Return to Quantonics English Language Remediation Index Page                                  Arches

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

Quantonics' Quantum Remediation
English Language Problematics
Millennium III
by Doug Renselle
: 20Jul2002


Alphabetical Reference Index Quantonics English Language Remediation Pages
©Quantonics, Inc., 2002-2029

( says, "You are here!")

Master Index

Index to Quantonics English Language Remediated C Terms
Most recent additions-revisions marked add and rev.
canon cause certain
chance change chaos choice
circle class close co- coherent
collapse complement
complete commutative
commute(s) (math)
con concrete concur
conflict conscious
consensus consequence conserve
consistent constant
cool copy correlate


English Language Problematic

Quantonics' Quantum

©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2029




  • Classical -
    • counteract,
    • destroy,
    • nullify,
    • obliterate,
    • etc.
  • Quantum -
    • apparent absence,
    • apparent darkness,
    • apparent emptiness,
    • shadow,
    • etc.

: Cancel, cancels, canceled, cancellation, etc.

Classical cancellation carries formal, dialectical, analytic inferences and implications of a null result. For example, A-A=0 classically 'cancels' A and leaves classical 'zero.' Classically 'zero' 'exists.' Classically and mathematically a 'null set' 'exists.' Classicism supports notions of emptiness, void, total-absolute absence, etc.

: Cancæl, cancæls, cancæled, cancællati¤n, etc.

Recently, CeodE2013, we have offered another meme for clarifying what we intend by quantum~cancellation:

Quantum~HotMeme™ "In quantum~reality flux cancellation takes classical negation's (axiomatic) 'place.'"™ Quantum~HotMeme™.

As Doug wrote above, classical cancellation distills to classical negation: A-A=0.

It is fair to query, "Then what does quantum~cancellation look like? Do you have a stindyanic quantized symbol for it?" Yes!

shown at 6x scale. Notice implicit quantization begging scintillation as chance~choice~change agency of cancellation itself.


at 1x scale.

Now permit Doug to illustrate quantum~cancellation symbolically as AA; which normally appears classically as A-Aih/2. Doug's quantum script for cancellation shows us that issi quantum~reality's minimum signature. Most signatures are multiples of which we show with a coefficient of say 'N' which issi a "wave~number count, an ordinal subjunctive." It means no quantum~signature can ever be classically 'zero.' Doug - 22May2015.

We see A-A as a very primitive Poisson Bracket, [A, A]. Quantumly AA's PB is [A,A] illustrating ad oculos quantum~complementarity. Compare [Yodq,Yodq]. See Yishoqani. Doug - 4Sep2014.

Unprimitively a PB for position and momentum looks similar this: [pm, mp]. Key (secret) here is n¤t to use a classical minus sign for a quantum PB.

We may also write that symbolically as AA issi.

So issi quantum flux cancellation taking classical negation's axiomatic 'place.'

Begin "...h~bar is telling us what?" aside:

Classically, should always be zeroc. Why? Realityc is dialectically, Platonically static. Realityc is analyticc. Reality cannot classically 'evolve.'

Quantumly, is always n¤n zeroc. It's minimum value is Planck's quantum divided by 2 x pi, ih/2.

N¤n zero h~bar means that evolution is realq. We can n¤ longer abide classical idealisms of dialectical analytic reality holding still, "having 'scientific' zero-momentum reference frames," so that we can scalarbate (measurec) it.

H~bar always n¤n zeroc says that all quantons(A,A) are n¤n zeroc from Planck moment to Planck moment. Why? Evolution is changing A and its selfq~antinomialq~complementationq (i.e., its evolving PB) at up to Planck rates. Stochastically A is never A (issi never itself...) as time passes (as timings pass), so their [A-A's] least evolutionary omnifferencing (due our omnitoringq of said Poisson~Bracket (PB)) is always (again, stochastically) ih/2. Too, increments of omnifferencings, since all As are EWings of ensemble~quanta, their lower energy signaturesq (due cancellationq borne of our PBing (omnitoringq) their complementaryq~antinomialismq) are EWings of ensemble~quanta. Grasp, gentle reader, signatureq is a measurementingq of uncertaintyq of any systemicq interrelationshiping(s)q of quantons. Doug - 10Jan2015.

Again, we see vividly, zeroq (zer¤) is a quantum~process whose minimum stochasticq Value is ih/2.

Cancellationq is always partialq (always enthymemetic due both perpetualq and ubiquitousq evolutionq) which is another way of saying PB[Aq,Aq] issi ih/2. We see evolution as vital impetus' auturgy, its rqfv and rqis. Evolution's residual, quintessential omnitorable signatureq is PB[Aq,Aq] issi ih/2.

We embraceq and middle~include signatureq as another way of saying~writing, "...quantum~uncertainty and quantum~indetermination."

Doug - 4Nov2014, 10Jan2015.

End "...h~bar is telling us what?" aside.

Use of our new quantum~cancellation symbol illustrates vividly how classical maths are context free, that is, context insensitive, where quantum~maths are rqcs, "radically quantum~comtext sensitive." So, classically A commutes itself regardless. Quantumly A can never commute, even itself!

Notice how Doug's quantum~cuneiform commences adopting its proper role in a New Quantum Mathematihcs!

Now imagineq Doug's symbol for superposeq. Is there such a symbolic memeoq as superposeq~cancelq? When we superposeq is cancellationq a partialq affectq? Issi that canceledq fluxq k~now~ingsq absentingsq? Can we keepq that evolvingq signatureq of cancellationq? What exactly does Doug meanq by omnitoringq? What does omnitoringq reallyq doq~dueq? Whatingsq doesq Dougq meanq whenq heq agreesq with Suares that natureq usesq antinomialismq to measure (omnitorq) herq selfq? Whatq are implicationsq of antinomialismq? Read Suares.

Now con(m)sider issues of entanglementq and its absence, its possible partialityings...

Can you begin to (do you have qua to) fathom how radically retarded dialecticians really are? Doug - 19Sep2013

Doug - 31Aug2013.

Quantum cancællation, since all ihn quantum~reality issi flux, emerqs only tentative phase~interrelationshipings. Quantum~flux may n¤t in any way be permanently, n¤r perpetually made empty, absent, null, classically-negated, etc.

Quantum cancællation happens when two 'similar' quantum~waves tentatively maintain 'inverse' phase interrelationshipings, thus affording an illusion of cancællation.

Quantum cancællation requires at least two (perpetually, n¤n~negative, forever...) p¤sihtih energies, eternally present and existing, in select interrelationshipings to maintain an illusion of classically A-A=0 'ideal' cancællation.

Since n¤ two quantum waves may perpetually remain classically-ideally identical (they may be tentatively hærænt, tentatively c¤rrælatæd, etc., however each of those terms have omnique quantum English language remediations...also see quantum~coherence), quantum~cancællation is itself a wave~function whose phase~interrelationshipings' stochastics are minimal. That is why we say that all presences and absences are always partial~presences and ~absences. See, for example, partial presence of gravity. Least partial presences and absences are manifestations, similar Bell's Inequalities, of Planck's least action portraying a minimum quantum~uncertainty of quanton(qwfj,qwfk) Nih.

All quantum flux issi perpetually positive. That phasement finds its bases in memeos which permit us to call quantum~reality "radically~stochastic."

Quantumly, light is one class of flux which we can use to observe quantum~flux cancellation directly. To do that we need a means of detecting 'light' flux' range of spatial frequencies (see wavelengths re: holograms). How do we do that? QED explains how we can see light and its phase~mixing (ranges of quantum~flux partial~cancellation) phenomena. Without atoms whose electron energy shells can scintillate light flux, we cann¤t 'see' light. That explains why light in a pure vacuum isn't apparent until it interrelates (a process of scintillation explained by QED) with atoms in our eyes, and atoms of stellar emerqs like planets, comets, and asteroids, etc.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

: Canon

: Can¤n

Classically 'canon' means strict, static (ESQ, non-ESS) 'law' given by authority

  • usually some classically catholic 'union' which self-assumes omniscience: society, culture, religion, science, mathematics, etc.
  • sometimes only an individual who assumes classical omniscience: Castro, Hitler, Bush, etc.

for those who 'need' it to use it. Those who do not 'need' canon 'law' are told to "follow it or else," "you are either for us or against us," "there is no middle ground," "we will excommunicate you," and other such 'authoritative' classical bilge.

Classical canon 'law,' when classically 'effective,' drives out quantum individual free will and choice. It labels all nonadherents 'disloyal,' 'unpatriotic,' and even 'criminal.' Classical canons defy and deny quantum hlihty. See Doug's essay on quantum~gn¤sis as wisdom. Doug - 18Oct2009.

Quantumly 'canon' d¤æs n¤t 'exist' amd cann¤t 'exist.' Ahll ræhlihty ihncluding quantum can¤ns aræ stindyanihc ænsehmble pr¤cæssings which aræ æmærging amd æv¤lving mætab¤lihcahlly: i.e., b¤th anab¤lihcahlly amd catab¤lihcahlly. (biologically, 'ana' is up and 'cata' is down - Doug - 7Feb2007.)

P. A. M. Dirac says it like this speaking of a Poisson's Bracket (P.B.) of position and momentum, "...canonical coordinates and momenta are of less importance in quantum mechanics than in classical mechanics; in fact, we may have a system in quantum mechanics for which canonical coordinates and momenta do not exist and we can still give a meaning to P.B.s. Such a system would be without a classical analogue and we should not be able to obtain its quantum [mechanical] conditions by the [classical] method here described." P. 88, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 1958, OUP. Our brackets. Readers should note that Einstein and his classical mechanist buddies would say then, "By canonic 'law' such systems do not exist!" Since, classically, such systems are 'not' canonical, classical 'science' excommunicates them from reality. Sound familiar? Classical 'science' excommunicates quantum reality! Doug - 7Feb2007. See Doug's quantum~gn¤sis link just above to eidetify Doug's "Sound familiar?" Doug- 18Oct2009.

In Quantonics those P.B. 'meanings' include classically-n¤nmechanical quantum:

  • ihncludæd~mihddle,
  • ænsehmble æværywhere~ass¤ciati¤n,
  • umcærtainty, See QELR of uncertainty.
  • Bell Inequalities,
  • BAWAM,
  • b¤th~amd,
  • arbihtrary spathial pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤n, (our use of spathial here is our QELR of spatial, i.e., classical space-tial; classical space is cartesian; quantum~spacæ is n¤n cartesian)
  • arbihtrary p¤lytehmp¤ral quantum~lihkælih¤¤d ¤mnistrihbuti¤nings, (see QLO)
  • c¤mmingling,
  • c¤mpænetrati¤n,
  • supærluminalihty,
  • supærp¤sihti¤n,
  • scintillati¤n, See Doug's quantum~scintillation.
  • æntanglæmænt,
  • c¤mmunihcati¤n,
  • telep¤hrtati¤n,
  • gravihtati¤nal librati¤n,
  • hera, (co~hæræ~a)
  • æntr¤pa,
  • vacuum flux (ihn Quantonics wæ cahll this "is¤flux;" classicists deny its 'existence'),
  • etc.

