and evolving reality.

So we assess quantum~FFE, ~NTE, and NTQ using gradience of flux autsimilarity evolutionings. See Doug's Assess Resemblance HotMeme™. We assume absolute change, selective choice at up to Planck rates, and chance as stochastics borne of uncertaintyings of quantization and scintillation of all quantum reality.

Our apparently remaining challenge is to describe quantum~order, ~stability, and ~equilibria using those assumptions as a radical departure from classical approaches.

Doug will attempt that under a separate web page titled accordingly.

End 22-24Sep2011 Equilibrium Update.

This QELR of equilibria and equilibrium is in progress until further notice - Doug - 20,22,24-30Mar2011 and 1,5,10,12-13,15-16,20-21,24Apr2011, 1-13Sep2011.

Page top index.