|
Item |
English Language Problematic |
Quantonics' Quantum
Remediation
©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2029
|
|
'rational'
'rationale'
Etymology: "Before 1398,..., meaning able to reason,..."
See Barnhart's Dictionary of Etymology.
Synonyms - classical:
- analytic,
- cerebral,
- logic,
- ratiocimetric,
- reason,
- thought,
- etc.
Synonyms - quantum:
|
: Rational, rationale, ratiocinate, ratiocination,
ratio, etc.
Rational usually means classical patterns of thought which
adhere objective, substantial, material, physical Aristotelian
syllogisms.
Rational means we can reason, syllogistically
ratiocinate (measure
by comparison) assess physical reality through state-ic
measurement principles whose essence is in classical indefinables
mass, length, and time. You may wish to add gravity
(though bogus, as Einsteinian acceleration) to that list.
: No existing classical words (of which Doug
is aware, though enthymeme comes close,) carry a quantum semantic
for 'rational.'
We can just remediate like this,
rati¤nal,
rati¤nale,
etc. Add 'rational' link. Doug
- 5Dec2009.
An immediate query arises when we compare classical CTMs
and quantum QTMs,
and one of you asked this: "Is rational the
same as logical?"
Classically, "Yes." Quantumly "N¤."
Why? Classical reality is innately (by human 'design') logical. Quantum reality is n¤t in any classical sense
'logical.' Quantum~logic (an oxymoron)
is, rather, coquecigrues.
Doug has prepared a detail comparison list of classical and
quantum logic at our coquecigrues link in next left column.
Doug - 8May2007.
Page top index.
|
| |
'reality'
Synonyms - classical:
- being actual
- being true, truth
- exists objectively
- exists factually
- exists materially
- exists substantially
- concrete existence
- absolute truth as:
- always states truth (consistent)
- states all truths (complete)
- etc.
Synonyms - quantum:
- emergent change
- qualitative evolution
- subjective affectation
of animate Value
- Dynamic Quality (Pirsig)
- absolute change as:
- always changes (consistent)
- changes all (complete)
- etc.
Etymology - classical:
"reality n. 1550, from Middle French réalité,
and directly from Medieval Latin realitas, from Late Latin
realis real..." See Barnhart.
|
Reality is humans' and probably all multiversal sentients'
greatest enigma!
A human attempting to offer exegetic and exoteric descriptions
of reality is incredibly more omnifficult to imagine, let alone
accomplish, than an ant attempting to explain to his herd what
a human is.
It appears that our exegetics and exoterics are limited to
incremental, yet naturally moral, progress of explanatory and
descriptive OEDC(apparent_accretionings)...
Human genetic evolution (e.g. N-somias replacing~accreting bi-somias
in lieu of many chromosome pairs) and human cellular(self_resurrection,self_euthanasia)
are superb natural exemplars here.
And so, that is what we do, that is what we are doing...trying
our level best to be in quantum processings of better
descriptionings of our personal heuristics and hermeneutics of
reality.
We perceive at least three kinds of Earth chauvinistic, human
contrived interrogatory notions, memes, and memeos of reality,
all from mostly Western (occidental) cultural perspectives and
conspectives:
- What is reality? Define reality!
- What is classical reality? Define classical reality!
- What is quantum reality? Describe quantum reality!
Number one we answer too simply with our ant vis-à-vis
human and human vis-à-vis reality metaphors.
Two and three we answer using Quantonics' now fecund QELR
approach...
Doug - 27Mar2005.
: Real, reality, etc.
What is classical reality? Simply, what is classical reality?
Classical reality is a closed, inanimate-stable, analytic,
dialectical (objective), continuous, concrete, determinate (causal-effective,
a posteriori), homogeneous, oppositional (EOOO, contradictory),
bivalent, locus specific, quantitative, interactive, other-referent,
EEMD, posentropic reality.
Classicists, SOMites, nearly all folk of Western culture at
Millennium III's commencement believe that reality may be correctly
and ontologically defined as Aristotelian, Thomist, Cartesian,
Newtonian, and Einsteinian. We offer a list of classical words
those folk used to define their interpretations of classical
reality, in increasing order of classical reality assessment
capability:
- stable (Bergson's first classical delusion)
- independent (Bergson's second classical delusion)
- oppositive (depends upon first two delusions)
- contradictory (depends upon third delusion)
- falsifiable (depends upon fourth delusion)
- capable of proof assessment (requires falsifiability; even
classical thing-king views 'proof assessment' as problematic
and thus 'proof capability' can only garner provisional assessment
of proof)
- veritable, true (requires 'proof')
- capable of provability of 'truth' (Kurt Gödel's metanotion
of proof; a quasi transcension into viable descriptions of quantum
reality)
Students of Quantonics recognize that list as SOM's
Bases of Judgment with Gödel's meta statement of provability
tagged on.
There is a huge list of classical assumptions which attend
that basal set of judgments, and our English
language is built almost entirely on a pretext that those
classical assumptions are correct — classical beliefs about
classical reality include notions that reality is:
- classically notional, semiotic
- classically putative, assumptive, presumptive, suppositive,
axiomatic, propositional, tautological, etc.
- classically reasonable, rational, logical, and technological
- classically mechanical, methodic, y=f(t) motional, and formal
- classically ideally negational
- classically reversible as both y=f(t), and y=f(-t)
- classically capable of ideal notions of empty, null, naught,
void, etc.
- classically dialectical,
dichotomous, dichonic,
Ockhamistic, and ideally either-one-or-the-other
- classically analytic, and analytical, inductive, and deductive
- classically measurable,
and viewable; see
our QQA on measurement
- classically spatial, extensible, numerable, and space-proxied
unitemporal
- classically manufacturable, reproducible,
repeatable, ideally cyclic, and
synthetic
- classically true, and classical truth,
classically veritable, verifiable, and valid
- classically absolute: always states the truth (classically
consistent) and states all truths (classically complete)
- classically objective, substantial, and material
- classically and unambiguously, ideally pointlike
- classically judgmental
(see our list of SOM's Bases of Judgment above)
- classically stoppable,
state-ic, event-ic,
inanimate, immutable
- classically lisrable
- classically local, no action at a distance allowed, force-interactively-associative
- classically identical, and identifiable (Aristotle's sillygism
1)
- classically negatable (Aristotle's sillygism 2)
- classically middle-excluded (Aristotle's sillygism 3)
- classically 1-1 correspondent (directly contradicts
classical assessment capability number 2 above, and Aristotle's
sillygisms)
- classically causal-effective (directly contradicts
classical assessment capability number 2 above, and Aristotle's
sillygisms)
- classically J. C. Maxwellian posentropic only (directly contradicts
classical assessment capability number 2 above, and Aristotle's
sillygisms)
- classically certain,
predictable, and determinate
- classically conservative, closed, Maxwellian-posentropic
- classically homogeneous
- classically convenient, and conventional (singular, one size,
one context, one actuality, one time, one radical beginning,
one radical ending, one Theory of Everything, one Grand Unifying
Theory, one truth fits all) See our SOM
Connection. See our Aristotle
Connection.
- classically, arbitrarily and infinitely, divisible (a classical,
infinitely divisible, SOMitic-but-not-CRitic, monism)
- etc.
That list when fully 'extended' represents a fairly comprehensive
'definition' of classical reality.
Cultural relativists define reality as essentially heterogeneous
interpretations of our above lists. See our MoQ,
CR, & SOM comparison table.
Doug - 27Mar2005.
:
Ræhl,
ræhlihty,
etc.
What is
quantum reality? Simply,
what is quantum reality?
Quantum reality is an open, animate, quantal~scintillating,
flux~essential, stochastic (QLOistic),
rhetorical (sophist), affectional (selective CH3,
evolutionary), heterogeneous, n¤n negative (BAWAM,
affirmative), loci~arbitrary~superpositional, qualitative, phasistic,
self~referent, REIMAR,
mix~entropic, mix~coherent reality.
Quantumists, MoQites,
and a few folk of quantum persuasions at Millennium III's commencement
believe that reality may be hermeneutically and ontologically
described as Heraclitean, Suaresian,
Hamannian, Jamesian, Bergsonian, Bohmian, Capraean, Pirsigean,
Bentovian, Zoharian, Mae-wan Hoean, and Zukavian. We offer a
list of classical words those folk use(d) to describe their hermeneutics
of quantum reality, in increasing order of quantum reality descriptive~metaphorical
capabilities:
- quantum absolute animacy
- quantum quantons
in quantum reality have arbitrary spatial, temporal
(students, please open this link to fathom deeper quantum hermeneutics
of a posteriori and a priori quantum~temporalisms
below), energy~material, gravitational, sensorial,
etc. quantum likelihood
omnistributions
- quantum~positive
(quantum reality is probabilistic~likelihoodistic; all stochastics
are non negative quantum metaphors)
- quantum~complementary,
antinomial~complementarity, radical
hologra[[m][ph][il]]icity, radical middle~inclusion, radical
everywhere~associativity, etc. See antinomy.
- quantum~uncertainty:
radical quantum~stochasticity, radical quantum~relativity, radical
quantum~instability, radical quantum~comtext sensitivity, etc.
- REIMARings descriptionings
- quantum~sophist rhetoric,
pragmalogic,
and coquecigrues
- Absoluteness of change
assessed stochastically as quantum uncertainty (Changed "...of
change assessed stochastically..." 16Oct2012 - Doug.) (Kurt
Gödel's
metanotion of proof; a quasi transcension into viable descriptions
of quantum reality)
- a posteriorai probability
(proemial memes of quantum entropa
and quantum cohera lurk here)
- a iamai
plausibility (plausibility is what we mean by "nowistic
stochastics;" plausibility assesses nowings' affectations
with nuance influence from pastings' affectations plus expectations
of futurings' potential affectations - Doug - 6Jun2006.)