A major issue for consideration here is our Quantonics perspectives of:

  • classical mechanics,
  • quantum mechanics, and
  • quantum nonmechanics.

Dirac, as a mathematician, views reality as 'mechanical.' As students of Quantonics, long after Dirac's transition from Earth, we are k~now~ings (see a iamai) quantum reality is nonmechanical. Our own brand of quantum philosophy and quantum science are nonmechanical based upon mentorship of greats like Heraclitus, Bergson, and Bohm. All mechanical formulations of reality models are dialectical and thus suspect on their face. All classical mathematical formulations of reality models are dialectical and thus suspect on their face. You will recall how this same issue played a large role in our refutation of EPR.

Another major issue is how mathematics uses terms analyticity and analogy. Mathematicians appear to view analogy as less mechanical than analyticity. However, in an analog approach, physical reality is usually a mathematician's laboratory and said mathematician views physical reality as ideally objective which means ideally, formally, mechanical. Dirac's efforts to find classical analogs of quantum mechanics took him directly to where we commenced our above quote and you can see his conclusion there.

Sææ a macr¤sc¤pihc P.B. at Zeno's first paradox; read all text under that paradox. Sææ a m¤re n¤nmæchanihcal pærspæctihvæ ¤f quantum ræhlihty at Heraclitus.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'cause' (see singularity bel¤w) amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'prec¤nditi¤ns.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'cause.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'prec¤nditi¤ns.'

We shall use single qu¤tes when referring these terms, respectively, "¤ut ¤f con/comtexts."

Where classical reality is a unitary, analytical, quantitative, stoppable, cause-effect reality — quantum reality is many st¤chastic, qualitative, unstoppable, affects-¤utc¤mes realities.

See our QQA on classical cause-effect. See stop, end, begin, event, process.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ archive classical 'certain' and its derivatives as anachronistic for Millennium III. We ch¤¤se t¤ delete 'certain' and its derivatives fr¤m ¤ur Quantonics-remediated English language.

In classical contexts we shall use 'certain.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall ¤nly use 'umcærtain,' ¤r 'quantum umcærtain.'

For a detail comparison of both classical and quantum certainty juxtaposed classical and quantum uncertainty, see Doug's review of Hume's SRS.

Page top index.


 In this case a picture is worth a thousand words:

In Qabala 'chance' is essence of spontaneous~evolutionq.
Qabala's Autiot uses Ben, Bayt~Noun to exegetize Qabalic evolution.
It means:

All evolutionary potentia open to humanity, to humankind
quantized manifesta: uncertainty, chance, choice, change.

Doug - 15Jul2014.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

Before we offer our detail remediation of 'change,' allow us to quote Will Durant's interpretation of Henri Louis Bergson's notion of change:

"But it is our own fault if, by insisting on the application of physical concepts in the field of thought, we end in the impasse of determinism, mechanism, and materialism. The merest moment of reflection might have shown how inappropriate the concepts of physics are in the world of mind: we think as readily of a mile as of half a mile, and one flash of thought can circumnavigate the globe; our ideas elude every effort to picture them as material particles moving in space, or as limited by space in their flight and operation. Life escapes these solid concepts; for life is a matter of time [heterogeneous quantum tihmings] rather than of space; it is not position, it is change; it is not quantity so much as quality; it is not a mere redistribution of matter and motion, it is fluid and persistent creation." P. 495, The Story of Philosophy, by Will Durant, 1926-7, and 1933. (Our bold, links, and brackets - Doug - 8Oct2003.)

Let's make a bullet list of Durant's life emergence dichotomies using Quantonics' remediation and subjective negation:

  • tihmæ n¤t space,
  • changæ n¤t position,
  • qualihty n¤t quantity, amd
  • fluihd persihstent cræation n¤t mere redistribution of matter and motion.

Durant's words, though we doubt he understood this, aræ descrihbing quantum realihty amd mind's life as a quantum stage, quantum stagings. Wæ sææ quantum c¤herence here, quantum entanglement, quantum superp¤siti¤n, quantum ihncluded-mihddle, quantum everywhere-ass¤ciativity, quantum abs¤lute anihmacy, quantum ensehmble heter¤geneity, etc.

And this leads us to our Quantonics' remediation of classical 'change...'

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'change' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'changæ.' Ditto 'changing,' and 'changing.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'change.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'changæ.' Ditto 'changing,' and 'changing.'

Classicists view reality, other than unitemporal motion, as inanimate, nonemergent, and unchanging. In Quantonics, there is n¤ analogue of classical unchanging. Quantum reality is abs¤lute flux, abs¤lute changæ. Nearest analogue we offer is Quantum Tentative Persistence and Quantum Variable Persistence. Simply, any classical concept of unchanging reality is just a naïve classical self-deception. (It is worth your while to ponder how classicism's concept of 'unchanging' is paradoxically and dyslexically averse its own J. C. Maxwellian mandate for universal, spiralling, and inevitable entropic heat death. See similar commentary under uncertainty. Finally, see entropy gradient annotations on our MoQ II Reality Loop.)

CTMs describe classical change as unitemporal motion of ideal classical objects. Worse, CTMs describe time as a space rate of 'change.' Roughly, classical time is space/space. Classicists view change as space-rate motion. Classical change is analytic, spatially extensible, state-ic, except for Maxwell's 2nd 'law' of thermodynamics - ideally temporally reversible, stoppable, etc. Classical change depends upon 'axioms of ideal objective independence,' and 'ideal numeric scalar magnitudinal measurability of a presumed stable, immutable spatial extensity.'

QTMs describe quantum changæ as quantal ¤mnifluxings of quantons. These ¤mnifluxings subsume a meme ¤f paratehmp¤rality ("many times" and Dirac's meme of a many times quantum wave function) as but pragmatemp¤ral ensehmble emerscenturings aspects of quantum reality. Quantum changæ is ensehmble quantum b¤th paratehmp¤ralities and n¤nparatehmp¤ralities. An¤ther way of viewing quantum changæ's ensehmble/heter¤gene¤us, anihmatæ, everywhere-ass¤ciative quantum umcærtainty/c¤mplementarity/c¤mplexity is via hermeneutics of ensehmble Bergsonian omni-duration-ings. See our CeodE 2009 exegesis of change as quantum waves under our recent QELR of wave and wavefunction. Doug - 28Mar2009.

Quantonics Change HotMeme™ "All quantum changæ involves mixings of quantum~fluxings." Quantonics Change HotMeme™. All quantum~fluxings omniffer one another in a limited list of qualitative ways of quantum~:

  • n¤nactuality
  • actuality
  • isoflux
  • flux (wavings)
  • bosonicity
  • fermionicity
  • classes of entropa
  • classes of cohera
  • locality
  • coherence as islandicity (society as Mae-wan Ho's quanton(coherence,individual_autonomy)
  • coherence as solitonicity (lasers, tsunamis (partial solitonicity), etc.)
  • coherence as bosonicity
  • coherence as gluonicity
  • coherence as gravity (a Doug extreme conjecture, a heuristic partial fermionic hæræncæ~interrelationshipings as quantum~gravity itself)
  • n¤nlocality
  • in general, quantum~comtext~sensitive lisrability
  • positivity of quantum~flux
  • intrinsic stochasticity of quantum~flux
  • holographicity
  • absolute animacy of flux (This is called "Brownian motion" classically; Planck quanta are flux, so when we look very microscopically at reality we can see absolute perpetual vibrational motion; all quanta are perpetual; quantum~fluxings never classically 'stop' fluxing; classical stoppability AKA 'zero momentum' is impossible in quantum~reality; see coquecigrues)
  • durational macroscopicity of flux
  • creation as durational quantum~flux emergencings and immergencings
  • ontology as durational quantum~flux processings
  • absolute middle~inclusion of flux
  • recursive, fractal, self~other referencings of ensemblings of fluxings' ensemblings
  • quantization of flux (Planck)
  • equilibrium (QTP) (Doug - 25Jan2012)
  • chaos (QVP) (Doug - 25Jan2012)
  • chaoequil as quanton(chaos,equilibrium) (Doug - 25Jan2012)
  • change gradience as Value, Value Evolution Mythos to Emersos, Value Hierarchy, Value Topos... (Doug - 25Jan2012, 9Mar2014)
  • absolute motion of reality (Renselle using Bentov, Poincarè, Harris, et al.)
    • ubiquitous and perpetual cosmic compound cycloidal motionings (Doug - 25Jan2012)
  • entanglement and its complement(s)
  • interference and its complement(s)
  • partialityings (of almost all quantum qualityings)
  • presence and its complement and their partialityings (see Doug's QELRs of line and circle)
  • fluxings' coobsfection and their partialityings
  • phasicity (ensemble phase interrelationshipings: essence of quantum~mixings and quantum~partialityings)
    • quanton(superpositionings,cancellationings) with quantum~cancellation as only tentative and perpetually~varying phase~interrelationshipings of positive quantum~flux
  • energyings (can be expressed using terms in list above)
  • massings (can be expressed using terms in list above)
  • gravityings (can be expressed using terms in list above)
  • timings (can be expressed using terms in list above)
  • QMVings
  • list may be extended significantly, but similarity (including QMV, QmV, and QEVings) will emerge among precedents and subsequents...classes of quantum~similarity are finite.

Recall wisdom of Bergson's "...flux is simple, state is complex?" Essentially he was saying that a complete taxonomy of objective properties is unlimited ('because' 'kinds' of 'inertial' 'objects' is unlimited), and a complete taxonomy of quantum~flux dynamic similarities is ostensibly and plausibly finite. See Doug's more detailed description of this issue in our 2004 TQS News. A simple way to thinkq about this is that we must replace CTMs with QTMs. "Doug, How can we do that? Give us a specific example." This one is easy. CTMs use objective categories to 'dialectically simplify.' QTMs use rhetorical similarities to 'quantumly simplify.' A tightest possible script is, "Replace categories with similarities." We retain memes of taxonomy, but list elements are no longer categorical, rather they become similitudinal. 'Category' is an artefact of classical dialectical 'logic.' Similarity is a tell of quantum~mixings (phasicityings) of quantum~flux. Henri Louis Bergson recognized this over 100 years ago! Doug - 8Apr2009.

