| Item | English Language Problematic | Quantonics' Quantum Remediation
      ©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2028
 | 
  
    |  | 'same' | TBD. See identity. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 'science' Synonyms: 
        systematized knowledge
        physical knowledge
        assessment of propositions which are 'true'
        etc.
       Etymology: "Science n. About 1340 science knowledge,
      branch of learning, skill; borrowed from Old French science,
      from Latin scientia knowledge, from sciens (genitive
      scientis), present participle of scire to know;
      for suffix see -ENCE. A branch of learning based on observation
      and tested truths, arranged in an orderly system, is first recorded
      in English in 1725, developed from the sense of a particular
      branch of knowledge (logic, grammar, rhetoric, music, arithmetic,
      geometry, astronomy) as distinguished from art (1678), and related
      to the sense of a recognized branch of learning (before 1376)."
      Page 692, The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology
      - The Origins of American English Words, by Robert K. Barnhart,
      Harper Collins, 1995.
     | : Science, sciences, scientific, etc. Classical science seeks to know what is true. That which is
      classically 'true' is physically, concretely,
      immutably, paradigmatically veritable, verifiable, and valid
       provisionally  until its verity is verifiably contradicted. Classical philosophy seeks to know
      what is truth. Clearly, 'truth' is a metanotion of 'true,' in
      a similar sense as Gödel's 'provability' is a metanotion
      of 'proof.' Classical science deliberately disable's
      Planck's quantum flux, i.e., "zeroes h-bar," in
      order to enable antique classical notions about a non fluxing,
      classically concrete 'reality.' : 
Scihænce,
 scihænces, scihæntihfihc, etc. Wæ have n¤ appr¤priatæ
      quantum mætaph¤r ¤f
 
'classical science.' 
Sihmihlarly
      as wæ have saihd
      elsewhere, 
"quantum logic
      is an oxymoron," 
wæ have
 t¤ sahy sihmihlarly hæræ,
      
"quantum 'science' is an oxymoron."
      
Yæt that w¤rd
      
'science' 
issi s¤ ingrained
      that wæ g¤ ahead
      amd juhst 
QELR
      
iht amd accæpt
      quantum scihænce as a quantum
      mætamæmæ ¤f 
'classical
      science.' 
Quantum scihænce
      sahys that
      
classical truth
      
d¤æs n¤t 
'exist.'
      
Rather, quantum
      abs¤lutæ changæ
      issi ræhlihty.
      
But classical truth is state-ic. Ideal classical
      state is objectively stable, immutable. 
Wæ
      cahll 
'classical
      state' "ESQ" 
ihn
 quantum 
ræhlihty. Re: quantum and philosophy, we adore how Jim Baggott
      says it, "It is my opinion, expressed in this book, that
      quantum theory is philosophy." And, "Beneath the [quantum
      mechanical] formalism must be an interpretation and the interpretation
      is pure philosophy." Preface, p. x - The Meaning of Quantum
      Theory.   In our view, in Quantonics, any study of quantum reality is
      metaphysics, even better metaphysi. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 'select''selection'
 'selection, natural'
 Synonyms - classical: 
        segregate
        separate
        localize
        isolate
        reduce
        mark
        discriminate
        choose
        cull
        approve
        etc.
       Synonyms - quantum: 
        quantum~holographic omniscriminationings,
        quantaldulation, quantadulation (~adulate: flatter,
        adore), quantalation (~alate: winglike), quantaphilation,
        quantaphialation (we like 'phi' and 'phial,' i.e., latter is
        vessel, especially 'God number's' vessel, here)
         but which one or another?
        this one is incredibly omnifficult  we have no English
        language word of which we are aware
        that describes what we intend here, so in our missing word's
        place we offer...
        we need entendres
        for what in technical jargon we call delta-modulation; delta
        mod is used almost ubiquitously in WWW's internet to A/D and
        D/A usart communications protocols; in a sense that delta mods
        mediate A/D and D/A, quantum~selection mediates, based upon local
        memes and memeos of quantum~better, emersion and immersion
        and emergence and demergence (can think
        of both as quantum~squarings and quantum~square~rootings with
        quantum~awareness and ~ch3ings
        implicit); quantum selectionings mediate "whatings happenings
        nextings" at all quantum edgings of nowings. (A/D is analog-to-digital
        vis-à-vis our quantum need for actual n¤nactual
        pr¤cessings, iso  isot then isop
        ; delta mod is a clock rate dependent signal follower which uses
        a slope change rate base of 1.618..., too, delta mod is ~unique
        in its hermaphrodicity: a single soft switch (allele)
        changes its electronic sex! Doug.) 
 Based upon our electronic analogue, tentatively, let's coin quantaldulation,
        contracted 'dulation, similar Bergson's quantum duration.
        Planck rate edgings of nowings peaQLOings'
        OEDCings REIMARings
        ensemblings followings.
 
 un dulation
 mo dulation
 fecun dulation
 quanta(l) dulation
 
 undula tion
 modula tion
 fecundula tion
 quantaldula tion
 
 Latin - unda - wave
 Latin - undula - small wave
 
 See OEDC, Reality
        Loop I, Reality Loop
        II, and our 2004 Gen III Reality
        Loop.
 Etymology - classical: "Select v. 1567, borrowed from Latin selectus,
      past participle of seligere choose out, selectadj. 1565, borrowed from Latin selectus, past participle.
 selection n. 1623, act of selecting; borrowed from Latin
      selectionem (nominative selectio) a choosing, selection,
      from select-, stem of the past participle of seligere;
 selective adj. 1625, formed from English select, v. +
      -ive." From Barnhart's 1995 Dictionary of Etymology,
      p. 701.
 Etymology - quantum: See above under quantaldulation.
     | : Select, selection, selective, etc. 
        
          | Criterion | Dialectical Assessment | Ideal Classical Reality |  
          | stability | Selection is a stable act | Classical actuality is stable. Classical actuality
            is stoppable. |  
          | independence | Selected objects are lisr | Objects in classical reality are independent of one
            another. |  
          | excluded-middle | Selected objects are lisr | No object in classical reality can be both itself and
            not itself. |  
          | EOOOness | Selection is classically logical | Classical predicate logic is absolutely dialectical. |  
          | H5Wness | Selection is active voice Selection is passive voice
 | H5W are all always lisr, stoppable, stable, analytic,
            etc. |  
          | lisrability | Selection requires lisr | Objects are ideally, classically lisr. Objects are
            analytic. |  
          | causation | Selection is predicable | Spatial motion is change. All classical motion is caused. |  
          | certainty | Certainty attends selection | All classical causation is determinately 1-1 correspondent. |  
          | EEMDivity | Selection is syllogistic | Due independence & excluded-middle objects are
            everywhere-dissociative. |  
          | observation | Selection requires nondisturbing unilateral
            observation | Classical objects may be unilaterally observed, while
            undisturbed. |  Darwin was afraid of publishing his own theory of natural
      selection since it evokes inferences of heterodoxy, choice (heresy),
      and pluralism. Of course all three violate fundamentalist religious
      convictions. But Darwin's theory of evolution is very quantum! Fundamentalist natural selection requires an a
      posteriori view of reality,
      and that view must be unitary-historical. Fundamentalists insist
      that there is only one valid history of reality, only one valid
      past. (See Clifford Geertz'
      assessments of SOM's
      "Absolutism removes judgment from history," and CR's "Relativism
      disables judgment." Browser search for <judg> at that
      Geertz link.) How can they believe that? Simple. Classical science
      says there is only one time, the time. Interestingly, though, even if we assume only a single 'time'
      we can easily demonstrate unlimited histories and unlimited pasts. Classical conspectives of selection as monistic (non heterogeneous)
      thus demand that any use of probability
      to predict any future event must depend upon a single thread
      ensemble of sequential
      historical events. Classicists do not view past, now,
      and future as heterogeneous ensembles. Darwin's natural selection put all of this classical bogosity
      into major question, and we are still feeling and reeling from
      consequences of it. Quantum 
scihænce
      
is one of these consequences, in our view, toward
      better. However, classically, Darwin's natural selection yet suffers
      some major issues. We doubt that Darwin saw adaptation as an
      ensemble result of b¤th species',
      their genes', and nature's choices amd selections. Most
      descriptions we have read of Darwin's natural selection shows
 nature as choosing outcomes, vis-à-vis 
b¤th nature amd ahll
 quantum~ihndihvihduals ch¤¤sing~selecting
      t¤gether. 
If
      so, with nature viewed objectively separate from genes and species,
      then this is a classical and anti quantum view of Darwin's natural
      selection. We can perhaps best illustrate what we mean here with
      words of Lourens Bass-Becking, "Everything is everywhere;
      the environment selects." In Quantonics we would alter Becking's
      assumption thus, 
"Eværythingings
      aræings æværywhereings;
      they ahllings
      aræ ihn quantum~selecti¤nings
      pr¤cæssings." 
 We interpret classical views of Darwin's natural selection
      as nature doing all selection and species having little to do
      but obey nature's classically predicable commands. This is nature
      as hegemonist, which we decry vociferously. Classically, selection is one past, certainly determining
      at one now, one future. Classical selection is determinate,
      causal-effective, effectational, effectoring, dialectic,
      etc. Quantum selection is uncertain, ensemble-affective, affectational,
      affectoring, holographic,
      etc. See our QELR of holograph. See cause, etc. : Select,
      selecting, selecti¤n, selecti¤nings, etc.: 
Quantadulatæ,
      quantadulati¤n, quantaldulatæ, quantaldulati¤n,
      ...ings, etc.
 All quanta adulate (adore) all quanta. Scintillation
      (crudely put, energy copulation, impregnation (e..g., QED quantum~leap
      AKA analanche), delay, birth of a quantum AKA avalanche (wavicle,
      possibly EWings re emission), etc. Photons
      fux with electrons, etc. Cuneiform
      anyone?) may result: implication quantum~uncertainty. An easy comparison of quantum~quantadulation 
vis-à-vis
      
