of Jeffrey Satinover's

Doug's perspective of Jeffrey Satinover's The Quantum Brain
______________________________________________A Millennium III Work of Genius
______________________________________________2001, John Wiley & Sons, 276 pages, including index. -
27March2002-23February2003, and counting...
Doug Renselle

We started this review on 17Mar2002. We decided to offer what we have, now, as is, just prior to Quantum Mind 2003. We review Chapters 1-12 in rough draft form. Chapters 13-17 are yet to be reviewed. Satinover's Chapter 11, titled 'EPR: Wanted Dead and Alive,' we cover voluminously in our separate critical review of EPR's 1935 paper popularly titled EPR. Satinover's Chapter 11 mast quote, appropriately is, "We know that the deterministic world of classical mechanics does not exist. Once we have bitten the quantum apple, our loss of innocence is permanent." From R. Shankar, Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 1994. We would say, though, in Quantonicsese, "…our gain of quantum epiphany is enduring."

See Stuart Hameroff's Review of The Quantum Brain www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/brink.html (link is dead)
Also go to www.amazon.com (no Quantonics affiliation) and look for a Satinover peer's superb review of The Quantum Brain

Satinover's thelogos, sample averaged from seven disparate pages is just over 4%. This is very good compared to other authors whom we have reviewed. We find Satinover's writing style much more palatable, partially due to his overall lower usage of the.

Satinover, in our view and despite his book's title, is more classical than quantum. Yet he is making rapid progress toward entering a more holistic interpretation and perspective of quantum reality (to which Hameroff alludes in his review above).

One of Satinover's biggest problems which most of us share with him, is that English language is profoundly problematic when one uses it to try to describe quantum reality and quantum reality's miraculous non-classical phenomena.

English language is problematic, in our view, in its vigorous and extreme grammatical, syntactical, semantic, hermeneutic, and predicate logical-dialectical attempts to describe unequivocally, unambiguously, completely, consistently, and veraciously a presumed classical, substantial, objective reality. None of those unilateral classical adjectives offers an inkling of adequate descriptions of quantum reality. Generally speaking, end of Millennium II English language (and any classical radically mechanistic language and mathematics) is innately, by human design and lingual transformational evolution, quantum inept.

So reader, as a potential student of Quantonics, you may wish to be aware of language issues while you read our review of The Quantum Brain.

In addition to your reading our review of Satinover's book here, we recommend you visit Amazon.com (no Quantonics affiliation). One review of The Quantum Brain which appears there is by a fellow psychiatrist/psychologist of Satinover's who provides an excellent review, absent our own Quantonics caveats and embellishments.

As satellite, but deeply interested, observers of neural networking (NN) technologies, those of us in Quantonics feel obliged to express our predilections up front. Nearly all NN modeling which we read about is based upon mathematics. For example, we have seen very little in areas of theoretical and applied organic biological NN models. What we do see appears to nearly always be in attempts to recreate classical technologies from biological forms, i.e., classical mathematical/mechanical modeling of objectified/axiomatized bioforms. Our predilections follow folk of David Bohm's and Richard Feynman's ilk. Bohm said, "We need a new quantum non~mechanics of reality." Bohm, from his Quantum Theory, Chapter 8, Section 26. Subsequently Feynman told his students he felt quantum computers probably would have to be quantum real (vis-à-vis classically mechanical).

In our view, Bohm's and Feynman's general quantum reality comments apply to NNs too. If neural networks are ever to succeed in meeting expectations for Self-Organizing Nets (SONs) which act like quantum biological brains, we must discard our classical legacy concepts! Various mathematics disciplines used to model NN system(s), are purely mechanical. Mathematical mechanical symbology, due its innate transformational state-icity is incapable of representing polytemporal everywhere~associative neurons in massively heterogeneous, animate, locally cohesive, tunneling, superposed, included~middle, complementary quantum islandic modes.

Perhaps most important of all, quantum real neurons do not contain classical information! Neurons cannot contain classical information! Neurons do not stop! Neurons cannot stop! Neurons cannot have classical analytic state! Every real neuron is always changing and always capable of polyparacontextual coobsfective change.

We are amazed how almost no one appears to us to understand this significant difference: animate quantum reality vis-à-vis state-ic classical reality — animate, quantum real neurons vis-à-vis state-ic classical unreal neurons.

It is our humble but (growing daily more) adamant view that all attempts to model animate quantum reality — neural network models, genetic algorithm models, whatever models — using state-ic classical digms and classical computing machines will fail! When we impose classical analytic state (and its plethoric other reality-attenuating accoutrements) on our neuron models, we deprive those models of any chance of real neuronal mimesis.

Satinover cogently explains how NNs learn quanta of information associatively everywhere, with each neuron in a NN learning its own contextual perspectives of an information quantum. (A nearly exact analogue of Robert M. Pirsig's discussion of a nonclassical notion of "unlimited hypotheses" (for analogy, read "unlimited association") what Pirsig appellated as a kind of humorous "Parkinson's law" which Doug expectantly, then and there, so many years ago, highlighted as "Many truths." See Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Chapter 10, pp. 99-101 (depending on which edition/publisher you refer), Bantam paperback, ~1978.) Notice how Satinover's description of an information quantum is that of everywhere~associative, nonlocal, quantum superposition. Information quanta have no classical Descartesian objective propertyesque <x,y,z> 'locus.'

We consider this one of Satinover's most adept disclosures. When one reads histories of quantum theory/mechanics/science, one discovers how early theoreticians (Bohr, Einstein, Pauli, Dirac, Heisenberg, etc.), due their classical mathematical predilections, unitemporally and unispatially objectified quanta.

A good example of this is their classical mathematical description of a quantum's dipole moment (related to Feynman's fermionic pendulum "wobble").

P(t) =

Uqe 2ivqt

In this silly (due objectification of quanta subscripts 'q') classical 'equation' an assumption is made that reality is synchronously unitemporal: "One space-proxied time" fits all reality. Another assumption is made that quanta, shown as 'q' subscripts, are classically objective, lisr. As a result then, frequency too, shown as v_q in their exponential expression's superscript, are thus objectively (stoppably state-ic scalar magnitude) quantized.

Objective lisr quantization as shown in that classical 'equation' eliminates any possibility of Satinover's quantum animate, everywhere~associative, included~middle, coobsfective NN quanta!