- a priorai likelihood
(proemial memes of quantum entropa and quantum cohera
lurk here) (Just a reminder: ai suffixes on Latin temporalities
are intended as linguistic participlings. Doug - 27Jan2007.)
- Static Good - Physial uncertain quantum recursive
persistency born
of and mediated by Dynamic Good
- Dynamic Good - Physial absolute quantum
flux; see QTM
- Emergent Good - Physial novel emerscenture,
Requires emerscent
linguistics, requires acceptance of quantum evolution as real
Students of Quantonics recognize that list as Quantonics'
version of quantum reality's Bases
of Judgment subsuming quantum metaphors of Gödel's meta
statement of provability with Quantonics' version of quantum
analogues of SOM's Bases of Judgment tagged on.
Thæræ
issi a huge list ¤f quantum~ihnterrelati¤nship~attrahct¤rs which
c¤ihnsihde
that æmærqant
wavæ ¤f jihudgmænts,
amd — quantum bælihæfs
ab¤ut quantum ræhlihty mihddle~ihncludæ mæmæs that ræhlihty issi:
- quantumly mætab¤lihc
- quantumly
mæmætihc, mæmæ¤tihc
- quantumly
ræcursihve, ræcapihtulatihvæ,
ændless
scintilla ¤f bættærings
- quantumly c¤quæcihgruæs
wihth
quant¤l¤gy
- quantumly
n¤nmæchanihcal,
bi¤n¤nihc, anihmatæ
æmærqancy
- quantumly
p¤sihtihvæ
- quantumly æntr¤pihc
- p¤sæntr¤py (quantum n¤nræværsible)
(quantum~gn¤stihcahlly this
issi matærial hylihcihty)
- zær¤æntr¤py (quantum ræværsible)
(quantum~gn¤stihcahlly
this issi c¤herænt psyche~pneuma
as s¤ulful ahctualihty AKA bæing)
- nægæntr¤py (quantum is¤ræværsible)
(quantum~gn¤stihcahlly
this issi is¤c¤herænt pneuma as spirihtual
n¤nahctualihty
AKA n¤nbæing)
- mihxæntr¤py (mihxtures ¤f ahll
kinds ¤f quantum æntr¤pa) (quantum~gn¤stihcahlly
this issi dihvinihty "grail~mihxing ahll
things ihn
ahll...")
-
quantumly capablæ ¤f n¤næmpty
mæmæs ¤f quantum ræhlihty
- quantumly quantonic b¤th~ahll~while~amd~many
- quantumly æv¤lutæ, æmærscænturing
pr¤babilistihc~n¤wistihc~lihkælih¤¤dihstihc (problems here with inverse QELR of
'likelihoodistic;' 'di' QELRs as 'omni;' that's bad; needs work!)
- quantumly moniht¤rable, amd c¤¤bsfæcting
- quantumly l¤ci ambigu¤uhs,
n¤mærable,
amd flux-pr¤xied heter¤tehmp¤ral
- quantumly æmærscænturable, æmærscing,
æmærscænturing,
æmærscihtecting
- quantumly
umcærtain,
(and from any classical conspective-)
-pærværse,
-equihv¤cal, -prævarihcatihvæ
(Feynman said, "absurd")
-
quantumly abs¤lutæ: ahlways
changæs
(quantumly
comsistænt) amd changæs
ahll (quantumly c¤mplæte)
- quantumly subqjæctihvæ,
qualihtatihvæ,
amd fluxing; sææ
subjectiv,
subjective, quality
- quantumly
fuzz¤nihc
- quantumly
valuati¤nal
(sææ ¤ur list ¤f Quantonic's
Basæs ¤f Jihudgmænt
ab¤ve)
- quantumly
umst¤ppable,
dynamihc,
pr¤cæss
æv¤luti¤n
- quantumly n¤nlisrable
- quantumly l¤cal, ahcti¤n
at any ¤mnistancings mamdatæd, æværywhere~ihncludæd~mihddle~wavæ~st¤chastihc-ass¤ciatihve
- quantumly n¤nihdæntihcal
- quantumly n¤nnægatable
- quantumly mihddle-ihncludæd
- quantumly c¤herænt,
quantum
c¤herænce,
at
læast:
- dæc¤herænt
(quantum fermi¤nihc tæntatihvæ amd præfæræntial
ahctualihty;
sææ
isot
amd isop)
- c¤herænt (quantum
b¤s¤nihc tæntatihvæ amd præfæræntial
ahctualihty)
- is¤c¤herænt
(quantum is¤nihc n¤npræfæræntial
n¤nahctualihty;
sææ
ison)
- mihxc¤herænt
(mihxtures ¤f ahll
kinds ¤f quantum c¤hera)
- quantumly entropic, at least:
- posentropic (quantum fermi¤nihc
tæntatihvæ amd præfæræntial
ahctualihty
- zeroentropic (quantum b¤s¤nihc
tæntatihvæ amd præfæræntial
ahctualihty)
- negentropic (quantum is¤nihc
n¤npræfæræntial n¤nahctualihty
- mihxentropic (mihxtures
¤f ahll kinds ¤f quantum
entropa)
- quantumly
affæctati¤nal
- quantumly
ænsehmble
umcærtainty,
st¤chastihcihty
- quantumly æmærgænt,
¤pæn
- quantumly
heterogæne¤us
- quantumly plural, heuristihc, hermæneutihc
- quantumly ihndihvisible
(due quantum~coherence,
arbihtrary quanton(is¤spathial,spathial)
peaqlos, amd quantum~ihncludæd~mihddle)
anihmatæ EIMA pluralism
- etc.
That list when
fully æv¤lved amd æmærgæd ræpresænts
a fairly c¤mprehænsihve dæscrihpti¤n ¤f quantum ræhlihty.
"Hey Doug! Just what is quantum~reality?"
Bethahavah's favorite description
is this one:
Quantonics HotMeme™ "Quantum~reality issi gn¤stic~feminine~energy
which issi conscious,
and can't make up its mind,
which explains why reality issi uncertain everywhere."™ Quantonics HotMeme™
Doug - 27Mar2005.
Quantonics Description of Reality, QELRed
Paraphrased from Errol E. Harris' Description |
Quantonics Description of Reality, unQELRed
Paraphrased from Errol E. Harris' Description |
|
"Ihn Quantum
scihænce, spacæ, tihmæ amd mattær aræ
each manihfestati¤ns
¤f quantum is¤flux amd quantum ræhlihty issi ænvisagæd as quantons
ihmmærsed ihn
a quantum æmærgænt~dæmærgænt
c¤mplæmænt ¤f b¤th
n¤nahctualihty
amd ahctualihty.
Iht issi æssæntiahlly a Quantonic anihmati¤n,
ihnnovatæd by th¤se
wh¤ sharæ
mæmæs amd mæmæ¤tihcs
ihn a quantum kabal.
Space,
time, mass, temperature and all classical measurables
ahll bæc¤mæ, ihn quantum ræhlihty, sihmple
manihfestati¤ns ¤f
quantum flux, ihts c¤hera, amd ihts
æntr¤pa.
Classical matter, extensity
and change
pærcæihved
quantumly aræ sihmply flux.
Quantum ræhlihty
issi b¤th n¤nahctualihty
amd ihts quantum c¤mplæmænt
ahctualihty.
N¤nahctualihty
issi is¤flux which
can manihfest as pr¤t¤
fuzz¤ns. Fuzz¤ns aræ partihahlly æmærscænt anihmatæ EIMA quantonic ihnterrelati¤nships ¤f quantum lihkælih¤¤d ¤mnistrihbuti¤ns which surr¤umd tæntatihvæ is¤flux attrahct¤rs
ihn n¤nahctualihty. Tæntatihvæ
fuzz¤ns straddqle quantum n¤nahctualihty
amd ahctualihty
amd bæc¤mæ amd æv¤lve quantons
whæn they
pr¤t¤~latch n¤velties
amd gr¤w~latch ihncræmæntal
changæs basæd ¤n
their pr¤t¤ quanton
attrahct¤r(s).
"Quantum ræhlihty via ihts
anihmatæ EIMA hætær¤gæneihties eliminatæs any
classical
notions of paradice."
|
"In Quantum science, space, time and matter are each
manifestations of quantum isoflux and quantum reality is envisaged
as quantons immersed in a quantum emergent~demergent complement
of both nonactuality and actuality. It is essentially a Quantonic
animation, innovated by those who share memes and semiotics in
a quantum kabal. Space, time, mass, temperature and all classical
measurables all become, in quantum reality, simple manifestations
of quantum flux, its cohera, and its entropa. Classical matter,
extensity and change perceived quantumly are simply flux. Quantum
reality is both nonactuality and its quantum complement actuality.
Nonactuality is isoflux which can manifest as proto fuzzons.
Fuzzons are partially emerscent animate EIMA quantonic interrelationships
of quantum likelihood distributions which surround tentative
isoflux attractors in nonactuality. Tentative fuzzons straddle
quantum nonactuality and actuality and become and evolve quantons
when they proto~latch novelties and grow~latch incremental changes
based on their proto quanton attractor(s).
"Quantum reality via its animate EIMA heterogeneities
eliminates any classical notions of paradice.
See isoflux,
quanton,
OEDC, simplicity,
cohera, entropa, percept, perspect,
Quantum Essence,
fuzzon, emerscent,
EIMA, QLO,
isot, Quantonics'
Reality Map & Loop Generations I,
II, III,
and Loops MoQ I, and
MoQ II, etc.
Quantonics' reality descriptions added 23May2005 - Doug.
|
Page top index.
|
|
'reason'
'reasoning'
'reasonings'
'reasons' |
Quantonics ch¤¤ses
t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'reason'
and remerq
all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'reas¤n,'
and 'reas¤nings.'
Classical reason is analytical. Classical reason tends to
generally apply positive-dialectic and -formal logic and -formal
logics' concomitants: temporal and spatial stoppability
with objective independence — in its 'reasoning' methods.