See Doug's more recent 2011 What is Simple? What is Complex? Why? Explain. Doug - 28Apr2011.

Doug - 7Apr2009.

See our April, 2000 QQA on change. See our recent (2002) Quantonic Ensehmble Quantum Interrelationships. See our Absoluteness as Quantum Umcærtainty.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'chaos' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'cha¤s.'

: Chaos, etc.

In classical contexts we shall use 'chaos.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'cha¤s.'

Where classical 'chaos' depends upon scalar, stoppable, static objective notions of disorder and instability, quantum 'cha¤s' assumes cha¤s assesses quantum~equilibria in all their manifestations of absolute quantum change.


: Cha¤s, etc.

Quantum~cha¤s quantum~gradience of quantum~equilibri[[um][a]]. See Doug's QELR of 'measure,' and 'monitor.' See Doug's QELP of 'monitor.' See Doug's QQA on 'How Science Measures.' Notice here how quantum~gradience is a measure of instability. That quantum~measure of instability is a proxy for quantum~chaos. We must learn to view chaos and equilibrium as quantum~complements of one another. Cha¤s issi ihn æquihlihbria and æquihlihbria aræ ihn cha¤s. Quantum~chaos is always partial and tentative. Quantum~æquihlihbrium is always partial and tentative. Quantons(cha¤s,æquihlihbria) are always changing and perpetually quantum~uncertain. These quantum~phenomena are borne of quantum~reality's ubiquitous quanta and perpetual up to Planck rate transmutative scintillation of those quanta. See chance just above.

Doug - 17Jul2012 1Jun2015.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'choice' (see open) amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with plural present-participle 'ch¤¤sings.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'choice.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'ch¤¤sings.'

Classicists view choice as a single, local, homogeneous causal event. Choice is 1-1 correspondence of decision and effect. To classicists, classical reality is a predicable, determinate, y=f(t), 'choice as cause-effect' reality.

Th¤se ¤f us wh¤ adhere quantum real memes k-n¤w that all ch¤¤sings aræ based up¤n memes ¤f ensehmble quantum prec¤nditi¤nings affecting ensehmble quantum ¤utc¤mings. We als¤ rec¤gnize that ¤ur ch¤¤sings aræ inclusive ¤f a larger ensehmble ¤f ¤thers' ch¤¤sings, including Nature, et al. As y¤u may intuit, real quantum ch¤¤sings aræ endless emerging quantum pr¤cesses. We say, "Quantum reality issi ensemblings of ensehmble ch¤¤sings." Quantons aræ ch¤¤sings.

It is fair for any reader, any student of quantonics to ask, "Doug, what is quantum essence of quantum~choice. Can you explain what happens (n¤t how it happens)?" Philosophically Doug has arrived at a partial and tentative heuristic, however tenuous, which is general enough to be called "A Quantum~Philosophy of Choice."

Quintessentially, choiceq issi an individualq processq of personalq redemptionq via evolutionq and one's ownq learningq howq to animatelyq adaptq to perpetualq and ubiquitousq chancingsq, choosingsq, and changingsq of evolutionq. Doug - 6Sep2014.

Doug wants to use bullet items to show you which quintessences are requisite memeos of choice as crux in Quantonics' Quantum~Philosophy:

  • flux,
  • quantization of flux which results in,
  • quanta as flux packets of energy (individuals and up to unlimited size ensembles, e.g. fermions and bosons...),
  • entanglement of quanta and possibly other kinds of quantum~correlation which permits quanta to rioq, rqcs, rqfi[ings] (instably, comtext~sensitively, and flux~interrelatively) coobsfect one another educing a primally~awareq existentially~consciousq process of selection: (minor update, Doug - 2Nov2015)
  • scintillation of coobsfecting and interrelating quanta which have chosen to comjugate (~marry, modulate, copulate, etc.) one another,
  • [[in][ex]] situ transmutation of quanta involved resulting in ensemble evolution,
  • and so on... (E.g., gravity attracts, and quantum~copulates, fermionic ensembles assembling (via ensemble mass scintillation processings) massive actual entities.)

At this juncture, 'how' and 'whence' of flux and quantization are veiled...we say, "ineffable." Much due this ineffable quantum~inevitability~unavoidability Gn¤sis shows us, "embrace indetermination." Classicists attempt to neuter individual and social choice through dogma of determination. A major classical faux pas. As we observe happening now, just as death is unavoidable as essence of absolute change, those who impose state and determination cannot avoid their natural death for doing so: dueing so. Choiceq and selectionq emerq~emerscitect vibrancy and vicissitude of emergent cosmic life.

Doug - 30Dec2012, 10Jan2013 clarifying texts, 16May2014 add selection~quantadulation choice~choosing~heresy~memesq and links.

See select. See our 'choice' ontology. See our Ensehmble Quantum Umcærtainty. See our Whatings Happenings Nextings. See affectation.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'circle' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'cihrcle,' 'cihrcles' amd plural present-participle 'cihrclings.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'circle.' In Quantonics~quantum comtexts we shall use 'cihrcle,' 'cihrcles,' and 'cihrclings.'

Classicists view 'circle' objectively. A circle is a classical object. It is a composition of other ideal classical objects called points. Both circle and points are ideal lisrable objects. An example of what this means classically is that one may remove one point from a circle and said circle is no longer a circle.

Removal (essentially objective negation) of that one point changes an ideal classical circle object into an ideal classical line segment object.

What about that classical point we removed? What about its circleness?

According to dialectical thought, CTMs, a classical point is independent, stable, everywhere-excluded-middle-dissociative. Said point is a general classical object. It can be used in a line, a triangle, a circle. All points and classical objective particles are identical to one another. They are wholly unaware of their context, in fact do not even care about their context. This is classical, dialectical, objective thingking!

No respectable classical point is aware of its previous circleness! No classical point has context. All classical points are axiomatically 'free' of context. No respectable classical point has arbitrary spatial distribution. No respectable classical point is animate, except for mechanical motion.

In Quantonics' version of quantum reality n¤ classical 'circles' exist. Why? There are many issues involved, including:

For an example of some more quantum, n¤n classical 'circle' issues see our quantum pi.

As you may choose to see, classical circles are radically mechanical delusions of SOM. Why? Classical: stability, independence, stoppability, analyticity, objectivity, immutability, etc.

But for sake of analogy let's assume that we can talk about a closed, and thus anti quantum, quanton called "cihrcle."

Can we objectively remove a quantonic p¤ihnt from said cihrcle in such a way that said cihrcle is n¤ longer a cihrcle, rather it somehow changes into a quantum lihnæ? N¤! Why?

A superb answer is a biological one. If we remove one of your kidneys, are you still you? Your own body's natural cellular apoptosis is another great example. Every ~170 days most n¤n bone cells in your body die (apoptosis; a kind of cellular self-euthanasia) are (removed) reused and replaced (remerqed) by emergent new cells.

S¤ as wæ aræ ¤mniscrihbing thæm, quantum y¤u~ness amd quantum cihrclæness aræ n¤n 'objective.' Rather quantons (e.g., y¤u amd cihrcle) aræ qualihtatihvæ amd subqjæctihvæ.

Ræm¤val ¤f a quantum p¤ihnt fr¤m a quantum cihrcle læaves an æmærgænt, rææmærqed quantonic cihrcle avatar rææmb¤dihmænt.

Another excellent example is a hologram. Holograms manifest what we call quantum EIMA. Say you have a hologram 10cm square. Cut out a 1cm square piece of it. Display that 1cm hologram. Whats happens? One obvious phenomenon occurs: our 1cm hologram displays an excellent analogue of our 10cm hologram. Omnifferencings? Attenuated EIMAs! Lower pixial resolution.

Another analogue of our hologram example is brain cells. We can lose some brain cells and our quantum EIMA brains still retain our memeories since all of our memeories are quantum EIMA!

A classical brain analogue is more like our classical 'circle' above. If we cut out a small memory portion of a human brain, classicists objectively assume that human's brain will objectively lose selected memories. To a classicist a human's memories are spatially and objectively allocated just like a circle's classical points.

Hæræ issi a quantum fuzz¤n cihrcle b¤th wihth amd wihth¤ut a mihssing quantum p¤ihnt:


Quantum cihrcles aræ lihkæ quantum holograms!

Their fuzz¤n~p¤ihnts aræ æværywhere~ihncludæd~mihddle~ass¤ciatihve. They ass¤ciatæ wihth ahll ¤thær p¤ihnts ihn their quantum cihrcle ¤f fuzz¤ns! Quantum cihrcles aræ lih SONs! Their fuzz¤ns aræ awaræ amd coobsfective their s¤rs¤ness.

Quantum fuzz¤ns ihn quantum cihrcles aræ quantum flux ihn Quantonic ihnterrelati¤nships wihth their ¤wn amd ¤thærs' quantum flux!

Whæn wæ ræm¤ve a fuzz¤n fr¤m a quantum cihrcle, saihd fuzz¤n, duæ ihts ¤wn quantum~æntanglæmænt wihth that cihrcle, f¤rævær rætains that cihrclæness, rægardless whether iht issi ræm¤ved t¤ ¤thær 'sihde' ¤f ¤ur galaxy ¤hr any ¤mnihværse. Any quantum p¤ihnt, ¤nce 'ræm¤ved' (pondær classical 'remove' vis-à-vis quantum ræm¤ve) fr¤m ihts quantum cihrcle, issi awaræ ¤f ihts cihrclæness.

Als¤ sææ lih f¤r an anahlogue ¤f a quantum mihssing p¤ihnt.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

We remediate classical 'class' with quantum 'clahss.' <clauss>

Classical 'classes' are dialectical, lisr, objective, EEMD, dichonic, state-ic, quantitative, categorical taxonomies. When SOMites thingk 'class' they thingk "social wall."

Quantum 'clahsses' aræ rhet¤rical, quantonic, EIMA, c¤mplementary, anihmatæ, emerscents. When M¤Qites think 'clahss' they think "c¤¤perative, respectful, ihnterrelati¤nship." Quantum hierarchy vis-à-vis classical hierarchy.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'close' (see open bel¤w) amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'cl¤se.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'close.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'cl¤se.'

Classical analytic reality adherents presume their reality is 'closed.' Classicists' illusion of closure permits them to make other objective assumptions that their reality:

  • is wholly objective,
  • is wholly formal, indeed, radically formal,
  • ontology: conserves being,
  • adheres Maxwell's second law of thermodynamics,
  • degenerates into/via posentropy,
  • can formally deny existence of any "subjective" unthings outside it,
  • is en-closed by one begin and one end,
  • etc.

Classicists see reality as dichon(closed, open), where 'open' is subjective and thus impossible.

