Arches

If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!

— The Quantonics Society News for 2007 - January —
TQS News Archive of Prior Years' News

This is our January, 2007 editorial

Go directly to 2007 January News

Abe Lincoln was a Republican. Ronald Reagan was a Republican.

GWBush is a Republican't. Gerald Ford was among early Republican'ts who mentored and nurtured a line of countless neocan't political successors.

It is our duty as citizens of USA to keep neocan'ts, Republican'ts, administrative war criminals out of public office...

...and disable them when we uncover their malfeasant credentials in office.

Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon set a precedent of enabling a new ideal of 'criminal presidency.' We now have three examples: Richard Nixon, Wullard Jeffy-Roll Clinton, and George Whoosh Bush.

Doug - 28-30Dec2006.


Classical dialectical society surreptitiously opposes culture against culture, individual against individual, while elevating itself in a role above cultures and individuals, and playing arbiter in their socially evoked disputes.

Doug - 29Dec2006.


No national leader is "the decider." All national leaders, taken individually are, cowithin any civil ensemble, "a decider."

It is remarkably apparent that national ensemble opinion simply does not 'roll up' into a single leader's or administration's opinon.

For any leader to dismiss that, is to commit serious political error.

Doug - 29Dec2006.



2007 TQS News
December, 2006 through November, 2007                                  TQS News Archive of Prior Years' News

Month:

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY MAY SE JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

You are here:

Topics: A Novel Philosophy in Town...
Hume's Dilemma...
Hume's Law...
Parallels on MACInTao,
Latest Review Efforts,
Quantum Computing Breakthrough,
State of Union Lies...
Apple-TV Network Hologram,
Wheeler's Delayed Double-Slit,
Should String Theory Predict?
Light as Gn¤stic Choice, Gn¤stic Ch¤¤sings,
William James' on "Pessimism vav Optimism,"
G5 Quad Increased Performance,
Elgato's EyeTV Hybrid
Doug shouldn't beat up on Hillary Clinton, says Mitch in Australia and other criticisms, and
A response to Mitch from DMD.
A Quantum Love Affair, Elgato EyeTV Hybrid,
Females in Medicine

FireFox Issue, A letter from Rick,

Doug saved best for last...

Doug's Review Progress Jolly's Fast VNC,
Dionne's Liberal Moment, and Defining Wisdom.
On A Super Weapon against Earth, On Apple's OS X Leopard, Pirsig vis-à-vis Dewey and Hume "...embraces radical scepticism..." ?

January, 2007 News:

On Doug's New Year 2007 Message, A Very Brief Description of A Personal Chautauqua: There's a N¤væl Philosophy in Town ...

"Doug recalls his genuinely enormous challenges of striving against his own first 30 years of socially-acculturated personal acclimatized-inclinations. SOM and CR are nearly perfect pogromatic detention centers of mind. Doug's use of pogrom here assumes gnostics as an 'ethnic' group also known as "sophists:" Folk who 'ethnically' share a belief in individual pneumatic wisdom and individual-by-individual both sui generis and quantum coherence of thought. SOM and CR classical social-thought detention centers' sidis are high and thick. Their stanchions' tips are kill-sharp barbed. Their moats are deep. Their siren succubi wail wantonly. Their adherents are somnambulating Demos will socially-narcotized hive drones.

"Doug struggled massively to escape their mechanical claws, their entrenched cudgels of lisr concrete and stabile immutability.

"But flux is crux and if you juxtapose flux and stux long enough stux becomes your own worst evil, your own worst nightmare. A nightmare which has wasted, at least in Doug's case, over two score years of a human life. Doug now (c. 2007) believes that to unmoor one's classical mental anchorage and unburden its entrapment in classical concrete is manifestly similar spiritual rebirth, pneumatic ascendant emergence.

"Many of y~our predecessors grasped that and tried to didactically fabulize1 others, but SOM has defended most threats well. However, starting in about 1855 with Jakob Balmer's energy ladder whose rungs are quantized, there is a n¤væl philosophy in town: quantum~philosophy. SOM can't defend this threat. At every turn SOM tries escape there is another quantum meme exposing SOM's real naïve and local incapabilities, its incapacities, its retarded incompetencies. SOM will be renowned, for ever more, as pseudo philosophy, pseudo science, pseudo reason, and pseudo thought."