This is an enormous mistake!!! An enormous classical thing-king method (CTM) error!! Satinover, modestly, perhaps innocently exposes this classical faux pas, this mind-corrupting blunder. What Satinover shows us is that quanta may not be treated classically as objects. Rather, indeed, they are quantum entities which we linguistically refer as Dawkinsian "memes" and quantum~hermeneutically interpret (I²APTSO²) as Quantonics' "quantons." Neither memes nor quantons may be viewed as classical objects. Objects are innately incapable of memetic evolution. Objects are innately (i.e., by human trans-form-ational design) incapable of quantonic EIMA quantum vacuum flux mediated animacy. Latter is Satinover's hint, which we need to uncloak explicitly here. Understanding this, for folk who work in NN and AI technologies, offers Value beyond measure in being able to apply quantum realness to NN and AI products.

This animate, direct experience, quantum real NN learning is vastly ¤mnihfferænt from how von Neumann architecture memories and content-addressable memories locally store objective properties in single RAM locations — as ¤mnihfferænt as quantum ræhlihty is from classical reality. Classical storage of information stops that information! Stopped information is not real information! Neurons are quantum processes which may not be analytically stopped, stored and saved on a classical know-ledge. More generally, reality is a plethora of quantum processes which may not be analytically stopped, stored and saved on a classical know-ledge.

We took a look at a recent (1995) text by James P. Coughlin and Robert H. Baran, titled Neural Computation in Hopfield Networks and Boltzman Machines. It is nearly solid mathematics, page after page.

We looked at their seven item summary of "critical points" regarding Hopfield nets. Each criticism is classical in nature, and assumes classical NN models! One example is: Critical Point 2) "The Hopfield network converges to meaningless states…" which do not correspond to what said network was supposed to learn. This is a ludicrous classicism! First, those nets being criticized are classical models. Second, language and mathematics used to describe them are classical. Third, we may not look at individual neurons in a NN and expect to see 'meaningful' classical information. NNs are very similar to genetic algorithms. When we look at code generated by any genetic algorithm, we find what appears as nonsense to classical minds. But that code works, and it is tighter and more efficient and secure than classical code written by a classically trained sentient.

Readers, please be aware that we are taking Satinover's more classical perspectives from his book and embellishing them with extended Quantonic memes. Where Satinover provided some seeds, we planted them in fertile quantonic soil and allowed them to grow. Instead of describing Satinover's seeds, we decided to describe our extrapolated outcomes as infants, perhaps pre-adolescent Satinover trees, still in an emerging growth process.

In addition to taking that approach, we also highlight some strengths and weaknesses which we see in The Quantum Brain.

Jeffrey Satinover is a mature and brilliant psychologist. His quality as an author and as a scientist arises, in our opinion, from his willingness to step outside of a classical-mind-science's mythos into other disciplines, including quantum science, plus physics, biology, and engineering/design of AI accoutrements — quantum computers, self~organizing networks, etc. His book is a superb description of how humanity is commencing its millennial transition from classical mechanical notions about either mind or body to quantum non-mechanical memes of both mind and body. But he goes even further! His book arrives at what we in Quantonics call "Earth's Millennium III quantum tsunami cusp, which is changing its rate of impact exponentially, now during Millennium III's first decade." His greatest, yet unstated, epiphany shows us that The Quantum Brain is everywhere associative in our quantum multiverse!

Fortunately, now, at Millennium III's commencement, all of us may choose to use quantum hermeneutics to interpret what a ubiquitous associative quantum brain means and exalt its unlimited potential for humanity during Earth's third millennium. When we use that special word hermeneutics we must be mindful of Philip R. Wallace's I²APTSO².

An itemized list, of implications an Earth~meme of mind as a multiversal associative network foretells, is essentially unlimited, but we can mention a few, and allow readers to innovate their own. (If you want to share some with us, please do. We will attach your contributions to this review for others to contemplate.)

First, it means that each of our quantum stage minds is a quanton of both our local mind and reality's multiversal mind. (E.g., quanton(reality's_multiversal_mind,our_local_mind), and more quantumly quanton(y*,y) latter whose more classical Dirac analogue is < y* | y > where that Diracian Sheffer stroke represents, essentially, Aristotle's classical excluded-middle.) When we experience directly any meme, that meme is in an emergent process of being, both in our local minds and/included~middle in our multiversal quantum complement! Each thought that we have, which is emerging into actuality, animately included~middle associates with reality's entire multiversal mind.

As you can see, this is a far cry from classical local perspectives of a sentient mind trapped in a classical brain's box. Too, as students of Quantonics, you may perceive how Satinover's fully associative (and Kafatos and Nadeau in their The Conscious Universe's) multiversal quantum mind jibes with Quantonics' meme of multiversal quantum awareness. (See next occurrence of 'quantum awareness.')

Second, it means that all multiversal sentient's minds quantum complement one another! Interpreted literally, our minds compenetrate, commingle, coinside one another via quantum associative vacuum flux.

Third, it means, in our Quantonics view, that we can more routinely access a quantum mind vastly beyond our own classical local mind if we choose to leave our classical baggage behind and enter a larger quantum realm.

Forth, it means, many of our memes are, via reserve energy's quantum vacuum flux, shared with other local minds whose neural network association biases are both reduced (out of our 'normal' classical settings, into associative regions closer to what Satinover calls "genius") and conditioned via quantum think~king modes (QTMs). Doug calls this associative, sharing process "epiphanous" when a moment of apparent local insight just happens, apparently out of nowhere. In a sense, our thoughts themselves are insecure, especially to other well~biased and ~conditioned quantum stages. We are secure though, in that no perceiver of our thoughts can (yet) assess from whom they came.

We see these themes elsewhere too, other than in philosophy, science, physics, psychology, etc., for example in science fiction: Heinlein's Old Ones in his Stranger in a Strange Land, and in metaphysics: Bergson's intellectual sympathy, James' perceptual flux, Pirsig's Dynamic Quality, Daniel Quinn's (quantum~) shape~shifters, and so on…

Doug, personally, experiences these epiphanies rather routinely (at least several times each week). Initially, as our former proselytized and brain-washed classical selves, we rejected them, as anomalous. More recently, we just accept them, and allow them to bear fruit in our research efforts. Henri Poincaré described similar experiences. So did William James (See especially his Varieties of Religious Experience.). We intuit John Forbes Nash (A Beautiful Mind) did too, but everyone called it "schizophrenia," and psychiatrists performed ECS-annihilation 'therapy' on him to 'fix' him. We think Pirsig did (See his Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Lila.). We ~know Hermann Hesse did, as he describes so vividly in his works (See his Magister Ludi (Nobel prize, 1946; ludi Latin semantic is ~game) and his Steppenwolf's Harry Haller.). William James Sidis describes similar personal phenomena in his Unconscious Intelligence.