Classical positive (aka societal) reason is necessary to groups
and individuals who wish to control other individuals,
groups, organizations, societies, and nature. Without positive
reason, "one loses control."
"Might it not be
true, perhaps,
that [classical] reason, the supposed liberator of the human
mind, is no
more than the repository of ancient prejudices and habits of
mind that
have no general validity whatever?"
by Henry D. Aiken,
The Age of Ideology,
pp. 20-21, 1962 ed., Mentor
(paperback, total 283 pages).
(Our brackets.)
Quantum philosophy answers, "Yes."
Emphatically, "Yes!"
See Doug's fairly comprehensive "Quantonics
on reason." Doug - 13Dec2008.
Ihn Quantonics wæ bælieve
there aræ many kinds ¤f
physial reas¤nings. All aræ changings.
Our vihew issi that,
quantum c¤mtextually, ensehmbles
¤f kinds ¤f reas¤nings may bæ ~st¤chastihcally
assessed b¤th quantum
l¤cally amd quantum n¤nl¤cally ahs bætterings.
One kind which
wæ pr¤m¤te issi quantum~reas¤nings.
Quantum (Quantonics' versi¤n ¤f quantum, i.e.,
more qualitative, both quantitative and qualitative,
more subjective, more sophist and rhetorical) reas¤nings
ihnfuse amd emerq
m¤re subjectihve amd hermeneutic mesothos
quantum memes.
Examples aræ quantum~: ihncluded~mihddle, abs¤lute changæ
anihmacy, everywhere~ass¤ciativity,
n¤nl¤calability, n¤nis¤lability,
n¤nseparability, n¤nreducibility (see lisr),
n¤nc¤mmutativity, n¤ndistributivity, n¤nfact¤rizability,
superlumihnality, superfluihdity, supergravihty,
c¤herence, ihslandicity,
amd s¤ ¤n... (FYE: quantum reas¤nings
ehmbrace n¤ti¤ns ¤f
EIMA.) Update quantum~reasonings
promotion. Add n¤væl coined mesothos link.
Doug - 2Jul2014.
See Bergson and Zeno on classical reason's notions
of stoppability and independence. Also see our Prereview
Comments to Bergson's Creative Evolution.
See logical
positivism. Search internet for comparisons among societal
"positive law" and more quantum "natural law."
Page top index.
|
|
'rectify'
'rectification'
We are deferring quantum~comtextual QELR
of this text for 30-60 days to allow newbies to, we believe more
easily, read its partially classicalese.
Synonyms:
- make 'right' (classical)
- make 'correct' (classical)
- distill (classical)
- cleanse (classical)
- conversion (~quantum)
- change (~quantum better)
- emergence (~quantum)
- evolution (~quantum)
- etc.
Etymology:
"rectify...1392...rectification...before 1400..."
Essentially from Latin 'rect' which means 'right.' Classical
absolutist notions of 'right' represent 'ideals' and 'concepts'
which Pirsig despises as absolute, DQless 'virtue.'
See Barnhart.
|
This QELR requires much effort...
As of 28Mar2005 it is still in its infancy, but weighing its
importance, we are publishing it for your study, as is...tentatively
in light blue background... Doug.
: Rectify, rectification, etc.
Classical rectification requires objectivity, analyticity,
determinacy, etc.
Given that, if you are familiar with Edison vis-à-vis
Tesla re: DC power and AC power...
Electrical engineers, even given their mostly classical thus
objective predilections, have some extraordinary quantum metaphors
in their methods of signal and power rectification. If we pay
attention to their work and QTM~adjust our hermeneutics, heuristics
and memeotics of their work, we can see novel Quantum Lightings.
We need to use just a little classical math here to help explain
our gist:
An_AC_Signal can-be-expressed-transversely-as sin( t). Our use
of explicates and adjusts frequency and
our use of t spreads frequency 'clock-like' over classical uni-time.
One wavelength of sin(t) looks, a
transverse dichon(1T, 2D), like this:
Here are four transverse (a state-ic 1Time, 2Dimension-Flatland)
cycles of it which we shall use to demonstrate half- and full-wave
rectification, graphically.
It is omnifficult; however, try to imagine our waves
here as quantum~animate, EIMA,
omniversal, quanton(NT,ND) peaqlos.
Now compare how MoQites monitor
it vis-à-vis how SOMites dichons(1T, 2-3D) 'measure'
it.
Quantum hermeneutics of that picture vastly omniffer classical
interpretations, e.g.,
- Classically amplitude matters, but quantumly rate matters
while amplitude is irrelevant.
- Classically 'state' matters, but absolute quantum~emerscent~change
matters while classical 'state' (an illusion of classical stability)
is irrelevant.
- Classical absolutely certain metrication and ratiocination
of 'zero' and any 'number' matters while quantum uncertainty
of zer¤ and any n¤mbær
is relevant.
- Classical Aristotelian
tautological idealization of 'identity' matters, but quantum
impossibility of 'identity' is relevant.
- Classically negation is real, analytic, dialectical, and
objective, but quantumly~stochastic~absence~of~negation matters
while classically ideal tautologous negation is irrelevant (see
aside). Similarly, we can list countless comparisons of classical
interpretation vis-à-vis quantum hermeneutics.
- Etc. (See our Jammer table
and Jammer list
for more.)
Important aside:
See de Finetti's remarks on "what probability
is," and most relevantly it is positive; keep this
positive, i.e., n¤nnegative, aspect of quantum reality
firmly embedded in your quantum
stages as we proceed. Notice that our classical sine wave
above assumes 'zero exists' and that sine can be positive, then
negative, then positive, etc. Do real
quantum waves alternate positively and negatively?
Physically, H5W is
nature's 'zero' reference? Hmmm...? Perhaps quantum waves are
all positive and quantum relative?
A further clarification here: social positivism
is classical consensus. Consensus
relies on classical notions of truth
(recall how classical 'science'
is about what is true and 'classical philosophy,' antithetical
its own appellation, is about 'truth') based upon proof based
upon falsifiability based upon contradiction based upon
negation based upon objective independence based upon stability.
Quantum probability as quantum positive refutes all of
those classical notions as n¤n~quantum~real. See our 2004
Bases of Judgment.
|
Some Doug parentheticals added to both emails...
Audio Head wrote:
|
Hey Doug!
Have a question: If Reality is positive, then where
do electrons with negative charges fit in? Evidently negative
charges are labeled with minus signs as matter of convenience
in distinguishing tween positively charged quanta.(?) It
appear that negative charges do exist and are not absent in a
subtractive, canceling way. (For me, ' negation as subjective'
has been a meme rather difficult to grasp; in fact, Bergson
in general is hard to decipher).
Quantum Regards,
~AH - 29Mar2009.
|
AH,
Unsure you can get a copy to read, but you should read Studies
in Subjective Probability, by Henry Smokler and Howard Kyburg.
Especially see p. 93 (paperback) article by Bruno de Finetti,
titled, 'Foresight: Its Logical Laws, Its Subjective Sources,'
1937.
Be sure to read authors' book introduction, and read it thoroughly.
Pay special attention to beginning of paragraph two of said Intro.
At page 93...
Be sure to read translator's note, forward, and introductions
in addition to quite a long treatise by de Finetti. Well worth
one's effort.
I can only get you started on this one since there are so many
ways to look at this. Quantonics site covers most issues which
I know about.
First of all, a classical notion of negation is an artifact of
dialectic dualizing a monism. Imagine a 2D transverse flux (See
graphic just above.). Imagine how classicists arbitrarily place
an ordinate-abscissa cross on top of said wave
and saying waves above said abscissa are 'positive' and waves
below abscissa are 'negative.' That is merely convention.
They should have assumed there is n¤ cross. (Tear down
SOM's wall!!!)
Said cross builds a wall
amidst a wholly positive flux and relabels half of it positive
and other negative. Key enabler here is to realize that
cross is merely convention.
It is merely an assumption. Similar to an assumption that reality
(perhaps only parts of reality) can be negated. But we may n¤t
negate flux. See Doug's QELR of 'cancel.'
Pick up a coffee cup. What is its negative? Where is its negative?
When is its negative. Look at you in mirror. Where is your 'negative?'
Electrons are flux. Flux is positive. Charge (which you have
seen Doug almost intuitively avoid describing) is an artefact
of dialectical convention.
(A massive 'con' job on humanity - Doug.)
Read Bergson's CE
topic 39 over, and over, and over and over... (Doug appended
another email response to AH on how
to read, Quantonics style, just below this one.)
Read Doug's QELR of 'rectify.' (We are in that web page now!)
Ditto 'positive,'
and 'negative.'
It might help, though it is long, to read all of our review of
ACT2 of Hoffmann's
TSSoTQ again. I use these memeos
of quantum reality over and over there.
Read Doug's page on Absoluteness
as Quantum Uncertainty. Notice x graph of consistency and
completeness at page top. All positive! No negatives! (Note how
uncertainty is always positive. Note how Bell inequalities are
always positive. Note how physicists call spin "up"
and "down." Why didn't they call spin plus and minus?
Even negentropy isn't negative, AH. We do describe entropy
slopes as positive and negative, but that is only residue of
classical cartesian convention.
Some authors have resorted to using productive vav dissipative:
see Prigogine and Stengers' Order Out of Chaos.)
All we can have in quantum~reality is cancellation and other
variations on phasistic~interrelationshipings: mixings
of all classes of flux and classes of their entropa
and cohera.
If you need more, please do not hesitate to say so.
Doug.
~=~=~
Doug's Quantonics
Style - How to Read for Understanding:
AH,
You wrote, "I find Bergson hard to decipher."
I am going to use our last brief dialog (your query above, and
my answer) under our QELR of 'rectify.' I think our tentative~partial
resolution of this issue is crucial for all who visit. If that
is a problem for you, say so.
Do you recall Feynman's advice to his sister about, "How
she should read for real understanding?"
I find, personally, all authors have a omnique, individual style.