For 2007 we challenge our readers to become students and our students to fathom potentia for their similar quantum~life experiences.

Above quote is taken, and slightly modified, from Doug's December, 2006 Critical Review of David Hume's A Treatise of Human Reason, Book I, Part IV, Section II entitled, 'Of Scepticism with Regard to The Senses.' That review was published 24Dec2006.

1 In a sense of fable, fabulist, fabulism, etc., great teachers use fables to help each of us heuristically "teach our individual selves." A kind of meta~Hemingwayesque didactic self~other quantum~indagation. Indagate: a very uncommon word. It means to understand (for us, quantumly "ihndagatæ") via probing examination and durational due diligence investigation of self~other~self~organizing~networks. Latter memeo is what Doug means and intends in any usage of antisociotic. Sort of phasæ~ænc¤ding c¤~ihnsihdæ~nt "quantum~research." Indagation is a personal means of vaccinating oneself against societies' tragedies of commons sense. Allow us to quote from Fyler Townsend's 1899 translation of Aesop's Fables:

Aside - What is a fable?

"...The true Fable, if it rise to its high requirements, ever aims at one great end and purpose - the representation of human motive, and the improvement of human conduct, and yet it so conceals its design under the disguise of fictitious characters, by clothing with speech the animals of the field, the birds of the air, the trees of the wood, or the beasts of the forest, that the reader shall receive advice without perceiving the presence of the adviser. Thus the superiority of the counselor, which often renders counsel unpalatable, is kept out of view, and the lesson comes with the greater acceptance when the reader is led, unconsciously to himself, to have his sympathies enlisted in behalf of what is pure, honorable, and praiseworthy, and to have his indignation excited against what is low, ignoble, and unworthy. The true fabulist, therefore, discharges a most important function. He is neither a narrator, nor an allegorist. He is a great teacher, a corrector of morals, a censor of vice, and a commender of virtue [We see potential for anti quantum classical hegemony and abuse of power erupting here. Doug - 26Dec2006.]. In this consists the superiority of the Fable over the Tale or the Parable. The fabulist is to create a laugh, but yet, under a merry guise, to convey instruction. Phaedrus, the great imitator of Aesop plainly indicates this double purpose to be the true office of the writer of fables."

End aside.

Except for Townsend's manifest dialectic in his "...have his sympathies enlisted in behalf of what is pure, honorable, and praiseworthy, and to have his indignation excited against what is low, ignoble, and unworthy..." plus our embedded hegemony brackets, we agree. His either-or dyad...

Doug inferred dyad despite Townsend's impressive use of ands instead of ors, EOOO(sympathetic_enlistment_of_pure_honorable_praiseworthy, indignation_against_low_ignoble_unworthy).

...is source of much hatred on Earth today. EOOO(white, black), EOOO(right, wrong), EOOO(true, false), EOOO(my_way, hi_way), EOOO(you're_for_us, you're_against_us), etc. Doug has an advantage here. He can QELR Townsend's words and eschew their classically social 'either-you-or-me' hate-evocative, war-inducing, dialectical semantics. In exercising that pragma Doug transemerqs EOOO into BAWAM.

What do we quantumly say in place of Townsend's dialectic?

First, allow us to recall that dialectic is a social pattern of value. Classical society believes that society is above individuals. Classical society views itself as the font of intelligence. In other words classical society does not view intellect as emerging proemially from individuals. Those are only a few of a vast list of comparables Doug may offer for your edification.

So, when Townsend says

He is referring societies' logic based upon dialectical either-or oppositional semantics for those terms, n¤t what individuals' semantics for them are. Social on-off purity is a lot of classical notions, most of them we gradually dismiss as retrospectively ludicrous: skin color as pure, race as pure, behaviour as pure, male superiority above female, female suffrage, gay suffrage, sexuality as a dichon, truth as a dichon, ease as a dichon, success as a dichon, happiness as a dichon, wealth as a dichon, belief as a dichon, faith as a dichon, god as a monad, and so on....