classical selection (choice AKA 'heresy')
      is: 
        classical certainty attends 'selection,' and
        quantum~uncertainty attends 'quantadulation.'
       Classical dialect deludes its practitioners they can be a
      posteriori certain of their 'decision's' a futuriori
      (a priori) inductive and inertial effects. We refer this
      dialectical 'classical social retardation.' Quantum rhetoric stochastically and partially offers its practioners
      ensemble pastings, nowings, and futurings' (PNFings') affectationings
      as likelihoodistic yet partially~uncertain
      quantum~anticipation. We refer this coquecigrues(ical)
      "enthymemetic
      gn¤stic quantum~expectationings." Quantum~sælæcti¤n~quantadulation
      issi omniscriminationings
      (discrimination is bivalent
      dialectical state-ic formal English linguistic garbage) among
      quantum~energy~wellings of quantum~holographic nexi which emerq
      as Poisson~Bracketings
      among any hologram's
      energy~wellings. Quantum"Since reflection and inquiry always involve
      a purposive act of selection from within a larger situational
      whole, the fact-value distinction is bound to dissolve at some
      point and with it the supposed autonomy of facts and factual
      discourse."
      Granger's words beg quantum~included middlings of
      quantum~flux. His use of 'dissolve' is a classical way of saying
      "quantum~phase~encodings"
      among ensembles of many kinds of quantum~fluxings, including
      timings, massings, spacings, and gravityings. He eschews gently
      SOM's wall as "the
      fact-value
      'di' stinction," which
      is, for Doug, just brilliant. "Reflection" begs probability.
      "Inquiry" begs both plausibility and
      likelihoodings of both anticipation and expectation
      all borne of selectors' affectationings.
      That spread
      of thinkqing illustrates how quanton(ought,th)
      issi fluxings which EIMA~compenetrate~spread
      and holographically quantum~correlate arbitrarily (offering vast
      ensembles of quantum~sælæcti¤n~quantadulation
      intrinsically involves dynamic hermeneutics hovering countless
      radically asymmetric
      quantum~comtexts and their relentless choosings, chancings
      and changings. David A. Granger, interpreting Pirsig and Dewey
      describes what we mean here rather well in his October, 2006
      MacMillan-Palgrave-published Dewey, Pirsig and the Art of
      Living, p. 74: ~sælæcti¤n~quantadulation
      opportunities) over boundless temporal and other flux spectra.
      See PPL.
      For an example of Doug's use of "vast ensembles of quantum~sælæcti¤n~quantadulation
      opportunities," see our recent, c. 2007, quantum~scintillation.Quantumly, selec(adula)tionings
      are many pasts, many nowings, and many potential futurings
      quantum~radically~stochastically
      and quantum~fractally
      and quantum~uncertainlyselectingsquantadulationings better nowings with expectations of
      better potential futurings:   As you may readily assess, there is much to ponder here. We
      shall evolve this living text, persistently. Adepts will notice
      Mae-wan Ho here. All quantum pings, b(n)ings, and fings (pastings,
      nowings~beings, futurings) are locally autonomous (issues of
      quantum~partiality
      here) while systemically quantum~coherent. Pings, bings, and
      fings are massively heterogeneous! Pings, bings, and fings are
      massively quantum~sorso and thus fractal.
      Quantum reality shows us he~r massive, scaling quantum~temporal
      uncertainties! (Authors, painters, pianists, violinists, marksmen,
      tennisers, runners, et al., all are personally k~nowings
      how that graphic feels qualitatively when they cohere
      with their instruments and sports and simultaneously cohere with
      reality and "everything just happens well.") Petzinger
      (The New Pioneers) calls it "Becoming one with one's
      tools." See time, ensemble
      attractorings, choice. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 'semiotic' | TBD. See memeotic. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 'separable' | : Separable : 
Sæprægmable, sæprægmabilihty, sæprægmabilihties,
      etc. 
 See rational. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 'similar' | : Similar, etc. Classical objects are ideally identical to themselves. Classical objects are ideally, measurably, scalarbatively
      similar to other objects. Classical similarity is a scalar quantity. Classical similarity finds its bases of reason
      and judgment in taxonomies
      of static, zero momentum, durationally
      stopped objective properties. : 
Sihmihlar, sihmihlarly, sihmihlars, sihmihlarings, sihmihlarihties,
      etc. 
 
Quantum~sihmihlarihty
      
is an assessment of our quantum~uncertainty about
      holographic~interrelationshipings among quantons. Since 
sihmihlarihty
 
is close kin of uncertainty we can say 
sihmihlarly
      
, resemblance is an assessment of quantum~uncertainty. That
      leads us to a more gænæral
      phasæmænting
 that synonyms of 
sihmihlarihty
      
are assessments of 
quantum~umcærtainty.
      
Mimicking Hume
 we may then make an inference of sihmilarihty and 
ræsæmblancæ
      
as assessments of degrees of Quality. Given that inference we may say, even more quantum~simply,
      " 
Ræsæmblancæ 
issi QSOistic!"
 and " 
Sihmihlarihty
      
 quantum~wave~phasistic." All quantum flux is 
sihmihlar 
other quantum flux.
      No quantum flux is identical any other quantum flux. No quantum
      flux is identical to itself longer than a few Planck moments.
      Why? Change is absolute,
      evolution is absolute,
      evolution is perpetual, change
      is perpetual. Quantum~similarity is evolving interrelationshipings among
      two and more quantons. Quantum~waves can phase encode all quantum~interrelationshipings
      for monitorings
      by quantum~computationings. 
Quantum~sihmihlarihty
      
finds its bases
 of reason in taxonomies of quantum~fluxings' 
phasistihc~sihmihlarihties. 
 We can now describe quantum~reality in its simplest quantum~phasementings
      as proprietary Quantonics Hotmemes.Quantonics AutSimilarity
      HotMeme "Quantum~reality issi autsimilarityings.
      Too, quantum~reality issi auturgyings of autsimilarityings."
 Quantonics AutSimilarity
      HotMeme
 Compare identical,
      identity. Search for applied uses of 'similarity' in these
      Quantonics web pages. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 'simplicity' 'simple'
 | : Simplicity Classical simplicity is analytic. Culturally it is often referred
      as "objective simplicity" and "state-social simplicity
      (often taking cultural forms as nationalism, fascism, socialism,
      communism, etc.)." Actually it is "locally naïve
      realism," "'unambiguous' classical judgmentism,"
      and "naïve logical positivism" simplicity. Scientifically and philosophically, again, simplicity is analytic.
      It assumes OGC. It
      assumes stoppable classical
      state, stateism, status and staticity. What we in Quantonics
      refer as "stux sux, stux is classical crux," and "abysses
      of staysses." Ockham's razor is a blatant and blundering blunted SOM's
      knife example of CTMs
      which adhere 'simple objective thing-king.' To Ockham (Henry
      of), simplicity is just another classical 'rule,' (akin 'common
      sense,' and 'generality')
      to which we respond not altogether humourously,"Rules is
 Tules
 for
 Fules."
      and
      "Rools
 is
 Tools
 for
 Fools."
 Classical stasis-simplicity induces inexplicable phenomena,
      paradice, infinities and zeroes. Classical simplicity obfuscates
      reality. An example here of classical simplicity is a classical notion
      of 'absolute truth.' Recently Mitch offered an example of this kind of classically
      simple thingking. A SOMite said to Mitch, "There is fighting in the world
      and that is an absolute truth." This is a fine example
      of what dialectic does to classical minds. Mitch needed to respond to his antagonist that if that
      statement is an "absolute truth," then classically,
      simply, its 'opposite' must be an absolute truth too! 
        Clarifying aside - 7Oct2005 - Doug: If, classically, dialectically, 
          "there is fighting in the world" is absolutely
          true, then
          "there is 'no' fighting in the world" absolutely
          false must be absolutely true too.
         Even classically, however, there are places and times in our
        world where there is fighting and there are places and times
        in our world when there is no fighting! End aside. Dialectic claims EOOO is an absolutely state-ic classical
      tautology. Implication? Either there is fighting in the world
      or there is not fighting in the world. But by simple dynamic
      observation we can easily fathom that: 
        "there is fighting in the world" is true, and
        "there is no fighting in the world" is true, and
        there may be times when
        "we do not know whether there is fighting in the world,"
        is true.
       Let's use some quantonic script to wrap this up:dichon(there is fighting in the world, there is no
      fighting in the world)
      and quantumly,
      quanton(there_is_fighting_in_the_world,there_is_no_fighting_in_the_world). Said dichon is simply, classically, statically, dialectically
      wrong when either statement is claimed as absolute truth! 
Saihd quanton
 issi sihmply, quantumly, dynamihcahlly,
 rhet¤rihcahlly c¤rrect whæn
      claimæd as a comtextuahlly
      umcærtain truth! 
 How can we more easily understand
      this? Dialectical classicists assume negation is objective. Wr¤ng! Quantum reality shows us that negation
 is subjective. Rihght! Our uses of wr¤ng and rihght are quantum English language remediated
      (QELRed). Why? Same reasoning we used above:dichon(right, wrong) (EOOO objective EEMD negation)
      and quantumly,
      
quanton(wr¤ng,rihght)
      (BAWAM subqjæctihvæ
      EIMA nægati¤n). Quantumly, in a plethora of quantum comtexts wr¤ng
      is rihght,
 and in a plethora of other quantum comtexts rihght is wr¤ng, and in a plethora
      of other quantum comtexts "Mu!" This shows how quantum
      reality is quantum uncertain. Classically, there is only one local, naïve context. See OGC
      in OGT. This is classicism's only means of maintaining classical
      certainty. Simply, whatever any classicist is statically certain about,
      we can show is quantumly, dynamically uncertain. To use dialectic
      to claim absolute classical certainty is, to put it mildly, unintelligent.
      To put it less mildly, "DIQheaded."
       Static simplicity says that dialectical, formal truth is both
      immutable and absolute where absolute truth is both: 
        complete, and (i.e., 'states all truths')
        consistent. (i.e., 'always states the truth')
       Classicists use that 'absoluteness' to declare unambiguity
      of their work products, communications, logic, etc. That view
      may, on its face, appear quite classically simple, however, it
      is wrong. Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems (there are two;
      one for completeness and a second for consistency) show us unambiguously
      that dialectical, formal truth absoluteness, completeness, and
      consistency are classical delusions. Henri Louis Bergson says
      it metaphorically something like this, Classicists suffer "a
      delusion that reality is stable and objects in reality are independent."
      Paul A. M. Dirac says it like this, "Causality [unambiguous
      'foreseeable 'effects''] applies only to a system which is left
      undisturbed [i.e., a 'simple, inert, static system']." We
      have to posit immutability and 'positive' social consensus to
      render dogmatic said 'static simplicity.' See EOOO. See
      EEMD. See stop.
      See state. : 
Sihmplihcihty 
 
Quantum thinkq-king
      dæclaræs 
quantum
 sihmplihcihty 
as flux. Quantum
      flux issi crux. Sæmpær flux. Quantum sihmplihcihty issi 
Pirsigean 
dynamihc sihmplihcihty.
      Iht issi 
Bergsonian
 
flux sihmplihcihty. Quantum sihmplihcihty sahys
      thæræ issi n¤
 
classical state simplicity. 
Rather, quantum abs¤lutæ changæ issi sihmple,
      ahctuahlly
 sihmpler, sihmplihcihty ihtsælf. Quantum sihmplihcihty eliminatæs
      
'inexplicable phenomena, paradice,
      infinities and zeroes.' 
F¤ll¤wing 
Kurt
 Gödel, 
Quantum sihmplihcihty sahys sihmply
      that dynamism amd changæ
 aræ abs¤lutæ amd aræ b¤th: 
 
 
c¤mplæte, amd (i.e., changæs ahll)
        
        
comsistænt. (i.e., ahlways
        changæs)
       Sææ 
Bergson on Stateism
 Simplicity 
vis-à-vis Dynamism Sihmplihcihty. F¤r 
e amples 
¤f h¤w
      quantum flux 
QTMs
      
sihmplihfy
      ¤ur thinkqing
      amd ¤ur abilihties t¤
      's¤lve' pr¤blæms, sææ: 
Sææ 
BAWAM.
      
Sææ 
EIMA.
      
