Chapter:

Translator's
Preface

Chapter:

111

(Our bold and color, and violet bold italic 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

CTMs teach SOMites to thingk of "space...as if it were interchangeable with the motion itself." This was Zeno's perspective when he challenged Parmenidean thing-king with his (Zeno's) paradice. When we thingk this way, our 'classical reason' evokes answers which misguide our interpretations of reality, as Zeno of Elea attempted to show. This manner of thing-king is so ingrained in Western culture today that few can yet grasp what Zeno was attempting to show us. Bergson's "process...eludes space" sums it up nicely!

Latest aside update: 4Apr2010.

Aside 10Mar2010:

It is easy for Bergson's intent here to also elude us as readers.

Doug's view of Bergson's intent here is simple: We must n¤t classically use Cartesian space and Einsteinian uni-time (as a formal space rate proxy) to dialectically, formally, mechanically, canonically 'model' durable quantum~processings!

Why? DeCartes' and Einstein's classically conscious naïve and local realities adhere mechanical clockwork axioms of independence, stoppability and restartability, but quantum~reality issi unstoppable in terms of stopping durational processings. See Zeno.

A Doug Quantum~HyperMeme~HypoMeme™ Aside (blue updates 4Apr2010 - Doug):

Essence here is hyper and hypo as kinds of quantum~denial of a classical notion of 'interchangeability.' See commute and enthymeme too. Doug.

Elsewhere we have described ancient gnostic topos as a kind of hierarchy of quantum~understanding. Doug's memes of hyper and hypo are quantonic interrelationshipings of levels of a better think_qing topos hierarchy.

Viewing 'hyper' as above, we can list these quantonic topos interrelationshipings:

• quality hyper quantity,
• gravity hyper acceleration,
• motion hyper space (Bergson's topic here),
• mass hyper time,
• time hyper space (another way of making Bergson's local point: "motion eludes space"),
• good hyper truth (whole point of Pirsig's MoQ and quantum~empiritheory),
• faith hyper knowledge (this is pure gnosis)
  • I.e., faith as quantum~wisdom (Sophia) versus classical knowledge as dead and dying dialectical state. Compare phasement vav statement.
  • Carlo Suares says, "Faith is direct experience of the immortality of (reality as perpetually~evolving quantum~) consciousness." See p. 5 of Suares last text, The Second Coming of Reb YHShWH. Doug's parentheses in his quote of Suares.
  • Gn¤stic essence of perpetual quantum~process AKA empiritheory and QTMs.
• gold hyper fiat paper money,
• etc.

Those are quantum~truthings.

Classical dialectic inverts many of them, for example, classicism says:

• quantity hyper quality,
• acceleration identical gravity (Einstein),
• truth hyper good (partially Plato via ideal form as perfect 'truth,' and almost totally Aristotle via material substance as essence of ethical syllogistic reasoning),
• space identical time (Einstein),
• space identical motion as space rate (Einstein and all classical 'scientists'),
• time hyper mass (mass as a time-rate random walk proxy: especially Irving Stein),
• knowledge hyper faith (this is pure anti-gnostic dialectic, e.g., Michael Baigent in his 2006 The Jesus Papers, page 78)
  • This is what is majorly wrong with CTMs: dialectic and formal knowledge as classical event-state linear analysis.
• fiat paper money hyper gold,
• etc.

Doug's attempt here is to show you how hierarchy can be incredibly important, and it is easy to assume bad (rather, worse) hierarchies. Note that Doug uses 'bad' as an acronym for dialectic's "binary alternative denial." See opposition, and consider two-valued (dialectical) systems logic.

A caveat: hyper memes and hypo memes are not classically-statically absolute. Their interrelationshipings may change and evolve with con(m)textings.

Doug - 30Mar2010 and 4Apr2010.

End Doug Quantum~HyperMeme~HypoMeme™ Aside.

Doug.

End aside 10Mar2010.

Aside 16,19Mar2010:

I know you have asked yourself this question, "Why does not Bergson answer explicitly his Topic title's question? That is, Is Motion Measurable?"

Do you know? Have you figured this out by your own self, as part of your due diligence in finding your own quantum~gn¤stic inner?