As many of our nation's warriors have discovered social nobility and individual nobility are dialectical opposites. Bu()sh() believes it is 'noble' for our troops to die in a n¤n war for people who have been at war with themselves for millennia. Social 'nobility,' isn't! Ditto social honor! Why? How can society martus aritos society? Society has no excellence: society is mediocre via its adherence to a tragedy of common sense. Vulgi opinio Error!

Nobility is and can only be an individual act! Martus aritos is and can only be an individual act. Classical society has no means to assess individual nobility. Classical society has no means to assess individual martus aritos! Nobility and martus aritos are n¤t classically, tragically common "socially sensible." Classical society is incompetent due its lowest common denominator, "level and fair Marxian socialist playing field," mediocrity. But society has n¤ means to socialistically redistribute nobility and martus aritos: it never will. Quality evolves. Quantity is immutable. Doug - 28Dec2006. (Bold green here is quantum comtext. Bold red here is classical context.)

Society, in Doug's view, can't praise anything except celebrity. But societies' appraisals always find their bases in assessing traits for which they are unqualified to assess. A great example is a Nobel prize. No committee member who votes can even come close to assessing awardees. To do so would require a superhuman effort to understand an awardee's work. As we aver above society has no means of assessing excellence due society's own mediocrity which is dialectically formal, dialectically mechanical while borne of a lowest common sense denominator OSFA Demos-will-democratic, academic and cultural provincialism and parochialism.

We can list similar social malfeasance regarding what society intends by "low, ignoble, and untrustworthy."

Wæ (Doug's 'we' here is n¤t classical society, rather he intends any quantum society of individuals who are quantons(coherent_pluralism,individual_autonomy).) can, wæ have quantum~qua to, remediate Townsend's words quantumly though can wæ n¤t?

Try this,

"A quantum~fabulist will assist an emerging quantumist's quantum~stage to grasp how purity, honor, excellence are Quality quantons of many quantum~complements whose potential stochastic hermeneutics are quintessentially incommensurable across individuals, cultures, societies, nations, planets, solar systems, galaxies, clusters and universes. Quantumly, our challenge is to find ways to assist multi-complement miscibility of those incommensurabilities using omniplex veritas et revereri."

When each of us, individually, does (pragmas) that, we can turn OSFA socially blindered dialectical oppositional Quantity into c¤hærænt~quantum~ræspæct. See our QELR of how classical decoherence via dialectic opposition compares to quantum coherent respect associated with SOrONs.

...

"What will you do?"

Doug 26-31Dec2006.


On Hume's Dilemma AKA Hume's Fork ...

Doug has been working on reviews of Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, and in order to understand Hume's terminology, his A Treatise of Human Nature.

Related that process, we use Simon Blackburn's Oxford Philosophy Dictionary. We need to quote and comment Blackburn re Hume's Dilemma, here.

Blackburn calls Hume's Dilemma, "Hume's Fork."

"Hume's Fork - A name sometimes given to the dilemma that either our actions are determined, in which case we are not responsible for them, or they are the result of random events, in which case we're also not responsible for them."

Let's show Blackburn's sentence again without quotes and highlighted in bold red and violet.

A name sometimes given to the dilemma that either our actions are determined, in which case we are not responsible for them, or they are the result of random events, in which case we're also not responsible for them.

What Doug loves about this 'dilemma' is that SOMthingk forces it into being a dilemma! And that is easy to demonstrate.

Problematic classical terms in Hume's Fork are shown in bold.

Problematic Classical Term Classical Assumptions Quantonics Quantum Remediation
the See our thelogos and our Should Absolute Sceptics Use 'The?'

Quantonics assumes that classicists overuse 'the.' We explain that well in those two links in column left. Essentially, most 'the' usages may simply be eliminated. Others may be corrected via possessive unambiguous referent substitution.

What we attempt to show students of Quantonics re the is how classicism uses 'the' to "definite article" denote a 'specific' as and elevate it to 'general.' In Latin we cite ex cathedra as a great example: from the chair. But n¤ chair is the chair, is it?

When we remediate the to 'a' as "from a chair," said chair loses its political force, and we likely can find concord in that assessment. It is up to you as an individual to choose which is better. It is n¤t up to society to tell you which (definite article vis-à-vis indefinite article) is the 'correct,' 'right,' civil word to use. Too, we must disallow those who socially use the as political force from imposing the both syntactically and semantically upon us as individuals.