One of our biggest challenges when we read someone like Bergson
is to learn his style. I had a terrible time with Geertz, James,
Hamann, d'Espagnat, Hesse, Hume, initially Stein, and so on...
Part of problem is Bergson's French was translated by dialectic-soaked
Victorian English males. Pogson dug Bergson better than any of
them. Feynman's approach helps: read until you do not understand,
go back to where you thought you were on firm ground, reread
from there. It's sort of a reading 2-step, but I view it as quantum~recapitulation
and self referent recursive...a process of feeding quantons incrementally
to our quantum stages' hologramings.
Rereading Bergson, over and over and over...will help you get
inside his head. He uses many con(m)textings but doesn't tell
his readers when he switches. This was Doug's biggest challenge
in reading Bergson. (Too, he is intuitively gnostic. For dialecticians
gnosis is "absurd." Gnosis
breaks dialectic. "See
this egg?" Diderot.)
Another good technique is to rewrite paragraphs that are omnifficult
word by word, sentence by sentence in a good analogue of what
you sense author is attempting to say, using your local style.
(A kind of respin grammatical parsing. Except, if you are attempting
to understand, do not allow your respinning to move too far from
author's raw semantics. Of course, that takes your judgment,
which induces its own uncertainties back into your spin of whomever.
You will find your learning experience vastly enhanced, regardless.)
Compare. Refine. This process will enfold Bergson's hologram
into yours. You will become a holographic partial superposition
of you and part of Henri Louis Bergson. I do this hologram enfolding
all the time n¤nactually with Maggie, Jade, Laura, etc.
I do it actually with Beth, you, et al. In a way, one makes one's
mind (hologram) grow by adding other minds. This is a
very powerful 'technique' (quantique) since it allows one to
build many holographic rooms in one's memory palace and that
offers a plethora of con(m)textings for multicomtextual hermeneutics.
A friend of mine from my old SCS, Inc. days (1978-1993), a physicist
from Purdue named Eric Bolinger, once told me that he read Shakespeare
in its old English just due this issue. If you can read that
stuff and get inside Shakespeare's head then you probably can
read anything. Ditto other languages, like Hebrew-Arabic and
say Cantonese (ideogrammatic).
Those are just suggestions. You have to feed your quantum stage
what you want it to pneumatically
attract as an energy well in a huge multiverse of energy wellings.
As Bergson writes in his TaFW, nature gives us free
willings to beings doings thatings.
Every moment you spend with Bergson is worth more than ten moments
in Quantonics. You'll have to trust Doug on that, until you grasp
its essence.
Best always,
Doug.
|
end aside.
But there is some, though slight, quantum
essence, if we QTM~look
for it, even in a more naïve classical conspective.
A good example here is how we mathematically represent our graphic.
One way is as we have shown it: sin(t). Even though
mathematics claims for itself "context freeness," it
expresses, solipsistically, heterogeneous interpretations (maths
too, heterogeneously, like Kuhn's
scientific paradigms, cann¤t help but be, due their
insistence on SOM
Bases of Judgment, contextually schizophrenic), a possibly
greatest example being Euclid vis-à-vis Riemann.
Another is Asin(t), which classically (non-quantumly)
adjusts our signal's quantumly~irrelevant amplitude. Thingk
about that. Think about that...
Another is sin(t)±C, which (if
we visualize classical spatial axes of ordinate as signal vertical
locus...) offsets our signal on our axes' ordinate (...and with
time, t, horizontal as our classical spatial axes' abscissa),
and time, t, spreading our signal spatially. Ummm..., let's see
now, where is that wave? It's locus is spatially arbitrary? How
can that be 'true?' (Banesh Hoffmann cogently asked,) "How
can we classically measure it at a point?" (Henri Louis
Bergson presciently asked,) "How can we measure an animate
process at a point?" And we can infer from Bergson, "If
negation
is subjective, what do 'negative' cycles of a sine wave really
mean? Do they 'exist?' Mayhaps classical dialectic
deludely manufactures them!" Quantonics versions of quantum
philosophy and quantum n¤nscience say, "Hoffmann
and Bergson offer better viewings of reality than do 'classical
philosophy' and 'science.'"
In our latter case, if t didn't change,
we would see a vertical bar and perhaps see slight bar intensity
changes (perhaps probabilistically darker, denser-slower change,
on ends, lighter, less-dense-more-rapid change, in middle) as
our signal goes up and down.
Now key query: "If our signal is sin(t) or Asin(t), but not sin(t)±C,
what is its average classical power-energy?" Look at our
four cycles above.
This answer is classically notion-simple. But when we look
at our classical 'problem' quantumly, using quantonics' QTMs,
we see some rather incredible memes.
Classically, without any C offset, our signal appears on our
axes' abscissa varying ordinately 'positively' and 'negatively.'
If we integrate our signal classically, we have a classical 'zero'
result (like velocity of a bike perigrinating a 'circle'). Notice
how classicists do not view this type of integration as any violation
of temporal context. Why? Classically, there is only one 'time,'
and, it, like our signal is state-ically
'transverse.'
What is important, in our view and metaphorically, is that
classicists' notions of ideal classical objective 'positive'
and 'negative' applied in our example show that average energy
'nonexists' in this case, yet we still 'know' that energy is
present as flux. Our TV and radio signals compenetrate our beings
and we assume 'nonexistence' of them until we see and hear their
'rectified' projections in and on our radios and TVs! They aren't
there, yet they are there!!! Quanton(n¤t_there,there),
not dichon(not_there,
there)!!!
Further, in order for classicists to extract power from our
signal, they have to rectify it. (Details of this
are nontrivial, but essentially half-wave rectification wipes
out negative half cycles of our signal leaving a net positive
power result. Full wave rectification inverts negative half cycles
(our signal now looks like a bouncing ball) and extracts more
power from them.) Here is our four cycle wave half-wave-rectified,
graphically:
Here it is full-wave-rectified:
Essence: power hides even in (some)
classically ideal-zero-offset signals. To see that power and
use it we have to rectify it. These two sentences
offer a rather deep classical metaphor of quantum reality! Recall
how Heraclitus said,
"Nature loves to hide." And Pirsig said SQ frets~latches
hidden, hiding, cloaked DQ.
Do you perceive any other subtleties here? Let's make a list
of perhaps more obvious ones:
- classical half-wave rectification retains a pulse-width-modulated
'frequency' and divides 'peak-to-peak amplitude' by roughly two
to four,
- classical full-wave rectification doubles 'frequency' and
divides 'peak-to-peak amplitude' by roughly two,
- classical probability densities vary approximately with types
of rectification,
- classical Aristotelian, Newtonian, Einsteinian analysis insists
that our doubled frequency must 'certainly,' in a stoppable,
zero momentum reference frame (i.e., our 2D graphic), reverse
'direction' at a classical point in zero classical unitime, (Is
this related to our quantum
pendulum study? Click our yellow update box there. H5W?
Is it important? Why?)
- etc.
If you are a reasonably adept student of Quantonics our metaphor
should hit you like a bolt of Pirsigean lightning about now.
You should be able to see vividly now what our Planck quanton
shows! Bosons are 'rectified' quantum isoflux: isoflux
contrarotation rectified into unichiral, integer-spin rotation!
Fermions are (using Quantonics' QTM hermeneutics and heuristics)
spin one-half, pendulus, Möbius
rectifications of unichiral boson pairs (See
our 2005 fermionta.). Of course zero-spin chiralty free
'isotons' appear
also. See quantum spin
emergence. Latter may need some clarification after our work
here. Broad brush it shows a QCD
TBCSUD quark
ontology in novel Quantonics' Lightings.
Recall that 9Jan2000, when we first created that animation
above, we admitted that we did not know how to graphically show
Nature's rudimentary perpetual
motion bosons and fermions. But just now, we do know, we
are k~nowings aren't we? What is wrong with our animation?
But keep in mind that our work here is still and yet classical.
We are only discovering how even classical notions have quantum
tells when we put those notions under scrutiny of QTMs and
transmogrify them into quantum memeos.
Our half- and full-wave rectification examples show DQ-zero
offset signals rectified and SQ-latched
as ~direct current (DC) power. DC emerging from alternating current
(AC) is a classical metaphor of quantum emergence! A quantum
tell! (A very similar metaphor arises when we compare classical
signal modulation and demodulation 'techniques.')
To say it more quantumesquely, "Apparently hidden power
emerges from zero offset signals when we rectify them."
That sentence is a metaphor of quantum emergence! It is a metaphor
of our saying, "Bosons and fermions emerge from quantum
isoflux when we quantum~rectify
it!"
Let's keep using classical notions to evoke some more quantum
philosophical memeos, OK?
Let's make a list of classical notions and their comparative
quantum memeos:
|
Classical Notions |
vis-à-vis |
Quantum Memeos |
| Positive as objective opposite of negative |
 |
See our QELRs of negative,
object, opposite,
positive. |
| Negative as objective opposite of positive |
|
Ditto. |
| Rectification as mechanical, objective change |
|
|
| Rectification as frequency division & doubling |
|
|
| Zero offset sine wave as 'zero' average power |
|
|
| Average power as area under a transverse wave |
|
Quantum energy AKA 'power' is flux rate. |
| Signal amplitude as a power proxy |
|
Quantum flux rate is a power analogue. |
| Signal time as a space proxy |
|
Quantum timings and spacings, quantum gravityings and energyings,
etc., are all symptoms of quantum flux.
Fermionic wobble (spin 1/2 flux) emerqs what classicists refer
as 'space.'