Fifth, it means a beginning toward ending SOM's hegemonous dominance as Western culture's premiere thing-king mythos. Note how this aspect of our quantum tsunami is already underway and nearing a stage of paradigmatic/pragmadigmatic avalanche, now in 2002-2003.

Sixth, it means a whole novel and emergent non~mechanical meta~pragmadigm for philosophy, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, science (both "hard" and "soft"), physics, mathematics, humanities, et al.

Seventh, it means incipience of Earth~wide outrage against culture wars which have historically taken place on radically formal and final battlefields of Homerian Greco-Roman wrath. And so on…

Satinover makes a connection to Gary Taubes' Evolving a Conscious Machine, from Discover Magazine's June, 1998 issue. Satinover provides additional quantum insight into what Taubes and we attempt to describe about what is happening in Darwin's Chip.

Satinover describes very well what Self~Organizing Networks do and how they work. We think you will be amazed at his clear and consumable prose about SONs. He even shows us how to build a simple table top model (Hexapawn) which works! We were astounded by this part of his book!

His dual phrase for our "Quantum Tsunami" is "The Quantum Crisis." He tells us about this crisis in his Introduction. What modern scientists call "The (French) Enlightenment" was actually an endarkenment. Classical methods of thing-king and classical languages are impediments to understanding quantum reality. Our crisis is to leave said endarkenment and enter a novel (e.g., Quantonic) realm of genuine quantum understanding and Quantum Lightings.

But in order to do so, we must first realize that quantum reality, as David Bohm told us so many years ago, is NOT a mechanical reality! All our tools and languages and thing-king methods, at Millennium III's commencement, are mechanical, though. How do we rapidly evolve nearly all Earth's cultures away from classical concepts toward novel and apparently paradoxical quantum memes?

Therein lies said crisis. It makes Y2K look like a walk in that proverbial park!

When we realize that we have to essentially discard all mechanical tools, methods, and languages (plus a plethora of other classical baggage too large to mention here — especially classical reputations and empires), including mathematics, matrix mechanics, wave mechanics, predicate logic, current primary, secondary, and tertiary educational and academic teaching processes/institutions/infrastructure/etc., virtually all Aristotelian and Newtonian concepts, and so on…we begin to see an enormity almost beyond human imagination. It appears an impossible challenge…an impossible Chautauqua.

In Chapter two Satinover discusses how neurons work. He provides conceptual models of them. His models are, though, apparent to us, yet mechanical, still classical. In spite of this, quantum phenomena may arise from these classical models. We see this as quantum reality saying s~he wants us to uncloak he~r and to learn to be k~now~ing her better. Accomplishing that, we sense, requires an evolutionary process, and that will mitigate somewhat our 'now' apparent quantum crisis. All of us, our languages, tools, methods, etc. must evolve. (Elsewhere in Quantonics Doug claims that this evolution, especially regarding language, is not possible without a step change, a quantum leap out of classicism's current detainers: its vicious loop and box, and its disablers.)

Perhaps our biggest cracked mirror with The Quantum Brain is Satinover's endless praise of "brilliant" mathematics. Yet near book's end he tells his readers unambiguously that "quantum reality ('the world') is not mechanical!" See page 217 of 276 total in his 2001 1^st edition. If there is a single appropriate descriptor for mathematics, it is "mechanical!" Its symbols are middle-exclusive! Were mathematics' symbols middle~inclusive (i.e., quantum), Peano's axioms would not hold, modularity would not hold, independence would not hold, predication would not hold, induction would not hold, integers would not hold, counting objects would not hold, etc. We see this as residue of Satinover's own classicism. We find much of such residue in The Quantum Brain's text.

In Chapter five Satinover tells us that every man-made mechanical neural network requires "external direction." Of course this limitation arises from application and implementation of classical excluded-middle mechanical-methods and -manufacturing. We can only eliminate "external direction" (we call it classical hegemony, classical totalitarian control) by setting our artificial neural nets quantum~free. Our interim solution to this issue is to do near term neural net (NN) modelings in biological (naturally quantum) emerqants. As we learn from those efforts, we can then (perhaps) evolve inorganic NN modelings, closer to what Taubes, DeGaris, Harvey, and Thompson describe. Our view, is that near term, those inorganic efforts are like trying to get fusion using multi-$billion tokamaks/Tokameks and colliders: it will be better to do table top (e.g., deuterated acetone sonoluminescence) approaches first. In our analogy, we think it will be better and easier to do table top biological NNs first, and gradually phase-in inorganic NN attempts.

TQB HotMeme™ Everywhere Association Enabler™ Key to grasping what is most problematic here, is that atoms' nuclei and electrons' probability distributions are, like The Quantum Brain, everywhere included~middle associative in our quantum multiverse! Too, we must recognize our greatest disabler here is continued usage of mechanical, objective, Classical Thing-king Methods (CTMs). HotMeme™

Today, since ~1980s, we have close approximations of SONs. They are called "pattern directing," among several other appellations. Obviously classical 'experts' have chosen a direct inorganic route to their anticipated 'ultimate success.' We question, vehemently, this approach, but we praise its genuine moves away from classical concepts toward quantum percepts. Its basis is mathematics, and that will detain progress enormously. Dump those mechanical mathematicians and hire some quantum biologists! Mechanics is passé…mechanics is dead!

Our favorite portion of Chapter six is Satinover's description of SONs using graphs of different probability functions to model a SON's classical "uninspired" thought vis-à-vis "genius" thought vis-à-vis "insane" thought. See his graphic on page 68, figure 6-9. Yummy! We adapted that graphic to assist our Quantonics description of How to Tap Into Reserve Energy.