Example? GWBu()sh() isn't 'the decider,' rather citizens of USA are an ensemble of deciders, each of them 'a,' n¤t the.

Doug thinks that is what most people 'mean' by 'democracy,' but that isn't democracy, is it? Democracy is a classical social dichon(majority, minority) which divides a culture into the majority and the minority. Evil! Evil itself. Dialectical Error! Why? Classically it places 'a' few in hegemonous authority above the many. A paradox? Indeed, classically, indeed! Doug - 29Dec2006.

either-or Classicists assume that complements are ideally, formally, mechanically, analytically, logically, dialectically 'opposite.' By doing this, they create their own sophisms, since they claim any object has many 'opposites.'1 But formally any object should only have one ideal, logical 'opposite.' How do classicists 'rationalize' this? They, again, create another sophism by claiming there are two realities: logical and physical. So, we see immediately how, dialectic itself survives by implementing n¤t so subtle sophisms! Doug - 28Dec2006.

Bluntly quantum reality refutes dialectic and all its accoutrements including ideal oppositives like 'either-or.'

Quantonics' comprehensive bases of these refutals are what we call "Bases of Judgment." Especially, we ask you to initially focus on what we call "SOM's Bases of Judgment."

determined Classicists assume that history determines 'what happens next.' Worse, they assume a single history which we refer "unit history." Clifford Geertz describes it like this, "Absolutism removes judgment from history." In other words, SOM's unit history mandate that reality is absolutely determined, a clockwork mechanism. Einstein, et al., believe(d) this. Its Cultural Relativism analogue, Geertz narrates thus, "Relativism [AKA pluralism - Doug] disables judgment."

Quantumists assume that reality is stochastic! That means reality is a vast ensemble of processes all sharing both greater and lesser interrelationships. We call latter, "quantum included~middle." All processes in quantum reality affect to greater and lesser probabilities all processes in quantum reality.

Ramifications of quantum ensemble stochastics are huge, and they are simply unfathomable for nearly all classicists.

There is n¤ 'notion' of classical 1-1 correspondent causes thence effects! There are ensemble quantum~stochastic affectings and outcomings.

Essence of those two views are:

  • Classicists have 'no' free will, and
  • Quantumists have l¤cal free will in a massively global ensemble of quantum~free~wills, including
    • natural~reality's ensemble free will, and
    • natural~reality's complement's free will.

Classicists' view is devastating in its OSFA pessimism! It is ugly, unreal, hegemonous, and it is essence of dialectic's desire for war. Doug - 28Dec2006.

not Classicists assume that negation is objective.

Classically A - A = 0. Classically you minus you equals zero.

Both are classical sophisms (due A's and you's mechanical self-reference). In order for them to work both assume reality holds still and no object evolves.

But reality simply is quantum flux, never standing still, all evolving endlessly.

To make matters even more tenuous for classical thingking, zero doesn't exist! What classicists refer 'zero' viewed quantumly is absolute change: quantum~process.

random Classicists assume that random is 'opposite' determined.

Quantum stochasticity evokes classical notions of randomness. Quantum stochastic process appears random to those who adhere CTMs. To a classicist, any actuality which changes 'uncertainly,' 'indeterminately,' is 'random.'

But that is quantum~reality! Quantum reality is uncertain. Classical randomness is analogous quantum ensemble choosings.

Classicists socialize their herds so that they can minimize mental, emotional, political, intellectual, and spiritual 'randomness.' If you are a quantum (classically 'random') thinker, to any classicist, you are "uncivil."

Doug - 28Dec2006.

events Classicists assume that event is a process-free, zero-latency change of state. Quantum reality assumes there are no 'classical events.' All is process. All is change. Quanta, however, do zero~latency (to best of our k~now~ings) jumps, but quanta themselves are extremely high frequency perpetual processes.
1 Classicism, in this irrational 'act,' induces its own version of "many truths," and "omniplex veritas." This classical act obliterates SOM's assumption of OGC and OGT. Somehow classicists continue to conveniently ignore this enormous Error of thought.

So let's restate Hume's Dilemma as bullet items:

Do you re cognize this?

