Words'

Quantonics' Quantum Remediation

of

English Language Problematics

for

Millennium III

Created

Master Index

Most recent additions-revisions marked

Item |
English Language Problematic |
Quantonics' QuantumRemediation ©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2026 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

'probability' |
Frank Plumpton in his 1926 "...The second view of probability as depending on logical
relations but not itself a new logical relation seems to me more
plausible than Mr. Keynes' usual theory;..." See Kyburg
and Smokler, Doug interprets Plumpton saying, "Probability does not depend upon 'logical relations,' rather it depends upon transemerqant (quanton(scintillation,quantization)) flux~interrelationshipings." From a Doug note 24May2011. Of course Quantum~Relativity issi quantum~flux~interrelationshipings and thus implicitly subjective. Too, those interrelationshipings represent evolving real Value in quantum~reality. Doug - 7Jun2011. Also, "...primary and irreducible assumptions are grounded
on a basis as much of the aesthetic as of the logical order."
Ending clause of Bernard O. Koopman, 1940, in his Classically, probability theory founds itself on many archaic
- probability is a theory about a material, objective, logical, rational, reasonable reality
- probability theory is, like all science, mechanical
- mathematics is a valid tool for expressing classical probability
- etc.
Most classical probability theorists believe that classical probability is purely objective. A few theorists believe that probability theory has mostly
subjective aspects, but can still be expressed mechanically using
objective tools like mathematics. Perhaps more prominent subjective
probabilists include If you have studied Quantonics well you know that quantum
reality exhibits some very n¤nclassical and to any classicist
some very queer, strange, and paradoxical phenomena, including
and so forth...(this list appears, at YE 2004, as unbounded). Adepts will note absence of a substitution for uncertainty.
This is a huge tell for what we are attempting to explain here.
Probability Quantum reality "How can that be?" Let's make a short list
of phenomena which quantum probability and heterogeneous animate
EIMA probability
interrelationshipings aphorize contradiction')
: a probability
is an islandic monism and its data ensemble is a pluralism! See
our recent 2004 What
is Wrong with Probability as Value?)
Classical probability theory appears to be evolving. Its ontology
might be viewed like this What's next? We believe quantum probability theory is next. Why? Current quantum mechanical theory would not even exist as
it is and be incredibly viable as it is were it not for subjective
probability theory! Simply, quantum mechanics does not work without
probability theory, where less objective and more subjective
appear What are some examples of this claim? We offer at least two which show a trial commencement yellow
brick road Chautauqua from classical to quantum - classical probability is a
**non****negative**,**additive**set function, with a maximum probability value normalized to unity, and - classical probability as a limit of relative
**frequency**. (See first couple of pages of Introduction,*Studies in Subjective Probability*, Kyburg & Smokler.)
We call number 2 a frequentist AKA empirical view of probability.
It is quantumly comtextual, which, to a classicist, So we can say quantum reality is non classically logical, and it is both evolute empirical and subjective. We assert then, quantum probability theories must be quantum real too. See wisdom, and gnosis. We say, then, number 1, perceived quantumly, is subjective. See our One is Onliest Number. Quantum reality is n¤t negational!
It is quantum c¤mplementary!
(Re Quantum reality is n¤t objectively particulate!
It is quantum wave-ic
and phase-ic! (Re Our two classical exemplars of probability offer proto-notions of a beginning classical re-cognition of a more quantumesque reality. See omniscriminate. As you study quantum science, especially if you study it here
in Quantonics, you will learn that, metaphorically, probabilities
are waves and waves are probabilities and quantum realities are
waves (we say, "quantum fluxings and isofluxings")
which can and do act (AKA pragma) as immaterial n¤nactuality,
immaterial actuality, and material actuality! Quantum reality
Further, classical 'zero' and 'one' are ideal, inanimate,