Our favorite paragraph in Chapter seven is, where, on page 77, Satinover describes how to model turbulence. We absconded this paragraph to quote it in our Quantons as Wind & Water Waves. See his paragraph quoted there at top of page. He describes a nearly perfect analogue of our two-plus year old Quantonic solution to Feynman's question, "…[how] to make a theory of how wind makes ocean waves grow…"

Also, in Chapter seven, on page 83 he shows how utterly naïve, even stupid, are our current classical views of thermodynamics. Innovative quantum pioneers have been told repeatedly that their ideas were "impossible" due to classical thermodynamic 'laws.' Classicists see entropy only as posentropy. In quantum reality, 'thermodynamics' isn't even an appropriate name for a wide variety of quantum entropy transactions, including transitions/transactions/ontologies among: posentropy, zeroentropy, negentropy and partial/mixentropy. For example, quantum vacuum flux's negentropy is temperature~free, gravity~free, time~free, space~free (indeed, it is fully 'cloaked,' thus quantum 'number~' free; Dr. Irving Stein calls it "nonspace"). QVF has no temperature! So how can we call it 'thermodynamic?' If you want to know a tad more about this topic, read Mae-wan Ho's excellent, the Rainbow and the Worm. Also, search WWW for "negentropy," and "quantum entropy."

Our favorite sentence in Chapter seven, occurs at chapter end on page 86, "Edward Fredkin, one of the great early AI pioneers at MIT, concluded that parallel computational capacity is woven into the very fabric of matter itself; that reality is, as it were, a massive cellular automaton, and that intelligence at every level was a necessary concomitant. In this perspective, turbulent flow really is computation…That is analogously how we ought to consider evolution." WoW MoM (XX8XX)!!! Fabulous! Bravo! This is where Satinover doesn't tell his readers that our multiverses are A Quantum Brain, everywhere associative.

Chapter eight, was a yucky trudge for us, and leaves its readers with a purely classical, anti-quantum perspective and conclusion: "Man is a machine!" This resounds like David Deutsch!

Not to worry, though, Chapter nine transitions us to Part II of his text which he calls "Miracles." Chapter nine commences our novel and infant epiphanies of a non-classical reality, a reality whose magic is almost all quantum.

Chapter nine is where Satinover chooses to discuss DeGaris, Harvey, and Thompson.

In his anti-mechanical, Chapter nine-ending rant, Satinover says, "It would be fine poetic justice, should our construction of thinking machines that turn out to be not really machines at all enable us, for the first time in four hundred years [i.e., since that mechanical SOMwit Newton], to see from a scientific perspective that neither are we. To see how this may be so, we turn to the mysteries of the quantum world and their unexpected intersections with the human brain." Page 103.

Chapter 10 starts by Satinover telling us how Bohr had finally triumphed over Einstein in Brussels, in October, 1930. "…But this evening, in a flash of genius, Bohr appeared to have turned the tables on [Einstein]…It was impossible. Only a child could truly love the claims of quantum mechanics that Bohr championed: that physical particles lacked fixed positions and velocities (more precisely, momentum, the product of an object's mass and velocity)—that to the extent you knew one, the other was vague—not merely that one's knowledge of it was vague; that entire atoms could have a place in both space and time as solid objects and yet infinitely spread out as ripples in the fabric of some undetectable medium; that the universe was filled with events that had no cause whatsoever." Page 107. Our bold, brackets, ellipses, …

After reading that paragraph, one expects genuine quantum enlightenment from Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, but no, and sadly, he goes on to show us his classically fundamental CV, his classical know-ledge.

Since he denies you, our readers, some enlightenment, allow us a moment to assist you based on our quote in that penultimate paragraph. Next time you are at a dinner table with family/friends try this: Ask one person, then all, "Where are you?" Classicists usually will point to themselves and say, "I am here." What Satinover's quoted sentences above say is, and we can now see how he blew a marvelous opportunity to depict quantum reality in its most spectacular anthropological emerqancy by answering, "No, you are everywhere — each of you is A Quantum Being, everywhere associative in our Quantum Multiverses and thus included~middle commingling to greater and lesser degrees all of our Quantum Multiverses' constituents." Reader, please con(m)sider how this topic relates to our web page titled How to Tap Into Reserve Energy.

Satinover sees only a Maxwellian posentropy reality. As a result he completely blows chapter 10's remainder: he denies classical causality, but then goes on to tell us that chaos is classically mechanical and thus classically causal! This is just plain bilge. We apologize for him being predominately a psychiatrist, and as we too have many weaknesses, he is apparently weak in classical vis-à-vis quantum notions of mechanics and causality. One implication of Satinover's classical chaos assumption is that equilibrium is classical too. Rather, chaos_q and equilibrium_q are antinomial_q~complements_q of one another: quantons(chaos,equilibria). Flux middle~inclusion_q issi everywhere~associative_q, begging antinomial_q~complementation_q hologral~energy~wellings~pairwise of all quantons(flux_q,flux_q). Doug - 15Mar2015.

Satinover, like most mind-numbed classicists, fails to see quantum reality's larger perspective: one of posentropy, zeroentropy, negentropy, and partials and mixtures of those. He claims chaos is mechanical and follows (man's finite-intellect-perceived) rules.

Of course chaos, when run in/on a classical machine (here, we are speaking of mechanical/formal models of chaos: Fortran, BASIC, Pascal, C+-+-+, Java, et al., or gate array finite state machines), appears mechanical! Run a classical formal language computer algorithm modeling chaos and you get a mechanical chaos! Classical excluded-middle recursion simply is not analogous quantum included~middle recursion! (See our Fractal Connection.) Do similarly in a digital electronic (formal, mechanistic) piece of hardware, and you get mechanical chaos! Why? Both of those environments (attempt to) deny quantum reality! Both of those environments try to "design out" any non-mechanical (i.e., quantum) phenomena. As a result mechanical models of chaos innately (i.e., intentionally; by human design) express only reality's actual quantum complement (and are capable of expressing that only to extremely limited classical precision), while completely discarding/scalpeling most of reality's actual complement and ~all of reality's nonactual quantum complement! (Analogue computers are a different story, and, much better, quantum computers will arise, using reality itself, as Satinover, Feynman, Deutsch, et al., suggest, to do real included-middle quantum complementary computing — with qubits as real quantons.)

Understand that chaos in quantum reality is not an analytic model! It is real! It expresses quantum reality's animate processes' actual and nonactual quantum complements to unlimited 'precision.' More, it uses both quantum locality and quantum (superluminal) nonlocality to do so.