Classical 'time' has no analogue in quantum reality since
quantum timings emerq phenomena of EIMAings,
superluminalityings, actionings at omnistancings, acausalityings,
entanglementings, interferencings, holographicityings, adiabaticityings,
cohera, entropa, etc.
|
| Nonconceptual |
|
Very high flux rates as essential quantum adiabaticity, zeroentropy |
| Nonconceptual |
|
Quantum isoflux as ideal isoadiabaticity, negentropy |
| Nonconceptual |
|
Quantum isoflux as contrarotationally hidden |
|
|
Quantum isoflux rate (wave
number) as energy proxy |
|
|
Quantum~rectified isoflux as space, time, mass-energy, &
gravity proxies |
|
|
Quantum~rectification manifests at least as quantum modalities
of wave~probability~likelihood rectification:
- self-self-interference via nonlinear entanglings agencies
- self-other-interference via nonlinear entanglings agencies
- other-other interference via nonlinear entanglings agencies
- self-self-noninterference absent nonlinear entanglings agencies
- self-other noninterference absent nonlinear entanglings agencies
- other-other noninterference absent nonlinear entanglings
agencies
- etc.
Colloquial 'rectifiers' (usually, again colloquially, 'diodes')
are "nonlinear entanglings agencies." However, there
are countless others, including: mitochondrial DNA, meiosis,
human growth via exponential (base 2) cell multiplication, prisms,
beam splitters, diffraction gratings, QCD fermionta,
lasers, candle flames, black holes (inverse rectification, a
Doug heuristic), and so on.
|
| Etc. |
|
Etc. |
: Rectify, rectification, etc.
Page top index.
|
|
'recursion' |
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤
c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'recursion'
and remerq
all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'recursi¤n.'
In classical contexts we shall use 'recursion.' In Quantonics/quantum
comtexts we shall use 'recursi¤n.'
Classical recursion assumes reality is stable and objects
in reality are independent. Classical recursion further assumes
reality is inanimate/stoppable, excluded-middle, analytic, etc.
|
Recursion requires self reference.
Can an object
refer itself? How would a classical object refer itself? If an
object is axiomatically independent from other objects, their
middles (said object and others') are, by Aristotelian
syllogistics excluded. But is an object middle-excluded
from itself? A dialectical logician will say "That's nonsense!"
Why? A is A! But it is dialectically nonsense to say that A is
in A.
Classical 'logic' cannot even begin to talk about real issues
in quantum reality.
But guess what? Mathematicians go ahead and write A is f(A),
which is mechanical self-reference. How can they do that? By
assuming that A on left of A=A is an analogue of A on right side
of A=A. They break an axiom of independence. "For convenience."
They do this when they write equations too. Some people call
it "elegance."
Why do mathematicians do this? To allow, mechanically, and
formally, and dialectically an object to "gain access"
(via objective 'indirection') to its own 'properties.' They call
it "assignment." You can put an object in a temporary
holder and 'operate' objectively upon it.
But what if A is durationally changing? What if A is not contextually
nor temporally stable? Can you put it in a temporary holder?
Can you stop it?
Why do not mathematicians assume that a temporary holder for
A is "not A?" Isn't "A is not Temporary_A"
dialectically true?
This is only one of countless ways in which mathematics breaks
its own 'rules' for convenience while sweeping issues we address
here, conveniently, under a carpet. If you want more like this
to read, for example, see Davis and Hersh's The Mathematical
Experience and Simon Singh's Fermat's Enigma.
Why do mathematicians do this? It has utility. It's spit and
bailing twine to make their mechanical 'systems' work. But it
isn't real. Why? Can we put you, classically, in a temporary
holder which isn't you but is axiomatically independent of you?
We'd like to see that one... (Actually, that is likely to
be pure essence of quantum~teleportation, folks! (Those same
quantumly~retarded classical mathematicians will deny that) We
won't actually 'ship' 'the' object, rather we will stem~cellesquely
'repeat' it at "a distance." If a customer fails to
pay, we will simply 'unrepeat' said teleported item. Doug - 18Jul2009.)
All of this is part of an exegesis of why a dialectical, mechanical,
Aristotelian 'A' simply has no means of self-reference, so if
it really cannot self-refer, it cannot really recurse.
There are countless philosophical issues here, like "can
an object, A, see itself, and does A only see other, and does
B affect A's affecting B?" Then ask "when?" Then
ask "where?" Then ask "how?" Then ask "who?"
Then ask "what?" Then ask "why?" Lots of
problems, beau coup problems! Next step? Ask "H5Wings?"
So formal computers are actually modeling 'objects' which
are unreal. Why? In said computer A can be in any number of 'places'
(temporary holders) simultaneously. In classical reality that
is canonically "impossible." Most 'di' stinguish this
situation as "logical"
versus "physical." But you never hear them say
that their 'logic' is invalid (using dialectic we have to conclude
that 'logical' is opposite 'physical' do we not? mathematically,
that, friend, is a dialectical contradiction), do you?
We can go on and on...
Doug - 30-31May2006.
|
Quantum recursi¤n assumes reality
is anihmatæ
and quantons in reality have quantum c¤mplementary, included-middle,
unstoppable interrelationshipings.
|
Quantum reality is self~other~recursive! When one recurses
quantumly, one quantization~coobsfectings
whatings one is recursings (typically an medly of ensemble~attractorings).
Quantized coobsfectionings
involve quantum~ensemble selectionings
via quantized CH3ings
of all wave~functionings
in said ensemble.
This is a way to thinkq
about a quantum~n¤væl wMBU™ tool called Quantization of Free Will.
See graphic just below, too. 20Oct2009 - Doug.
Responsibility Among Ensembles —
Quantized Ensembles Coobsfectively~Quantization~Interrelating
Self~Other~Referently
Re Responsibility Among Ensembles, see
quantum~ego.
M¤daled digitally, we hermeneut a kind of h¤l¤graphic
data scintillation.
Gives n¤væl semantic head to quantum~n¤mbær,
..., my G¤¤d?
Doug - 20Oct2009.
How? Quantum reality's:
all meet our quantum recursion generalities shown just above:
- animacy
- c¤mplementarity
- middle~inclusion
- everywhere~ass¤ciativity
- c¤¤bsfection
- c¤herent aut¤n¤my (A
is both A and not A: a laser beam can be 'ihn'
glass while glass issi ihn a laser
beam yet both are quantum~autonomous one another; magnetic domains
are ihn steel and steel issi ihn magnetic domains; polarized (c¤herent) wave
energy issi ihn tsunamis and tsunamis
are ihn polarized energy...)
we also call this coinsidence, compenetration, interfusion, copermeability,
interpenetration, and so on...
- etc.
Quantum reality measures
(issi quantum~monitoring)
herself, ubiquitously, always. We are describing an absolutely
animate, omnimensional quantum~hologram.
Doug - 30-31May2006.
|
For application, and descriptions of relative importances
of these terms, see our 7Jun2002 Möbius
3-Primæ Fermion.
See our Quantum
Fractals.
See addition,
differentiation,
division, integration,
multiplication,
square,
square root,
and subtraction.
Page top index.
|
|
'reduction'
reduce |
Classical problematics: analyticity,
radically mechanical reducibility, ideal quantitative decrease
in amount and size, lisr, etc., via mechanical subraction, division,
cutting, severing, scalpeling etc. Implies its ideal classical
'opposite.'
Quantonics currently ¤ffers n¤ quantum 'analog
of classical reduction,' except our weak brethren called:
quantum divisi¤n-dihvihdæ, ¤mnifference, mihnus amd a special case ¤f quantum
squaræ r¤¤t. But they are so unlike classical
reduction as to be useless in comparison.
Quantum reality issi n¤n 'reducible' in any classical
sense. (Another major SOM-blindfolded
quantum meme.)
Aside - 8Oct2005 - Doug:
A terrific example of our last sentence, which appears 'classically
normative,' is a hologram. One may n¤t 'classically reduce'
a hologram's projection by cutting part of said hologram's holograph
away.
All of quantum reality is just like that holograph
and its hologram: irreducible in any 'classical' sense.
Why? Every quantum~phase~encoding of any holograph quantum
REIMARs all other
quantum~phase~encodings of that holograph.
Quantum~reducibility here, then, appears only as loss of hologram
resolution due loss of some, perhaps most, of its holograph.
We see how quantons are much more survivable than dichons.
Doug - 8&31Oct2005.
End aside.
Too, we should savor Carlo
Suares' remarks on this topic:
Aside - 10Jul2010 - Doug:
"Our many sided sciences make almost daily discoveries—or
inventions—of collaterals which by mere impact of observation
acquire the status of distinct branches, thereby splitting further
our already scattered body of knowledge. In spite of the increasing
hold of mathematics on departments as far apart as optics, philology,
biology or ethics, it cannot and will never discover a basic
postulate befitting the simultaneous existence of a universe
and of man."
Classical mechanical reduction AKA 'analysis,' simply does
not work. This is real SEP
of failure of SOM,
failure of classical dialectical formal thingking.
As we write just above, "Holograms may not be formally
reduced." Quantum~reality is a massive hologram of hologramings.
Classical reduction requires Aristotle's syllogistic 'middle-exclusion,'
but none of quantum~reality may be 'middle-excluded.' Classical
maths' axiom of independence, like geometry's axiom of identity,
is just bogus! Indeed, Aristotle's
'sillygisms' (identity, contradiction, and excluded-middle) are
just bogus! See Bergson's
two illusions-self-delusions of formal thought. Suares understands...
Autiot intuits... Gnosis guides... Heads up! Rent and purchase
is underway as we write! Towers of dialectical Babel are coming
down...
Doug - 10Jul2010.
End aside.
Mae-wan Ho describes classical reality, mimicking Bergson's
words, "An infinitely divisible quantitative homogeneity."
Her explicit and Bergson's implicit uses of "infinitely
divisible" are classical reduction. They are what
mathematicians mean by continuity, a continuity which may be
cut up (reduced) into arbitrarily smaller and smaller axiomatically
independent 'numbers,' 'scalars,' 'pieces,' 'parts,' and 'particles:'
classical 'objects.'
Mae-wan Ho describes quantum reality, again by paraphrasing
Bergson, "An indivisible qualitative heterogeneity."
By "indivisible," Bergson means literally "objects
in reality are not classically independent of one another."