Sææ 
Heraclitus. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 
'simultaneity''simultaneous'
 'simultaneously'
 See our Quantonics' quantum~coined "simulphase." Synonyms: 
        isochrony
        
        common group think
        
          social assessment identity
        parallel agency
        
          registrated alignment of process
        temporal equality
        
          ability to measure equality of parallel events
        temporal measurement
        
          ability to measure time unambiguously
         | : Simultaneity, simultaneous,
      simultaneously, etc. Classicists tend to view simultaneity in
      at least these notional categories: parallel agency, equality
      of temporal events, arbitrary precision of temporal measurement,
      social contemporary common sense group thought, and isochrony. Let's look at those alphabetically ordered and examine classical
      assumptions, presumptions, and normatives surrounding each: 
        common group thingk
 Classical socialists believe that social groups can share 'common sense' normatively
        together, isochronously, in general. Some examples here are any
        scientific paradigm, any religious paradigm, any cultural paradigm,
        etc. Simultaneous group think is usually enforced by 'laws,'
        'disciplinary matrices,' 'constitutions,' 'commandments,' etc.
 
 
isochrony
 Classicists are trained and educated to believe that they can
        (are capable of) assessing identity
        of any two and any N time measurements,
        taken against a common standard global time reference, as identical,
        in general.
 
 
parallel agency (especially public, exoteric, exegetic, social
        agency)
 Classicists are trained and educated to believe that they can
        achieve (are capable of) dialectical agreement, concord, accord,
        and harmony, in general.
 
 In Quantonics, we call this a "tragedy of commons sense."
        It is group-thingk. It is herd and hive thing-king.
 
 
temporal equality
 Classicists believe that mechanical isochrony of any pair of
        timed events can be measured to arbitrary precision, in general.
        Ditto 'arbitrary accuracy.'
 
 Students of Quantonics must learn to omnistinguish
        what classicists mean by genericity and specificity vis-à-vis
        what we in Quantonics infer and hermeneuticize as 
quantum
        genærihcihty
 amd quantum spæcihfihcihty.
        
See specific.
 
 
temporal measurement
 Classicists are trained and educated to believe that they can
        be (are capable of) measuring time and timed events to arbitrary
        precision and accuracy, against an absolute standard reference,
        in general.
 
 Classicists intuit that measurement can be a zero latency event
        itself. To any classicist no objective measurement should require
        duration to be a viable measurement. Indeed, to any classicist,
        durational measurement is non objective: "subjective,"
        and thus "absurd." Ideal classical measurement requires
        Aristotelian t0 = t0 simultaneity!
        It requires ideal Aristotelian zero latency eventism. It requires
        a non durational hold and sample, locally naïve Aristotelian,
        Newtonian, Einsteinian 'reality.' A great recent example of application
        of this invalid classical notion appears in a AAAS Science,
        VOL 307 25Feb2005, Report titled 'Simultaneous State Measurement
        of Coupled Josephson Phase Qubits.' That title tells an enormous
        story all by itself. Today's scientists see measurement, not
        as quantum process, rather as zero latency classical event. They
        are doing quantum work using classical notions and paradigms
        and disciplinary matrices. Ugh! Doug.
 
 See Doug's recent CeodE 2009 QELR of occur
        which offers students a much more emergent processings view of
        quantum~relativity memes re: 'event simultaneity.'
 
 But quantum reality shows us all that is classical hocus
        bogus...classical simultaneity does n¤t
        quantumly exist!
 
 See time.
 : 
Phasihcihty 
(vis-à-vis
 classical simultaneity), 
phasihc 
(vis-à-vis
      classical simultaneous), 
phase
      
(vis-à-vis classical state),
      etc. 
Wæ uhsæ
      phas as ¤ur r¤¤t
      
intueme
      hæræ. Ihn place ¤f classical
      'simultaneity' subqstihtute
      quantum~simulphasihcihty., unQELRed:
      simulphasicity. 
Ihn quantum ræhlihty thæræ issi n¤ such 
classical notion 
n¤r
      quantum 
mæmæo
      
which
 ¤mniscrihbæs what 
classicists intend
 when they say "simultaneity." 
Why? H¤w can wæ flux~sihmply ¤mniscrihbæ
      a 
non-classically-simultaneous 
quantum
      ræhlihty?
      Quantum_ræhlihty
 issi a heteroprægmap¤lytehmp¤ral parthæn¤fluxihc (at læast) quatr¤æntr¤pihc (at læast) quatr¤c¤herænt st¤chastihc ænsehmblings
      
REIMAR
 
ræhlihty. Ihn Quantonics wæ ch¤¤se t¤ c¤¤pt
 
classical 'simultaneity' 
wihth quantum
 phasihcihty. Sihmihlarly 
classical 'simultaneous'
      
wihth
      quantum phasihc,
 amd 
classical 'state' 
wihth quantum
      phase. Quantonics' pærspæctihvæs
      ¤f quantum phas issi
      ¤næ ¤f abs¤lutæ changæ
      amd anihmacy. Thæræ
      issi n¤ 
classical unitime multiversal
      temporal registrational reference. As students of Quantonics we view reality as absolute flux.
      Banesh Hoffmann uses his word "frequency" in place
      of our more generic "flux," to give us his rendition
      of why classical simultaneity is problematic, "We cannot
      measure frequency in an instant. We have to wait a little
      while, to watch an oscillation or two, at the least. Thus if
      energy is akin to frequency, we may not measure energy in an
      instant but must spend a little time in doing so." Page
      153, The Strange Story of the Quantum. We love this Hoffmann
 quote! 
Iht sh¤ws why
      wæ sahy wavæs aræ
 pr¤babilihty amd lihkælih¤¤d
      ¤mnistrihbuti¤ns.
      Iht sh¤ws
      why wæ muhst
      ahlways uhsæ
 quantum mæmæos, 
mæmæ¤tihcs, mæmæol¤gy,
      amd quant¤l¤gy
      
t¤ ømniht¤r
      quantum ræhlihty. Æssænce: Wæ cann¤t ¤mniht¤r flux ihn
      an ihnstant. Wæ cann¤t
 ¤mniht¤r quantum ræhlihty ihn an ihnstant.
      Ahll quantum ¤mniht¤rmænt
      (ømniht¤ring) ræquiræs
      
Bergsonian Duration
      
f¤r ræhl
      viabilihty! 
See
      our 1st quarter 2005 QELRs
      of duration, monitor, and relativity. 
Onæ ¤thær
 præscihænt p¤ihnt: Ahll
 quantum phasihcihties aræ b¤th
      
QVP
      amd QTP, 
amd
      their QVPnessings amd QTPnessings
      aræ quantum umcærtain at ahll
 scalæs ¤f ræhlihty. 
 See phase, entropa, cohera, MoQ,
      CR, and SOM, time,
      etc. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | singularity,
      e.g., 'the,' 'it,' 'that,' 'one,' etc. |  | 
  
    |  | 'society' 'socialization'
 | : Social, society, socialization, etc. Classical society is an invalid and improper classical abstraction
      of ensemble individuals. Classicists
      view 'society' as OSFA
      cultural objects which are behaviouristically-herded EOOO-mechanically
      via 'the law,' and a monistic global society's 'cultural
      guidance.' In Doug's view this approach, a çatholiç
      approach, is failing now, globally. It will become extinct due
      its abject failures and its lack of qua
      to assiduously adhere quantum~reality's
      changing, its absolute~changings. Classical socialization is monism's state-ic OSFA
      Either
      Organization. Classical managed social ORganizations
      are utopically immutable, ideally 'stable': they possess,
      Platonically and ideally, absolute 'state.' An elite (eleat)
      few tell all hoi poloi plebe hive drones canonically what
      to do: "Our way or the highway!" Islam
      does this. Christianity does this. Culture wars
      anyone? : 
S¤cial, s¤ciety,
      s¤cialihzati¤n, etc.
      
 Quantum society is quantum~coherence
      of quantum~autonomous~individuals. See Mae-wan
      Ho on quantum~coherence and her omniscriptionings
      of a society as coherent autonomies. See Danah Zohar's excellent
      text Quantum Society. There is a quantum~horn~of~plenty more to say here... Doug
      just wanted to make a quick and apparent juxtaposition of classical
      'notions of society' and quantum "memeos
      of s¤cihæty." Quantum~socialization issi pluralism's fluxic hologra[[il][m][ph]]ic
      MSFA BAWAMganization:
      quantum~coherent~islandicity,
      quantum~coherent~individuality. (Just for fun compare island
      and islamd. Then compare Autiot's
      Noun (quanta) to Mem (water). How would we do this in Arabic?
      What would it mean? Please note how Doug's QELR of 'and' is 'amd.'
      Aleph~Noun~Dallet vis-à-vis Aleph~Mem~Dallet. Again, in
      Arabic? Quanta nissin water?
      :) Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 
'solve' Etymology - classical
      - Etymology - quantum - As far as we know, Quantonics is first
      to remediate classical 'solve' into quantum~s¤lvæ. Synonyms - classical: 
        answer
        assimilate
        decipher
        decode
        expose
        find
        interpret
        isolate
        remediate
        uncover
        etc.
       Synonyms - quantum: 
        enthymeme
        evolve
        graduate (as relentless process, unending process...)
        improve
        meliorate
        memeticize
         
       
     | : Solve, solution, etc. Classicists believe that when a problem is 'solved' it is
      'solved' forever. Original etymology of 'solve' does not carry this later mathematical
      tenor. Originally 'solve' meant to 'dissolve' in a liquid, to
      loosen a whole into its solubilities... Mathematics in its Platonic
      idealities viewed 'form' as 'final' and formal solutions as 'solved.'
      Merely classical dialectical B.S.! Some call it 'Enlightenment,'
      but now we, some of us at least, are beginning to grasp it as
      endarkenment. Doug recognized here that an easy 'test' for you, as students
      of Quantonics, to use is to ask whether 'some word' is intended
      as 'state'-ic. If it is then it is probably bogus dialectic.
      Then ask whether some word is intended as process. If it is then
      it is probably quasi quantum rhetoric. That test works
      here: solve as 'state' is bogus. Solve as process (especially
      pr¤cæss) is quantum. Easy, eh? To classicists, especially in their Platonic mindress, nature
      is naught but ideal state-ic forms which all humans need do is
      'discover.' Intention?
      Nature is a formal puzzle which humans must seek to 'solve' once
      and for all. Of course that is just bogus, since as we have shown
      quite fruitfully here in Quantonics: dialectic
      is bogus, so
      all formal thought based upon it is bogus. Ideal solutions
      simply do not 'exist.' Plato fuxed up. : 
S¤lve, s¤luti¤n,
      etc. 
 Quantum reality
      evolves. Quantum reality is unending pr¤cæssings
      of emerqancies and transemerqancies of n¤væl
      quantons.
      How? Quantum reality is abs¤lutæ flux whose spectrum spreads from
      almost imperceptibly slow changings up to Planck's frequency
 and even chaoæquil [quantons(chaos,equilibrium)]
      phasæ~ænc¤dings
      of that. Doug's first usage of his coined "chaoæquil," In quantum~reality all s¤luti¤ns, all solubilities
      are ongoing pr¤cæssæs. N¤ s¤luti¤n
      can hold still and n¤ s¤luti¤n can ævær
      be final. (Our last sentence is what ethical 'science' means
      when it refers self "always provisional.") Quantum~partiality is a great way to describe what we mean
      by "s¤luti¤ns are nævær 'done'."
      All reality issi quantum~æv¤luti¤nary~pr¤cæssings.
      Æv¤luti¤n issi nævær 'done.'
      Æv¤luti¤n issi always partial,
      quantum~partial. Like house cleaning s¤luti¤ns are nævær
      'done.' Like PhD's. there are n¤ Laurels. Like CVs they always grow. Like learning there is n¤ end. We all are always
      students, n¤ levels above studentings. Most 'teachers
      and professors' forget that. They have arrived.
      Tenure is their final Laurel-resting 'solution.' Then they are
      'done.' Their personal 'social education' is 'done.' Society
      wants them elevated above individuals, however, they never
      are, are they? Like living~dying~resurrecting~rebirthing, etc., we cann¤t
      'stop' our endless anabolic~catabolic~anabolic~catabolic quantum~flux
      cycles... Now apply what we just wrote to 'facts.' Do facts
      'exist?' N¤! Why? Facts are based upon 'final' 'solutions,'
      fixed-stable 'answers' to theoretical questions. N¤ 'answer'
      is 'or' can be 'fixed.' There are n¤ stable monisms!
      There are n¤ stable pluralisms! There are n¤ Platonic
      'facts' which 'exist!' N¤ solution can be fixed, finished, and done since
      all s¤luti¤ns are quantum~pr¤cæssæs. Now, in Pirsig's world, in MoQ,
      are classical 'solutions' Value? N¤! Why? Value is Dynamic:
      quanton(DQ,SQ).
      Classical solutions are ideal ESQ:
      dichon(SQ,
      SQ) with SOM's wall
      firmly instantiated to prevent any changes muxing and fuxing
      with ideal Platonic formal 'solutions.' Value is quantum~flux. Value issi n¤t final, formal,
      ideal classical 'state.' Solutions and facts are ideally state-ic!
      Vulgi opinio Error! HotMeme "Solutions are never 'done!' Therefore,
      there are n¤ 'facts'!" HotMeme.
      Evolution issi quantum~real! Similarly, HotMeme
      "Inquiries are never 'done!'
      Therefore, there are n¤ 'final data sets'!"
      HotMeme. Solutions, inquiries, facts, and data are always partial,
      quantum~partial. Why? They are all relentless and unstoppable
      quantum~flux~pr¤cæss emerqancies of quantum~flux.
      It is dialectical illusion and self-delusion to adhere classical
      notions of stoppable 'state.' All issi æv¤luti¤n
      borne of abs¤lutæ flux. Naught is, naught can be
      state. ESQ 'exists' n¤t. Thank you for reading, Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 
'sophism''sophist'
 Etymology - Classical
      - Etymology - Quantum - Probably first in Quantonics as a quantum~philosophical
      metaphor of Pirsig's MoQ. Synonyms - 
        Classical 
          affective thought,
          antilogy,
          claptrap,
          contradiction in terms,
          evasion,
          illogic,
          jesuitry,
          mystification,
          paralogism,
          vicious (as in 'mind loops'),
          ignoratio elenchi,
          etc.
         Synonyms - 
        Quantum 
          QTMs,
          recapitulation, love of evolutionaryq
          rethinkqing,
          