Classical mechanical models have limited precision, but classicists tend to assume that (behave as though) they have arbitrary precision. Quantum nature offers unlimited qubit 'precision,' ('precision' is a classical term which needs quantum/Quantonic English Language Remediation; it assumes 'true' finite element analytic reduction; no such animal 'exists' in quantum reality) which is another way of saying reality's models are real, and to model reality, we must use he~r to model he~rself. In a Wittgensteinian sense, "quantum real meaning is quantum real using." Richard Feynman, too, proffered a similar quantum computing meme.

Also consider how classical models of chaos are always passé, always about (has been) Static Quality. Classicists' goal is to know reality. Their static models permit us to put data on a know-ledge; however, they do not permit us to be k~now~ing, or as Henri Louis Bergson says, "…think being directly." Quantum modelings (and biologically living entities; when they live/think quantumly) do permit us to thibedir.

Satinover fails to recognize and compare these complementary views of chaos.

This chapter (10), to us, is a very ugly way to start Part II of his book which he calls "Miracles." Classical, mechanistic reality is no miracle/emerscenture; it is anthropocentric, hegemonous design/manufacture. But quantum reality burgeons with miracles, unlimited miracles, all free! Its freeness, for those of us in Quantonics, is its greatest miracle.

Chapter 11 shows how EPR were refuted, finally. This is same-old, same-old.

In his discussion of EPR and Bohr's refutal of it, Satinover fails to consider detector quantization affects on double slit diffracted photons. According to quantum theory itself, detector atoms' electrons and photons, as asymptotic wave energy distributions, do not respond in a classical analytic, particulate manner to photons' 'particulate' energies/flux. See Philip R. Wallace's discussion of this phenomenon in his fabulous Paradox Lost. See p. 36. Both detectors and 'particles' are animate/included~middle/nonlocal/superposing everywhere~associative quantum phenomena. We may not treat them classically as analytic/lisr objects. (Our title would have been Paradice Lost. )

This is an really interesting issue, since it begs a question, which Wallace asks, "Isn't a photon's energy waveform macroscopic? Isn't an electron's energy waveform macroscopic?" By "macroscopic" Wallace is saying that a photon/electron's waveform is everywhere associative due its wave energy distribution. So where is that energy? So when is that energy? (classical questions) We know its energy is quantum both local and nonlocal. Ditto said detector. Like this:

A Quantonics 3D Depiction
of
Quantum Ensemble Likelihood Omnistributionings
AKA
peaqlos

So Wallace asks what we mean when we say a photon must be absorbed particulate-whole by a particulate-whole electron? Is this why von Neumann insisted that a wave function must collapse? If it doesn't collapse, what affects has it on "subsequent" photons? Fascinating! How can it have subsequent affects? And an even larger question: How can we nouveau~interpret this in Satinover's realm of mind as a SON? In place of those classical perspectives, we proffer quantum superluminality. For classical vis-à-vis quantum relevance, readers should also examine Dirac's sin²(alpha) incidence of photons with tourmaline as viewed both classically and quantumly.

We must heuristically conjecture that quantum vacuum flux mediates photons'/electrons' wave energies in such a manner that classical 'particulate' relativistic 'effects' are irrelevant. And that quantal mediation, due its instantaneity, appears from a classical view as "collapse" even though said waveforms merge and continue without any collapse. This jibes with The Quantum Brain capability to every~where instantaneously associate quantum coherent thoughts. See page 36 out of 166 total, including Index of Wallace's hardbound 1^st edition Paradox Lost. (Also see Mae-wan Ho's comments in her the Rainbow and the Worm on coherent both brain and arm/limb muscle flexure which is outside any classical ability to explain.)

Dutifully, Satinover quotes one of Richard P. Feynman's most famous quotes, "I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." Here, we agree, Feynman really nails this tautology. However, were Feynman instead William James Sidis, we might look at his statement more carefully. It could be a super-intellectual ruse.

Ask yourself a simple question. "Why is it that nobody can understand quantum mechanics?" Answer: "Reality is not classically mechanical! Reality is quantum!"

Dr. Irving Stein is right, "We need a new ontology for quantum reality." But he too (and Niels Bohr) missed a major philosophical consideration: That ontology may not be classical!

One may not use mechanics to describe or understand quantum reality! More bluntly, using mechanics to understand quantum reality disables one's capabilities for understanding quantum reality! (But Satinover, as did Stein, in this entire book, assumes we can!)

Classical (both wave- and matrix-) mechanics throw away nearly all of quantum reality, to allow scientists to formally, radically-mechanistically, over-simplify reality, so that dumb classicists can deign their feign of understanding it! Satinover completely misses this most important and fundamental quantum desideratum. But so did Stein, so did Feynman, so did Niels Bohr, so did Einstein, so what can we expect?

This is why, in Quantonics, we ask our students to discard Classical Thing-king Methods (CTMs) in favor of Quantum/Quantonic Think-king Modes (QTMs). Readers, please, choose to enter a novel Millennium III Reality. Choose to leave SOM's deign of feign.

Classical mechanics turns quantum omnivalent qubits into classically bivalent di-gits! Just ask any physicist. And nearly all experiments on quantum reality are conducted, classically, this way!

Finally, in Chapter 11, we were disturbed to find that Satinover makes no mention of Nicolas Gisin and Anton Zeilinger, both major players in science's role of finally refuting EPR.

In Chapter 12, Satinover's miracles commence! But he blunts those miracles with his own naïve classical hermeneutics.

He lists seven miracles, then uses mechanical hermeneutics to destroy their quantum magic.

Satinover's seven miracles are:

1. Wave-Particle Duality
2. Contextuality
3. Indeterminism
4. Absolute Chance
5. Lack of Trajectories Versus…
6. Superposition
7. Tunneling

For his Wave-Particle Duality miracle he offers some spectacular pictures (page 128) which actually show atoms similar to our particle wave graphics frame 10, frame 20, frame 30. In his pictures, scientists use Scanning Tunneling Microscopes (STMs AKA Atomic Force Microscopes, AFMs) to 'physically' move atoms around. (Looking at those pictures, you may be able to see why we put 'physically' in single quotes. A more appropriate word might be "omniphasially." Using quantonics symbols (large page, lots of graphics) we might also say, "omni-." Also consider classical 'physicists' "tool" appellation for "moving atoms around:" 'atomic force microscope.' We know 'atom' is an inappropriate name for elements of quantum reality. And 'force' is purely objective, classical, 'interactive,' mechanical.) We can see atoms' wave~like probability distributions move around with each atom as its position is changed and we can see each atom's wave distribution compenetrating and co~here~ntly coinsiding other atoms' wave distributions in altered ways.