He also observes how that statement imposes hermeneutic subjectivity
upon all non classical, (quantum-) real applications of 'not.'
Astute readers will note that Doug is guilty here of bending
Mae-wan's words to our Quantonics advantage. Her actual remarks
are about Bergson's notions of qualitative heterogeneous tihmings. But tihmings
in a real sense are essence, quintessence of quantum reality!
So we unabashedly, shamelessly bend her words...and we are immensely
grateful for them...
Before we proceed, let's discuss
'duction.' Induction, deduction, reduction,
production, reproduction, and so on... 'Duct' carries
an innate d-cut. 'Duct' is like a classical Pirsigean knife.
SOM's knife of axiomatic
independence. SOM's knife
of lisr. SOM's knife of Aristotle's identity,
contradiction, and excluded-middle syllogisms. 'Duct'
is d' cut which begs and belies predication. How does it 'give
the lie' to predication? It says that objective independence
drives out all interrelationships except objective, mechanical
interaction. (A major impact here is classical science's ignorance
regarding gravity and their inabilities to 'unify' gravity with
other classical 'forces.' Quantum gravity issi n¤t a classical
'force' interaction! It, rather, is a partial quantum correlative
coherence interrelationship. An ~analogy is quantum spin. This
is, in our quantum opinion, Newton's only quasi-success. Newton's
other classical work, from a quantum perspective, is mostly bogus.
Perhaps we should more gently say, "naïve.") By
doing that, d' cut drives out quantum
awareness and quantonic ¤nt¤l¤gical
ensehmble interrelative c¤¤bsfective
ch¤¤sings, chancings amd changings.
D' cut drives out quantum reality! D' cut drives out quantum
realities' most awe inspiring miracles like: comscious
indihvihdual
free will, emergent ev¤lution, c¤herent
superp¤sing em¤ti¤n AKA l¤ve, bi¤l¤gical
life, qualitative senses, adventure, physial
ethics, physial
m¤rality, physial
understanding, physial k-n¤wing,
reserve energy quantum c¤mplementation, s¤luti¤ns
to virtually all classical 'impossibilities,' amd so on...
Our emboldened phoneme words are basic classical implements
in radical mechanics' fool boxes. Whenever you see 'duct' thingk 'd' cut' and add
another implement to SOM's fool box.
Two of our quantonics acronyms summarize these aspects of
SOM's d' cut wall:
EOOO EEMD.
Quantons aræ n¤n classical in any d' cut sense.
They cann¤t bæ classically
reduced! Why? Their
middles aræ ihncluded by BAWAM EIMA
st¤chastic flux quantum macr¤sc¤pic
distributi¤n. All quantons aræ b¤th l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal;
b¤th here
amd everywhere heter¤-tehmp¤ral-simultane¤usly.
When any ¤ther
quanton measures them, they
tentatively "comtext squeeze" int¤ said measuring
quanton's l¤cal comtextings. (They do not classically,
von Neumannesque 'collapse!' That is a passé classical
state-ic, hyper-stoppability notion.)
Quantonics' memes which
'come closest to analogues of classical reduction' aræ
¤nt¤l¤gies where
p¤rti¤ns ¤f actual bæing transihti¤n t¤ is¤bæing.
An
e ample
is
where quantons, s¤mæh¤w, have
bæc¤mæ dihchons amd thuhs æntær pr¤cæssings
¤f bæc¤mings
etinct
(Hæræ,
f¤r n¤w, wæ can ¤nly ¤ffer
a classihcal mætaph¤r
ihn quasi-quantonicsese:
'etinction'
appæars
as a ræturn t¤
isoflux,
amd further æmærgænce
¤f that partihcular
quanton quiesces
(isot
ihndæfihnihte pærsistænce);
iht may bæ, pr¤bably
wihll bæ, 'rævihved' c¤wihthin m¤re highly æv¤lving quantum comtexts;
ihts æv¤luti¤nary
hist¤ry, wæ surmise
issi
memeorized;
hæræ
wæ can sææ, acc¤rding t¤ ¤ur
Quantonics værsi¤n ¤f quantum flux ¤nt¤l¤gy,
that
ESQ
garnærs abs¤lutæ
EEMD
amd
dæprihves any ESQ flux ihts
EIMA
flux 'n¤urishmænt.'
S¤rt ¤f lihkæ
bæing ign¤red at y¤ur family's dinnær
table...).
Als¤ quantum n¤mbærs which dæcræhse
wihth
l¤ss ¤f ænærgy (flux coumt), may bæ
th~¤ught
¤f as quantum subqtrahcti¤n.
But ihn this
casæ nægati¤n issi 'subqjæctihvæ' amd 'smahller'
quantum n¤mbærs aræ quantum-subqjæctihvæly amd quantum-qualihtatihvæly 'smahller.'
(E.g., ihf iht
issi 'zær¤' dægrææs t¤day
amd iht was 'twihce'
as c¤ld yæstærday, h¤w
c¤ld was iht yæstærday?
:)
As s¤¤n as wæ æntær any quantum
¤nt¤l¤gihcal
aræna, wæ als¤ æntær a quantum
aræna ¤f væry c¤mplex ihssues
rægarding quatr¤c¤heræncies
(quantum c¤hera), quantum
quatr¤æntr¤pa (quantum æntr¤pa),
amd quantum tihmings...pluhs a plæth¤ra
¤f ¤thær quantum
ihssues. Why?
This issi Nature's m¤st es¤tærihc 'playgr¤umd.' Iht
issi he-r 'stuff' ¤f cræati¤n
amd ¤mniscræati¤n. Many ræhlms
where 'classihcal
angels fæar t¤ træhd.'
(Quantum s¤phists
pr¤ceed
wihth vig¤ur.:)
See addition,
differentiation,
division, integration,
multiplication,
square,
square root,
and subtraction.
Also see n¤mbær.
See an ¤nt¤l¤gy
example. See entr¤pa.
See cohera.
See tihmæ.
Page top index.
|
|
'relate'
'relative'
'relativity'
Synonyms:
- descri(pt)be (noun & verb)
- associate (noun & verb)
- recall (noun & verb)
- attribute (noun & verb)
- synthesis (noun & verb)
- interconnection (radically mechanical; "metrically invariant")
- inclusion (radically mechanical group theory)
- familial
- analogous
- etc.
|
: Relate, relative,
relativity, etc. Classical notions of relating as description,
relating as association, relating as recall, relating as characterization,
relating as synthesis, etc.
Classical relativity is objective. It is dialectical.
It is analytical. Relative objects in classical reality adhere
Aristotle's radically
mechanical syllogisms: identity, contradiction, excluded-middle.
Thus classical objects' relativities must be radically mechanical
objective 'properties.' They must be observable and measurable
objective properties. That means they must be localable (and
thus stoppable), isolable (and thus stoppable), separable, and
reducible (requires stoppability, if ideal analyticity is to
be retained). We call latter "lisr."
Einsteinian relativity, by his own adherence to his local-naïve-realism,
had to retain a semblance of ideal objectivity. As Don Howard
explains for us in his 'Holism, Separability, And The Metaphysical
Implications Of The Bell Experiments,' Einstein could find only
one way to do this was via a classical notion of invariant
metrical interval.
Bottom line here: classical Einsteinian relativity
is objective by design. Einstein's
design of his theories of (special and general) relativity depends
enormously on his local and naïve principles of Aristotelian
and Newtonian science. Some
examples are: humans can measure,
humans do measure, only humans measure, measurement depends upon
observation, observation can be unilateral, measurement is objective
based upon shasb
(notions and possibilities of 'subjectiv(e)'
measurement do not 'exist' and thus are classically theoretically
bogus), all of what we have learned from measurement and theory
— and have placed in rules,
axioms, principles, and 'laws' and know-ledge data bases
— are enough for us to be capable of describing
reality, etc. Simply classical 'state'
is simple. Static reality is simple. Reality conveniently and
conventionally holds still: retains state. See Henri Louis
Bergson on comparisons
of static and dynamic simplicity. See Doug's more recent
(CeodE
2011) What
is Simple? What is Complex? Why? Explain.
Einsteinian classical relativity theory is about analytic
and synthetic state interactions among (actually 'between' since
classicists do not yet know how to calculate 'among;'
this classical problematic refers itself as "the
many body problem") static objects.
Implications? Einstein blew it! He is and was wrong, period.
Reality is not ideally, classically objective. Reality is not
a local and naïve realism!
Einsteinian relativity is just wrong, folks! There are no
ideal propertyesque lisrable state-ic 'objects' in reality. Indeed,
reality is not ideally classically-objective. Reality is not
state-ically, inertially simple.
:
Ihnterrelatæ, ihnterrelatihve, ihnterrelatihvihty,
ihnterrelati¤n, ihnterrelati¤ns,
ihnterrelati¤nings, ihnterrelati¤nship,
ihnterrelati¤nshipihc, ihnterrelati¤nshipihcihty, ihnterrelati¤nships, ihnterrelati¤nshiping, ihnterrelati¤nshipings, etc.
We need,
here, a straightforward, single phasement
description of what Quantonics means by quantum~relativity:
"Quantum relativity is [Vv]alue as quantum flux relativity."
and "Quantum~relativity issi [Vv]alue
as quantum~complementarity." Doug - 4Feb2006, 'value' rev
21Jan2012.
Here is a DNAesque exemplar:
We call them "quantons." Quantons are quantum~complementary
quantum flux interrelationshipings.
Quantons are holographic,
animate, EIMA, REIMAR, sorso~fractal, emergent,
emerging, emerscent, emerscenturable,
emerscitectible,
emerscitectural, fuzzonic
quantum~flux emersos
interrelationshipings.
What we are
looking for here is n¤t those flux 'lines,'
rather their ensemble,
enthymemetic, and epigenic interrelationshipings which we call
quantum~complementary~phase~encodings.
