Subject:	Our review of your FPS letter.
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:29:13 -0500
From:	Doug Renselle <NOFLAMEqtx{at}earthlink{dot}netNOSPAM>
Organization:	The Quantonics Society
To:	"Dr. Scott C. Smith" <scott.c.smith@flameproof> (Flameproofing by Dr. Smith's request.)
CC:	"ams_physics.wayne.edu" <flameproof.wayne.edu>

Note to readers of Doug's letter to Dr. Smith: If you wish to find select topics mentioned below, especially within Quantonics' own semantic contexts, do a Google search, e.g., (say on 'fusion') using search pattern "Quantonics Bergson fusion," or (say on 'compenetrate/compenetration') "Quantonics James compenetrate." Exclude quotes from your search patterns. Doug - 18Jun2001.

Dr. Smith,

Thank you for emailing us in Quantonics.

Dr. Smith, we meant no offense. We intended to use your
letter as an example of an overriding philosophical issue
which (we believe) haunts our USA today: A war twixt science
and religion.

Our contention is that fundamental objectivism inures
implicit opposition. Concomitantly, we say that reality is,
rather, intrinsically quantum cohesive.

By cohesive, we mean literally co-here-ent. Prof. William
James refers this natural coherence as "compenetration."
Bergson refers it as "fusion." Fritjof Capra calls it
"interpenetration."

We are students of presocratics philosophy all the way
through philosophy of science as practiced today. As
students we attempt to find 'tells' which expose why some
world societies and some of their local-/intra-
organizations appear at war. More specifically, we wonder
why science is at war with religion and religion is at war
with science. We think you wonder about this too, or you
would not have taken time to enter that debate.

After reading your email several times, and rereading our
'review' of your original 'letter/email' to FPS, our opinion
is that you believe reality is objective. We believe
reality is Quantonic, i.e., more as Bergson, James, Capra,
Bohm, et al., choose to view reality. Objective reality is
a classical reality. Our Quantonic reality is more quantum,
but quantum without pure objectivism nestling its core.

A good example of what we mean here is a recent article
published in one of science's major journals about finding
zero spin 'states' in Pb nucleons.

Classical, objective interpretations of quantum science
insist that nucleons 'be' fermionic, or multiples of 1/2
integer spin. Indeed this is what most classical thinkers
mean when they say a wave function "collapses."

Our example illustrates a quantum both/and of zero and 1/2
integer spins. By both/and we mean a quantum compenetrating
(James), fusing (Bergson), interpenetrating (Capra), et al.,
of cohering and decohering quantons.

Another evident example is solitonic (i.e., quantum
coherent) wave energy commingling decoherent/fermionic water
molecules in tsunamis.

We see those examples as quantum both/and commingling in a
reality whose 'natures' are both subjective (~coherent) and
objective (~decoherent), vis-à-vis classically, just/only
purely objective.

We think that objective 'analysis' is radically
mechanistic/inanimate and thus incomplete in its methods and
tools used for examining reality, e.g. rejecting (as
Einstein did, for example) reality's subjective 'nature.'
By comparison, we think that David Bohm's call for a new
quantum 'non-analysis' which is radically
nonmechanistic/animate fits and guides our own positions,
heuristics, and conjectures.

To simplify, and move closer to an interim bottom line, we
see classical negation as classically subjective (our
mentorship is work done by Henri Louis Bergson, several of
whose works we review in Quantonics), and apparently you
view classical negation as formal, i.e., -you is formally a
classical negation of you. I.e., to apply classical
negation to oneself one must assume one's 'complement' is an
ideal classical negation of self. We simply ask, "How does
one do that?" And we wonder, "How can physical, scientific
method rest on such a 'principle' as falsifiability?"

Essence of our position on why science and religion are at
war relies on many people reaching concord that, indeed,
classical negation IS classically subjective. But objective
thinking naïvely, simply, and dialectically 'denies' any
such concord as "absurd, nonsense, ridiculous, insane, etc."

Once/if/when we achieve that concord, we can commence
showing how Popper's falsifiability is blatantly 'wrong'
from a novel and better, more quantum perspective.

Initially, we wanted to link your letter at FPS directly,
however we thought it would be more convenient for readers
to see text side-by-side.

You are correct, we did not ask your permission, nor did we
ask APS' permission. We saw your letter as public domain,
via your publishing it both on paper and in HTML format
(latter, from FPS' site, is what we used to create column 1
of our review).

We will gladly remove said 'copy' from our web site.

Too, we will gladly publish your response,
unrevised/unedited. We will publish any other
similar/related comments you wish expressed on this subject,
including your treatments of Doug's positions.

More, we will in futures scrupulously avoid publication of
your letters to editors or us without your express
permission.

We would have addressed our 'review' to FPS as a response,
but our experience is that few of our letters in that vein
are ever published. Unsure, but we recall they declined
accepting any more letters on said topic. We think that is
unfortunate.

Again, accept our apologies for any offenses we may have
elicited. Certainly they were not intended. What we
intended was a side-by-side comparison of what we see as
classical, objective thoughts juxtaposed with our own more
Quantonic/quantum perspectives shown in written format.

Sincerely,

Doug.
==
Doug Renselle
In Quantonics
http://www.quantonics.com/
USA
==
"Truth is an agent of its own change."

Doug Renselle, 23Jan1999
(Reflections on Frank A. Schierenberg's and Matt Workman's
questions about Quantonics.)