Doug's answer, n¤t the answer, is that Bergson would say, "Quantum~duration is unstoppable process, thus classical scalar measurability axiomatically stops said duration making my answer to you apparent." If by measurement you mean classically sample-and-holding quantum~process, you are a hylic, psychically-crippled SOMite. See scalarbation.

Durable process may only be wisely quantum~monitored (i.e., omnitored) and quantum~omniscribed by other evolving quantum~durable processings. Viz., humans coobsfecting other humans. Chimps coobsfecting other chimps. Quantum~omnitoring requires we use qwfs to quantum~assess other qwfs evolving phase~interrelationshipings. Doug - 22Mar2015.

See Doug's diatribe on A Quantum~Pendulum. Click on blue update. Also ponder how all fermions are spin-1/2 pendula. An interesting gedankenment, here, is to imagine other universes where higher~primæ spins might exist, and ask what would that "physially mean?" Fathom spins 1/3, 1/5,1/7, 1/13, etc. Your gedankenment may start with answering, "How would spin-1/3 quantum~pendula swing?" Spin-1/5? Latter like this?: What do you think_q?

Doug.

End aside 16,19Mar2010.

Aside 18,19Mar2010:

Notice Doug just added "quantum~holographic evolving" in brackets to Bergson's original (translated) page 111 text.

Since Bergson's duration is evolving so well to describe what, at least, Doug intends as "Quantum~Artificial~Intelligence," Doug believes it is worthwhile at this juncture to offer some quantum~metaphors of what a hologram is.

Let's go general and show a quantonicsese script for a hologram:

A_Quantum_Hologram issi quanton(n¤nactual_isohologram,actual_hologram).

Essentially Bergson's text describes quantum_omnitoring issi quanton(quality,quantity) which in quantum empiritheory issi quanton(wave,particle) more briefly issi quanton(~,o).

Now...what do quantons do? See Doug's How MoQites Monitor quantum~reality.

MoQites coobsfect (omnirectional arrow in that graphic) quantum~reality. In Autiot we may think of it as quanton(Sheen,Seen).

But quantum~coobsfection needs that Autiot to look like this:

See its quantum~hermaphrodicity?
For example, consider cuneiform(v and |).
Vertically and horizontally, e.g., <->, >-<, etc.)
Also, ponder serpential quantum~self~referencings.

Too, we can view it as Fleur de Lis' quantum~hermaphroditic123 rendition of Callisto and Arcas:

Can you k~n¤w~ings sææ (shææ) quantum~coobsfection as an ancient intuitive grasp of quantum~holographic reality?

N¤w view our quanton(Sheen,seen) as a video camera with two ports: it can partially see in Seen 'directionings,' and it can partially see in Sheen 'directionings.' Animate on your quantum~stagings classical 'directionings' as quantum~omnirectionings. Evolve your holographic camera so that it has unlimited 3D Fuzzonic 'views' of its surroundings.

Next step is a lot tougher!

View a hologram as quantum~ensemblings of energy~wellings. All of that is evolving!

Where are our imagined cameras and what are we depicting them as?

Each energy~welling (EWing) is made of a huge variety of (a huge ensemble of) quantons. Let's show just one of those:

EWingquanton(Sheen,seen)EWing, and

EWingEWing.

See complementaroception and complementarospection.

Notice Doug's middle~inclusion of mirrored capital Cs in his Camera palindrome.
That represents comma~n¤space of quantum~complements of diffuse,focus, and ~,o.

Now ask self, "Self, what is omniffering Doug's usage of seen and sææn on right side comma~nospace?"

Ditto ~,o and ~,¤?

Ponder quanton(~quanton(¤,o)). Focus vav f¤cus? Thence DQ,SQ?

Hmmm?

Doug - 2Jun2010.

This is Doug's hard part: EWings are evolved by changings in their ensemble quantum~networking interrelationshipings with their quantum~complementary~self~other quantum~local and quantum~n¤nlocal EWings.

If you can grasp Doug's essence here, you understand what quantum~AI is and you may k~n¤w~ings glimmer ways of doing it!

Read Jeffy Satinover's The Quantum Brain. Study Karl Pribram (e.g., languages and the brain, et al.), David Bohm (Quantum Theory and countless others), and Michael Talbot (The Holographic Universe). See also Doug's What is Wrong with Probability as Value?