Classical mechanics are wholly incapable of describing those non-mechanical, animate, complementary, included~middle wave/energy interrelationships!

We like what Satinover says about his Contextuality miracle except he misses Dana Zohar's crucial point that quantum reality is quantum complementary both/and where we must consider context too (as depicted in wave pictures described above). He says, "In the quantum regime, context is an absolutely inseparable aspect of any 'entity.'" Our bold to highlight his classical problematic (they absolutely can commingle, but they are partially separable).

We would use a more Zoharian both/and to say what Satinover might have said, "In quantum reality context is in 'entities' and entities are in context." We call this quantum compenetration "animate EIMA islandic complementarity."

In Quantonics, we think of context as quantum coobsfective. In other, more quantum grammar, a word in a quantum~grammatically~correct sentence is affected (and observed) by and affects (and observes) words both local and nonlocal in a sentence. Quantum (we call it:) comtext is both quantum separable and inseparable, which we may show as quanton(separable_complement,in(non)separable_complement). Quantons have potential to both observe and affect all of reality, but usually (in their more complex, more highly evolved emerqs) only observe and affect portions of reality (and are observed and affected by not necessarily 'same' portions of reality). See Don Howard's paper entitled, 'Holism and Separability,' in Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory, UND Press, 1989.

Indeterminism is Satinover's third quantum miracle. He tells us that complex behavior of "four perfectly mechanical oscillators" is "emergent but not indeterminate." Mathematics and digital computers can model "perfectly mechanical oscillators," but quantum reality offers no such beasts. As perfect mechanical oscillators, he says, their behavior is, "…completely determined by the system's initial state, by the characteristics of each element of the system, and by how these interact with one another." Those requirements are what formal systems model to assess ideal mechanical behavior.

But in quantum reality, due all these miracles, we may not classically know real initial state (i.e., to unlimited qubit 'resolution'), nor classical characteristics (there are no classical characteristics of an object/system in quantum reality), nor interactions (quantons interrelate via coobsfection; they do not 'interact' by classical lisr 'forces'). Quantum reality is an:

• ensemble affects (affectings, and more quantum~generally "coobsfectings"),
• selective choice (selective choosings, and more quantum~generally "co~selective choosings"),
• ensemble outcomes (outcomings)

reality. Our parentheticals here exhibit how quantum reality demands an animate, plural/heterogeneous, included~middle, present~participle grammar and syntax for any language used to describe it! Current antique classical language literally disables its users from being able to thibedir, practice k~now~ing, ride Holden's "edge of now," be quantons, understand Bergsonian duration, understand quantum reality, etc.

More "quantum~regime~" realistically, quantum reality is an animate (unstoppable process), heterogeneous, included~middle~complementary, present~participle reality. Given that we should say (rather classically, grammatically incorrectly), "Quantum reality is an ensembling~affectings, selectings~choosings, ensembling~outcomings reality."

Satinover's fourth miracle, Absolute Chance, could have been written by us. He even uses "outcomes" to describe uncertain quantum affects. Rather than saying "affects" explicitly, he uses a classical oxymoron, "uncaused causes." That phrase which Einstein hated, and Satinover acknowledges, decimates all sanctioned classical 'scientific' regimes of reality. We wholly agree and applaud his conclusion.

To bottom line both determinism and chance in our Quantonics perspective, we say that quantum reality is observably both apparent chance and nonchance. For us, some quantons' actualities appear to persist longer than others, and thus their persistence manifests a more classical nonchance apparitional modality. If we define "chance" as what happens next, though, we know that what happens next is always quantum ensemble stochastic, which begs a pure chance modality (and notice, again almost quantum miraculously, how this implores memeos of macroscopic absolute stochastic_q uncertainty - Doug - 22Apr2005). To show this quantum pragmalogical situation we write quanton(chance,nonchance). To further deepen and yet fathom our view, and applying quantum animate present~participle grammar, we see quantum reality as self~aware (thus self~other~referent, recursive, fractal, and chaotic), and thus whatings happenings nextings are an outcome of quantum ensemble both local and nonlocal coobsfective choosings. In Quantonics, we believe that quantum nonlocal (i.e., everywhere~associative) choosings are a significant contributor to apparency of stochastic chance. But we have to be very careful philosophically, here. We cannot leap from a quantum meme of chance apparency to classical concepts of: predication, cause-effect, induction, certainty, verity, etc. Both quantum chance apparency and its nonchance complement arise from heterogeneous local and nonlocal choosings, not from classical one-to-one correspondent causality. (Too, we can think of classically mechanical fractals~chaos, then, as algorithmically force-ing choices based not on ensemble quantum affects, but upon classical residual effects. ) See our 2004 What is Wrong with Probability as Value? Change 'absolute uncertainty' to 'stochastic uncertainty.' Doug - 1May2014.

Aside 17Jun2005 - Doug:

We believe an excellent way to describe quantum reality is how John Forbes Nash said it, "Probability is everything!"

• Probability one is impossible since reality is quantum uncertain (i.e., quantum reality issi probability, classical absolute truth does n¤t 'exist' in quantum reality),
• Probability zero is impossible since reality is quantum~stochastically uncertain and absolutely animate (any~all potentia are possible; classical stoppability is impossible...),
• Probability is positive (there are no classically ideal negations in quantum reality; negation is subjective in quantum reality; now, mid-2006, a year later, we can offer our students a much more in-depth omniscussion of essence of quantum reality as positive - 3Jul2006 - Doug.),
• Probability di(omni)stributions AKA peaqlos take on quantum~durational animate Values of 0_q < P_q < 1_q (See quantum Hamiltonian ones and zeros represented as n¤n Platonically ideal wave functions.) Doug - 1May2014.
• Probability issi absolutely animate quantum ensemble stochastically uncertain likelihood omnistributions represented as fuzzons like what we show in that graphic just above.
• Etc.

End aside.

A miracle of Lack of Trajectories Versus… as described by Satinover leaves all readers dangling. (See page 129.) He tells us repeatedly that quantum science's double slit experiment is the big tell of quantum reality. He also shows us that it is classically inexplicable. We agree that many have tried, but none have described quantum science's double slit experiment to general satisfaction.

