Our approach follows a line of classical reasoning like this:
Assume stochastics
 that no two physical (i.e., actual) coherent
quantum comtexts'
chaos~equilibria interrelationshipings are evolutionarily comsistent
out of a group of 'n' energy~wellings in 't' total possible energy~wellings,
and
 that no two physical (i.e., actual) decoherent
quantum comtexts'
chaos~equilibria interrelationshipings are evolutionarily comsistent
out of a group of 'n' energy~wellings in 't' total possible energy~wellings
is, S(n,t)=t!/((tn)! * t^{n}).
Then we assume stochastics
 that two or more physical quantum comtexts are more equilibrial and less chaotic
out of a group of 'n' coherent
energy~wellings, and
 that two or more physical quantum comtexts are more chaotic and less equilibrial
out of a group of 'n' decoherent
energy~wellings
is, P(n,t) = 1  S(n,t).
We approximated our calculation of S(n,t) using (1n/(2*d))^{n1}
Classical Problematics (need wingdings font for our fickle
quantum fingers :):
Analyticity (determinism, induction, causeeffect, homogeneous
time or independent variable as change, axiom of independence
(a strict derivation of Aristotle's
3rd syllogistic 'law,' claiming excludedmiddle 'independence'
of classical objects), et al.) 
 As you can see in our graphs above and our classical equations,
a classical assumption of monism as continuous and unitemporal
(from a purely classicalideal "reality is stoppable"
view...atemporal)
analyticity is inherent. Our classical equation is continuous.
 But is reality analytic? N¤!
Reality is quantal,
as graph just above illustrates. Here is an exemplar:
 Do our continuous, analytic
stochastic graphs of our probability~plausibility~likelihood
functions for classical equilibria
and chaos depict quantal
reality? N¤! However, we benefit
from making these classical comparisons, since they show us chaoequil interrelationshipings vary with coherent~decoherent
quantum~comtextings. If this makes you think_{q} of PBings(cohera,decohera)
and PBings(equilibria,chaos), Doug has achieved a partial quantum~affectation. Also, these two graphics illustrate a great
quantum tell: quantum~reality is complementary. Complementarity
appears ubiquitous and perpetual in all quantum~reality at all
scales of quantum~reality. Chaos complements equilibrium and vice versa. Coherence complements decoherence and vice versa. Latter
is an essential of quantum~evolutionary~creation processings
as exhibited in both QED and QCD, and other omnisciplines like Bohm's Hologramic~Quantum~Theory, Bergson's Creation Philosophy, Quantonics, Qabala, and its associated cosmic energy language:
Autiot, etc. Doug  10Sep2012.
Localability, isolability/individuicity, separability, and reducibility
(lisr) 
 A classical assumption of lisr is inherent in classical reasoning.
 Each classical context is lisr.
 Each classical context adheres Aristotelian syllogisms,
especially objective, excludedmiddles among all classical contexts.
 But is reality lisr? N¤! Reality is quantum c¤hesive.
 Do our continuous, analytic
graphs of our probability functions for classical equilibria and chaos
depict quantum c¤hesive reality? Yæs,
partially! They show quanton(chaos,equilibrium) as quantum~complementary and thus, to some
extent, quantum~coherent due an Quantonics assumption of quantum~middle~inclusion.
Ditto quanton(coherence,decoherence). Trouble is, those analytic
graphs do it using classical maths' canonic Aristotelian sillygisms!
Ideal mathematical integer constancy 
 A classical assumption that an ideal logical/physical constant,
one (1), exists.
 A classical assumption that ideal logical/physical manipulations
of one (1) exist:
 1/1 iso 1
 1*1 iso 1
 1+1 iso 2 (inference of induction and counting)
 11 iso 0 (inherent definition of zero)
 1 = 1 iso classical ideal identity
 d1/dt = 0 (1st derivative of a 'constant' is zero; assumes
homogeneous time)
 (11)/(11) iso undefined (Isn't this amazing?)
 But does reality generate or manifest physical integer constants?
N¤! All quantum n¤mbærs
are umcærtain! N¤ tw¤ quantum n¤mbærs
are identical! Too, they are perpetually
and ubiquitously evolving. In general it is n¤t
p¤ssible f¤r tw¤ quantum n¤mbærs
t¤ be physically and thus l¤gically identical.
 Do our continuous, analytic
graphs of our probability functions for classical equilibria and chaos
depict quantum n¤mbær umcærtainty? N¤!
(I.e., classical use of '1P.')
Quantum~n¤mbærs are dynamic,
evolving processings. For example, see Doug's Quantum~Hamiltonian.
 See Doug's list of Suggested
Requirements for A New Quantum~Mathematics.
So, reader, you can see how classical concepts,
especially classical mathematical sillygistic
concepts, impede any real
and natural understanding of quantum~reality. N¤
mathematician ever shows '1' as a quantum umcærtain comcept.
(Using n¤vel
memes presented here we can d¤ that.)
F¤r ¤ur purp¤ses here, let's assume that
¤ur least values f¤r equilibria
and chaos in ¤ur n¤nclassical,
quantum~reality are individual quanta. Our curves d¤ n¤t
sh¤w that; h¤wever, we can imagine their classical
zero asymptotes as
reality's minimum Planck quantum, i.e., quantum_2•quantum_•h.