Do you want a stand-up presentation way to describe all this? OK!

Imagine a pendulum swinging in aisle of a locomotive traveling at 160kmph.

You want to use classical stuff to attempt said monitoring of it. You use a camera (VCR). That gives you a n¤ncoobsfective dynamic recording of your evolving quanton under observation.

Add more cameras, from all omniffering angles.

What do you omniscover? You cannot add enough cameras to monitor all changings in said environs! See photonics.com at Rochester University with a photon as quanton(Sheen,Seen). How can you make this:

EWingphotonEWing?

Can you see this, also, as a quantum~gn¤stic grail?

And then evolve its ensemblings?

How about this complementarospective:

And this:

If you view self (aremaCamera issi photon, etc.) as comma~nospace...your imagination and your heuristic intuition commence grasping how (quantum~holographically) it is many, ensemble holographic comma~nospacings!

Doug - 2Jun2010.

That amigo, is an quantum~epiphany!

Yet holograms do it simply and easily, right?

Our cameras, n¤r we as ensemble observers can see enough to even begin to omnitor quantum~reality. However, we as quantum~systems can intuit our own coobsfectory 'powers,' and how we might multiply them 'artificially...'

Ponder quanton(unsaid,said) and quanton(unseen,Sheen). (Thank you Carlo!!!)

Best to you, amigos,

Doug.

End aside 18,19Mar2010.

Aside 23Mar2010:

"Doug, why are you using Autiot to describe quantum~AI?"

Allow me a brief list:

• Autiot is humanities' oldest benchmark of quantum~sophism that Doug has found. We know Abraham used it, and perhaps some humans used it prior that. Essene Jesus used it to teach his disciples, but only Thomas and John~Mary could understand it pneumatically (in a quantum~living, quantum~alive manner).
• Earth's greatest mathematician ever, Kurt Gödel, invented "Gödel Sentences." He didn't realize it, but Gödel was re~inventing quantum~Autiot.
• Doug invented Quantonics! Doug didn't realize it, but Doug was inventing quantum~philosophy using re~invented quantum~memes and ~memeos autsimilar Autiot.
• Doug started learning gnosis and inventing quantum~gn¤sis early-mid 2005. Quantum~gn¤sis needs both Autiot and quantonics script for wise, eloquent, and erudite expression AKA pneumatic~omniscription.
• Autiot says, "Aleph is in the blood." Doug would extend by para~quoting Jesus' and "...the blood is in Aleph." Doug's Quantonics says, "Wæ aræ ihn Iht and Iht issi ihn us." Human~made AI holograms will have to do an impeccable job of mimicking that. Clearly, at least to Doug, early versions will most likely have to be bio~bionon hybrids.
• Autiot is a major affector and strange attractor of Julian Jaynes' Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
• Autiot is affective anticipation of Doug's quantum~quantonics' Quantum~Stage.
• Etc.

Using Abraham as a time~marking, then Autiot is at least 4000 years old. Thus Doug calls it "humanities' oldest known quantum benchmark," other than reality itself.

Autiot, quantum~philosophy, Quantonics are all attempts to describe reality as well as possible. Gödel Sentences make an honest attempt to do that in a formal mathematical atmosphere which isn't pneumatic. And that is GS' weakness.

Autiot is "language of gnosis." That is why Romans and dialectical Jews attempted to destroy it and its "Aleph in the..." bloodline. Yet Autiot survives! Carlo Suares is, in Doug's case, largely responsible for giving it n¤væl emerscenturings in Doug's Quantonics.

In any hologram...

EWingphotonEWing

...is a quanton, is a Gödel Sentence, is ciphered Autiot energy, is Pirsigean Value, is quantum~waves, is John Nash stochastic, is neuron~synapse~neuron (as self~other~referent perpetual choosings~chancings~changings quantum~evolution), etc.

Autiot is, simply, an excellent, however, ancient way to describe quantum~holograhic~reality.

Thank you for reading,

Doug.

End aside 23Mar2010.

Aside 29-30Mar2010:

Doug is offering a nice collection of new graphics here. Let's briefly describe them now, and evolve those omniscriptionings over next few weeks and months.