This is foundation, dialectical foundation, for institutional hegemony and Dennett's prescient ejaculation, "helpless innocents."

"Helpless innocents" are, dialectically, 'not' responsible for their actions. They can't be! They have no free will if every action or random event happens without their making a choice. That string of garbage justifies catholicism and political hegemony!

Quantum reality turns all that upside down. Individuals choose and institutions and their leaders serve. But individuals have to be responsible. We have to teach individuals to be individually responsible. Like Rosa Parks, and Josephine Baker, and Martin Luther King. Individuals act while society serves. Individuals are responsible and responsibly make choices which society then follows and adheres.

But individual quantum responsibility isn't a classical dichon(not_responsible, responsible). It is a quanton(n¤t_responsible,responsible)! Quantum individuals are partially "n¤t responsible" while mostly responsible for their ensemble's islandic attractor's interrelationshipings. And quantum individuals are partially responsible and much less ("partially n¤t" ) responsible for their ensemble's attractor quantum~interrelationshipings'~complementings. See Fact is N¤t Value Aside just below. Doug - 20Jun2009. Here is a graphic:

When we want to show that simply as a quanton, let's tentatively try this:

quanton(

  ).

We have issues here, too, both of quantum said (as your...) and quantum unsaid (as others'...), and of quantum said (as others'...) and quantum unsaid (as yours...). Also, in that large graphic, macroscopic quantum uncertainty appears lucidly, graphically. Doug.

Those of you real time folk, just for fun, apply above to multi-core parallel-processing issues...key here is comparison of a classical approach and a quantonic approach. Former is all about formal, mechanical, analytic, dialectical and object-oriented, usually master-slave state-ic 'connections.' Latter is about adaptive, heterogeneous, self-other EIMA interrelationshipings. Quantum thæ¤ry of Quantonic interrelationshipings applies to all ræhlihty: it is implicitly n¤n specific, but we may use it specifically.

"What will you do?" (That query may n¤t be stated "What will we do?" if we is classical society! We as OSFA society cann¤t do! Individuals do, ensembles of individuals do!)

Doug 26-28Dec2006.


On Hume's Law ...

Simon Blackburn, in addition to shortcutting our path of discovery to Hume's Dilemma, offers similarity in his words on Hume's Law:

Hume's Law is, according Blackburn, "A name for the contested view that it is impossible to derive an 'ought' from an 'is,' or in other words, that there is no logical bridge over the gap between fact and value."

Blackburn then refers Hume's original A Treatise of Human Nature, Book III 'Of Morals,' Part I 'Of virtue and vice in general,' Section I 'Moral distinctions not deriv'd from reason,' which we quote its last paragraph thus,

"I cannot forbear adding to these reasonings an observation, which may, perhaps, be found of some importance. In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, `tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention wou'd subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv'd by reason."

Blackburn goes on to say that this 'law' appears as an afterthought following other discussion.

Instead of comparing our quantum English language remediation to Hume's classical problematics, let's just jump right in and go to essence of what we read in this paragraph.

Essence is that Hume invokes SOM's Knife. How? Blackburn's assessment exhibits what we intend. "...there is no logical bridge over the gap between fact and value." That clause specifies, using common vulgate dialectic, SOM's Wall. Blackburn offers a concise Humean indictment of Hume's own bastion of reason: classical dialectic! Further, it is a quantum~indictment, which for us is breathtaking!

How does that relate to what Hume wrote?

For Blackburn 'fact' is logic. For Blackburn 'value' is an issue of morality ("vice and virtue"). Hume describes Blackburn's schism (following Doug's QTM complementarospectives) quantumly, "...the distinction of vice and virtue [from fact] is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv'd by reason." Doug's bold green, italics, and brackets.

Hume would never permit this, we sense, but his "not" and "nor" may be perceived as subjective negation, Bergson style.

Were he to allow it, our view is that his clause, which we have italicized partially and emboldened dark green, begs quantum~everywhere~included~middle~associationings as quantum~remediation of his 'relations.'

Blackburn's "...there is no logical bridge over the gap between fact and value," exhibits explicitly what we mean and intend by dichon(value, fact). To any classicist "fact is not value." To any classicist fact and value are segregated by an ideal dialectical excluded~middle.