Under this miracle, though, we can point to several weaknesses in Satinover's own quantum epiphanies.

1. Particle, particle-wave, etc. descriptions of quantons need replacement by some kind of more general ubiquitous/everywhere~probability~distributed~energy~packet/ensemble~quantum~affectors description.
   
   We like Philip R. Wallace's approach in his Paradox Lost-Images of the Quantum. If we think of an electron in an atom's energy shell, we can view it as a probability distribution whose nuclear extrema minimum lies just short of an atom's nucleus, whose multiversal extrema maximum is unlimited, and whose Bohr-orbit probability is its distribution mode. Unmeasured and naturally animate, our electron's energy packet ensemble is everywhere, simultaneously, in its distribution. This description holds for all protons, neutrons, electrons, photons, and quantons in general. To most observers, all we 'see and understand,' though, is a quanton's state-ically apparent most probable 'Bohr orbit' mode. In Quantonics, we call this a 'part' of k~now~able, "actuality." Classicists call it "reality." Classically viewed, an atom's Bohr orbits are 'objective' and radically 'mechanistic' infinitesimal subspecies of whole quantum reality.
   
   (I.e., the probability distribution 'mode;' this view tends to classically close reality, hegemonously mandating classical paradigmatic 'conservation,' and in our view must be discarded along with other legacy CTMs).
   
   Treated mechanically, then, that (just/only Bohr's orbit) is what most of us call and round-off as "Classical Reality." As you may choose to see, that view of reality is what is incomplete, not as EPR attempted to show, i.e., quantum reality's larger probability distribution as 'incomplete.'
   
   
2. Classical objective/particulate description of a detector screen must be replaced by a detector screen as a quantum ensemble itself whose quantonic con(m)stituents are atom quantons whose energy shells react to stimuli affects quantally. (Reader, nurture memes here which allow you to see photons and electrons as "everywhere associative," very similar to animate EIMA "energy landscape" thought storage in Satinover's SONs. Potential alternate memes here are Bohm-Pribram's holograms and our Quantum Stages' Stairs.) Allow us to quote page 27, top of page paragraph, beginning, "In the case of photons…" and middle-of-page paragraph, page 36 of Philip R. Wallace's 1996 Paradox Lost.
   
   Page 27: "In the case of photons, it is important to note that a photon is by definition a quantum of the electromagnetic field [which Wallace views as classical, problematic, and incomplete]. In classical electromagnetic theory, a wave goes through the slits and is diffracted, giving rise to interference. The quantum is a sample of the wave with an amount of energy proportional to its frequency. [Classically,] Frequency implies extension in time; the connection of time and space required by the theory of relativity then makes extension in space necessary.
   
   Aside 19Jun2005 - Doug:
   
   Student adepts may observe, subtly, that Wallace just offered another important 'breakage' of Einstein's 'Theory of Relativity.' EToR was a last bastion attempt to retain 'scientific' objectivity, right? How did Einstein do that? How can a relative theory be objective? Leibnitz believed it could not. Einstein did it by assuming a classically bogus notion of "invariant geometric interval." Wallace just showed us that is impossible! In Quantonics breakage of EToR is outright obvious due our claim that 'no' 'thing' is invariant, 'no' 'thing' is free of quantum reality's mandate for absolute change! Ideal classical invariance cann¤t bæ ihn quantum ræhlihty.
   
   End aside.
   
   "This in turn requires that the single photon, being a minimal sample of the wave, is also subject to interference. The reason that it cannot reflect the interference is that its totality must be absorbed locally. It interacts with all electrons, but only one of them can enter into a quantum transition with it. What determines which one? There are an enormous number of possibilities; the matter is one of pure [we would say "apparent;" Wallace has not yet tumbled to quantum reality as self~aware; which is, in our view, a prerequisite of "uncaused cause"] chance. However, the probability of interacting with any one will be proportional to the intensity of the wave at that electron." Our underline, brackets, and bold.
   
   Compare that, in our view superior description, with Banesh Hoffmann's, "...we cannot visualize how an electron which is enough of a wave to pass through two holes in a screen and interfere with itself can suddenly become enough of a particle to produce a single scintillation." Our bold color. See p. 181 of 285 pp., including index, of Hoffman's The Strange Story of the Quantum.
   
   Earlier Hoffmann tells us how we must give up classical notions of particular, particle, and particleness... Go figure. Too, Hoffmann tells us how classical 'strict causation' is a delusion and then goes on to say, "...because..." Go figure again.
   
   Page 36: "Other phenomena seemed to most physicists like manifestations of a point electron but mostly because this image was deeply rooted in advance. For instance, in the famous gedankenexperiment of Richard Feynman, a beam of electrons passing through two slits were reunited to give an interference pattern on a detector. But when the intensity of the beam was reduced, it was possible to see individual dots on the screen, which were interpreted as manifestation of localized electrons. When enough of the dots were collected, they did in fact show the interference pattern typical of interfering waves. Since the individual dots seemed to occur randomly, it was assumed that the location of the electrons was random and reflected the probability distribution of the location of the electrons. But there was an alternative and perhaps more realistic interpretation. Since photons had to be absorbed whole, and this would normally be done by one particle or one atom that was itself localized with atomic dimensions, the localization might be a characteristic of the detector rather than of the detected electron. Would it then be legitimate to think of the absorption of the electron as the gradual absorption of a macroscopic wave? A calculation of the process does seem to describe exactly that. In any case, [classical] relativity requires that nonlocalization in space also means nonlocalization in time,
   
   [It is important to assess what hermeneutics Wallace's last sentence implies when we consider space and time as quantum complements of one another. Those hermeneutics would very likely also apply to energy and time as quantum complements. Now it starts to be really interesting! E=mc² takes on countless novel quantum hues (e.g., "tapping reserve energy")! Notice that square term.]
   
   "so that transitions must [classically] not take place instantaneously but must be a gradual [detector-quantal accumulation] process [Apparently requiring a quantum real, "everywhere associative" memory!]. However, the probability interpretation blurs this aspect of things; it is presumed that a nonlocalized probability distribution can be reconciled with a local and instantaneous process. But once again, we must come back to a criterion for interpretations, that they must be consistent with the mathematical [read mechanical; ugh!] theory. The interpretation is not present in the theory itself [since it is mathematical, and thus mechanical]. Can point particles really interfere with themselves if they are disturbed probabilistically?" Our bold, brackets, and orange thelogos.
   