            re - do again, recurse,
            capit - Latin 'head,'
            ula - Latin 'small:' e.g., quanta,
            ulate - Latin 'love,' Jungian libido,
            see quantadulation (as scintillation
            of quantal libido) under 'select' above,
          recursive~thinkqing,
          self~other~reference,
          included~middle thinkqing,
          heterogeneous thinkqing,
          everywhere~associativity,
          holographic thinkqing,
          absolute change thinkqing,
          evolutionary empiricism,
          etc.
         | : Sophism, Sophist, etc. Classically any 'thing' referred as a sophism is: 
        False,
        A lie,
        Wrong,
        Bad,
        Evil,
        Insane,
        Corrupt,
        An illusion,
        Self-delusion,
        Whacko,
        Religiously: "the devil," (Çatholiçs
        use this one a lot. Actually, if you do your homework, you will
        find that they represent the antichrist, since Jesus was/is
        a quantum~gn¤stic sophist!) )
        Etc.
       Classicists view all people who speak using rhetorical sophisms
      "unstable," at best and "morons" at worst. Pirsig teaches us that Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle used
      sophists as strawmen against whom they could direct their version
      of 'truth's' sophist antivenin. Socrates was committed to death
      by hemlock for his mentoring of sophism to his younger students. Classically, a sophism is any 'kind...' duh, er, ummm '...category'
      of thinking which makes finding 'truth' difficult. "Hey Doug, how can we detect these untruthful categories?"
      Actually it is quite easy to do. Doug has been attempting that
      by example in several omniffering pages in Quantonics' web site. A great way to omniscover sophist phasements
      is to look for self (and contextually tight-close self-other)
      references in one sentence or in close-context sets of sentences.
      An example of a single sentence is "This sentence is false."
      It is a verbal example of a stairs
      illusion. It is a verbal Escherian! An example of two sentences is: 
        Sentence two is false.
        Sentence one is true.
       What makes that combination sophist is most classicists attempt
      to make both 'state' ments fit a single context. When one does
      that, one's mind goes into this infinite 'vicious' loop which
      has been known to drive some folks into da loony bin. It is easy to solve that kind of sophism simply by treating
      each sentence as a separate context. See Doug's now old Many
      Truths to You. Zeno's first
      paradox (sophism) is also a great example of what we are
      showing you here. A third example is 'male' sexuality. Male chromosomes are
      actually both female (X) and male (Y), so a male is actually
      a sophism(female,male) in one human body. "Hey guys, now
      you can explain all those feminine feelings you are always attempting
      to hide."  There are enormous varieties of 'kinds' of sophisms. Here
      is a list which will cover most of them in quantonics: John Buridan, based upon his Aristotelian education, found
      all sophism false! Quantumly, that is an unfortunate assessment
      since all in quantum~reality issi a sophism. "Doug, What!!!?"
      Yes, classically, partial logic is false, regardless H5W
      said logic becomes ¤r is partial, it is
      false by dialectical canonic dictates. However, and demonstrably,
      all of nature is enthymemetic, i.e., all of nature
      is partial works in progress. We colloquially refer it as "evolution."
      Buridan would have likely claimed any nature that evolves, "False."
      N¤ne of us is a 'finished' piece. Classical perfection
      may never be achieved, it is relentlessly, always only
      partially, 'done.' All of us are works in progress. All
      critters, humans, planets, stars, galaxies, etc., all
      are enthymemetic: sophist! Believe iht!
      Stable 'truth,' absolutely stable truth as Buridan sought as
      his ideal, then, is impossible in any quantum~reality. Parmenidean, Platonic, Aristotelian 'truth' denies sophisms
      and claims all of them are false. Why? All three 'great thingkers'
      believed that truth is dialectical: either-or with an excluded-middle,
      substantial, material, factual, verifiable, provable, sustainable,
      objective, etc. Sophism shows that a greater reality exists, a greater reality
      than naïve dialectic truth. Sophisms break Parmenides',
      Plato's, and Aristotle's sillygistic dialectisms. Recall Pirsig's map experience in Lila? If you omniscover 2+2=5, don't jump to a conclusion that it
      is just 'wrong,' 'false,' etc. Look for another con(m)text which
      adds one.  : 
S¤phism,
      S¤phist, etc. 
 Quantum reality is a sophist
      reality. It is fractal,
      self~referent, a vastly plural holographic network of animate
      self~other EIMA
      interrelationshipings, bettershipings. All flux is self~ and
      ~other~referent. We call it self~other~phase~encoding...and
      its absence. Quantum reality is partial~presence~absence
      of phase~encodings of quantum flux. To a classical mind, all quantum miracles are "sophisms!" Change your mind. Make it a quantum~stage.
      Become a believer in and a practitioner of sophist thinkq~king! Thank you for reading, PS - Jesus as Sophist!
      N¤t to go religious on you, rather to express a spiritual
      realism: Essene, Tribe of Judah, House of David (Dahveed)
      Gn¤stic Jesus (Light,
      logos) routinely spoke in quantum~sophisms.
      That's why Roman protoçatholiç inquisitors, et
      al., simply could n¤t grasp his elect, pneumatic quantum~lingo.
      That's why they killed him! That's why dialecticians
      today, pseudo-Christians and others, still HATE him! Believe
      it  else become extinct! Essene Gn¤stic Jesus was
      perhaps Earth's greatest quantum~sophist! In a way his profound
      gn¤sticism made him Earth's first quantum~scientist, quantum~philosopher!
      If Magdalene is Sophia, then Essene Gn¤stic Jesus
      literally Philo (loved) Sophia (Magdalene)! Çatholiç
      derivative patriarchal and misogynous 'christians' today, c.
      2008, hate, despise, denounce all philogynous gn¤stics
      and gn¤sticism. Çatholiç derivative patriarchal
      and misogynous 'christians' are anti-scientists, anti-Christs
      of first magnitude! Doug. These are Doug's opinions based upon
      his personal pneumatic Chautauquas via Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln's
      Holy Blood - Holy Grail, Elaine Pagels' vast opus on gnosis, Kathleen McGowen via her
      The Unexpected One, Dan Brown's efforts in his Angels
      & Demons and his The Da Vinci Code, Barnestone
      & Meyer's Gnostic Bible, Stephen A. Hoeller's opus
      on gnosis, G. R. S. Mead's gnostic opus, etc., etc., etc. See
      our Classical vav Quantum~Gnostic
      Recommended Reading. All of this, folks, finds its Essene~ce
      in sophism as rudimentary thinkq~king! Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 'space' | TBD. (Classicism depends upon an illusion/delusion of homogeneous
      spatial extensity which is analytic (infinitely divisible, continuously
      differentiable, continuously integrable), numerable,
      countable, measureable (stoppable; conveniently holds still,
      etc.), conveniently stable, objectively independent, lisr,
      etc.) Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 'square' | Quantonics ch¤¤ses
      t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'square'
      and remerq
      all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'squaræ.' In classical contexts we shall use 'square.' In Quantonics/quantum
      comtexts we shall use 'squaræ.' Classical square assumes reality is stable and objects in
      reality are independent. Classical square further assumes reality
      is inanimate/stoppable, excluded-middle, analytic, etc. Quantum squaræ assumes reality is anihmatæ and quantons in reality
      have quantum c¤mplementary, included-middle, unstoppable
      interrelationshipings. It is very, very important to grasp
      an quantum~essential: all of what we call (touchable,
      feelable, seeable, hearable, tasteable, fermionic) actualityq
      issi quantumly "squarings of n¤n actuality."
      We thus liveq and evolveq in quantum~reality
      which issi positiveq (squared). Any memes of idealc
      negativec don't exist classically anywhere~anywhen
      ihn
      quantum~reality. Cancellationq existsq, but n¤t
      ideal classical binaryc relationsc and operationsc. Dichons and dyadsc as ideal-pure Platonic,
      Newtonian,
      Pythagorean and Aristotelian syllogistic (sillygisticc) relationsq
      are forbidden, verboten ihn quantum~reality! Doug - 6Jan2015. For application, and descriptions of relative importances
      of these terms, see our 7Jun2002 Möbius
      3-Primæ Fermion. See addition,
      differentiation,
      division, integration,
      multiplication,
      prime,
      recursion, square, square root,
      and subtraction. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 'square
      root' | Quantonics ch¤¤ses
      t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'square
      root' and remerq
      all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'squaræ
      r¤¤t.' In classical contexts we shall use 'square root.' In Quantonics/quantum
      comtexts we shall use 'squaræ r¤¤t.' Classical square root assumes reality is stable and objects
      in reality are independent. Classical square root further assumes
      reality is inanimate/stoppable, excluded-middle, analytic, etc.
      Classical square root assumes a bivalent EOOO
      plus or minus answer. Quantum squaræ r¤¤t assumes reality is
      anihmatæ
      and quantons in reality have quantum c¤mplementary, included-middle,
      unstoppable interrelationships.Quantum square r¤¤t
      assumes both plus and minus contrarotating BAWAM
      outcomes for potentially all ranges of quantum isoflux. See our Quantonics square
      root symbols. For application, and descriptions of relative importances
      of these terms, see our 7Jun2002 Möbius
      3-Primæ Fermion. See addition,
      differentiation,
      division, integration,
      multiplication,
      prime,
      recursion, square, square root,
      and subtraction. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 'start' | TBD. Consider begin, end,
      stop, ever,
      never, alpha-, -omega,
      -process-, stoppability, startability, ~reversibility, start
      as a tentative latched (tentatively persistent) view of QVF's
      omnidirectional isotropos, etc. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 'state' | Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
      classical 'state' amd
      remerq all
      quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'stindyan.' In classical contexts we shall use 'state.' In quantum comtexts
      we shall use 'stindyan,' 'stindyanic,' 'phase,' 'phasic,'
      and phasemental. In quantum reality there is n¤ classical 'state.' Quantum
 reality is anihmatæ. All quantons are b¤th-all/amd dynamis/stasis. We
      sh¤w this as quanton(dynamis,stasis).
      Quantum stindyan is emerqant
      vis-à-vis classical stasis is objectively inanimate (assumes
      zero macro/meso/micro momenta). Analytic classical reality assumes it can 'stop' reality for
      convenience of observation and measurement. That assumption is
      a SOM delusion. It arose from Aristotelianesque CTMs,
      as depicted by Thomas Kuhn in his SoSR,
      "Contemplating a falling stone, Aristotle saw a change of
      state rather than a process."
      p. 124 of 212 total, UCP paper bound 3rd ed., 1996.
      (Our bold color. See our review
      of SoSR.) We want to offer some good examples of classicists' 'use'
      of 'state.' P. A. M. Dirac is one of 'the' preeminent quantum
      theoreticians, and in a real sense 'the' Father of theoretical
      QED. Allow us to
      offer two Dirac comments regarding 'state' as it attends system
      analysis. "Thus a state of
      an atomic system must be specified by fewer or more indefinite
      data than a complete set of numerical
      values for all the coordinates and velocities at some instant of time." Page 11, The
      Principles of Quantum Mechanics, by PAM Dirac, 4th
      ed., OUP, 1958. Our bold and violet classical problematics. Dirac clearly complains here that classical 'state' is complex,
      too complex to measure, adequately! Voilá! We have a Diracian classically state-ic 'infinite
      complexity.' We agree, and this is why we say, "Classical state is
      complex (rather, in-credible, even ludicrous) and quantum flux
      issi simple!" State's stux sux! Flux' crux issi simple! You may find it additionally
      interesting that ideal classical 'state' actually and quite paradoxically
      denies classical metanotions of observability and measurability.
      Think about it... Observation and measurement (monitorings) require
      flux to assess relative changings in
      quantum~real quantized~timings! Absent quantized
      change, we can measure naught! Doug's last sentence begs another stability relevant
      HotMeme:A Quantonics HotMeme
      "State cann¤t relate."
      A Quantonics
      HotMeme.
      And another:
      A Quantonics HotMeme
      "Relativity depends upon fluxic wave-based
      quantized change, n¤t classical state."
      A Quantonics
      HotMeme. Einstein's 'relativity' (both SR and GR) depend upon 'invariant, i.e., state-ic,
      geometric interval' AKA 'state.' Ultimate hylic, dialectical,
      facile, ersatz, inept objective retardation! Kindergarten tiny
      mindedness! Blue text updates and 'quantized' added to second
      HotMeme for purpose
      of segueing 'state' into a memeo of 'stability.' See 'order.' 'State' is absolute classical naïveté.
      It is naïve, stoppable, frame-reference-able realism. It
      is naïve, stoppable frame-reference-able localism. See our Quantum Pendulum.
      Read there about impossibility of 'classical static reference
      frames,' i.e., quantum reality issi absolute flux, semper
      fluxio. We complain elsewhere that Dirac denigrates philosophy as
      a starting point for any good science. We see here, that classical
      parochialism has cost him dearly. He clearly tells us that he
      assumes reality is stoppable, and lisrable.
      I.e., reality is classical, not quantum! Time may be stopped
      for classical analytic convenience
      at any instant. He tells
      us that stopped numerical
      values for coordinates, time, space, and thus velocities are
      stoppable scalar magnitudes. It is odd that Dirac continued to adhere these classical notions.
      If you read our reference for these quotes you will find that
      Dirac completely re-wrote his chapter on QED. In that re-write
      Dirac's own analysis acknowledges that genuine QED
      depends upon a view of reality which portrays reality as both
      absolutely-nonstationary and nonexclusive. His classical assumptions
      used earlier in writing other chapters in that text deny his
      later more quantum stindyanic/included-middle portrayals. Strangely,
      he retained his earlier classicism and concluded that such a
      more quantum reality is "impossible." So as a classicist,
      he found any nonclassical portrayal of quantum reality "impossible."
      Today, we see similar waffling in most other physicists. See analytic,
      con-, instant,
      magnitude, number, order,
      stop, and Zeno.
      See Dirac's The
      Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Dirac also has this
      to say about 'state.' "A state of a system
      may be defined as an undisturbed
      motion that is restricted by as many conditions
      or data as are theoretically possible without mutual
      interference or contradiction."
      Ibid. In quantum reality, it is impossible
      for any system to be 'undisturbed.' All quantum
      systems aræ n¤nlisr.
      All quantum systems aræ being as perpetually~ubiquitously~changing
      evolutionary processings. Reality
      disturbs itself endlessly because quantum reality changæs
      all of itself and always changes
      itself as endless coobsfective-self-other~aware-self-other~referent
      EIMA ensehmble
      pr¤cessings. That is why we say any classical notion of
      stable 'state' or stable state-ic linear
      motion is ludicrously naïve. Dirac's motion assumes unitemporal
      linear but stoppable motion of independent objects. But quantum
      reality is n¤t classically objective, n¤r unitemporal
      n¤r analytically stoppable. Further, contradiction
      may n¤t be assessed in quantum reality. Why? Classical
      contradiction depends upon
      objective negation.
      In quantum~reality
      negation is subjective. See Aristotle.
      See negation. See
      negation
      is subjective. See subjectiv. See
      subjective. See complement.
      See contradict.
      See Zeno. Also see more recent
      CeodE
      2014 chaos, equilibria,
      and cancel (as how
      quantum~reality
      apparently, and only tentatively, 'negates' its wholly positive
      fluxings). See stable,
      classical vis-à-vis quantum, under quantum~coquecigrues. Quantum reality insists that measurement ¤f reality
      must be dynamic, because quantum reality is a n¤nstatic
      evolving pr¤cess, s¤ when we measure quantum reality
      we must bec¤me c¤herent with its dynamis t¤
      d¤ s¤, rather than classically assuming we can
      make reality temporarily static while we classically measure
      it. (See some relevant commentary on classical
      vis-à-vis quantum measurement.) Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 'static'
      (i.e., state-ic) 'staticity'
 | See state. Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
      classical 'static' amd
      remerq all
      quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'stindyanic.' See our Bases of Judgment
      and our What is Wrong
      with Probability as Value? Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 
'stochastic' Etymology - classical: Etymology - quantum: Synonyms - classical: Synonyms - quantum:
     | : Stochastic, stochastics, etc. Classical probability theory depends upon classical, objective,
      EEMD mathematics.
      Classical stochastics 'operate' on state-ic scalar samples, which
      implies classical reality is 'stoppable.' See Zeno.
      See scalarbation,
      number, ensemble,
      stoppability, etc. : 
St¤chastihc, st¤chastihcs, st¤chastihcings, etc. 
 Key to understanding quantum~reality in terms of stochastics
      as Pirsigean Value is a simple phasement: "All quantum~stochastics
      are positive." No energy in quantum~reality is negative.
      All quantum~energyings are flux, flux may tentatively cancel,
      but never permanently negate. So classical notions of waves as
      plus-minus flux are entirely bogus, kaput. See Bruno de
      Finetti on subjective probability. Quantum pr¤bability hermeneutics
      apply quantum, subjective, EIMA
      memes amd anihmatæ semi¤tics.
      Quantum st¤chastics aræ
      unst¤ppable, s¤ we need t¤ (must) view quantum
      st¤chastics as (present
      participle) st¤chasticings.
      Quantum st¤chasticings aræ
      quantum pr¤cessings. Quantonics evolves a novel quantum~semantic for stochasticings,
      like this - Stochasticings are PNFings: See our QELR of time. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 'stop' | See state. : Stop, halt, decease, zero momentum, immobile,
      immutable, unchanging, etc. : 
St¤p, st¤ppable,
      ihmmotuhs,
      etc. 
   CTMs assume reality
      may be 'stopped' for purposes of objective observation. CTMs
      assume reality is stable, and in any sense it isn't stable it
      is classical 'science's' duty to make it stable! Keynesians and
      dialectical Marxists call this "planning for stability."
      Über bogosity! QTMs deny analytic
 'stoppability.' All quantons are anihmatæ, ensehmble c¤mplementary, ensehmble everywhere-ass¤ciative,
      stindyanic,
      amd emerqant,
      amd thus in a quantum
      real sense 'unstoppable.' Latin for unstoppable is 'not stoppable,'
      i.e., non immotus. We may bastardize that to inimmotus. See Zeno's Paradice on quantum
      n¤nstoppability. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 
'subject' Etymology (From Barnhart's The Concise Dictionary of Etymology,
      p. 771, by Robert K. Barnhart, Harper Collins, 1995.): "subject II. Before 1333 sugge person under
      the rule of another, subordinate; later subgit (about
      1380), subiecte (before 1398); borrowed from old French
      suget, subgect, later subject a subject
      person or thing, representing various stages of borrowing from
      Latin subjectus noun use of the past participle of subicere
      to place under (sub- under + -icere, combining
      form of jacere to throw). "Some of the specific senses as in logic and philosophy,
      are early borrowings in Middle English from Latin subjectum
      foundation or subject of a proposition, from neuter of subjectus,
      past participle, and eventually this spelling replaced the Middle
      English spelling from French in all uses. The Latin is a loan
      translation of Greek to hypokeimenon, literally, that
      which lies beneath. "-adj. Before 1338 suget owing allegiance
      or obedience (to); later subgit (before 1393), and subject
      (about 1386); borrowed from Old French suget, subgiet,
      subject, from Latin subjectus inferior in status,
      subject, from past participle of subicere to place under.
      The meaning of prone (to), likely to have, is first recorded
      in Middle English about 1380. "-v. before 1382 subjecten to subjugate;
      borrowed from Old French subjecter to subject, subjugate,
      from Latin subjectare throw under, subjugate, frequentative
      form of subicere to place under. The meaning of expose,
      lay open (to), is first recorded in 1549. "-subjection n. About 1375 subieccioun
      dominion, control, domination; borrowed from Old French subjection
      from Latin subjectionem (nominative subjectio)
      a placing under, reducing to obedience. from subject-.
      past participle stem of subicere to place under; for suffix
      see TION. "-subjective adj. Probably before 1450 subiective
      submissive, obedient; borrowed from Latin subjectivus.
      from subjectus subject, n.; for suffix see -IVE. The meaning
      of existing in the mind is first recorded in English in 1707," Synonyms - classical: 
        subordinate
        beneath
        after
        lower
        inferior
        effect
        servant
        necessary
        vis-à-vis predicate
        excluded-middle
        trash
        etc.
       Synonyms - quantum: 
        above
        evolutionary
        changing
        animate
        flux
        quantum~associative
        quality
        included~middle
        Value
        etc.
       