Begin 24Jan2012 Aside:
Quantization
of quantons abduces
quantum~relative~complementation
of all scintilla as quantons. We can list as many exemplars as
there are quantum~phenomena borne of reality's quantization~scintillation
ubiquitous ontic~evolutionary fluxings:
- up issi ihn down and down issi
ihn up,
- right issi ihn wrong and wrong
issi ihn right,
- malspel issi ihn gospel and
gospel issi ihn malspel,
- perfection issi ihn imperfection
and imperfection issi ihn perfection,
- happiness issi ihn sadness and
sadness issi ihn happiness,
- chaos issi ihn equilibrium and equilibrium issi ihn chaos,
- love issi ihn hate and hate
issi ihn love,
- life issi ihn death and death
issi ihn life,
- etc.
Intensities of those Value complementations are evolving
quantum~processings themselves: impossible as stoppables
for classical scalarbation.
Those exemplars offer linguistic exegeses of quantum~complementarity
as no formal dialectic ever could.
Doug.
End 24Jan2012 Aside.
Quantum reality quantum~flux~relatively
encodes phase, n¤t
space. Said encodings we call "hologra." Why? Their
phase encodings are
EIMA quantum~iso~equi~pragma~potent: i.e., holographic!
Perhaps we can show that graphically better like this:
View and assess that large red
ensemble QLO as a many processings'
enthymemetic epigene: partial quantum~fluxings~relativistic reality!
Doug - 29Oct2007.
Classical analysis cann¤t accomplish, let alone explain
that. Rather, a classical explanation looks like those
transverse 2D lines in our drawing
above. But that drawing is classical dialectical reality's EOOO dichonic SQ
'opposite' (rather
'a' apparently 'state-ic' quantum~complement) of what quantum
reality really phase~encodes. Classical reality is ESQ. Classical reality
leaves out DQ! Classical
reality is n¤t real. Classical reality's 'objective
properties' are n¤t real!
Quantum reality is quanton(DQ,SQ).
I.e., some animate version of our drawing plus its quantum phase~encodings
complementings. Now, think-king
about them holographically makes all easier to grasp in any quantum
perspective.
Let's do an example:
Take a musical score. Quantum complement it. How? Well, there
are at least three ways apparent to Doug: temporally, tonally,
and tonal-temporally. Probably there are countless others (hint,
hint, phase-encodingly; Fourierly; Picassoesque cubically; etc.).
Gershwin did a kind of quantum complement using temporal recursion
of similar 'faster' patterns recursing 'faster' patterns recursing
patterns. Bach too. (If you do not have a copy get (has to
be) Glenn Gould's thirty Goldberg Variations with
two Aria (alpha and omega); listen while reading Richard
Powers' The Goldbug Variations. No one else even approaches
Gould's skills, style, power, articulation, dynamic range, quantum~essence,
etc.)
OK! Play notes, play notes and their temporal complements
using complementary instruments. Ditto their tonal complements.
Mix. You just moved eons closer to quantum reality in that simple
exercise! Remember Miles Davis? He used to say that he tried
not to play notes, rather to play notes' nots. As Doug remembers
he called it "playing 'd background," a kind of musical
Gestalt.
End example.
From a Bohmian, Pietschean holographic, hologramic, holomovement
perspective, quantons are quantum flux phasicity~encodings.
Classically we would refer them as Fourier 'analyses.' But
that is a bad way of thing-king about it! Analysis stops reality and measures flux classically
using what we call "scalarbation."
Quantum reality is unstoppable, and quantum flux may n¤t
be held still and 'measured at a point.'
Now let's wrap all that up by using quantum~relativity to
describe holograms:
"Quantum hologramings are essential quantum fluxings'
relativityings: we call them 'quantum~phasicityings~encodings.'"
Quantum relativity is quantum phase encoding. Quantum
iso~omni~phase~encoding issi quantum complementarity. There are
n¤ classical 'opposites,'
only real quantum complements: quantum reality
issi hologra of hologra of hologra...
Doug - 2-4Feb2006.
Ihn Quantum ræhlihty quantons
d¤ n¤t
classically 'relate,'
they aræ ænsehmble
abs¤lutæly anihmatæly
quantumly ihnterrelatings. Our m¤st
gænæral ¤mniscrihpti¤n
as ¤f 2005q f¤r quantum ihnterrelati¤nshipings issi
REIMAR.
Quantum ræhlihty
sahys "flux issi
simple."
Wæ
sahy, "Flux issi crux."
Quantum~flux
is simple. Classical 'state' is complex. Why? Explain.
Quantum ræhlihty sahys
"flux issi st¤chastihc." That
mæans b¤th pr¤babilistihc amd
lihkælihoodihstihc.
Iht mæans
b¤th subqjæctihv(e) amd qualihtatihvæ. Iht
mæans gænæral absænce ¤f
classical
negat
amd gænæral præsænce
¤f quantum p¤siht.
Quantum wavæs~flux aræ st¤chasihtc. Quantum st¤chastihcs aræ n¤n nægatihvæ.
See positive
and negative. See
our 2004 What is Wrong
with Probability as Value?
Quantons aræ flux. They
aræ at læast quatr¤æntr¤pihc, quatr¤c¤herænt
flux.
See entropa
and cohera.
Quantum flux manihfests
ihtsælf ihn
ahctualihty
as b¤s¤nihc flux amd
fermi¤nihc flux. B¤s¤nihc flux can ahctualihzæ as zær¤ amd ihnteger spihn.
Fermi¤nihc flux can ahctualihzæ
as spihn 1/2 (e.g., t¤p-bott¤m-charmæd-strange-quarks, uhp-d¤wn-quarks,
electr¤ns, neutrons, pr¤t¤ns, etc.), amd
systæmihc ræsihdual spihn
1/2. (nuclæi, at¤ms, amd aggrægatæs
¤f th¤se, etc.) Quantum
flux n¤nmanihfests ihtsælf (iht
hidæs, sælf-cl¤aks)
as
is¤flux
ihn n¤nahctualihty.
Ahll these
'kinds' ¤f quantum flux can b¤th
passihvely amd ahctihvæly 'mihx'
ihncluhsihvely wihth ¤næ an¤thær!
Ahll ¤f quantum ræhlihty issi
n¤n
'state-ic'
REIMAR
ænsehmbles ¤f ahctihvæ
amd passihve ihnterrelati¤nshipings ¤f vahst
amd ubihquiht¤uhs quantum flux!!
F¤r c¤mparihs¤n
purp¤ses hæræ
wæ may uhsæ a qu¤te
fr¤m
Banesh Hoffmann's The Story of
the Quantum, 1947 GPC and 1959 Dover, "Where de Broglie
had used relativistic waves in ordinary space and time, Schrödinger
had used nonrelativistic waves
in a fictional space."
Quantonics uhsæs wavæs
(fuzz¤nihc
QLOs) as c¤¤bsfæctihvæ
ihnterrelati¤nings. Wavæs
apparænt t¤ uhs n¤w,
aræ n¤t
objectively 'relativistic,'
rather, they
aræ quantumly ihnterrelati¤nshipihc amd
abs¤lutæly
quantum parthæn¤fluxihc: æmærqing,
æmærqant, æmærscænce,
æmærscænt, æmærscænturable,
amd æmærscihtectable ihn
a quantum_æmærs¤s_ræhlihty  quantons(n¤nahctualihty,ahctualihty).
Doug - 25-28Feb2005. (2nd 'or' 3rd applied
usage of our coined 'parthenofluxic'
here; described using other Quantonics' coined terms)
Page top index.
|
|
'remediation' |
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
classical 'remediation' amd
remerq all
quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'remediati¤n.'
In classical contexts we shall use 'remediation.' In Quantonics/quantum
comtexts we shall use 'remediati¤n.'
Classical remediation puts those who have somehow leapt from
SOM's box, back in SOM's box.
Quantum remediati¤n all¤ws students ¤f
Quantonics t¤ escape SOM's box, amd
c¤mmence a quantum Chautauqua thr¤ugh a much greater
quantum reality. Quantum
remediati¤n applies emerscenture percepts amd
intuemes
t¤ spawn quantum memes amd
inn¤vate n¤vel
emerqs.
Students ¤f Quantonics include in their Chautauquas
new ways ¤f think-king using QTMs amd
c¤mmencing a life l¤ng pr¤cess ¤f
discarding general use ¤f legacy CTMs. QTMs all¤w
students ¤f Quantonics t¤ access Sidis' 'reserve
energy,' ¤r what we call "quantum flux."
Page top index.
|
|
'repeatability'
'repeatable'
'repeat'
'repetition'
'etc.' |
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤
c¤¤pt classical 'repeatability,' 'repeatable,'
'repetition,' and 'repeat' amd remerq all quantum c¤mtextual
¤ccurrences with, e.g., 'ræpæatability' amd
'ræpætition,' plus their present-participle quantum
anihmatæ versions, e.g.:
ræpæatings amd ræpætitionings.
Classicists assume stable, inanimate physical (classical)
reality may be posed and analyzed in zero momentum unicontextual,
homogeneous, OGC
reference frames.
Quantonics' versi¤n ¤f quantum science assumes
quantum realihty issi anihmatæ,
c¤mpenetrating, heter¤comtextual, heter¤gene¤us (quantum
ensehmbles),
amd absent any 'OGC reference frames.' All quantum c¤mtexts
aræ abs¤lutely anihmatæ
amd their ihnterrelati¤nships (quantons) with
¤ther quantum c¤mtexts
aræ nævær 'repeatable.' Their
p¤tential self-similarity amd QTP
¤nly ¤ffer what we
call quantum ræpæatability. Quantum ræpæatability
suffers (actually enjoys) abs¤lute quantum umcærtainty
under QVF's abs¤lute
mandate f¤r evolutionary emerscence.
This quantum remediation, among many others in Quantonics,
is devastating to classical science. Why? Classical science depends
upon 'verification' and 'validation' of experiments using classically
deluded notions of 'repeatability.'