Begin 9Apr2009 Dugger Aside on "...fact is not value:"

We may elucidate Hume's "fact is not value" in another autodidactic way: "...monism is 'not' pluralism," "we cann¤t classically QMV and QEV monisms and pluralisms," and similarly "we cann¤t classically QmV state and dynamicity."

Let's be clearer. Classically fact is a specific monism. Value is a pluralistic ensemble heterogeneity. Fact is scalar. Value is quantum~stochastic~omnistribution itself. If we treat fact as scalar and value as an adapting ensemble, we may not classically 'compare' them, except to say a fact may be a sample and hold scalar of said ensemble. Trouble is classical scalars cann¤t represent evolving value. Scalars are 'dead,' stopped. Evolving value is alive, changing.

Quantumly, using Quantonics' wisdom, we change 'fact' to 'factings.' Now 'factings' are alive and evolving and changing. We can use quantum~factings to quantum~ømnihtør quantum~valueings and vice versa. This is essence of quantum~responsibility: turning classical dichons into quantum~quantons. See Hume's Dilemma above, and our omniscussion on quantum~responsibility.

Doug - 9Apr2009.

End 9Apr2009 Dugger Aside on "...fact is not value."

Alternatively Pirsig's MoQ and Renselle's Quantonics exhibit what we mean and intend by quanton(value,fact). To any MoQite, to any quantumist, "factings aræ ihn valuings and valuings aræ ihn factings." In quantum~philosophy valuings and factings and all reality and all reality's complementings share animate quantum~EIMAings.

Now, please permit us to compare and place in quantum~exegetic complementarospectives "was, is, and ought."

grammar historyings direct experiencings expectationings Doug's comments
tense: was is ought

Ponder semasiology of th~ought. Does it proemially, a priori beg a likelihood? Is th~ought looking Peircean~Jamesean at your 12?

Doug - 10Nov2014.

temporality, English: pastings nowings futurings Quantumized Feynman lazy-X AKA space-time light-cone models. Classical version is unitemporal. Quantum version is heterotemporal.
temporality, Latin: a posteriorai a iamai a futuriorai Quantumly all including space, mass, time and gravity are flux essential heterogeneous EIMA processings.
stochastics: probability plausibility likelihood This is quantum version embellished from Henry Margenau notions.
classical morality: virtue monistic orthodoxy, OSFA, social either right or wrong · as SOM: evil AKA Satan AKA Error
· as CR: chaos, anarchy
· as MoQ: quantum~better

Mix of notions: anthropological, epistemological, gnostic, metaphysical, philosophical, religious, etc.

To achieve MoQ's quantum~better CTMs' SPoVsc must evolve to QTMs' SP¤Vsq. Here we may offer a direct solution to Hume's "There is no bridge twixt fact and value."

Simply, HotMeme™ - Evolutionings are reality's bridgings among all factings and naturally~selected potential Valuings.™ - HotMeme™.

That HotMeme™ is powerful! Another HotMeme:

HotMeme™ - Natural selection issi choice: AKA heresy! HotMeme:

It invalidates all dialectical bases of determinate OSFA classical science and anti-heretical OSFA classical religion! You see this egg...? Doug - 12Aug2007.

quantum morality: martus aritos plural ensembles' choosings, heterodoxy, gn¤stic individual hæræsy betterings Quantum memeos shown in this row derive almost directly from Pirsig's ZMM and Lila - with assistance from Elaine Pagels' opus. Doug - 30Dec2006.

Perhaps redundantly we ask you to view our graph of PNFings.

If we may now, excuse our need to take Hume's whole paragraph and quantonically "beat up on it." It, in our view, needs some "quantum~bullying."

"I cannot forbear adding to these reasonings an observation, which may, perhaps, be found of some importance. In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, `tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention wou'd subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv'd by reason."

Doug's bold violet shows Hume's usage of classical problematic terms. Doug's bold green highlights a key expression-clause which we wish to discuss in greater scope. Doug - 14Jan2007.

What has been Doug's major complaint against Hume other than Hume's intransigent dialectic? For example, his just above, "...in the ordinary way of reasoning, ... instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not..." Obtain how Hume's "...is and is not..." is hylic-dialectic's SOM wall. Hume's rejection of probability (and its quantum accoutrements) via his dialectical rejection of absolute scepticism.