     | (Classical problematics: Classicism assumes that reality
      is quantitative-objective. That which is qualitative-subjective
      is to be thrown out
      or conveniently/CTM-conventionally
      converted to objective ideas and concepts.) See:
      measure, number,
      quantity, quality,
      etc. : Subject, etc. Classically 'subject' is below and after object.
      See our Pirsig relevant comments there. To any classicist, objective thought rules any subjective
      notions. (Our best recent (2005) exemplar is Patrick Fitzgerald's
      indictment of I.L. Libby. Fitzgerald used dialectical objectivity
      to indict.) 'Subject' as may be seen from etymology to left, is a pure
      dialectical 'form.'
      It is ideally and materially 'oppositive'
      classical notions of 'object.' See our SOM Valuation of subject. Greeks used dialectical notions and nounesque objective maltuitions
      to separate and hierarchically order object above subject. This
      hierarchy and scission are just and plainly wr¤ng. Wr¤ng especially
      from any quantum reality perspective. Greeks, et al., constructed bogus SOMitic
      rules for judgment. CTMs
      find their bases in those bogus rules. : 
Subqjæct,
      etc. 
 Etymologically, as you can read just left, classical subject
      is dungeonesque! From any classical conspective 'subject'
      is below and subservient 'object.' Quantum reality changes all
      that classical locus-hocus-bogus! Quantum reality inverts that
      classical hierarchy! Quantum reality takes us from CTMs to QTMs. Quantum reality
      stomps and subsumes classical dialectic and classical bases of
      judgment. Where CTMs subjugate and suborn (i.e., from a quantum~perspective
      CTMs commit perjury; SOMites and CRites endlessly and 'certainly'
      suborn via their inured practice of CTMs), QTMs set us free,
      literally and actually, through their fluxio adherences to quantum
      uncertainty. Classical dialectic perjures
      quantum~reality. Quantumly subjective apparencies
      are Value~evolutionarily above objective apparencies. Quantumly 'subject' and 'object' are quantum~complements,
      e.g., quanton(subjective_wave,objective_particle). We use quantonics' scripts to show quantum complementarity
      of subject and object like this: quanton(subject,object). See animacy,
      associate, attract,
      autonomy,
      certain, interpretation,
      logic, reason,
      truth, uncertain,
      etc. For a much larger quantum~perspective of social and cultural
      affects of S~O hierarchies and evolution, see our 2003-2004 Value Chautauqua. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 'subjectiv' 'subjectvist'
 'subjectivity'
 | : Subjectiv, subjectivist, subjectivity Technically this spelling of subjectiv is unique to non personal
      subjectivity. Subjectiv is about ensemble stochastics of events.
      We are talking classical probability here. Bruno
      de Finetti says it like this, classical probability is a "theory
      of additive and non negative functions of events."
      Quote taken from his paper, Foresight: Its Logical
      Laws, Its Subjective Sources, Translated by Henry E. Kyburg,
      Jr., and published in Studies in Subjective Probability,
      Wiley, 1964, from a series of lectures given by de Finetti in
      May, 1935, subsequently published in Annales de l'Institut Henri
      Poincaré,1937. Allow Doug to make some huge and very important
      quantum~inferential~heuristics re that bold green text. Let's
      do our heuristics as a list of Doug's composite of an ensemble
      of HotMeme assumptions: 
        quantum~waves are flux,
        quantum~waves are Value,
        Value is stochastic,
        quantum~probability is a subspecies of stochastics,
        probability is a "theory of
        additive and non negative functions of events,"
        quantum~reality is stochastic,
        quantum~reality is n¤n negative,
        quantum~waves are n¤t subject to bogus and endarkened
        classical dialectical CTM
        notions of plus-minus wave alternations,
        quantum~reality may n¤t be classically negated,
        quantum~waves are wholly positive metaphors of quantum~energy,
        quantum~energy is positive,
        quantum~waves and quantum~energyings may only be tentatively
        phase~interrelationshipings canceled...never classically negated.
       Allow Doug to make this overly simple using linguistics: 
        Subjectiv - objective subjectivity, vav (subjectiv
        as formal, mechanical, canonic,
        fixed, stable, stopped, independent, etc.)
        Subjective - subjective subjectivity. (subjective
        as hermeneutic by sentient interpretation, heuristic, and conjecture...)
       Latter is closer to our quantum English Language remediation:
      subjæctihvæ. Former
      is ideally dialectical, analytic, Platonic, Aristotelian, Parmenidian:
      classically 'defined' so well as to have but a 'single' interpretation.
      Under those conditions said interpretation is always two-valued,
      either subjectiv 'or' 'not' subjectiv. EOOO(subjective,
      not_subjectiv). Dichon(subjective,
      not_subjectiv). Hermeneutic subjectivity by comparison is classically
      'sophist.' For quantonics, latter is always
      quantum real: BAWAM(subjective,only_apparently_classically_subjectiv),
      quanton(subjective,only_apparently_classically_subjectiv). Classicists at that time saw personal subjectivity as a dichon(external,
      internal). They assumed an Aristotelian excluded-middle. Most of them saw probability as classically objective (in
      terms of probabilities' mechanical mathematics, e.g., "theory
      of additive and non negative..." used above; 'additive'
      assumes an Aristotelian excluded-middle, and 'not' presumes ideal
      objective negation, both based on two classical delusions of
      'real' stability ("'reality' conventionally
      and conveniently holds still")
      and objective independence), where de Finetti and others saw
      a strange kind of objective subjectivity in probability (i.e.,
      cultural, individually relative conspectives:
      see our Quantonics' HotMeme
      of Thomas
      Kuhn on Immutability and Solipsism). Of course, this makes
      us think of Dr. Stein's Chautauqua from object to quantum object
      in his The Concept
      of Object as the Foundation of Physics. What we see here
      is an intellectual journey using classical CTMs
      plus intuitive imagination to gradually dénouer nature's
      quantum dénouements. Re~cognize how this is an apparent
      proto~quantum Chautauqua away from classically ideal ESQ toward more quantum
      memeotic
      DQ! Subjectiv events, classically are independent, stable, state-ic,
      stoppable, analytic, lisr,
      etc. Viz. a flipped coin. Assume a zero momentum unidirectionally
      observable reference frame. Assume two ideal classical analytic
      hold-still states: either heads or tails.
      EOOO(heads, tails).
      Viz. an archer and 100 arrows shot. Viz. an ideally analytic
      target whose 'hits' may be objectively measured precisely and
      scalar magnitudinal unambiguously. All, just CTM
      axioms, doctrine, dogma... Viz. Challenger and Columbia spacecraft.
      Booster O-rings as stable, independent classical objects. Temperature
      as scalar magnitudinally unambiguous in relation to countless
      other classically state-ic, independent, objective 'variables.'
      Ice formation and shedding as classically analytic... Determinate,
      1-1 correspondent, cause-effect...improbable. Viz. 100
      geographically and contextually disparate courtrooms deciding
      guilty, innocent, hung on one 'same' set of ideal classically
      identical objective unit-case parameters. This classical version of subjectiv suffers most of CTMs'
      ills. Notice de Finetti's use of 'event' as lisr, stoppable,
      stable, state-ic, etc. De Finetti exposes another classical illness regarding subjectiv
      probability: it should only be viewed as theoretically
      objective and scientific. He implies there are two points of
      view: 
        subjectiv: "...the most commonly accepted, considers
        the subjective element of the naïve notion of probability
        which is found in everyday life as a dangerous element which
        ought to be eliminated in order that the notion of probability
        be able to attain a truly scientific (read CTM) status;
        subjective: "...the opposite point of view considers,
        on the contrary, that the subjective elements are essential,
        and cannot be eliminated without depriving the notion and theory
        of probability of all reason for existing." Our parentheses.
        (Note abundant QELP
        in de Finetti's language.)
       Philosophically, de Finetti continues, "...according
      to one, probability is an element which partakes of the physical
      world and exists outside us; according to the other, it only
      expresses the opinion of an individual and cannot have meaning
      except in relation to him." I.e., solipsism! Here we see
      a deluded Aristotelian
      innate classical assumption that humankind are objectively lisr
      from physical reality, indeed, human mind is lisr from physical
      reality. We are 'not' in reality and reality is 'not'
      in us. We see classical bogus assumptions-presumptions dichon(personal,
      scientific). EOOO(personal, scientific). EEMD(personal,
      scientific). Dichon(internal, external). EOOO(internal, external).
      All just and naïvely and locally 'realistic' classical SOMwittedness! However, De Finetti, as others, exhibits quantum avatars.
      We offer a potent one from third paragraph of Chapter VI, 'Observation
      and Thought,' of his paper, "We are sometimes led to make
      a judgment which has a purely
      subjective meaning, and this is perfectly legitimate; but if
      one seeks to replace it afterward by something objective, one
      does not make progress, but only an error." Wow! Were he
      to only append that reality is purely subjective and that objectivity
      is an apparition...  : 
Subqjæctihv, subqjæctihvist,
 subqjæctihvihty 
 Our QELRed version of 
subqjæctihv changæs
      