Quantum reality adherents presume their realities are '¤pen.' Or even better, '¤pening.' As a result quantum adepts see quantum ¤penness and cl¤sedness as quantum umcærtainty interrelati¤nships which we depict: quanton(¤pen,cl¤se), or


  • quanton(less_c¤mplete,m¤re_comsistent) is
  • quanton(m¤re_cl¤sed,less_¤pen).

Similarly, any

  • quanton(m¤re_c¤mplete,less_comsistent) is
  • quanton(less_cl¤sed,m¤re_¤pen).

B¤tt¤m line, in quantum reality, we are always umcærtain ¤f any quantons' stindyanic sc¤pe ¤f included-middling c¤mpenetrati¤ns.

From this, reader, you may glimmer how reality might not animately and freely emerge were we able to analytically stop and examine it at will as classicists assume!

By c¤mparis¤n, quantum reality:

  • is wh¤lly quantonic,
  • is wh¤lly emerqant,
  • ontology: emersesbeesimmersesisobees
  • adheres quantum trich¤t¤m¤us -entr¤py (neg-, zer¤-, p¤s-),
  • adheres quantum c¤-herence quatr¤t¤my (is¤-, de-, c¤-, partial/mixed-),
  • accepts p¤tential f¤r all p¤ssibilities,
  • comtinu¤usly emerses many b¤th n¤vel beginnings and n¤vel endings,
  • etc.

Page top index.


Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical prefix 'co' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with quantum prefix 'c¤.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'co.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'c¤.'

Where classical 'co' implies a dichotomous either/or excluded-middle objective homogeneous relationship, quantum 'c¤' implies ¤mniadic b¤th/amd included-middle c¤mplementary heter¤gene¤us interrelati¤nships.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'coherent' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'c¤herent.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'coherent.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'c¤herent.'

Where classical 'coherent' depends upon objective adherence to substantial ideas and concepts, quantum 'c¤herence' literally means 'co-here:' quantum h¤m¤gene¤us c¤mmingling ¤f quantons in b¤th a single l¤cus amd many ¤ther l¤ci amd n¤nl¤ci ¤ver heter¤gene¤us times amd spaces (i.e., ¤ver many quantum is¤c¤nes amd their c¤mplements).

Classical 'cohesion' is functional. Classical cohesion's purpose is to create classes of functionally cohesive groups. Ideal functionally 'cohesive' classes are logically excluded-middle localable, isolable, separable, and reducible (lisr) from one another. They are radically mechanical: formal entities. Functionally cohesive groups clone members whose behaviors are corrigible and abide group mores. Organization and management of functionally cohesive groups is deemed "reasonable, logical, and easier." Coherent classes tend to view their rules, their axiom sets as 'the' rules. As a result, they tend to denigrate others' rules. Dichotomized (i.e., dichonic, bipolar) inter-class friction leads to fights and wars and attempts to annihilate those who disagree.

Quantum 'c¤hesi¤n' is quantonic. Quantum 'c¤hesi¤n' scales fr¤m smallest t¤ largest real quantons. Quantum 'c¤hesi¤n' is: quantonic interrelati¤nships am¤ng actualized quantons amd n¤nactualized quantum vacuum flux which is partially describable by, amd which we call "is¤flux." Quantum 'c¤hesive' quantons' middles are included amd mediated via quantum vacuum (is¤)flux. Their included-middles preclude any ideal classical lisrability. All quantons are b¤th lisrable amd n¤nlisrable. If ¤ne thinks ¤f quantons as islands, then ¤ne may envisi¤n their islandicities ¤verlapping amd c¤mmingling ¤ne an¤ther via b¤th unseen Earth amd visible sea. Then imagine seas, within islands, within seas... If ¤ne thinks ¤f quantons at¤mically, ¤ne may imagine wave-particle nucle¤ns amd electr¤ns fluxing c¤hesively c¤within vacuum energy's (is¤)flux.

Quantumly photons in a laser beam c¤hæræ as one photon. Many quantum photons lase to act as one massive, n¤nl¤cal photon.

Classically photons in a laser beam are perceived as a lisr aggregation of many photon 'objects' soldierly, mechanically "marching together."

As you can see these two views of coherence are wholly unalike. When Brian Josephson invented Josephson junctions he was thinking quantumly.

When John Bardeen said wrongly "Josephson is all wet," Bardeen was thingking classically.

If we think quantumly, we are thinking well. If we thingk classically, we are thingking ill.

See our Flash, 2001.

For quantum examples:

  • BECs quantum c¤here,
  • Cooper pairs in quantum superc¤nduct¤rs c¤here,
  • S¤lit¤nic energy in tsunamis partially c¤heres water waves,
  • Emergent systems c¤here, (life forms, planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc.)
  • Etc.

For classical examples:

  • Mechanistic assemblies 'cohere' (cars, houses, puzzles, etc.)
  • Organizations 'cohere' (religions, unions, corporations, states, nations, etc.)

Add descripti¤n ¤f partial/mixed c¤herence here.

See at this link a very comprehensive description of what Quantonics means by quantum coherence. Doug - 13Jun2005.

See decoherence. (Nice description of quantum computing there.)

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

Especially regarding von Neumann's classical concept of wave function collapse upon classical measurement of said wave function.

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'collapse' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'c¤llapse.'

See collapse.

Quantum wave functi¤ns d¤ n¤t 'collapse' classically. They dec¤here quantumly. Quantum dec¤herence d¤es n¤t pr¤cure ideal classical objective state. Quantons are always b¤th anihmatæ amd inanihmatæ, amd are thus incapable ¤f ideal classical 'state,' or ideal classical 'collapse' whose purpose is to achieve ideal classical 'state.'

S¤ when we say quantons c¤llapse, we mean they dec¤here int¤ quanton(anihmatæ,inanihmatæ).

Page top index.


Changes here are omnifficult. There is much work to do re 'complement' and other terms undergoing QELR just now including: aware, cancel, change, evolve, negate, occur, omniscriminate, omniscription, wave, wisdom, etc. Pay attention to holographic memeos re quantization. Note how quantization is essence of quantum~complementary changings in quantum~reality, and all human endeavors to manage such. Doug - 28Mar2009.



  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'complement' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'c¤mplement.'

: Complement, complementa, complementarity, complementary, complementing, complementings, complements, complement[um], etc.

In classical contexts we shall use 'complement.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'c¤mplement.'

Where classical 'complement' depends upon conjugate, objective negation, quantum 'c¤mplement' assumes comjugate, quantonic, included-middle, subjective negati¤n.

Historically, due to its classical interpretation, 'complement' has caused philosophers, metaphysicians, and scientists much chagrin. As an example, Niels Bohr intuited complementarity's subjective nature but was forced by legacy classicism to say, "...opposites are complementary..." Of course when one makes that statement one imposes a classical schismatic dichotomy on 'complement.' One thus forces classical 'complement' to be an excluded-middle dichon.

Start update on complementarity 3-4Mar2009: Classical complementarity as described subatomically by Niels Bohr is problematic. Why? Bohr's complementarity as he originally described sounded "subjective." Of course, classical is exclusively objective. That is a mandate that all classical subjectives are logically, scientifically false. That is classically equivalent to saying, in general, "Enthymemes are false." All subjective thought is always partial. This partiality is what we believe Niels Bohr found in quantum~relations like wave~particle and energy~time. Classically we can treat all four notions as objective. But when classical science attempted to measure them (scalarbate them) classically it became immediately apparent that simultaneous measurement of classical pairs of scalars was impossible. Dirac was able to quantify this classical delta-quantity in integer multiples of Planck's 'constant.'

Well, we know a lot more now...and it is unclear whether to continue our omniscussion here under classical, then possibly alternatively move balance of this omniscussion under our quantum section. Doug's sense just now is that we should jump down to current end of our quantum omniscussion below and continue there...

: C¤mplæmænt, c¤mplæmænta, c¤mplæmæntarihty, c¤mplæmæntary, c¤mplæmænting, c¤mplæmæntings, c¤mplæmænts, c¤mplæmænt[um], etc.

Perhaps a most surprising aspect of quantum~complementarity is how humans tend to see themselves as observers of 'objective' reality, yet they do not view 'objective' reality as observers of them. Niels Bohr was attempting to show classical scientists how observation is actually some meme more like co-affectation. That is why Doug coined both coobsfection and obsfect.

"How can that happen Doug?" Well if reality were really 'objective,' it could 'not' happen by classical Aristotelian syllogistic 'canon.'

Classical objects are canonically 'not' quantum~flux.

But quantum~reality is wholly quantum~flux. "What are tells that quantum~reality is wholly flux, Doug?" There are many, but a most apparent one is nature's holographic self-actualization. David Bohm and Karl Pribram promoted this quantum meme early. Our minds exhibit holographic qua which extends beyond our physical bodies which is another tell of William James' and Boris Sidis' reserve energy notions.

Another tell that quantum~reality is wholly flux, is complementarity itself. Quantum flux is wholly positive (there is n¤ such 'thing' as classically 'negative' flux). Too, quantum flux is intrinsically hologra[il][m][ph]ic: All issi ihn all and all coobsfects all ihn quantum~reality. Pirsig said it like this, paraphrased, "Mind is in body and body is in mind, without contradiction." We may say that about any two quanton antinomial~complements in quantum~reality, "...without contradiction, without objectivec oppositionc." Classical notions and ideas of 'contradiction' are simply bogus in quantum~reality, and in a very strategic sense that is what we mean by quantum~complementarity! Quantum~antinomial~complementation effaces classical dialectic as profound hylic-psychic retardation and moronicity.

Simply, we are in flux and flux is in us. A huge and ubiquitous examplar of this is gravity: "gravity is in us and we are in gravity." But there are countless other fluxes about which we can say confidently, "We are in it and it is in us."

Given those remarks we can say, almost canonically, flux complements flux.

That simple quantum~phasement destroys all dialectical canon, period. You may argue otherwise, but you are wr¤ng, forever living in dialectical Error!

In Quantonics, 'c¤mplement' is n¤ dichon! C¤mplement, rather, is an included-middle quanton.

See: Two Kinds of Complementarity.

