Return to Quantonics English Language Remediation Index Page                                  Arches

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

Quantonics' Quantum Remediation
English Language Problematics
Millennium III
by Doug Renselle
: 12Jan2008
Master Index
Most recent additions-revisions marked add and rev.


English Language Problematic

Quantonics' Quantum

©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2019



  • Classical-
  • Quantum-


  • Classical-
  • Quantum-

'Perfect' can be a noun, a verb, an adjective, and an adverb.

Its quantum usages impose upon it memes and memeos borne of ensemble evolutionary noun and verb plural participlings: 'perfectings.'

: Perfect, perfected, perfection, perfects, etc.

Classically 'to perfect' means to mechanically and formally alter some 'object' until it has achieved 'state-ic' perfection. In this sense, what is perfect is final. Classically, one may arrive at an ideal 'state' of perfection. We fathom essence of classical reality: behold our strawman called 'SOM.'

Notice how classical 'perfection' violates SOM's own J. C. Maxwellian second 'law' of thermodynamics.

Classical 'perfection' demands presence of 'state' and ideal absence of 'change.' So, classical perfection, denies real evolution.

In summary, classical perfection is:

  • assessable as 'perfect,'
  • consensual,
  • exempt from evolution,
  • final,
  • finished,
  • ideal,
  • immutable,
  • incorruptible,
  • nondegenerate,
  • self-complete,
  • self-consistent,
  • static,
  • stopped,
  • unchanging,
  • etc.

: Pærfæct, pærfæcted, pærfæcti¤n, pærfæcting, pærfæctings, pærfæcti¤ning, pærfæcti¤nings, pærfæcts, etc.

Quantonics chooses to remediate classical 'perfection' as quantum pærfæcti¤n.

Since Doug was a kid he reveled in saying, "Perfection is imperfection." That's a sophism isn't it? Why did Doug intuit that? Does 'evolution,' absolute change, absolute flux give us a clue?

When Doug saw a really beautiful woman he immediately recognized her beauty manifested n¤t from classical 'perfection,' rather from slight asymmetries in her entire body. Perhaps most noticeably a human face offers what Doug is speaking and writing about here. Real beauty, taken as perfection, is n¤t ideally symmetric. Humanities' greatest artists have grasped countless Value aspects of imperfection in their omniffering kinds of artistic endeavor. Ponder intentional use of discord and dissonance. Escher tried his best to "do it wrong." Maureen McGovern can sing 'perfectly' off key. Miles Davis tried to play "notes' nots." Goddess Gwyneth appears to be, but isn't and for Doug that IS what makes her so incredibly beautiful in almost all ways. Nora O'Donnell, Robin Wright, Anne Kornblut, Meg Ryan, Melanie Griffith, Chelsea Clinton...all incredibly gorgeous and capable yet, "pærfæctly ihmpærfæct." Da Vinci is an ideal example of pærfæct ihmpærfæcti¤n in hermaphroditic maleness and masculine opus. To Doug, males in general are quantum~impærfæct.

What is ultimate classical perfection? Ideal mechanical form and symmetry. But take any human face. Take a pix of it front-on. Cut pix vertically down its frontal center line. Take each half and vertically mirror copy, both left complement and right complement. Put two left complements together. Put two right complements together. What do you see? You see what Doug is talking about. Quantum pærfæcti¤n issi quantum~impærfæcti¤n. One pair of complements will look uglier, even devilish. Other pair will look clownish, silly. We're quantumly~asymmetric folks! We would look ersatz, artificial, contrived, pseudo, faux if we were ideally, classically, 'perfectly' symmetric.

All of reality is like that: quantum~chiral. Quantum~pærfæctly~impærfæct.

Pærfæct darkness is quantumly two (or more) light fluxings phase~canceling one another. Darkness isn't 'zero' light! Darkness issi compound phase cancellation of multiple light energies. In terms of pærfæct quantum~flux, it takes at least twice as much light to make darkness as it does to make light. Quantumly we can also describe darkness as absence of 'light' flux, but that issi n¤t absence of flux. We are immersed in isoflux and we are immersed in flux which issi n¤t within our visual bandwidth. Some life emerqants can see flux outside humans' visual bandwidths. Which is classically 'perfect?' Which is quantumly pærfæct and how can we describe omnifferencings among them? H5W?

Quantum~pærfæcti¤n also shows us how "Pærfæcti¤n is in eye of beholder." Isn't that interesting? Quantum~pærfæcti¤n too is ensemble stochastic! Is that a tell? Yes! Why? Quantum~reality issi stochastic! Is that evidence for you, reader, that Doug's quantum versions of pærfæcti¤n are more real than classical notions of perfection? It should be.

Is one of your legs longer than other? Probably! Is one of your ears lower than other? Probably! Is one of your eyes slightly larger than other? Probably. Is one of your breasts larger than other? Probably. Is one of your palm prints similar but n¤t identical to other? Probably. Is one of your feet slightly larger than other? Probably. Does one half of your brain think omniffering your other? Probably. Does one of your lungs have greater capacity than other? Probably.

We can extend that list indefinitely... What reigns in reality? Classical symmetry? Quantum asymmetry? It is stochastically 'true' that quantum~asymmetry reigns! It is n¤t classically 'true' that either symmetry or asymmetry reigns since we can find improbable examples which could lead us to believe that classical symmetry reigns. However, it is always safe to say (on Earth) that quantum~asymmetry, in general, reigns. (That, however, issi n¤t 'ideal classical truth.')

It is interesting to observe intellectually how classicists view quantum~think~king as imperfect, "sophism."

It is interesting to observe intellectually how quantumists view classical-thing-king as ihmpærfæct, "dialectism."

If ihmpærfæcti¤n reigns as Doug cleigms what does classicism say about that? Simply, "It's wrong."

If ihmpærfæcti¤n reigns as Doug cleigms what does quantumism say about that? Simply, "It's better, and it can become better."

Which of those two views do you prefer as better, as capable, as having qua to evolve improvement? Classical form holds still. Quantum quantons relentlessly change.

Do you like classical perfection better?

Do you like quantum pærfæcti¤n better?

Doug - 12Jan2008.

©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2019

Return to Quantonics English Language Remediation Index Page                                  Arches

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

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

©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2019 Rev. 12,14Jan2008  PDR — Created 12Jan2008  PDR
(14Jan2008 rev - Repair typo: 'that' to 'than.')