classicism's dichons 
ihnt¤
      Quantonic 
quantons.
      Classical subjectiv 'events' 
bæc¤mæ
      
quantum ævæntings.
      
Subqjæctihv
      ævæntings bæc¤mæ anihmatæ
      quantum pr¤cæssings. 
BAWAM(headings,tailings). 
Quantum subqjæctihv ihmpliæs
 anihmatæ, heterogæne¤uhs, 
EIMA
      
quantum pr¤babilihtyings
      amd lihkælih¤¤dings.
      Quantum subqjæctihvæ
 pr¤babilihtyings amd lihkælih¤¤dings
 aræ quantum 
fuzz¤nihc s¤rs¤
      amd peaqlo ænsehmbles.
      See our recent (2004) What
      is Wrong with Probability as Value? We see a quantum quanton(personal,scientific). BAWAM(personal,scientific).
      EIMA(personal,scientific). Quanton(internal,external). BAWAM(internal,external).
      Quantum! Probability is quanton(subjectiv,subjective). Likelihood
      is quanton(subjectiv,subjective). See Margenau above in What
      is Wrong with Probability as Value? Quantum reality is hermeneutic
      which begs heterogeneities of views as quantum~ensemblings, n¤t
      just a single 'unambiguous' classical 'scientific' subjectiv
      view. In Quantonics people are (all actuality is)
      quantons. Understanding is quantonic. Individuals' understandings
      have similar yet unique fuzzonic probability and likelihood omnistributions!
      Quantum animate, EIMA, ensemble human epistemological subjectivity
      plays a significant coobsfective
      observational and affectational
      role in quantum reality. Visit Martin
      Ryder's and others' works on issues of subjectivity at his
      site at Colorado University, Denver. Quality! Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 'subjective' | : Subjective Classical reality, in Quantonics' strawman version of it,
      is classically objective. What does that mean? It means classical
      thingkers worship objective reality while mostly denigrating
      'subjective' reality. Classicists, our strawmen whom we call "SOMites,"
      believe that subjective reality can be measured quantitatively,
      and to any extents it may not be measured quantitatively it is
      valueless from any logical conspective. 
        