...Continue update on complementarity 3-28Mar2009: We need to remediate some classical notions into their quantum anacoquecigruesical memes. Let's pause a moment to list some issues which are critical here in aiding our abilities to grasp what modern "quantum~complementarity" means:

  • Planck's constant -
    • There are no classical 'constants' in quantum~reality.
    • Planck's 'h' is a quantum of energy which some refer "a packet of flux," so Planck's quantum is quintessentially "change itself" in an 'h' worth of flux increments.
    • All real change in quantum~reality may be described in terms of Nih.
    • All change is flux. All flux is waves. All flux waves are positive. All positive flux may be described stochastically. (classicism views flux as both positive and negative, so classical flux may not be stochastic without taking its absolute value...this is a bogus classicism..classical negation is one of its most unfortunate founding assumptions...)
  • Observation as classical measurement -
  • Observation as omnitoring -
  • Exclusion of subatomic classical observation -
  • Obsfection -
    • Observation affects any ecosystem observed.
  • Coobsfection -
    • Any ecosystem observed affects its observer.
  • Holographicity as iso omnitoring -
    • All energy~well nodes in any hologram coobsfect all other energy~well nodes in said hologram to greater and lesser affects depending on, at least, these quantum~memes:
      • partial absence of cognitionings
      • partial presence of cognitionings
      • partial cognitionings
      • partial recognitionings
      • partial omniscriminationings among energy~wellings.
  • Implicit uncertainty of all omnitoring -

This actual quotation appeared as a search on Quantonics' web site on 2Mar2009 at 03:15:22 EDT:

"Because feelings and thoughts aren't always the same we call them 'complementary.'
And remember the principle of compl[e]mentarity says that observation of one observable always
precludes the possibility of simultaneous observation of its complement.
Think about the implications."

Second occurrence of 'complementarity,' was spelled with an 'i,' which Doug repaired [sic]. That quote prompted Doug's update here, since it makes clear how improperly classicists currently thingk about real quantum~complementarity. That is, 'preclude' as an ideal classical bivalent 'either-or' dialectism. See original Jammer quote that evokes ideal classicism while yet and still providing an inkling of real quantum~c¤mplementarity. See Doug's coining of omnivalent. Doug - 17May2010. Quantum~complementarity isn't classical. We cann¤t use objective thing-king anymore! It is simply bogus and inept to do so. Classical science uses dialectical objectivity to thingk, and that is its tell of its imminent end-time. Classical thingking is already extinct, yet its inuring users are unaware of their own extinction. For example, that quote's author uses feelings and thoughts as 'notions' about which one may choose to ponder complementarity. Classically, though, feelings and thoughts are usually fathomed subjectively. Both as either subjects or objects are logically separable, independent notions. Their middles are excluded. How does one quantum~complement things which are exclusionary? If one uses Aristotle's syllogisms, one makes a great Error. If one treats them dyadically, again, one makes a great Error. Real complementation is inclusionary, classically we could show that as overlapping Venn and Gestalt patterns. But classical set theory still keeps stuff in overlap logically independent of stuffs in non overlapping areas. Quantum waves do not act like that. Quantum waves superpose in at least two omniffering ways: n¤n entangled (n¤n interfering) and entangled (interfering). Assuming mind is quantum (a quantum stage), thoughts and feelings are quantum~waves (intrinsically quantized), and as such do n¤t exhibit classical properties normally attributed to classical objects. Doug 4Mar2009.

Quantum~science claims reality is flux, and flux is subjective and qualitative. We have to learn how to commence a new way of thinkqing that is entirely quantum. As we do that, we won't throw away our classical thing-king, rather we will keep it to use it as a worst case exemplar of how to thingk about reality. Both of them side-by-side provide a kind of quantonic empiritheoretical accountancy bookkeeping. We can learn to recapitulate both together, as Doug does now. Quantum always wins. At least until its successor emerges.

Perhaps most telling and most disturbing is that bold violet clause in our visitor's search pattern. It shows us that our visitor is a classicist. Our biggest clue is speaking of an observable having "its complement."

Lots more to write and describe here...

Doug - 3-28Mar2009.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'complete' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'c¤mplete.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'complete.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'c¤mplete.'

We shall use single qu¤tes when referring these terms, respectively, "¤ut ¤f con/comtexts."

See: absolute.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

Note to readers: To accomplish our remediation of 'commutative' we are using and showing our recent Quantonics remediation of classical 'minus' here in at least two quantum emerqants:

  • mihnus ('h' in MT-Extra font which is an h-bar), and
  • minus (a GIF of an MT-Extra h-bar).

Our focus here is strictly on classical objective vis-à-vis quantum quantonic notions of 'commutativity.'

Objective notions of 'commutativity' are usually 'mathematical' which some scientists isomorph (using a noun here as a verb) as classically 'physical;' i.e., "as it signifies [mechanically], so it is [mechanically]."

Quantonic notions of 'commutativity' we call physial (rather than 'physical').

To us physial evokes sensibilities of a more (closer to a) real nature. To us 'physical' and 'physics' abuse (using classical dialectic to I3 rape) our sensibilities with harsh mechanical notions of synthetic artificiality. Those last two sentences find powerful analogies in quanton and dichon, respectively. So here we are remediating dichonic commutativity with quantonic c¤mmutativity.

Page top index.

'commutative' cont'd...

In classical contexts we shall use 'commutative' and its various classical forms.

In quantum comtexts we shall use 'c¤mmutative' amd its various quantum emerqings.

Classicists often describe mathematical (i.e., mechanical) commutativity using Poisson's bracket:

pq - qp = [p, q] = 0.

In other words, mechanical order of multiplication is arbitrary. This should always hold as classically, tautologously, Aristotelian-syllogistically 'true.'

However, in quantum reality Poisson's bracket is n¤t classically 'zero' tautologous.

Page top index.

'commutative' cont'd...

Why? Quantum reality is, am¤ng ¤ther phen¤mena:

  • abs¤lute flux (always canging amd canging all) — quantum reality, thus, imposes many whenings on all quantum comtexts,
  • included-middle (pr¤bability-distributing, c¤-here-ing, superp¤siti¤ning, "Bell Inequalitying," quantum-umcærtaintying, etc.) — quantum reality, thus, imposes many animatæ, l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal pr¤cessings' interrelati¤nships ¤n all quantum comtexts,
  • ensemble-everywere b¤th l¤cally amd n¤nl¤cally ass¤ciative (partially: c¤herent, entangling, amd superluminally c¤rrelating) — quantum reality, thus, imposes many c¤¤bsfective ¤nt¤l¤gical selective assessments regarding "whatings happenings nextings" on all quantum comtexts,
  • etc.

See our Bell Theorem Study.

In quantum reality, Poisson's bracket must be shown more generally as:

p•q minus q•p[p,q]quanton(p,q)i•N,

Page top index.

'commutative' cont'd...


  • '•' issi Quantonics' quantum multiplicati¤n,
  • minus issi Quantonics' subtracti¤n,
  • issi our now famous Quantonics' equals sign,
  • 'p,q' is our Quantonics comma-copulum absent classicism's SOM 'wall' space, amd
  • 'N' issi however many Planck h-bars we need to represent any microscopic, mesoscopic, ¤r macroscopic quantum umcærtainty interrelati¤nship (in absence of N, one often sees a greater-than/equals symbol to express a non-specific N; also, one may choose to view N as a specific radius number based upon 2(r)h, where 'r' is usually normalized classically to (one) '1,' and 'h' is Planck's constant; we tend to view 'r' and its reciprocal Value depending on whether we want to depict energy or radius as greater; smaller 'r' is analogous greater wave-n¤mbær/frequency/energy).

Too, all normally classical scalar magnitudes we represent by Quantonic analogy via quantons as quantum n¤mbærs.

Finally our usage of i as quantum square root of minus ¤ne issi intrinsically recursive and iteratively generative when viewed as a quantum square root.

Page top index.

'commutative' cont'd...

In classical versions of quantum 'science,' quantum 'umcærtainty' is always expressed in its classical uncertainty representation as we show above.

However, in quantum reality, quantum c¤mmutativity wears many other potential ensemble quantum-pr¤duct interrelati¤nship guises which we may exemplify:

    • quanton(p,q)p•q mihnus p•q (palindromic reversal, 2nd pair),
    • quanton(p,q)p•q mihnus b•d (palindromic inversion, 2nd pair),
    • quanton(p,q)p•q mihnus d•b (inversion & reversal),
    • quanton(p,q)p•q mihnus p•b (partial inversion & reversal),
    • quanton(p,q)p•q mihnus d•p (partial inversion & reversal),
    • and so on...

When one becomes aware of quantum reality's omni-whatever nature, one can see that EIMA quantum umcærtainty (c¤mmutativity) interrelati¤nships abound.

Also see, and take some timings to read surrounding text, our Boolean Logic is Distributative.

Page top index.


Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'con' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'com.' See Con.

In classical contexts we shall use 'con' prefixes. In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'com' prefixes, with some exceptions like quantum included-middle, subjective c¤mplement.

We shall use single qu¤tes when referring these terms, respectively, "¤ut ¤f con/comtexts."

Page top index.




Classical -

  • real,
  • particular,
  • objective,
  • thing,
  • material,
  • stable,
  • immutable,
  • homogeneous,
  • monistic,
  • etc.

Quantum -

  • abstract,
  • complementary,
  • sophist,
  • heterogeneous,
  • animate~fractal,
  • nonactual,
  • pluralistic,
  • etc.

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'concrete' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'comcrete.' See Con.

We shall use single qu¤tes when referring these terms, respectively, "¤ut ¤f con/comtexts."

: Concrete, etc.

Classically 'concrete' means real, actual, specific, stable, material, objective, particulate, monistic, (w)holistic, etc.

Classically 'concrete' means 'not' abstract, 'not' -plural, -heterogeneous, -hermeneutic, -sophist, etc.

Classically 'concrete' implies an absolutely stoppable, hold-still logic of EOOO opposition.

: Comcrete, etc.

Quantumly, comcrete ræfers amd ¤mniscrihbæs quantum~ræhlness: as anihmatæ, æv¤luti¤nary, æmærscænt, æmærscænturable, æmærscihtectable, BAWAM, REIMAR quanton(n¤nahctualihty,ahctualihty) amd quanton(DQ,SQ) quantum~wavæ fumcti¤n(s) AKA QLO(s).

Quantum comcrete muhst bæ abstrahct since iht ræquiræs ahll n¤nahctualihty as quantum ahctualihty's ræhl quantum~c¤mplæmænt.

See probability, What is Wrong with Probability as Value, etc.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'concur' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'comcur.' Similarly 'comcurrence' and 'comcurrent.'

In classical contexts two or more processes 'concur' objectively-independently of one another.

Ihn quantum comtexts tw¤ ¤r m¤re pr¤cesses 'comcur' BAWAM EIMA c¤¤bsfecting ¤ne an¤ther.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

: Conflict

: Comflihct

Classical conflict, e.g., war, is about what is dialectically 'right' and 'wrong.' Classical conflict is about eliminating one's enemies based on classical notions of opposition. This kind of classical conflict is known as fascism. This kind of conflict is called "politics." It distills, i.e., politics and fascism, distill to hatred, a hatred which is against individuals and societies! Think ab¤ut that, d¤ n¤t thingk about it!!!