Doug asks readers to parse classical 'ordinary.' Try this, or-di-n-ary. OR and DI together are a huge hylic retardation tell. Common sense. Commune sense. Dialectic ""...in the ordinary way of reasoning,... " reason. Dialectic, thus problematic, language. Classical mental retardation. Vulgi Opinio Error! Classical social 'value.' Kindergarten potty time academe. Red text updates 25May2012 - Doug.

What is Hume's missing "...new relation or affirmation, `tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it?" What did Hume just do?

Hume begged quantum reality!

Hume also begs: Pirsig's "Bings Value Aings' preconditionings," Peirce's "abduction," Doug's "QTM~pull vis-à-vis CTM push," and Bergson's "spontaneity can explain inertia, but inertia cannot explain spontaneity." Red text updates 25May2012 - Doug.

What is Hume's missing "...new relation and affirmation?" Quantum~waves. Quantum flux. Flux as Quantum~Likelihoodings~Omnistributionings. Flux as quantum~interrelationshipings' crux. Hume's missing "...n¤væl quanton."

Hume begged quantum reality, but couldn't see it despite his own face. He described it beautifully and then denied it as "absolute scepticism." How close he came, how close he came, how close...

Blackburn mentions a third Hume Principle which is naught but classical science's penultimate crown jewel: 1-1 correspondence. 'Tis bogus, unfortunately. Quanta (as units) are absolute flux, each omniffering one another. There is no way in quantum reality to establish a classical delusion of 1-1 correspondence. Thinkq about it! Classical correspondence requires stabile simultaneity, another classical 'scientific' bogosity. Classical science as John Horgan warned, "Is Dead!" Quantum reality makes classical science extinct.

Flux is durational, dynamically. So we cann¤t classically 'measure' flux at a point (i.e., classical 'scalar' notions of phase are simply bogus...). We cann¤t classically 'stop' durational quantum~flux. We cann¤t classically scalarbate flux! All 'measurementings' of flux must be done with other flux. Any such interrelationshiping can only manifest dynamic phasicityings. And we must use phasementings to describe them. Doug - 16Apr2008.

Doug 29-30Dec2006.


Thank you for reading,

Doug - 1Jan2007.

See you here again in early February, 2007!

Doug.


Arches

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
USA
1-317-THOUGHT

©Quantonics, Inc., 2006-2027 — Rev. 7Aug2010  PDR — Created 26-31Dec2006  PDR
(11,14-15Jan2007 rev - Replace mistakenly typed "Josephine Parker" with corrected "Josephine Baker." Add bold green highlights to 'Hume's Dilemma' quote. Add 'Was Is and Ought' anchor.)
(20,30Jan2007 rev - Add link to 'problematic terms.' Add 'Was Is Ought' anchor. Remove quantized 'o' from a classical mnemonic: SP¤V tp SPoV.)
(7Feb2007 rev - Add 'Either-Or-Classical -Problematic' anchor under Hume's Dilemma.)
(12Aug2007 rev - Update MoQ commentary under 'Classical Morality' in Hume's Law News item.)
(20Dec2007 rev - Add 'Quantum Responsibility' anchor.)
(16Apr2008 rev - Add 'discover' link under our exegesis of 'Hume's Law.' Add red text tying classical 1-1 'correspondence' to duphous notions of classical 'simultaneity.' Reset legacy red text.)
(31May2008 rev - Place bold violet emphasis on Hume's Law, Hume's classically-dialectically invalid 'law.')
(10Mar2009 rev - Change wingdings font to gif. Adjust table sizes to percent.)
(9Apr2009 rev - Add 'fact is not value' aside under 'Hume's Law.')
(20Jun2009 rev - Add 'Fact is Not Value Aside' anchor. Add link from omniscussion on "Quantum Responsibility" to "Fact is Not Value Aside.")
(1Feb2010 rev - Add 'Logical Versus Physical' anchor under Hume's Dilemma, topic 'either-or.')
(7Aug2010 rev - Reset legacy markups.)
(25May2012 rev - Add 'New Relation Affirmation' anchor and red text under Hume's Law narrative.)