   Those of you careful readers of Satinover's book, may see how we can merge what Wallace says above with Satinover's associative memory percept, our Quantonics meme of all reality as both self~ and co~aware, and further with Kafatos and Nadeau's meme of The Conscious Universe!
   
   
3. We need to bring back ether as a major memetic requisite of quantum science! Michelson and Morley 'disproved' existence of ether. Einstein used their result to develop his Special and General Relativities. Today, most refer our meme here as "fields," "M-branes," etc. But these are mechanical (i.e., mathematical, analytic, state-ic) and thus inanimate/stoppable constructs. Let's view least action, least time, least anything as minimum animate quanta, and adopt a meme of Casimir's quantum vacuum flux (QVF) as an isotropic ether. When we do that, Satinover's Lack of Trajectories Versus… quantum miracle purchases novel, less mechanical, and much more helpful animate, included~middle quantum semantics. A large semantic is quanton(QVF,actuality). Another is QVF as Bohm and Pribram's holographic [iso]space. Another is QVF as Quantonic isoflux. This ether, then becomes a viable exegetic for both trajectories and their absence — for both probability amplitude squared and probability amplitude — for both a Bohr orbit and its ubiquitous probability distribution — for both actuality and nonactuality. Satinover's discussion in this miracle, appears to assume absence of QVF, especially in his classical prose on force and acceleration.

We think this particular quantum miracle offers Satinover his greatest opportunity to explicate his Quantum Brain hypothesis. We think QVF/VES explains and facilitates his next two quantum miracles. We think QVF/VES are means of heterogeneous, multiversal, self~organizing, animate, associative, included~middle, complementary Quantum Brain.

…Trajectories…Versus what?

…Superposition!

Satinover misses a marvelous opportunity on his description of superposition. He flips back to Feynman's more classical path description of a quantum 'particle.'

"In another manner of speaking (developed by Richard Feynman), we can say that a particle travels via every conceivable path concurrently, and it's the paths that interfere." Page 130.

Take Satinover's 'interfere' to imply, in his mind, 'superposition.'

You may recall from Satinover's early description of mind, that he said quantum associative memory is everywhere. He says nothing about any paths. He does not speak of percepts unitemporally "traveling every possible path," to select memory locations.

We think he should adopt his associative memory percept, as we suggest in our description of his …trajectories… miracle, to his description of quantum superposition. In our view, classical particle concepts tend to encourage us to thingk of trajectories and pathways. Quantum reality simply is not particulate, not objective. Having said that, we do agree that quantons' probability amplitudes and their squares do move. We just think (actually we k~now) it is problematic to thingk of classically objective trajectories as predicable position-momentum certainties. Of course, that is why Feynman chose many/heterogeneous probabilistic pathway distributions to model quantum uncertainties regarding a classical question of, "which pathway is taken?"

Our complaint with that approach is that it assumes, classically, that a particle's ontology is closed: it has a beginning (when it is emitted), a life-trip (from emitter to detector), and an ending (when it impacts a detector). That Feynmanesque model is, except for its plural pathway stochasticity, radically mechanistic and radically final. (By-the-way, Feynman was aware of this, as indicated by his collodion meme told to us by James Gleick in his Feynman biography titled, Genius.)

Consider how Feynman's closed, classical particulate view distills, retrospectively, to a few post-determinant analytic paths, where an open, quantum perspective, in general, is strictly speaking a quantum ensemble (in~/non~/anti~)determinism — everywhere animate, associative, plural present~participle, included~middle, complementary — and so on... Feynman's approach (appropriately, as a well-propagandized classical 'scientist') denies any quantum awareness, any quantum choosings — and thus denies quantum reality. (See prior occurrence of 'quantum awareness.') Too, and most important for our review here, in Satinover's venue, Feynman's approach denies any quantum biological associative memory/mind! This is what classicism and classical tools and methods do to quantum reality: Deny it!

Satinover, describes a quantum condensate type of superposition (or coherence) which is a miracle. Another type which he misses is coherence of wave energy in a tsunami, or of solitons in fiber optic communications. Most miraculous of all is biological quantum coherence/superposition which Mae-wan Ho shows us enables us to flex our arms, think, dance, play a musical instrument in an orchestra, etc. Those are quantum miracles we experience directly every day which classicists cannot even begin to explain with their CTM physics, tools, and mathematics. If it isn't classically naïve and simple, classical physicists can neither explain a phenomenon nor understand it.

Absolute quantum superposition is what we, in Quantonics, call variously, "isoflux," "VES," "QVF," "nonactuality," "Dynamic Quality," "ether," etc.. To a classical mind, those quantum memes do not even 'exist.' In Quantonics, VES is in us and we are in VES. VES superposes us and we superpose VES! We, nor none of actuality could exist without VES.

Satinover's description of quantum reality's tunneling miracle is a good one, except he quotes Rolland Omnes on Earth teleporting from our solar system to somewhere near Sirius. We find Omnes views, of quantum anything, wanting.

Satinover uses our house wiring as an example of every-day teleportation, and finishes by saying, "Quantum teleportation is not so far out an idea as it seems—it's going on constantly, everywhere." He shows how electrons teleport (tunnel) across natural verdigris (copper oxide) insulating layers in our house receptacles and plugs. This is identical to emitter junction teleportation/tunneling in transistors. Readers should note, that as Raymond Chiao found, electrons/photons/quantons in general take zero time to teleport these insulating barriers. This is a fascinating meme! It says that a stack of alternating copper discs, separated by thin insulating "verdigris" layers, of identical length to a pure copper conductor would conduct electrons faster than its pure copper equivalent! (Has anyone tried this?) Chiao did something similar using photons and an opaque film to show that photons traveling identical distances, one which had to tunnel a barrier was faster than one which did not.

And as Satinover tells us, there is nothing unique about quantum tunneling. It is omni~present in reality. Ditto for his six other miracles, and countless others which he fails to mention. Now if we could just start teaching this material in primary and secondary schools and put classical thing-king in an apropos juxtaposition (and put classical SOMwitted 'educators' out of business, once and for all).

That essentially covers Satinover's seven miracles, and puts our review progress so far at Chapter 13's beginning on page 137.

We have yet to review Chapter's 13 through 17, pages 137-225.

We will finish this review as time permits…

Thank you for reading,

Doug - 22Feb2003