Classical conflict is a dichon(win, lose). Notice how democracy is constructed based on that same classical notion of conflict: dichon(majority, minority). Notice thæræ issi n¤ quantum ihncludæd-mihddle, n¤ quantum neutral gr¤umd only SOM's exclusive wall SOM's excluded-middle. Notice how classical conflict is always an issue of society and societal 'values.' Classical conflict always places society above individuals. This conflict-based version of society is ESQ, non ESS, evil personified.

It also may be apparent to readers how classical conflicts like war and oppression of 'infidels,' raise classical societies above their own sacred notions of 'rule of law.' There is a huge story here, waiting to be told.

In quantonics, we say it simply, "Static notions of rule of law can be further distilled even as classicists do under conditions of conflict: 'Rules is tules for fules.'" Classical society reserves for itself an ultimate right to ignore its own 'rule of law' whenever it benefits an ultimate dichon(win, lose). "If 'rule of law' forces a loss in a classical conflict, ignore it!" That's classical conflict-politics folks! It's bilge. It's bull. It's rotten! It stinks! It's fascism!

What is at root of these anti~quantum and ludicrous classical notions? Dialectic!!!

Quantum comflihct issi ab¤ut c¤smol¤gihcal, nati¤nal, s¤cietal, cultural, and individual interrelationships which aræ adjuhsting, adahpting, amd æv¤lving t¤ward quantum c¤hesihve bættærings. Quantum comflihct issi ab¤ut mutual survihval based upon quantum memeos of judgment wihth ræspæct: quanton(quanton(Hagana,havlagah),quanton(c¤¤pærati¤n,respæct)).

Ihn quantum ræhlihty, iht issi ihmp¤ssible for ideal

  • classical conflict based upon ideal
  • classical opposition, i.e.,
    • ideal classical negation,
    • ideal classical falsifiability,
    • ideal repeatable classical verifiability, and
    • ideal classical proof, and thus
  • ideal classical dialectical judgment


For additional and insightful coverage of this quantonic remediated English language term see a recent article in The Chronicle, 2Apr2004 issue, by Alan Wolfe, titled, 'A Fascist Philosopher Helps Us Understand Contemporary Politics.' Quantonics subscribes The Chronicle, otherwise we have no affiliation.

Wolfe does not point out that both liberal and conservative, both Democrat and Republican politics are slaves of ancient and passe Greco-Roman dialectic. In our view, that is crux of our world's problems at commencement of Millennium III. We can make similar remarks regarding world religions and world belief systems. Doug - 6Apr2004.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

: Conscious, consciousness, etc.

Classically consciousness is often viewed as static. An example of this view is Julian Jaynes' "Consciousness is based on language." See his Afterward and a summary of his four hypotheses of which our quote is number one, in his The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

Nearly all language is both dialectical and static. So if consciousness is based on language, then all consciousness would have to be both static and dialectical.

Jaynes usually makes cogent and brilliant remarks, but in this case he fails massively. His statement (n¤t a quantum~phasement) is akin a list of Einstein's great failures:

  • "gravity is acceleration,"
  • "space is an identity with time,"
  • "relativity is based upon geometric interval invariance,"
  • "probability must be ideally either zero or one,"
  • "reality is objective,"
  • "photons are objective,"
  • "there is no ether AKA æther," (i.e., Einstein adhered religiously Michelson and Morley's bogus no ether drift results)
  • "velocity of light is maximum velocity achievable in our universe,"
  • "superluminality is absurd, and if it were not absurd it would violate my socially beloved theories of relativity,"
  • "action at a distance is absurd,"
  • "strict determinism is real and true,"
  • "all real energy is posentropic," (i.e., Einstein adhered religiously J. C. Maxwell's bogus theories of thermodynamics)
  • "God does not roll dice,"
  • Etc. (some paraphrasing by Doug)

That list is massively incomplete...Einstein, really, was a major dumbass!

Nearly all of Einstein's thoughts found their faulty bases in language and mechanical abstractions borne of dialectical language.

His works now are widely recognized as immense stupidity borne of his own psychic-intellectual hylic garbage.

Classicists view consciousness using basic classical concepts used by Einstein. Therefore we may assume most of their conclusions re consciousness, like Einstein, are faulty.

: Comsci¤uhs, comsci¤uhsness, etc.

What has all of Doug's multi-decade long quantum opus taught us about classical notions of consciousness? See Doug's CeodE 2013 What Is Consciousness? Doug - 11Sep2013.

Simply, comsci¤uhsness evolves, it emersces wisdom, it uses waves to do so. QELRed we use comsci¤uhsness.

Classical canonic objects axiomatically cann¤t evolve! Classical objects are dumb! Classicists cannot see their inner waves (Aleph in their blood)!

So Doug's counter to Jaynes is, "Comsci¤uhsness finds its bases in quantum~wavings."

Quantum English Language Remediation (QELR) requires EIMA~putting wave~memetics in words and symbols. (Pirsig refers this "Putting Quality back.") Our best exemplar here is classical static 'form' QELRed as quantum~dynamic 'emerq.' Another: classical independent 'state' QELRed as quantum~coinsident 'phase.' Too, see phasement.

Real comsci¤uhsness transemerqs waves into emerscent wave ensemblings. That simple phasement offers an alternative lingual perspective of creation itself as a quantum~thought. Viz. QCD's TBCSUD emerscing fermions into actuality! Voila! Creatio ex nihilo aperio! Quantum reality merely thinks and its thoughts become real (actual). Quantum~reality is comsci¤uhsness! Our use of 'simple' above is crucial. Quantum~thoughts are holographically "interrelationship maximized," for better quantum understanding. Ockhamm Blewitt! Classical minimalism is a dialectical faux pas. Look what dialectic has wrought! Tiny thing-king: Bernanke, Obama, David X. Li, Bankers, Economists, Politicians, 'pundits'...all dialectical losers.

Become a quantum~winner. Toss out dialectic! Doug.

Jaynes' mind imprisoned itself in humanism, and anthropocentrism. He humanized 'consciousness' as lingual. Wr¤ng! Comsci¤uhsness is quantum~reality itself!

All living creatures' brains use QED to create actual thoughts ex nihilo. QCD creates material reality. QED interrelates phoxons and material reality. In a brain phoxons are biophotonic and their photonicity covers nearly all of nature's adiabatic flux spectrum. Adiabatic flux, much of it, is far above spatial red to blue light. Temporal red to blue light is at-near adiabatic fluxes' spectral low end.

So, adiabatic biophotons transemerqant holographic interrelationshipings among energy wellings (EWings) in any brain. These, in general QELR, are quantons:


Quantumly we are using Quantonics script to show a thought or one quanton's con(m)tribution to a thought as an ensemble of quantons.

Key here is that what you see in that script is all waves of quantum~cohera and ~entropa, all quantum~energy, and all of that is 'alive' literally as perpetual quantum~wave processings.

Energy~Wellings (EWings) are fermionic flux partials of neurons. Biophotons are bosonic flux holographic partial images of a thought. Finally, Doug's Quantonic Uncertainty Symbols represent quantum~scintillation as quantum~thoughts~interrelating EWings via biophotons.

That omniscription is immensely oversimplified, mainly due countless quantum miracles like adiabaticity, interference, superposition, coherence, fermionic condensation, superconductivity, superluminality, holographicity, etc.

A wh¤le n¤vel spihn ¤n quantum~comsci¤uhsness, eh? One of Doug's most important remediations!!!

Doug - 24Mar2010.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'consensus' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'comsensus.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'consensus.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'comsensus.'

Classical consensus elicits semantics of Kuhnian paradigm, social group-thingk, CTMs, common sense, common-ist sense, etc. Clifford Geertz in his Available Light speaks of a classical view of a culture as essentially consensus. Classically, consensus is group culture in support of group-thingk. It is thingking by a culture for a culture. It is politically correct radical socialism. Classical consensus places group above individual. It is "one paradigmatic class of cultural rules fits all members" of a culture. Classical consensus is a closed cathedral, a church of reason, a detention center of group-thingk.

Vico says consensus is, "Uniform ideas originating among entire peoples unknown to each other must have a common ground of truth," and "Common sense is judgment without reflection, shared by an entire class, an entire nation, or the entire human race." Giambattista Vico (1688-1744), Italian philosopher, historian. The New Science, bk. 1, paragraphs 144 and 142 respectively (ed. 1744; tr. 1984). Quotes added 25Aug2002 - Doug. See our Quantonics version of truth.

Thanks to The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations, Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

Thomas Digges, 16th century English Astronomer said "Vulgi opinio Error."

Digges wrote that in his copy of Copernicus' De revolutionibus, 1543, cover book margin near page top.

Thanks to Peter Barker's 30Apr2004 Science book review of The Book Nobody Read, by Owen Gingrich.

Translated, "Vulgi opinio Error," means "the common opinion errs."

We agree with Digges.

Epicurus said, "I have never wished to cater to the crowd, for what they know I do not approve, and what they approve I do not know." Added 5Jul2006 - Doug.

Thanks to The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations, Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. See 'Popularity, Item 2.'

Classically, consensus is 'general thought.' Some call it "common sense." It is 'cloned thingking.' One thought system fits all 'thingking.' More seriously and with large impact on culture and science is a conventional semantic of social positive thought.

Consensus is what we call, in Quantonics, "running on automatic." Classical consensus is scalarbation.

Several philosophers have said that general (socially positive) thought is a precursor of abuse of power. If a society, organization, union, science, philosophy, ruler, leader, etc., can get everyone to think alike then in a very large sense that entity gains power. Empirically we know this is so from experience. All societies and rulers evolve toward conditions of absolute corruption and power.

In our view quantum thinking individuals, who view themselves as more highly evolved and evolving than societies and groups, can (are capable and must shoulder this responsibility for their and other pluralities' own good) take power away from these corruptible entities.

Examples? Recently California and Gray Davis plus USA and Georges (Herbert and Walker) Bush.

See Ernst Mach and Fritz Mauthner. Ref's from Casti's Gödel.

Quantum comsensus, Mae-wan Ho style (see page 153 ¤f her, the Rainbow and the Worm) amd Quantonics style, issi b¤th gr¤up-think-king amd individual-think-king, QTMs, extra¤rdinary sense, quantum sense, etc. Quantumly, comsensus issi quantonic culture (i.e., quantum c¤hesi¤n, quantum c¤herence) in supp¤rt ¤f individual-think (individual aut¤n¤my). Quantum comsensus issi mass cust¤mizati¤n ¤f individual pragmadigmatic cultural values, member-by-member. Quantum comsensus issi an ¤pen bazaar, an arena ¤f free thinking individuals wh¤ b¤th share amd d¤ n¤t share memes.