          | Criterion | Dialectical Assessment | Ideal Classical Reality |  
          | stability | Classically subjective-stability exists not | Classical actuality is stable. Classical actuality
            is stoppable. |  
          | independence | Classically subjective-independence exists not | Objects in classical reality are independent of one
            another. |  
          | excluded-middle | Classically subjective-excluded-middle exists
            not | No object in classical reality can be both itself and
            not itself. |  
          | EOOOness | Classically subjective-EOOOness exists not | Classical predicate logic is absolutely dialectical. |  
          | H5Wness | Classically subjective-H5Wness exists not | H5W are
            all always lisr, stoppable, stable, analytic, etc. |  
          | lisrability | Classically subjective-lisrability exists not | Objects are ideally, classically lisr. Objects are
            analytic. |  
          | causation | Classically subjective-causation exists not | Spatial motion is change. All classical motion is caused. |  
          | certainty | Classically subjective- certainty exists not | All classical causation is determinately 1-1 correspondent. |  
          | EEMDivity | Classically subjective-EEMDivity exists not | Due independence & excluded-middle objects are
            everywhere-dissociative. |  
          | observation | Classically subjective-observation exists not | Classical objects may be unilaterally observed, while
            undisturbed. |  Classical subjectivity is a dichon(subjective, objective).
      That which is classically subjective is immaterial, insubstantial,
      'not' objective, unreal, phenomenal, etc. : 
Subqjæctihvæ 
 Quantum reality, in Quantonics' interpretation of it, is quantum~subjective.
      What does that mean? One extraordinary exemplar is what we call
      "Bell Inequalities." Another is "quantum uncertainty."
      From any classical conspective quantum~animacy itself is 'subjective'
      since it violates a classical axiom of 'stability.' Ditto quantum~heterogeneity
      which for us implies quantum ensembles of ensembles whose constituents
      are fuzzon attractors whose peaqlos are all potential quantum~likelihood~omnistributions.
      Another is arbitrary quantum~likelihood~omnistribution of quantons;
      see QLO. Classical
      objects by comparison have absolute locus, context, size, mass,
      etc. Another is action~at~a~distance. In classical reality, a
      naïvely-local reality, quantum real action~at~a~distance
      is not permitted. Another is QTMs.
      See our recent (2004) What
      is Wrong with Probability as Value? Latter is a wholly quantum~subjective
      critique. Quantumists believe that subjective reality is qualitative,
      and that quantum reality is predominately qualitative. Too, they
      believe that any quantitative aspects of quantum reality are
      only classically ideal delusions and illusions including:
      stability, independence, 1-1 correspondence, induction, cause-effect,
      ideal analysis, ideal synthesis, excluded-middle, everywhere-dissociation,
      etc. See criteria above. See Bases
      of Judgment. 
        
          | Criterion | Vis-à-vis Assessment |  
          | anihmacy | Quantum subqjæctihvæ~ihnterpretati¤n
 issi (hærmænæutihcs aræ) abs¤lutæly
            anihmatæ is¤flux. |  
 | c¤mplæmæntarihty | Subqjæctihvæ~ihnterpretati¤nings
            c¤mplæmænt ahll
            ahctualihty.
            Ræhlihty
 issi a quanton(subqjæctihvæ~ihnterpretati¤n,ahctualihty). |  
 | ihncludæd~mihddlings | Quantum plurahl
 subqjæctihvæ~ihnterpretati¤nings aræ Valuæ
            ihnterrelati¤nshipings
            which
 aræ ræhlihty's ihncludæd~mihddle. |  
          | BAWAMings | C¤¤bsfæctihvæ subqjæctihvæ~ihnterpretati¤nings
            pr¤vihde~mædiatæ
            quantum c¤herænce~c¤mpænetrati¤n
 ¤f~f¤r ahll ahctualihty. |  
          | H5Wings | Subqjæctihvæ~ihnterpretati¤n
            nurtures amd æmærses p¤tæntia f¤r
            ahll ahctual
            h¤wings, whyings,
            whænings, whereings,
            whatings, wh¤ings |  
          | lisrings | Quantum subqjæctihvæ~ihnterpretati¤nings
            aræ a Dirac sea ¤f is¤flux ihn
            which
            ahll lisr~n¤nlisr quantum
            ihslands 'float.' |  
          | affæctati¤nings | Subqjæctihvæ~ihnterpretati¤n
 issi (subqjæctihvæ~ihnterpretati¤nings aræ)
            is¤~qualihtatihvæ,
 ~affæctihve, ~heterogæne¤uhs, ~sælf~referænt, ~frahctal, ~s¤phist,
            etc. |  
          | umcærtainty | Quantum umcærtainty issi
            ihnterrelati¤nshipings
 quantons(subqjæctihvæ~ihnterpretati¤nings,ahctualihty). |  
          | EIMAivityings | Subqjæctihvæ~ihnterpretati¤n
 issi 
is¤h¤l¤graphic
            
amd thuhs
 æværywhere~ihncludæd~mihddle~ass¤ciatihve. |  
          | c¤¤bsfæcti¤n | Subqjæctihvæ~ihnterpretati¤n
            pr¤vihdæs amd mædiatæs
            mæans f¤r ahll quantons
            t¤ qualihtatihvæly
            c¤¤bsfæct p¤tæntiahlly
            ahll quantons. |  Quantum subjectivists carry a huge reality advantage. They
      simply do n¤t accept classical-provincial-parochial dogma,
      doctrine, Boole, principia, rules, principles, laws, edicta,
      and all that other objective classical bilge. Adult quantum subjectivists
      deny any organizations' rights to deny their individual rights
      to personal individual freedom of thought. Adult quantum subjectivists
      deny any other individuals' rights to deny any quantum subjectivist's
      individual rights to personal individual freedom of thought.
      See Women's Ways of
      Knowing. See John
      Stuart Mill. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 
'subtraction' Synonyms: 
        deduct
        take away
        decrease
        cut
        reduce
        exclude
        cut
        pare
        divide
        differentiate
        dissociate
        disjoin
        disunite
        separate
        etc.
       | Quantonics ch¤¤ses
      t¤ c¤¤pt a classical interpretation of 'subtraction'
      and remerq
      all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'subtracti¤n.' : Subtract, subtracts, subtraction, etc. In classical contexts we shall use 'subtraction.' In Quantonics/quantum
      comtexts we shall use 'subtracti¤n.' Classical subtraction assumes reality is stable and objects
      in reality are independent. Classical subtraction further assumes
      reality is inanimate/stoppable, excluded-middle, analytic, etc. Classicists assume and presume reality is both positive and
      negative. Further, they assume and presume that to negate and
      to posit are objective acts. Further, they assume and presume
      that positives may be ideally negated and that negatives may
      be ideally posited. Classicists assume and presume that negation
      is objective and they assume and presume posit-ion is objective.
      How? They assume and presume Bergson's two classical delusions: 
        reality is stable (reality is stoppable and can hold still),
        and
        (reality is objective, and) objects in reality are separably
        independent of one another.
       Classical subtraction assumes and presumes classically ideal
      reduction: subtraction "takes away, removes, deletes."
      If a classicist subtracts an elephant from a giraffe said classicist
      gets mostly part of a negative elephant (think, or at least try
      to thingk about it). Weigh methods of classical subtraction,
      giraffe-elephant. What happens when we do it quantumly? (E.g.,
      DNA omnifferencings.  ) A mobster classically-thingks subtracting a hit makes his
      target disappear. To any classicist 1-1 = 0. To any classicist A-A = 0. (Further
      assumptions of identity (identicalness) of both 1 and A. Thence
      that 'zero' exists as a stabile objective ideal notion.) : 
Subqtrahct,
 subqtrahcting, subqtrahctings, subqtrahcts,
      subqtrahcti¤n,
      subqtrahcti¤ning,
      subqtrahcti¤nings,
      subqtrahcti¤ns,
      etc. 
 
Quantum subqtrahcti¤n
      assumæs ræhlihty
 issi 
anihmatæ 
amd quantons
 ihn ræhlihty have
 quantum c¤mplæmæntary, ihncludæd-mihddle, umst¤ppable ihnterrelati¤nships. As ¤f 2004q, Quantonics cahlls
 th¤se ihnterrelati¤nshipings 
"peaqlos."
 
Peaqlos aræ 
pr¤babilihty~lihkælih¤¤d 
¤mnistrihbuti¤ns. Quantum pr¤babilihty issi
 
p¤sihtihvæ!
 
Quantum ræhlihty issi p¤sihtihvæ! Thæræ
      aræ n¤ 
idæal classical negatives
 
ihn quantum ræhlihty! Wæ can quantum~subqtrahct,
      but whæn wæ d¤,
      wæ d¤ n¤t 
classically eliminate,
      zæro, null, empty, dæstroy, etc. Quantum nægati¤n
      issi subjectihvæ! 
Quantum
      subqtrahcti¤n
 issi quantum~pr¤cæssings ¤f heterogæne¤uhs, anihmatæ,
      
EIMA
      
¤mnihfferæncings.
 Wæ cann¤t classihcahlly ihdæahlly subqtrahct,
      eliminatæ, zær¤, null, æmpty, kill,
      etc. Quantum subqtrahcti¤n
 (e.g., 'killing' y¤ur ænæmy, giraffe mihnuhs elephant, A mihnuhs Aq.q) d¤æs
      n¤t eliminatæ, rather
      iht issi a cræatihvæ
      pr¤cæss ihn a sænse
      that n¤vel spawn æmærgæ
 fr¤m any attæmpt t¤ quantum~subqtrahct! Amd folks, ræhlihty issi quantum! 
 For application, and descriptions of relative importances
      of these terms, see our 7Jun2002 Möbius
      3-Primæ Fermion. See, in quantum analogy, minus. See addition,
      differentiation,
      division, integration,
      multiplication,
      prime,
      recursion, square, square root,
      and subtraction. See subjectiv, subjective. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 
'superpose' Synonyms: 
        above (classical)
        addition (classical)
        cover (classical)
        overlay (classical)
        pack (classical)
        etc.
 
co here (quantum)
        entangle (quantum)
        middle~include (quantum)
        etc.
       | Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
      classical 'superpose' amd
      remerq all
      quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'superp¤se.' In classical contexts we shall use 'superpose.' In Quantonics/quantum
      comtexts we shall use 'superp¤se.' In classical contexts superposition usually means classical
      addition. Classical superposition is logical. 
Ihn quantum comtexts
      supærp¤sihti¤n
 mæans quantum ihncludæd-mihddle addqihti¤n
 amd ¤ftæn quantum 
c¤herænce, 
amd
      næarly ahlways (¤f
 at læast n¤nahctualihty amd ahctualihty; quantum n¤nahctualihty supærp¤sæs ahll ahctualihty) quantum partihal
      c¤herænce. Quantum
      supærp¤sihti¤n
      issi 
coquecigrues. Classical 'superpose' assumes classical, objective, state-ic,
      coincident, excluded-middle
      superposition of dichons. Quantum 'superp¤se' assumes quantum, quantonic, anihmatæ,
      coinsident,
      included-middle superp¤siti¤n ¤f quantons. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 
'suppose' Etymology: "Suppose v. About 1303 supposen hold an opinion,
      assume, incline to think; borrowed from Old French suposer
      to assume (from Medieval Latin, to assume), probably a replacement
      of *suppondre (by influence of Old French poser
      put or place) from Latin suppõnere put or place
      under (sup- under + põnere put place) "Supposition n. 1410 supposicioun assumption,
      hypothesis; borrowed probably from Middle French, and directly
      from Late Latin suppositiõnem (nominative suppositiõ),
      from Latin, act of putting under, from supposit-, past
      participle stem of suppõnere put under; The sense
      of Late Latin suppositiõ assumption, hypothesis,
      was influenced by Greek hypóthesis hypothesis." From Barnhart's Concise Dictionary of Etymology, Harper-Collins,
      1995.
 Synonyms - classical: 
        guess
        estimate
        socially consense
        etc.
       Synonyms - quantum - animate ensemble
      REIMAR: 
        stochastics
        probability (a posteriorai)
        plausibility (a iamai)
        likelihood (a priorai)
        etc.
       Antonyms - classical: 
        know
        certainty
        concrete
        genuine
        etc.
       