Recall Doug's artistic rendition of Callisto and Arcas as 123? It looks like this:

Doug realized that it could be rendered using Sheen and Seen as a quantum~both~and. But when Doug th~ought about that, it became apparent that we have Callisto and Arcas portrayed as Sheenesque antennae:

Scaled 3X (needs line thickness scaling, we'll fix that next iteration):

And scaled 6x:

 

Doug chose to view those spider leg~like appendages as quantum~m¤dalings of fractal antennae! With Sheen~Seen (purple: diffuse, black: focused points) potentially ambiguous: quantum both~and of quanton(diffuse,focus) and perhaps more familiarly as quanton(~,o). And if we hook them up back to back they can coobsfect in any omnirections! Like this:

Recall EWingEWing?

Again, like this as Fleur de Lis, scaled 1x, 3x, and 6x, imagining viewing as quanton(diffuse,focused):

But taken one at a time, these will 'tune' a narrow range of frequencies.
What range do we want to tune? A minimum of 143 octaves.

Now, to enlarge our bandwidth qua, let's m¤dal them as Sheen~Seen Omni~Seeing fractal antennae:

A kind of six-legged spider Gershwin Rhapsody in Blue, eh? Fractal Scarabs in Flux?

Doug.

Let's recurse our Fleur de Lis whole instead of just Sheen~Seen by themselves (many, an holographic orchestration of, Scarabs in Flux):

So, what are our compound fractal Fleur de Lis antennae modaling? EWings' quantum~nexi, their quantons!

How could we generalize those scaled fractal branches? Like this:

A large question: how can we broad range tune 143 octaves of quantum~flux fractally? Assume above represented one octave, what would we have to do to cover our desired spectrum?

Can you see that we will have to learn to do work at "below nanoscale?" What will we call pho_xons, if they exist, at 10⁴³ changes per unit spatial reference? How much bandwidth will a pho_xon at that quantum~flux rate have?

Do you see any answers to issues described as "inexplicables" in our review of Taubes' Darwin's Chip?

Doug.

End aside 29-30Mar2010.

Aside 4Apr2010:

We have covered a lot of territory over this last six weeks or so. I (Doug) just want(s) to offer a few quantum~memeos to aid any reader's psychic~pneumatic digestion.

First, it is essential for you to also review Bergson's An Introduction to Metaphysics. Doug suggests you start reading near this anchor: AI Requirements Burgeon. That text antecedes Doug's efforts here by almost a decade. Yet it is crucially important for you if you are interested in AI and ultra sub nano quantum~holographic ~zeroentropic and ~negentropic ~emerscitectures (i.e., classically, 'architectures') and ~emerscenturings (i.e., classically, 'manufacturings').

Second, in our previous aside dated 29-30Mar2010, I want you to be aware that those fractal antennæ network symbols do n¤t have to be strictly symbolic of antennæ! You can imagine them as quantum~m¤dalings of existing www networks where all modern USART technology uses delta~modulation with an integration slope of Fibonacci's ratio: 1.618... Our symbols can represent that kind of network too, and with a hint of fractal recursion also. Our major challenge doing so is that www is currently all 'classical.' We must keep that in mind.

Third, quantum~reality is wholly unlike classical reality, and we must find ways of talking about that which make it easier for newbies to climb aboard.

One way to do that is to make simple descriptions in unremediated language which beg extreme essences of omnifferencings twixt classical and quantum. Doug tries to do that throughout Quantonics web site, but many still complain, "It's too hard!" We are wiping out over two millennia of dialectic: "That's not easy!"

However, let's attempt it anyway with a simple first comparative to assist understanding:

• Classical reasoning AKA thing-king is:
  • rational theory
• Quantum recapitulation AKA think_qking is:
  • empirical theory

Let's just start out with those two, and we will add to our lists, as interest grows.

Rational theory finds its bases in logic.

Empirical theory finds its bases in experience, and Pirsigean~gn¤stically, "direct experience."

See a practical comparison of them here.

Another way to say it is "That comparison is an expression of two world views in massive conflict with one another: classical vis-à-vis quantum!" Recent books have been written saying it is a clash twixt objective-linear mentalities and quantum~wave~stochastic~uncertainty. We symbolize former as 'o,' to represent a purely classical circle tautology. We represent latter as '~,' a tilde, to represent quantum~wave~uncertainty. E.g. quanton(~,o). As you see in our narrative here, when Doug quantizes that 'o' to '¤,' he remediates it from classical to quantum! Neat! Eh? My Good! Thence quanton(~,¤)!