See our judge, our Bases of Judgment, and our What is Wrong with Probability as Value? (Added links 19Jul2004 - Doug)

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

See: effect. See before.

Notice this: 'con' sequence. Inference? 'Out' of sequence. Which sequence. Only in a predicable, predictable, determinate, formal, mechanical dialectical, analytic, unified, whole monistic reality could there be only one sequence. See OGC.

In quantum~reality there are n¤ classical 'sequences,' so there are n¤ classical 'con' sequences as 'sequence's' ideal classical 'opposites.'

Doug - 15Dec2007.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

: Conserve, conservation, etc.

Classical conservation is an idea (notion) about classical actuality, where n¤n actuality canonically does not classically 'exist.' We can script this as dichon(actuality, actuality).

All energy in classical actuality conserves to some absolute classical scalar value which is constant and never changes, never increases, never decreases.

Classically conserved actual energy is an immutable 'constant.' Doug likes to call it "a zero sum game." This mathematically based "zero sum game" is a canonic basis for nearly all classical entropy and energy 'transactions' using classical 'logic' of objective difference and sum interactions: addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and all classical 'equivalence relations' and their associated objective and dialectical 'ideas.' (Doug, here, views classical 'ideas' as anachronistic hylic 'intellectual garbage,' classical thingking detritus. Doug's straw man for this bad classical dialectical thingking is SOM.)

Classical conservation is just another classical and dialectical con job. We know it is a con job since two energies, say A and B, when equal and subtracted produce ideal classical negation of energy. Zero energy! (Does that violate conservation?) That is an obvious con job, a mathematical and 'logical' con job.

Nearly all classicists thingk like that. Are you still a DIQheaded SOMite? (Keynesians are SOMites! LOL!)

: Comsærve, comsærvati¤n, comsærving, comsærvati¤nings, etc.

Quantum comsærvati¤n of energy issi a memeo about quantum~reality: quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality).

This meme is easy to grasp: quantum~energies may be tentatively 'canceled,' but never classically negated.

Therefore we may heurist quantum comsærvati¤n thus: all quantum~energy perpetually exists as quantized and scintillating quantons(n¤nactuality,actuality).

This memeo affects all memeos of entropa, cohera, and all energy per intera.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'consistent' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'comsistent.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'consistent.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'comsistent.'

We shall use single qu¤tes when referring these terms, respectively, "¤ut ¤f con/comtexts."

See: absolute.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'constant' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'comstant.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'constant.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'comstant.'

'Constant' is a classical term whose meaning depends upon classically ideal constructs, especially staticity and inanimacy.

In quantum reality all comstructs are quantum umcærtain. All quantum comstructs are in abs¤lute quantum flux, amd thus intrinsically incapable ¤f certain, 'constant' interrelati¤nships.

This aspect ¤f quantum reality is what dr¤ve us, in Quantonics, t¤ devel¤p Planck quantum based quantum number semi¤tics. Als¤ see a similar discussi¤n at One is the Onliest.

See Problematic English Term 'Constant.'

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'continue' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'comtinue.' Analogously, 'comtinua,' 'comtinuity,' 'comtinuous,' and 'comtinuum.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'continue.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'comtinue.' Analogously, 'comtinua,' 'comtinuity,' 'comtinuous,' and 'comtinuum.'

Classically reality may retain 'continuous' state. This is analogous "semper fidelis," or "status quo is the way to go."

Classically 'continua,' 'continuity,' and 'continuum' are analytic determinants, pursuant an unchanging, persistent function, strategy, and direction.

In quantum reality changæ reigns, phase (n¤t classical state) is always tentative, and changæ is always quantized, e.g. n¤t continuous, rather, comtinuous.

We ch¤¤se n¤t to use classical 'discontinuous' in place of n¤t continuous since it is an ideal classical biformal opposite of 'not' continuous. Quantum reality is c¤mplementary n¤t ideally biformal.

For a more general omniscussion of 'continue' see Doug's QELR of wavefunction.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

: Contradict (verb), contradiction (noun), etc.

TBD. See Aristotle. (Classicism depends upon an illusion/delusion of 'proof' by contradiction. Contradiction as a concept depends upon Aristotle's 'law' of excluded-middle or what we today call "objective separability," AKA "objective independence" of classical variables (See mathematics' axiom of independence.). And classical contradiction depends further upon Aristotle's law of contradiction which tells us that an object is either itself or it is classically 'not' itself. Here, 'not' is a presumed classical objective negation. Also 'proof' by contradiction is a requirement of Popperian 'falsifiability' which also depends upon a classical concept of objective negation.)

See our Bases of Judgment and our What is Wrong with Probability as Value?

: Comtradihct (verb), comtradihcti¤n (noun), etc.

Replace all uses of quantum~comtradihcti¤n with quantum~c¤mplæmæntarihty.

Quantum~memeos of complementarity efface bogus notions of classical-contradiction.

Where classical 'contradiction' objectively mechanically juxtaposes (based upon classical notions of negation) scalar state-eventic 'objects,' quantum~c¤mplæmæntarihty qualitatively phase~compares dynamic quantized wave~function packets of flux. In phase~comparison there is n¤ negation, only positive flux phasicityings. Latter is what quantons(wave,wavicle) believe, thinkq, and do. Compare dichons(wave, particle). Doug - 3Aug2012.

Refer Pirsig's "Mind is in body and body is in mind, without contradiction." A clear phasementing of quantum~c¤mplæmæntarihty.

See quantum~cancellation. See phase. See complement to understand Pirsig's, "Mind is in body and body is in mind...without contradiction." Quantum~complementarity eliminates classical bogus notions of 'contradiction.'

Doug - August and September, 2012.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

: Cool (noun), cool (verb), cooled, cooling, coolings, cools, etc.

Noun or verb classical 'cool' defines classical objective state.

: Cool (noun), cool (verb), cooled, cooling, coolings, cools, etc.

Noun and verb quantum 'c¤¤l' describes quantum subjective phase.

This may be one of our most omnifficult quantum words to describe. Doing so, in a sense, describes quantum~reality itself.

Some issues we have to investigate, and this is only part of our challenge, include:

  • Entropa,
  • Cohera,
  • Gradients of cohera and entropa in terms of flux and isoflux and flux rates,
  • Cooling in actuality,
  • Absence of 'cool' as conceptual in n¤nactuality,
  • Does a classical notion of 'absolute zero' exist? Can it exist since flux is absolute and there is n¤ meme of 'zero' flux in quantum reality, latter which nicely explains Brownian motion?,
  • etc.

As you may choose to see, this is simply (n¤t so simply) a huge undertaking.

Doug - 28Oct2008.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
  • Quantum -

We remediate classical 'cooperate' with quantum 'c¤¤perate.'

Classical cooperation is dialectical, mechanical, interactive, quantitative, disjoined-biased, and objective.

Quantum c¤¤peration issi rhetorical, valuative, ihnterrelative, qualihtative, respectful, amd quantonic.

Page top index.




  • Classical -
    • duplicate
    • recreate
    • reproduce
    • etc.
  • Quantum -

: Copy, copied, copies, etc.

Classicists assume that ideal and perfect Platonic reproduction is possible.

How could that be? A major requirement is that reality is stopped, but if reality is not stopped, reality then must be stoppable.

Stoppable reality is a dialectic reality.

A dialectical reality is bogus since reality is neither stopped nor physically stoppable.

A classical assumption of stoppable reality is a bogus assumption.

Reality evolves, adapts, emersces endlessly at up to Planck rates of change and flux. Reality is always only partially what it will be.

Partiality as absolute process denies Platonic copyability.

: C¤py, c¤pied, c¤pies, c¤pying, c¤pyings, etc.

By assumption quantum reality is flux, absolute change, and endlessly evolving.

As an outcome of that plausibility, classical notions of copying, as perfect reproduction, are bogus.

Ask any manufacturer about reproduction. He, if he is honest, will tell you that n¤ two manufactured 'anythings' are or can be identical.

Ditto re: biological evolution and 'cloning.' N¤ two biologicals can ever evolve identically. N¤ two biologicals can ever be cloned identically.

Our known universe is in absolute motion, as evidenced by direct experience of existence of adiabatic pendula (e.g., fermions). If one merely uses 'creation locus' as an axiomatic requisite for duplication, one finds immediately an impossibility of establishing 'identity' of any 'creation locus.' Latter is essence of macroscopic quantum~uncertainty.

All copies are always imperfect, inconsistent, and incomplete. All copies are always partial and evolving ¤mnihquæly unto themselves.

Tautologies, simply, are never perfect in physical reality, since physical reality is always changing, always evolving, always only partially what it may become.

Doug - 29Jun2008.

Page top index.



  • Classical -
    correlate v. Before 1742, back formation from correlation, or verb use of the earlier noun. —correlation n. 1561, mutual relation; borrowed from Middle French correlation, formed from cor- together + relation relation. —correlative adj. 1530, borrowed from Middle French correlatif, correlative, formed from cor-, variant of com- before r + relatif relative; perhaps suggested by New Latin correlativus. —n. 1545, from the adjective.

    Transcribed from Barnhart's American English Dictionary of Etymology.
  • Quantum -


  • Classical -
    • align,
    • assess pattern affinities,
    • compare,
    • follow proportionally,
    • match,
    • side-by-side similarities,
    • superposition registration (say retinas and finger prints),
    • etc.
  • Quantum -
    • entangled systems' quantum behaviors,
    • quantum communication,
    • zero latency flux change monitoring at arbitrary omnistancings,
    • etc.

: Correlate, correlation, etc.

Classical correlation simply is a formal, analytic, mechanical, measurable dependency of one object upon and perhaps with another object.

Classical correlations are usually spatially limited, mostly due Einstein's relativistic notions.

: C¤rrelatæ, c¤rrelati¤n, etc.

Quantum c¤rrælati¤n is wholly unlike classical correlation.

Quantum c¤rrælati¤n may perhaps best be described in a graphic, like this one:

In that graphic we see that 'particle' A and 'particle' B (let's refer them quantons A and B henceforth...) are quantumly~entangled. That means they originated from a 'common' source (say a candle flame) and possibly experienced a shared n¤n linear transemerqancy (say a lens, a diffraction grating, a reflecting surface, a refracting film, a quanton~quanton 'collision,' a diode, etc.).

Once entangled quantons maintain that c¤rrælati¤n regardless of spatial separation; regardless of passage of timings.

