Chapter:

Translator's
Preface

73

(Our bold, color, violet bold italic problematics, and violet bold problematics.)

Bergson restarts his footnote counts on each page. So to refer a footnote, one must state page number and footnote number.

Our bold and color highlights follow a code:

• black-bold - important to read if you are just scanning our review
• orange-bold - text ref'd by index pages
• green-bold - we see Bergson suggesting axiomatic memes
• violet-bold - an apparent classical problematic
• blue-bold - we disagree with this text segment while disregarding context of Bergson's overall text
• gray-bold - quotable text
• red-bold - our direct commentary

Does this man amaze you as he amazes us?

Can you see him (classically, plus quantum instinctively and intuitively) describing associative memory here? Lightning! — endarkenment switch off: he describes essence of quantonic associative memory — a quantum self-organizing network! Let's show you our Quantonic script versions of his quantum instincts and intuitions:

Intensityquanton(psychic_phenomena,consciousness)
                                                                     
Qubit    quanton(uncloaking_n¤nactuality,actuality)

then his classical intellect:

Consciousness = dichon(quality_affecting_states, self_sufficient_states)

then more of his quantum instincts and intuitions:

Psychic_phenomena quanton(n¤t_acquired,confused_perception).

Here we may interpret his "confused perception" as quantum reality's included-middle twixt uncloaking_nonactuality and actuality. In Quantonics his "confused perception" issi isotentative flux. See our coined Isot. Isotentative flux is quantum n¤nactual flux which issi on a verge of actualizing AKA "latching." See our more detailed quantum description of Quantonics Isox in light of their Associative Memory Ontologies.

His description is simply remarkable considering Bergson wrote this material nearly 100 years ago. Even more profound, he intuits quantum heterogeneity. Then he makes an even more remarkable statement: "In the following chapter we 'shall no longer consider states of consciousness in isolation from one another, but in their concrete multiplicity, in so far as they unfold themselves in pure duration." Here he shows us, too, how he knows quantum reality's middle is associatively included. This quote shows you why we do not like his abundant use of 'state' and 'states,' and why we are highlighting each use in bold violet. But he shows us that we need not worry! His meme for 'state' applies duration (SON associative included-middle logic) among 'states.' We cann¤t capture intensity or any other quantum real animate process in classical 'states.' As Bergson tells us later on page 219 of TaFW, we cann¤t analyze real (quantum; he says "concrete") processes. Only via thibediring and durational think-king may we begin to harmonize quantum real animacy.

Memeos of quantum~intensity, compared to classical 'notions' of intensity, are n¤t what you would expect. They jarred classical science terribly with what we call, "an Einstein and Maxwell photoelectric effect catastrophe."

See Topic 1 on quantum~intensity.

See Topic 8 on quantum~intensity.

It may be helpful to readers, now CeodE 2009-2010, to see our more recent exegeses of both intensity and quantum~intensity. Doug - 15Dec2009.

Index

(Our bold and color, and violet bold italic problematics.)

Eleatics of Elea. Fifth century, b.c. school of philosophy. Proponent philosophers: Parmenides, Xenophanes, and Zeno, who believed all is one [Bergson's spatial extensity] — and thus denied both change and pluralism. Eleatics were n¤t quantum philosophers/thinkers!

Students of Quantonics may intuit by now, that quantum local free will is intrinsic in quantum reality. By "quantum local," we mean that a quanton (following Mae-wan Ho's leading heuristics) has both autonomy (local free will) and cohesion (global interrelationships, some n¤nlocal, which temper, balance, and mitigate local free will; did you just feel that Nash nexus? If this feels like essence of John Forbes Nash's Nobel prize-winning equilibrium your sensibilities are, indeed, Quantonic. See our review of A Beautiful Mind.).

We may also intuit how a quanton of Mae-wan's heuristic and quantum free will resolves a huge philosophical issue:

How can everyone have free will together and simultaneously, while reality, in general, keeps improving, keeps getting better? How can quantum reality be intrinsically moral?

A quick Open Source Internet free will answer is Eric S. Raymond's The Cathedral vis-à-vis Virtual Bazaar.

We would say, "IsoVirtual Quantum Bazaar."

And, in addition to Raymond's, Mae-wan Ho's and Bergson's perspectives, we may choose to look at free will as Pirsig did. Instead of a classical, 'A causes B,' Pirsig proffers,

Lila, p. 104, 1991, Bantam,
1st ed., hardbound

and with our plurals added to Pirsig's singulars,

To make Pirsig's statement n¤t just relativistically plural, but quantum animate too, we can say,

Adjunctive this n¤ncausal QTM think-king, see our,

Aside:

We call SOM and CR versions of Pirsig's "A causes B," classical "key disablers."