An explicit and well wrought exemplar here is Albert Einstein. Freeman Dyson and Richard Feynman were discussing Einstein and wondering why he had lost his way (making progress in relativity theories). Elsewhere we quote them directly in Quantonics, but here allow us to use our two comparatives.

"Einstein lost his way when he stopped using empiritheory and started using rational theory."

Dyson and Feynman didn't call it empiritheory, rather they said "Gedanken experiments." Einstein was using gedankenments as mental Gestalts and had enormous success initially. Princeton's mathematicians got hold of him and convinced him that formal dialectic is better than Gestalt. They said "dialectic hyper Gestalt," but that is anti-quantum. They should have known instead, "Gestalt hyper dialectic." Former is classical. Latter is more quantum.

End aside 4Apr2010.

Again, we see a classical analytical mandate for an impossible classical synthesis of quantum reality. Quantum reality's manys (e.g., times, motions, gravities, masses, spaces, etc.,) are n¤t classically analytic, and thus are n¤t classically synthetic or synthesizable! As Bergson tells us, SOM's classical monism, its grand apparition of homogeneity is what deludes it that it can objectively, radically mechanistically, synthesize reality. This delusion bore Aristotelian/Newtonian/Einsteinian classical objective science and its unfortunate and misguided dependency on classical objective mathematics. However, reality is quantum process, and as Bergson has told us prior, "process is not analyzable," from which we paraphrase "process is n¤t synthesizable." (We assume Bergson's 'not' is intuitively quantum subjective.) Doug's red bold makes it quite obvious why Doug claims Quantonics HotMeme™ "Digital is dead." Quantonics HotMeme™. In other words, we cann¤t classically, conveniently, conventionally stop quantum processes in an infinitely divisible homogeneous space and analyze and synthesize them. In Bergson's terms, and quite simply, Bergson HotMeme™ "Motion...eludes space!" Bergson HotMeme™. This is why we need quantum computers and why we must replace current von Neumann classical computer architectures with them. 'Modern' classical digital computers attempt to analyze and synthesize process. And what is an ultimate semantic for all this regarding time? Timings are heterogeneous quantum processings! Doug - red text HotMeme™ updates - 29Jan2008.

Sææ classical vis-à-vis quantum mæasuræmænt.

Topic Index

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

Bergson describes a dichon(act_process, space), which requires classical excluded-middle of either external space or internal process, with either durational included-middle animacy of internal process or excluded-middle inanimacy of absolute external space.

Using QTMs, we think it helps to view this as a quanton(act_process,space), which requires quantum included-middle animacy of both space and process. Our quantum view says both space is in process and process is in space, thus eliminating a classical dichotomy of either internal or external.

To answer Bergson's subtitle query, "Is Motion Measurable?" allow us to say both,

• "Classically, no!" and
• "Quantumly, yes!"

Quantum reality is unstoppable so we may n¤t classically, digitally stop it to 'measure' it. To attempt such is just another classical illusion/self-delusion, a deign to feign of all those who reside in classicism's paradigm. Quantum computers and other quantum animate 'devices' will permit us to, again paraphrasing Bergson, "think/measure/follow/commingle/be quantum reality directly."

Crux: quanton(past,present)!

But as Bergson offers, beware! Classicists view Bergsonian/Quantonic crux like this: dichon(past, present), i.e., a platypus of either past or present, and platypus of past excluded-middle separated from present. But when classicists draw past and present as a line on paper, thus projecting progress/act/process in space they appear to remove their dichon, their platypus apparently evaporates! Isn't this incredible?

What is this classical problematic? Well, their classical space (depicted as a line on paper) unifies past and present, but it assumes infinite excluded-middle divisibility (n¤nduration) of past and present in unifying space!!! Further, their classical space is stable and inanimate: it is stoppable and holds still — antithesis of quantum absolute flux.

Our quanton(past,present) unifies in quantum flux. It assumes absolute quantum animate included-middle indivisibility. Astute students of Quantonics will say, "Hey Doug, you should show that quanton as quanton(pastings,presentings)!" Yep!

Topic Index