For example, pretend that quantons A and B are entangled photons. When photon A's spin flips, photon B's spin c¤rrælatihvæly flips superluminally (with zær¤ latency) regardless their mutual spatial 'separations.' This photonic c¤rrælati¤n, any kind of quantonic quantum~c¤rrælati¤n, is called "action at a distance," but we can improve on that by saying "instantaneous superluminal action at a distance." It is one of an almost unlimited array of quantum "miracles" which classicists have been attempting to brand 'heretical' for over 100 years. That kind of classical inquisition is why you often hear Doug verbally abusing classicists, often harshly. In Doug's quantum~stage they are evil and promulgators of ESQ. They deserve, at least scientifically, ultimate disrespect for their mental-mechanical-inertia.

For more on this search www for Gisin, Zeilinger.

Doug - 6Dec2007.

Page top index.

©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2029

Return to Quantonics English Language Remediation Index Page                                  Arches

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

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

©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2029 Rev. 7Dec2015  PDR — Created 20Jul2002  PDR
(10Apr2001 rev - Add rem. for 'certain,' 'complete,' and 'consistent.')
(18Apr2001 rev - Add 'co-,' 'coherent.')
(30May2001 rev - Add 'collapse.')
(12Jun2001 rev - Extend 'complement' rem.)
(13Jun2001 rev - Add tsunami 'water wave' link to 'coherent' rem.)
(9Jul2001 rev - Add 'close' rem.)
(26Jul2001 rev - Add 'constant.')
(4Oct2001 rev - Add 'consequence' and extend 'cause.')
(14Oct2001 rev - Extend/alter 'coherent.')
(25Nov2001 rev - Add 'consensus.')
(21Jan2002 rev - Remediate quantum comtextual occurrences of 'complement' to 'c¤mplement.)
(17Apr2002 rev - Add 'continuity,' and 'continuous.')
(19May2002 rev - Add 'contradiction.')
(25Aug2002 rev - Add Vico quote to 'consensus.')
(4Sep2002 rev Add 'change.')
(5Sep2002 rev - Minor upgrades to 'change.' 'Change' remediate some remaining comtextual occurrences of 'change.')
(6Sep2002 rev - Correct some minor typos. Add link to 'entropy,' and add remediation under 'change.')
(8Sep2002 rev - Add 'choice.')
(16Sep2002 rev - Quantum comtextually remediate some recently added QELR terms.)
(20Sep2002 rev - Repair 'choice ontology' link under 'choice.')
(23Sep2002 rev - Repair minor typos.)
(26Sep2002 rev - Remediate all quantum comtextual occurrences of 'ensemble.')
(31Oct2002 rev - Repair typo under 'contradict.')
(12Nov2002 rev - Add 'pragmatemporal' and 'paratemporal' links under remediated term 'change.')
(13Dec2002 rev - Pluralize 'aspect' under 'change.')
(4-5Feb2003 rev - Add 'commutative.')
(6Feb2003 rev - Extend 'commutative.')
(7Feb2003 rev - For browser compatibility, substitute GIFs for some Symbol fonts.)
(8Feb2003 rev - Repair some spelling errors.)
(16Jun2003 rev - Add 'common sense' link under 'consensus.')
(30Jun2003 rev - Spelling/typos.)
(19Aug2003 rev - Reset 'commutative' red text. Extend 'commutative.')
(26-27Sep2003 rev - Add 'circle.')
(8-9Oct2003 rev - Extend 'change.')
(8Nov2003 rev - Add 'class' and 'cooperate.')
(12Nov2003 rev - Reset some red text.)
(29Dec2003 rev - Add 'thingk' links.)
(21Jan2004 rev - Add 'concur.')
(24Feb2004 rev - Add 'consensus' link to 'judgment.')
(13Mar2004 rev - Add red text under 'consensus.')
(24Mar2004 rev - Reset rev. dates.)
(6Apr2004 rev - Add 'conflict.')
(18Apr2004 rev - Repair red text box typo under 'consensus.')
(2May2004 rev - Add 'canon.')
(5May2004 rev - Add 'Poisson Brackets' anchor under 'canon.' Extend P.B. list under 'canon' with 'temporal distribution,')
(5May2004 rev - Reset legacy red text box under 'consensus.' Add new Digges red text box there.)
(1Jun2004 rev - Add fuzzon circles under 'circle.')
(2Jun2004 rev - Add classical circles under 'circle.' Remove long QELR parenthetical under 'circle.')
(2Jun2004 rev - Extend classical notions and quantum memeos of points interrelationships with circles under 'circle.')
(4Jun2004 rev - Add classicist's and quantumist's eyes under 'circle.')
(1Jul2004 rev - Reset updates.)
(13Jul2004 rev - Extend 'contradict.')
(17Jul2004 rev - Add 'cohere' anchor to 'coherent.')
(19Jul2004 rev - Extend 'consensus.')
(19Aug2004 rev - Reset update notifications.)
(3Sep2004 rev - Reset table's cell height restriction. Typos.)
(27Oct rev - Extend 'cause.' Free table and cell width constraints.)
(17-25Dec2004 rev - Reset red text updates. Update 'consensus.')
(13Jan2005 rev - Add page top indexes.)
(15Apr2005 rev - Add 'affectation' link under 'choice.')
(13Jun2005 rev - Update 'coherence.')
(3Aug2005 rev - Slightly update 'consensus' with a 'quantum coherence' link.)
(10,20Sep2005 rev - Update 'commutative' with "intellectual, intuitional, instinctional rape" parenthetical. Update 'choice.')
(9,13Oct2005 rev - Add 'concrete.' Add 'many
whenings' to 'moment' link under 'commutative.')
(10Nov2005 rev - Repair 'concrete' typos.)
(15Dec2005 rev - Replace 'and and' with 'and.' Reset red text.)
(20Jan2006 rev - Reformat page top.)
(20Mar2006 rev - Per client request, extend 'canon' slightly.)
(5Jul2006 rev - Added Epicurus quote under 'consensus.' Massive respell.)
(29Sep2006 rev - Update 'coherent.')
(7Feb2007 rev - Add 'anabolic' comments under 'canon.' Add Einstein comment. Add 'machine' link.)
(6May2007 rev - Add 'commutation' anchor.)
(18Sep2007 rev - Add link to Hume's SRS 'Exegesis of Absolute Certainty Uncertainty Quantum vav Classical.')
(6,15Dec2007 rev - Add new 'cancel.' Add new 'correlate.' Add missing 'index' links. Update 'consequence.')
(18Dec2007 rev - Add 'Problematics' link at page top.)
(20Feb2008 rev - Reset legacy red markups.)
(29Jun2008 rev - Add 'copy.')
(24-28Jul2008 rev - Add 'cool.')
(23Feb2009 rev - Add link to recent QELR of 'aware.')
(3-4Mar2009 rev - Update 'complementarity.' This is a crucial update. It shows significant improvement in Quantonics' abilities to describe quantum~complementarity.)
(28Mar2009 rev - Add link to 'Change as Quantum Waves' under 'change.' Continue earlier efforts on complementarity.)
(4Apr2008 rev - Add link to our EPR EPR Table entry on classical vav quantum 'commute' under our QELR of 'commutativity.')
(7-8Apr2009 rev - Update 'change.')
(30Aug2009 rev - Minor update to 'cancel.')
(20Sep2009 rev - Add 'wave' and other links intra page sporadically.)
(18Oct2009 rev - Update 'Quantum Change Mixings' HotMeme™.)
(14Dec2009 rev - Repair typo 'I' to 'It' near end of QELR of 'complementary.' Remove legacy markups.)
(24,27Mar2010 rev - Add 'conscious, consciousness, etc.' Add index link under 'conscious.')
(2Apr2010 rev - Emphasize Einstein's list of failures.)
(11,17May2010 rev - Add 'negate' link under 'cancel.' Update 'complement' to include discussion of dialectical 'bivalence' of 'precludes.')
(3Jul2010 rev - Reset legacy markups.)
(28Apr2011 rev - Add 'What is Simple What is Complex Why Explain' link under 'change.')
(4May2011 rev - Add 'chance.')
(18Jul2011 rev - Add 'fractal' links to "How to do quantum~fractals.")
(8Aug2011 rev - Add link to 'wavefunction' under 'continue.')
(23Nov2011 rev - Add 'Chance' graphic link to Doug's QELR of 'quanta.' Reset legacy markups.)
(25-26Jan2012 rev - Update 'change' with chaos, equilibrium, and gradience memes and memeos.)
(9-10Feb2012 rev - Add 'conserve.')
(9Mar2012 rev - Update 'conscious' with a link to 'A Reservoir of Wave Function' graphic in Doug's recent A Primer on Quantum Cuneiform.)
(15Mar2012 rev - Add, under 'change,' a 'describe quantum c
hangæ as quantal ¤mnifluxings of quantons' link to A Primer Quantum Cuneiform graphic 'A Reservoir of Wave Functions.')
(10Jul2012 rev - Update 'complement' as a quantum~metaphor of "without contradiction.")
(11Jul2012 rev - Add a 'A_Primer_Quantum_Cuneiform.html#A Reservoir of Wave Functions' link under 'complement.')
(17-18Jul2012 rev - Add new QELR of 'chaos.' Add 'chaos' link under 'change.')
(3Aug2012 rev - Update 'contradiction.')
(23,30Dec2012 rev - Add link under 'quantum~complement' update. Update 'choice.')
(10Jan2013 rev - Update 'choice' with blue text markups.)
(31Aug2013 rev - Reset legacy updates. Update quantum~cancellation with a new quantum~symbol for cancellation.)
(11,19Sep2013 rev - Update 'conscious' with a link to new web page What Is Consciousness? Fix a double typo in 'cancel,' and add an imagine 'superpose.')
(26Mar2014 rev - Update 'complement.')
(16May2014 rev - Add 'quantadulation' detail and links under quintessences of quantum~choice AKA quantum~selection AKA quantum~heresy.)
(15Jul2014 rev - Add 'Ben' to 'chance.')
(4,6Sep2014 rev - Add link to Yishoqani under 'cancel.' Add 'quantum essence of choice' update.)
(2Dec2014 rev - Make page current. Reset legacy text markups.)
(10Jan2015 rev - Add 'Quantum Signature is Never Zero' anchor to omniscussion of signature borne of quantum~flux~phase~cancellation under 'cancel.')
(14Mar2015 rev - Add 'ensemble~quanta' link under 'cancel.' Reset legacy markups.)
(22May2015 rev - Update 'cancel' with, "h-bar issi quantum~reality's minimum signature.")
(1Jun2015 rev - Add 'Signatures' to pull down list under 'Chaos.')
(26Sep2015 rev - Reset legacy markups. Make page current.)
(2Nov2015 rev - Minor update to 'Choice.')
(7Dec2015 rev - Repair 'contraction' typo to 'contradiction' under 'complement.'