We call our MoQ/QTM version of Pirsig's "B values precondition A," a QTM "key enabler."

For more on our key disablers and our key enabler, see those topics in our How to Tap Into Reserve Energy.

End aside.

In classical causality's 'A causes B' there is no intrinsic awareness, choice, Value, decision — there is no free will! 'Effects' in classical reality are inductive and absolutely determinate! Relativism's plurals still use classical inductive, causal, excluded-middle logic (also see our SOM's Logic) so we end up with multiple (many) determinisms. Relativists have a 'choice' among many determinisms.

However, in

Bings must be (are) quantum aware! Why? Because they must (do) Value Aings! Why? So they can tentatively and affectively select their compenetrating portion of an ensemble better next Planck phase(ing)s outcome(ing)s! (Along with other local and n¤nlocal Bings which are entangling with, coobsfecting, and compenetrating attractor Aings' phasic ensemble.)

Thus, you as a student of Quantonics should be able to intuit how local free will is intrinsic in quantum reality.

Also consider bandwidth limitations of various quantons: a photon, a nucleon, an atom, a molecule, an eyeball, or a human "Bing." Doing so, you may see that quantum both awareness and choice (and thus "quantum freeness") scales.

A quanton's quantum affectiveness (its scope of both awarenesses and choices) increases with quantonic complexity.

Aside:

Quantum affectiveness is interrelated strongly to any quanton's ensemble sub-portion sensory selection bandwidth; i.e., what a quanton can "sense" affects its affective selection choices, and thus to some degree its affective bandwidth; we assume a photon's sensory selection bandwidth is vastly more limited than a human's.

End aside.

But Doug, "How does this affect me, my life, what I do?" First, that you are reading this particular text just now demonstrates its potentia, and its potentia affecting you. Without denouncing and rejecting outright what we have said thus far, can you ever look at reality again as you did prior to reading these few paragraphs?

Depending upon your progress as a student of Quantonics, this affect may be greater or smaller, but you are affected by what you just finished reading.

Once you grasp this quantum affectual free will epiphany in its fuller interpretations, you will discover your own freeness as a quantum being! You will largely subsume your CTMs with your newly adopted QTMs. You will commence interpreting reality in all its vast quantum realness.

Aside:

We use italics on our use of "interpreting" because we accept a meme — our use here of "meme" is as a quantum 'fact' that is always changing — that quantum reality is uncertain (in-define-it), and that we can describe it, but it is unlikely that we will ever be able to know quantum reality in its most elaborate fullness. To do so would entrap/define it, which we cann¤t do since quantum reality is always changing and always changing all. Doug - 1Dec2001.

End aside.

And for sure, Bergson's entire Time and Free Will is dedicated to this quantum percept, as its title suggests.

A good systems theory example, of how you might use what we have just said, is how we approach a very difficult problem of developing genuine AI appliances.

If we research, specify, design, build and test using causal classical, define-it, objects and classical design concepts — we can show that it is impossible to achieve even simplest AI outcomes. Concepts and objects drive out quantum awareness, drive out quantum free will which is a key enabler/affector even for 'artificial' intelligence!

If we research, comtextualize, and evolve our system appliance products using quantons we have a chance of achieving a modicum of AI capability! QTM percepts and quantons invite and nurture quantum awareness.

How? What is a huge difference between a computer virus which works and ones which do n¤t? Classically-applied quantum self-reference! Pure classical attempts to develop formal (n¤n-quantonic) viruses and worms, etc., failed until quantum fractal comcepts of self-recursion were adopted. Until Doug Hofstadter showed people how it could be done, n¤thing happened. (See Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher Bach and Metamagical Themas.)

A similar meta-phore played out within IBM. Rolf Landauer, an IBM fellow (recently deceased), learned how to use quantum reversibility to keep dense RAMs from burning up. This is essentially a macroscopic quantum zero-entropy 'trick' which offers incredibly valuable classical consequences.

We have a similar situation with AI. Until we intuitively understand how important quantum free will is to AI, we will n¤t achieve even a modicum of AI capability. Until we evolve quantum free will into our systems, we will n¤t be capable of doing AI.

But to do this, we must give up our exclusive adherences to CTMs. We must throw out our classically-causal mental models of reality. We must adopt QTMs and all their boundless reserve energy, as exemplified meekly on this small quantum stage.

Those entrepreneurs among you know that these last many comment paragraphs are worth, at least, hundreds of $Billions. Value is in understanding what we mean when we say, "quantum free will." By-the-way, it is all there — n¤ kidding. See our Darwin's Chip.

Now, should you still be just a student of Quantonics?

Thank you for reading — Doug - 17Nov2001.

Index