In original Latin 'fact' means sane-, profecto-,
-act, -do, -make, etc. Notice how this description
inheres classical modica of animacy. But sane qualifies
said animacy, and some animacies therefore, we infer via contraria,
must, at least classically, be insane.
In original Greek 'act' and 'action' mean pragma. Greek
'ast' means "one who does." Notice how these descriptions
inhere animacy, quasi~quantum~anihmacy.
Too, pragma is one of few Greek words which inheres anihmacy. There is much to ponder in this
There are some fascinating nexi here. Greek hypocrite
means 'actor.' What do actors do? Tentatively, reusably behave
as ideal hermeneuts! Amd what issi
quantonics ihn pr¤cessings
¤f teachings ab¤ut
quantum realihty? It is, from a
classical conspective, 'sophist,' 'subjective,' 'qualitative,'
and especially 'interpretive and hermeneutic.'
Paraphrasing Philip R. Wallace, "Interpretation (role-playing,
acting) involves according primacy to subjectivity over objectivity."
See Wallace's Paradox Lost. Quantum
Interpretation then might be referred, "deep role playing."
You may recall how Feynman and Dyson agreed that Einstein
"lost it" when he stopped his "deep physical role
playing" and started using mathematics to do some
"shallow playing" AKA "naïve realist radically
S¤ wæ can say, fr¤m a quantum hermeneutic
pærspæctive, a hyp¤crite
issi a pragmatihst amd a s¤phist. Wæ can als¤ say that act¤rs have
great p¤tential f¤r bæing amd bæc¤ming
Today, classicists objectify and immute 'fact.' What
happened to original Latin and Greek inherent animacy? (SOM
has ideally objectified 'fact.' They did something similar with
pragma: reverse engineered it to a less individual
and more social, communis vitae, Demos will 'practical.'
quantum realihty pragma aræ
EIMA mutable. Wæ,
ihn Quantonics, call them
quantons. Classicists, naïve realists, naïve localists,
SOMites, SOMwits call them "insanitons!" Why? Why do
they call quantons insanitons? Quantons aræ n¤t
ideally, classically, dialectically
Were wæ t¤ QELR
'fact,' wæ w¤uld have
t¤ bæings usings amd quantum c¤herings s¤methings likings thissings:
"c¤¤bsfective d¤ings." Quantons
aræ "c¤¤bsfective d¤ings."
Ihn quantum realihty
there issi n¤ anal¤gue
¤f classical immutable, unchanging 'fact.'
See Julian Jaynes' quote on fact
as superstition. What Jaynes describes is what classical
science does. For a more expanded view which describes
fact in terms of a mythos...
Page top index.
"false adj. Probably before 1200 false,
fals; developed in part from Old English (about 1000)
fals counterfeit, not genuine, and reinforced by reborrowing
in Middle English from Old French fals, faus, from
Latin falsus, past participle of fallere deceive,
disappoint. Old English fals was apparently a rare form
also borrowed from Latin falsus, from fallere.
The continental Germanic languages borrowed the word in an altered
form, as found in Middle High German valsch, (modern German
falsch), Old Frisian falsch, Middle Dutch valse
(modern Dutch vals), Icelandic falskur, Danish, Norwegian,
and Swedish falsk." Quoted from Barnhart's Dictionary
- "Never affirm a thing is 'not.'"
- "Negation is(si) subjective."
- versus and falsus as subjective
and quantum c¤mplementary
Classically dichon(false, true) and dichon(negative, positive)
are both perfect EOOO
constructions AKA pre 'di' cations AKA "affirmations."
versus). And dichon(negat, posit). And dichon(deny, affirm).
It is interesting that elite English practitioners usually
do not interpret falsity and affirmation as ideal opposites.
Apparently, though, some French elites do. Simply, elite
English appear not to accept affirmation on a level of oath
bearing absolute truth, where omnifferently some elite French
mot juste. Our French blood appears to run deep, so we
intuit said tendencies almost intrinsically.
Our discussion here is important in terms of deciding what
language can be genuinely ideal, formal, predicable, and oath-worthy.
Our hermeneutics desnouer, however, decrepit classical thing-king
places truth above logic (It also places truth and logic above
Good, thanks to that SOMwit Aristotle and his incogitant 13th
century protégé Thomas Aquinas!), and for sure,
that is what we uncovered in our uniquely Quantonic Bases of Judgment. Pirsig says
classical thought exhibits, "genetic defects in reason itself."
Henri Louis Bergson, about 100 years ago (i.e., 1907 1st
ed. of Creative Evolution), made a profound remark which
we believe alters classicism irrevocably:
"We shall never affirm a thing is not."
See Bergson's Creative Evolution, topic 39, p.
Of course, Bergson originally used French forms of negation
(non, mais non, aucun, ne...pas, etc., for example),
but we read his works in translated English and depend upon our
translators to render French in much more vulgar, simpler English.
So, in Quantonics we take our English 'not' above as classical
negation. Then we also hear Bergson loquaciously ejaculate, "Negation
All of this begs our intended query: "Would Bergson approve
our translation to 'We shall never verify a thing is not?'"
More specifically, in, say, a court of law, would Bergson
agree that we can say, "I testify, with a solemn pledge,
a formal promise, that no thing is or can be not?"
Our answer issi quantum~ "Yæs!"
It is then problematic that all classicists believe that negation
is a general 'objective' property.
Doug - 12Oct2005.
Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt
classical 'false' amd
quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'fahlse.'
In classical contexts, SOMwits believe
Ihn quantum comtexts MoQwihts bælihævæ quanton(fahlsæness,truth),
where ¤ur quanton's c¤mplæmænts
aræ quantum nægati¤nahlly
Ihn quantum ræhlihty thæræ
ihdæal amd abs¤lutæ
værihties amd falsihties.
thæræ aræ n¤
EEMD classical sobjects.
Basæs ¤f Jihudgmænt
What issi Wr¤ng
Pr¤babilihty as Valuæ?
Page top index.