C¤mplæmænt¤nyms
      
- quantum: 
     | : Suppose, supposition, etc. Classical supposition involves ideal, concrete dialectical
      opposition between
      ideal objects in a 'state' -ic 'reality.' Supposition, classically,
      "accords primacy to objectivity above subjectivity."
      Commutative paraphrase of Philip R. Wallace from his Paradox
      Lost. Classical sup pose ition concretely
      'poses' objects state-ically to one another. Classical supposition
      assumes logical quantitative, 2-valued,
      1-1 correspondence of objective properties. In Quantonics we
      call them 'dichons.' : 
Suhpp¤se,
      suhpp¤ses, suhpp¤sings,
      suhpp¤sihti¤n,
      suhpp¤sihti¤ns,
      suhpp¤sihti¤nings,
      etc. Quantum suhpp¤sihti¤n ihnv¤lves
      quantal, flux~æssæntial
      st¤chastihc
      
complementation
 am¤ng quantons ihn dynamihc ræhlihtyings. Suhpp¤sihti¤n, quantumly, "acc¤rds
 prihmacy t¤ subqjæctihvihty ab¤ve
      
'objectivity.'" Paraphrase of Philip R.
      Wallace from his Paradox Lost. Quantum suhp~p¤s~ihti¤n phasistihcahlly
      s¤rs¤
      p¤sæs anihmatæ
      SOrON
      ænsehmbles
      ¤f flux quanta
      (i.e., quantum~holographic networks of quanta; viz. ensembles
      of fuzzons animately
      interrelating and adaptively emerging among many another). Quantum
      suhpp¤sihti¤n
 qualihtatihvæly suhpp¤sæs
      c¤quecigrues
      ihnterrelati¤nshipings
      am¤ng flux quanta. In Quantonics we call them "quantons." Let's ponder our following list of supposition synonyms and
      their synonyms as to their classical semantics (use our classical
      pulldown above) and their quantum hermeneutics (use our quantum
      pulldown above): 
        assume - deduce, reason,
        think, understand,
        believe - accept, confidence, credence, opinionated-thought,
        trust, truth, ween
        (opinionated supposition),
        conjecture - assume, postulate, presume, speculate, suppose,
        surmise,
        deduce - assume, conjecture, divine, infer, intuit, presume,
        reason, understand,
        expect - assume, believe, imagine, presume, surmise, think,
        faith - belief, confidence, conviction, hopefulness, optimism,
        imagine - conjure, conceive, conceptualize, envision, ideate,
        hypothesize - concept, conjecture, idea, notion, possibility,
        postulate, premise, proposition, supposition, theorem, thesis
        ostensible - alleged, apparent, purported, superficial, supposed,
        plausible - credible, feasible, likely, logical,
        possible, rational, reasonable, tenable,
        presume - believe, conjecture, expect, guess, judge,
        imagine, postulate, presuppose, speculate, suppose, surmise,
        think,
        putative - accept, alleged, assume, common-sense,
        presume, suppose, reported, reputed, rumored,
        speculate - guess, hypothesize, muse, surmise, theorize,
        think, wonder,
        theorize - conjecture, hypothesize, philosophize, propose,
        postulate, posit, speculate, suppose,
       Each link above takes us to a QELR
      of that word which compares classical semantics to quantum hermeneutics
      and remediation. Simply, classical assumption, belief, conjecture, deduction,
      expectation, faith, imagination, hypothesis, ostentation, plausibility,
      presumption, putation, speculation, and theory all are CTMed
      dialectically. What does that mean? It means: EEMD,
      EOOO, inanimate-determinism,
      -certainty, -concrete truth,
      -disambiguation, etc. 
Sihmply, quantum
      assumpti¤n, bælihæf,
      comjæcture, dæducti¤n, æxpæctati¤n,
      faihth,
 ihmaginati¤n, hyp¤thesis, ¤stæntati¤n,
 plauhsihbihlihty,
      præsumpti¤n, putati¤n, spæculati¤n,
      amd thæ¤ry ahll
      aræ 
QTMæd
 mæmæ¤tihcahlly. What does that mean? It means:
      EIMA, BAWAM,
      animate~ensemble~uncertainty, ~memeticity, ~ambiguity, etc. All of that classical linguistic dialectical vocabulary essentially
      distills to semantic quantum~stochasticity!!! Which begs another: Quantonics' HotMeme
      "All facts, 'scientific' and otherwise are quantum~stochasticings."
      HotMeme "What are some examples Doug?" 
        One, '1,' is suppositional, quantum~stochastic.
        'One minus one,' '1-1,' AKA 'zero,' '0,' is suppositional,
        quantum~stochasitc.
        All 'constants' are suppositional,
        quantum~stochastic.
        All reality
        is suppositional, quantum~stochastic.
        etc.
       See our quantum
      Hamiltonian. What is genuinely interesting here is that we commence fathoming
      how quantum~supposition is as good as it gets in quantum reality in any efforts
      to assess what classicists dialectically refer as 'truth.' Quantum
      reality is change and change is waves and waves are qualitatively,
      subjectively, n¤n mechanically quantum~stochastic. Notice too how classical science and philosophy are both founded
      in classical-supposition (social consensus), but then they belie
      that foundation by claiming reality is dialectical!
      Social tragedy of commons dialectic (Vulgi opinio error!)
      is an enormously flawed deign to feign. Apparently SOMites
      see no flaw in their notions of 'absolute truth' based upon classical
      supposition. Notice further how omnifferent
      and omniffering are classical and quantum supposition. Quantum supposition builds animate EIMA (holographic
      sorso associating
      SOONs) fuzzonic omnistributionings
      via dynamic, flux is crux durational
      monitoring of quantum
      reality using quanta,
      real qubits. Quantum supposition is radically stochastic naturally
      (physially) intrinsic emerscitecture
      and emerscenture
      of stindyanic
      reality. Classical supposition, by comparison, reproduces concrete EEMD dichonic 'di' stributions
      via state-ic stux is crux spatial measurement of classical reality
      using 'di' gital bits. Classical supposition is radically
      mechanistic human-innate
      (physical) design and manufacture of concrete reality. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 'suprapersonal' | : Suprapersonal, etc. This QELR is Doug's response to Carl G. Jung's classical use
      of this term in his The Psychology of Unconscious Process
      and his reviewer's use of suprapersonal in Jung's Red Book
      which Doug is currently attempting to review. As quoted by Sonu Shamdasani
      (his RB reviewer, translator) Jung apparently uses 'suprapersonal'
      dialectically 'separating' and 'differentiating' his I from his
      non-I. We see Jung's implicit of classical negation
      as objective. To
      Doug, this is a major faux pas of Jung's. It denies countless
      quantum memeos,
      including: 
        hologra[[il][m][ph]]icityings,
        EIMA of I and
        n¤n~I,
        middle~inclusionings of I and n¤n~I as begged by Suares'
        
          perpetual~ubiquity of and faith in cosmic~con(m)sciousness,
          "Aleph in blood,"
          "Satan as Error," (Dialectic
          as Satan, as Error, e.g., Peter's 'bad thinking' of Jesus as
          a Greco-christ. See Pagels' text on Satan.)
          Jesus' "I am in you, you are in me, I am in God, God
          is in me, therefore God is in you," (refer farewell
          discourse, NT, John~Mary)
          intrinsics of quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality) antinomialism.
         Jung as so many others, exposes his innate dialectical schizophrenia
      regarding objective separation of unconscious, subconscious,
      and conscious. : 
Suprapærs¤nal,
      etc. 
 Until Doug encountered 'suprapersonal' in Red Book's
      Introduction, p. 209, penultimate paragraph, Doug intuited Jung's
      middle~inclusion of 'Spirit of this time,' and 'Spirit of the
      depths.' His dialectical usage of suprapersonal, to Doug, forbids
      dogmatically that quantum~middle~inclusion. 
Suprapærs¤nal ihn
      
quantonicsese middle~includes both I and
      n¤n~I as quanton(n¤n~I,I). Jung's dialectical perversion conceives it as dichon(non-I,
      I). SOM's Knife
      (HFC: High Frequency Cuisinart) separating, logically,
      objectively, all individuals from their quantum~real~complementings.
      Pure classicism. Pure dialectical garbage. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 'synthesis' 'synthetic'
 | TBD. (Classical problematics:
      Classicism assumes that reality is synthetic. Classical synthesis
      adheres a classical concept of radical
      formal mechanism. Formal mechanism demands that objects in
      classical reality may be manufactured, assembled/integrated/synthesized,
      and reproduced. Synthesis is a rearrangement of building blocks
      process which produces 'new'
      rearrangements of 'existing' classical objects. Classical synthesis
      both denies and disallows emergence of quantum phenomena. Indeed,
      classical synthesis/manufacture is deemed 'failed' if any novel,
      n¤n-objective phenomena (Murphies) arise during or after
      manufacturing of a product.) See: emerscenture. Page top index.
     | 
  
    |  | 
'symmetric''symmetry'
 Synonyms: 
        order
        alignment
        registration
        correlation
        (classical) beauty
        affinity, uniformity, similarity, nexus, topology
        (maths) equivalence relations
       | : Symmetric, symmetric, symmetrical, etc. Classicists view changeless symmetry as beautiful, orderly,
      definitive, simple to understand, etc. Examples are geometric
      symbols like triangles, circles, squares, etc. Classical symmetry requires objective state-icity.
      For example a classical 'circle'
      is rotationally 'symmetric.' If one starts at one locus on a
      'circle' and travels around said 'circle' a full 360 degrees,
      one returns, verifiably, to exactly same
      locus, independently
      of how much time it takes to make said peregrination around said
      'circle.' Time, space, speed, and velocity of said journey may
      be analytically assessed and measured reference-frame-locally,
      stoppably and repeatedly.
      Analytic verification,
      validation and proof
      of said metrics 'exist,' to arbitrary accuracy and precision.
      Circumference of said circle is constant.
      Diameter of said circle is constant. Their ratiocination evokes
      an irrational classical constant:
       . Classical 'science' foundations rest on some ludicrous 'symmetries,'
      e.g., Aristotle's tautologous identity,
      A=A. Ask your self
      "A=A H5W?"
      Ludicrous is just too nice a word for this classical abomination.
      We can offer countless similar examples of maltuitive classical
      thing-king methods. : 
Wæ d¤ n¤t
      have an anahlogue
            ¤hr 
QELR
      
¤f symmætry t¤ ¤ffer
      hæræ. Wæ aræ k~n¤wings quantum ræhlihty issi
      æssæntiahlly quantum
      n¤n symmætrihc. N¤nahctualihty
      amd ahctualihty
 aræ 
asymmætrihc 
ihn
      quantum ræhlihty.
      Any quanton's c¤mplæmænt amd ihts
      comjugatæ aræ asymmætrihc
 ihn quantum ræhlihty. Quantum flux amd is¤flux
      c¤mplæmænts sharæ
 sæværalty t¤ mahssihve plurahlihty quantum 
ensemble
 REIMAR 
ihnterrelati¤nshipihcihties.
      Sææ ¤ur 
2005 How
      MoQites Monitor Reality. Page top index.
     | 
  
    | ©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2028 |