See truth. See
verity. See fact.
See law. See What
is Absurd. See Science as
Humor.
Page top index.
|
|
'reproduction'
reproduce |
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
classical 'reproduction' and 'reproduce' amd remerq all quantum
c¤mtextual ¤ccurrences with 're(e)merscence' amd
'remerq,' plus their present-participle quantum anihmatæ
versions: re(e)merscencings amd remerqings.
Two main themes of classical 'reproduction' are classical
manufacturing and biological fecundation. Both notions are classically
mechanical. They are objective, and depend upon ideal mechanical
lisrability and
mobile (i.e., capable of objective, analytic, causal motion),
but immutable EEMD.
Quantum reality does n¤t classically reproduce he-rself!
S-he is in quantum processings of reemerscenturings he-rself,
via quantum anihmatæ EIMA
emerscence.
See emerq,
emerscenture,
emerscitecture,
emerscence,
remerq.
Page top index.
|
|
'response' |
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
classical 'response' amd remerq all quantum c¤mtextual
¤ccurrences with 'resp¤nse.'
Where classical responses are usually stable, repeatable,
effected and quantitative 1-1 correspondent EEMD
causal, quantum resp¤nses
aræ heter¤gene¤us-ensehmble,
st¤chastic, EIMA,
anihmatæ.
Page top index.
|
|
'reverse' |
TBD. Classical problematics: dichon(not_reverse,
reverse), either/or, EOOO,
opposition, versus, contradiction, objective negation (i.e.,
classical, Bohrian complement),
etc.
Page top index.
|
|
'reversibility'
'reversible' |
TBD. Classical problematics:
dichon(not_reversible, reversible), Maxwell's 'laws' of thermodynamics,
reality as only posentropic, adiabaticity (e.g., quantum tunneling
is adiabatic, however it is n¤t wholly posentropic),
arrow of time, reality as unitemporal (a key and problematic
Einstein assumption in his classical special and general
theories of relativity), etc.
Perhaps our most key issue here, with classical notions vis-à-vis
quantum memeos
of 'reversibility,' may be illustrated via this simple comparison:
- classical 'opposites' are generally-, mechanically-, analytically-,
formally-, canonically-,
objectively-reversible,
however,
- quantum c¤mplæmænts aræ, ihn genæral, n¤n ræværsible.
You want it even simpler?
Try this:
- dichon(not_A,
A) is reversible, however,
- quanton(n¤t_A,A)
issi, ihn genæral, n¤t
reversible.
Why? Classical dialectical logic
demands objective stability ('zero momentum' at best, and 'stoppable
mobility' at worst) and lisr
independence (middle-exclusion). Classical dialectical logic
also canonically demands that all equivalence relations:
identity, reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, etc., and linear
relation properties: factorizability, distributivity,
commutativity,
etc., be-are valid. Quantum reality demands quantum~l¤gic,
which we remediatively rename coquecigrues.
Coquecigrues breaks all classical logic, massively.
Simply, quantum~reality is unstoppable
and all middles are, to some scope of affect, included.
Where classical reality is 'state,'
quantum reality is 'flux.' See our QELR of phase.
Let's l¤¤k at quantum entr¤pa amd c¤hera:
| entr¤pa |
c¤hera |
ræværsibility |
| zer¤entr¤py |
c¤herence |
quantum_ræværsible |
| p¤sentr¤py |
dec¤herence |
quantum_irræværsible
within human
perceptual bandwidths |
| negentr¤py |
is¤c¤herence |
d¤ n¤t k-n¤w;
ihn a sense issi ræværsibility |
| mixentr¤py |
mixc¤herence |
ihnteresting
amd phen¤menal mixtures ¤f
ab¤ve, e.g., superc¤nductivity, magnetism, neutrinos
oscillating their zer¤~ and p¤s~entropies to tunnel
masses like planets, tsunamis, amd superfluids |
Classicists make enormous errors of judgment when they assume
classical reversibility is valid. In general, classical reversibility
is invalid, for reasons offered above. Too memeos of quantum~ræværsibility
are wholly unlike and omnisimilar classical notions of 'reversibility.'
Further quantum~advancements in quantum~equilibrium, ~gradience,
~[a]symmetry, [a]temporality have made it evident we need more
QMVings and QEVings
on classical vav quantum reversibility. Here is a list which
can offer bases for further classical vav quantum QELRing of
reversibility here:
Aspects of [IR]Reversibility:
- equilibrium
- gradience
- symmetry vav asymmetry
- temporality vav atemporality
- certainty vav uncertainty
- monism vav pluralism
- unitime vav heterostochastic timings
- scalar phase vav quantum~phasings
- thermodynamics
- analysis vav complementation
- quantitative vav qualitative
- closed vav open
- effectuation vav affectation
- etc.
Doug will fledge all of those here as our QELR work on equilibrium
evolves. (More revisions as of 26Nov2012 - Doug.)
A large issue is classical history (a monism) vis-à-vis
quantum history (a plethoric heterogeneity of ensembles
of wave function energy~wellings). Classical history is usually
thought about as, assumed as a single history, a unitemporal
(y=f(t) and y=f(-t) history; a simple
classical minus sign
can 'reverse history'). As a result of that assumption,
retraceability of history appears 'reasonable.'
Quantum~history leaves an quantized entropy trail, and has many
timings (pluralism) none of whose histories is monistic in any
classical sense. Con(m)sider how all 'histories' are evolving, n¤t
monistically-unitemporally dead and stable and frozen ESQ
as classicists polemicize. Quantum~memeo of hist¤ry
begs general irreversibility except for very short and local
temporal durations in coherent and isocoherent wave~functional subsystems
(See Doug's coining of Isot
and compare Ison
and Isop). Doug
asks you to view subsystems as used here as EWing of EWings.
This example shows us that quantization and its bedfellow scintillation
manifest hologra[[il][m][ph]]ic ephemera of manyings of everythingings
everywhereings and everywhenings. Quantum systems therefore are
generally irreversible. Try to imagine a system similar
this as classically reversible (note classical-reversibility-disabling
red and green quanta
and blue~dotted isoflux energy tapping):
 
Doug - 24,26Nov2012.
Doug - 26Jun2011 through 4Jul2011. 24,26Nov2012 - Doug.
Page top index.
|
|
'right' |
See 'wrong.' In
quantum reality there is n¤ dichon(wrong, right)! In that
dichon's stead we anihmatæ quanton(better,w¤rse).
We als¤ sh¤w that anihmatæ
quanton as BAAM(better,w¤rse).
We will eventually distinguish quantum/Quantonic 'right' fr¤m
classical 'right' using ¤ur Quantonics f¤nt.
Here it is 28Sep2003, 2+ years later, and we are now ready
to do that remediation!
Quantonics ch¤¤ses
t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'right'
amd remerq
all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with
'right.'
In classical contexts we shall use 'right.' In Quantonics/quantum
comtexts we shall use 'right.'
Classical dichon(wrong, right) is an objective, radically
mechanical, causal, state-ic, stoppable, absolute, excluded-middle,
single-scalar, measurable, repeatable, verifiable, valid, logical-moral-ethical
assessment.
Quantum quanton(wr¤ng,right)
sh¤ws a quantum ihnterrelati¤nship which issi: anihmatæ,
ihncluded-middle, everywhere-ass¤ciative,
st¤chastic, BAWAM, subjectihve, rhet¤rical,
ensehmble, Value assessment.
To a classicist, indeed to all classicists, agreement consensus
(one sensible judgment fits all; communis vitae fits all;
communist sense, catholic sense, herd mentality fits all...)
may be established for all to adhere. Science has its axioms,
facts, and laws and backs them up with a disciplinary matrix
(a totalitarian hegemony) to assure all 'competent scientists'
adhere a valid common, normal scientific sense. Sects have their
religions. Corporations have their constitutions and by-laws.
Union-sense. Common sense.
So when any classicist looks
at a situation, we can expect that classicist to be capable
of assessing it as either right or wrong.
T¤ a quantumihst, quanton(wr¤ng,
right) has
umlihmited hermeneutics
f¤r any gihven c¤mtextual
sihtuati¤n. 1000 ¤mnifferent
hu-w¤-mans wihll ¤ffer
nearly as many ¤mnistinct views. We call this
"many truths," amd "many
quantum truths." Amd æach ¤f these
quantum truths issi anihmatæ
amd ev¤lving amd an agent ¤f ihts
¤wn amd ¤thers' quantum
changings.
Page top index.
|
|
'rule' |
<roolay>
Quantonics ch¤¤ses
t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'rule'
amd remerq
all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'rulæ.'
In classical contexts we shall use 'rule.' In Quantonics/quantum
comtexts we shall use 'rulæ.'
Classical 'rules' hold still. They are ESQ.
They are state-ic.
They are innately
inanimate. Classicists rank this long term 'rule' stability as
supreme import in developing their 'abyss of stasyss' theories.
H¤wever, n¤w, in Millennium III's first few
years we rec¤gnize that nature/reality nævær
h¤lds still (only sometimes apparently to classical minds).
Thus, if we want t¤ describe nature/reality better,
we must inn¤vate 'rulæs' which adapt t¤ quantum
comtexts amd their ensehmble paratehmp¤ralities
and pragmatehmp¤ralities. Quantum/Quantonic
'rulæs' may bæ Planck rate dynamic (amd ensehmbles ¤f l¤wer rates/¤ctaves
there¤f). Quantum 'rulæs' aræ stindyanic.
They aræ EEE-able.
They aræ emersible.
Our descripti¤ns ¤f quantum rulæs, axi¤ms,
et al., uncl¤ak a large part ¤f Quantonics' pragmadigm
shear f¤r Millennium III. We call it a "quantum tsunami,"
based up¤n its imminent amd en¤rm¤us impact
¤n Earth's s¤cieties amd cultures.
See: absolute,
axiom, certain,
fact, law,
principle, tautology,
truth.
Page top index.
|
|
©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2029 |