immutable classical So classical probability theory has preliminarily intuited some protoproemial quantum memeos, just as Dr. Stein innovated with his random walk quantum object model. Trouble is, classical theory is mechanical and objective. Quantum reality is neither 'mechanical' n¤r 'objective.' To us, that means that a viable theory of probability, a quantum theory of probability must give up classical notions of reality.
Comsider Classical probability distributions are mechanically numeric. Quantum pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤ns aræ n¤nmæchanihcahlly n¤mæric. Allow us to readily ¤mnistinguish classical notions of probability amd quantum mæmæos ¤f pr¤babililihty. Classical probability assessment depends upon mechanical ensembles of tautological recurrences. Quantum pr¤babilihty assæssmænt uhsæs ænsehmble pattærns ¤f sælf-sihmihlar frahctal ræcursi¤ns. As an example, we can ask a question, "What is Let's discuss classical notions of repetition vis-à-vis quantum mæmæos ¤f ræpætihti¤n. Classical reality is formal. Classicists both assume and presume putatively that formal process repeats exactly, over and over and over. This is their basis for experimentation, observation, verification, and validation of classical 'laws.' It makes an assumption that 'initial conditions' may be restored over and over as needed to perform 'scientific' experiments.
Quantum ræhlihty issi abs¤lutæly anihmatæ, amd ihts
mihddle issi ihncludæd
which
bælihæs ihntrinsihcahlly
any classical notions of ideal formality and
repetitive, tautological mechanicity.
Ræhlihties'
pr¤cæssings nævær
ideally,
classically, 'repeat identically.'
They
cann¤t
formally 'repeat!'
But
quantum ræhlihty
issi frahctal, s¤ ihts anihmatæ
pattærns tændings t¤ sharæ
modihca ¤f sælf~sihmihlarihty. Quantum pr¤babilihty
¤mniht¤rs this
anihmatæ, EIMA, frahctal~ræcursi¤n
¤f ræhlihty's
¤nt¤l¤gihcal
ihnterrelati¤nship
pattærns am¤ng quantum æmærgænce,
bæc¤ming, bæing, changing,
is¤bæc¤ming, is¤bæing, is¤changing, bæc¤ming... Studænts
sh¤uld ¤mnistinguish
caræfully ¤ur quantum sæmantihcs
f¤r quantum æmærgænce amd quantum bæc¤ming.
F¤rmær, ihn Quantonics
issi ¤mnihquæ, ¤ur
quantum mæans ¤f n¤vel quantum æmærgænce
(classically 'known' as a single one time 'unique
event').
Lattær issi quantum pr¤cæssings
¤f frahctal ræcursi¤n
sælf-sihmihlarihty, which issi a quantum bæing~ihn~ahctualihty
'sub Quantum ¤nt¤l¤gy scalæs. Thuhs wæ
can sahy quantum æmærgænce
scalæs. A supærb ræhl~lihfe
eample
¤f
what wæ mæan by quantum
æmærgænce issi appæarances ¤f
n¤vel n-s¤mias ¤n næarly ahll
23 What issi m¤st key hæræ issi a quantum mæmæo that quantum æmærgænces, duæ their ¤mnihquæness, d¤ n¤t ræpeat. Why issi that ihmp¤hrtant? Their pr¤babilihty may n¤t bæ assæssed! This issi why y¤u hæar D¤ug sahying that quantum ræhlihty issi a quanton(ihndætærminacy,only_apparænt_dætærminacy). Oftæn y¤u wihll hæar D¤ug ræfer this quantum mæmæo as "radihcahlly st¤chastihc." As you may be able to surmise, these two kinds of probability aræ vahstly ¤mnihfferænt ¤næ an¤thær. One is ideally mechanical while its quantum anahlogue issi ræhlly n¤nmæchanihcal. Classical probability drives out any notions of novel emergence. It drives out notions of choice, chance, and change. A serious error of classical judgment arises here when classicists assume their quantum mechanics can assess probability 'mechanically.'
Quantum pr¤babilihty
admihts ¤f ch¤¤sings,
chancings,
amd changings amd p¤tæntial f¤r
ræhl n¤vel æmærgænce
¤f ¤mnihquæ
amd umpræcædænted ræhlihties. Duhring
fihrst dæcade ¤f Millænnium
III, wæ have, as yæt,
n¤ mæans ¤f ømniht¤ring
gænuine quantum pr¤babilihty.
Why? Wæ d¤ n¤t
have gænæral quantum
computers wh¤se qubihts aræ gænæral quantum
qubihts. But nature alræhdy has
these capabilihties!
Where? Ihn,
f¤r
eample,
y¤u
amd mæ amd ahll ¤thær bi¤~'l¤gihcal' æmærqs. Nature's bi¤æmærqs
aræ quantum computers.
See
See our subjectiv and subjective. See our Bases of Judgment and our What is Wrong with Probability as Value. See our 2004 Quantum Reality Loop Generation III. See our recent Quantonics' How Classicists View Reality. Page top index. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2026 |

Quantonics, Inc.

Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass

Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730

USA

1-317-THOUGHT

(12Nov2002 rev - Add 'paratemporal' and 'pragmatemporal' links under 'persistence' remediation.)

(5May2003 rev - Add How Classicists View Reality link under 'probability.')

(11Oct2003 rev - Reset legacy red text.)

(24Feb2004 rev - Reset legacy add's. and rev's. and red text.)

(21Oct2004 rev - Reset red text. Allow all table and cell bounds to adjust freely.)

(28Oct2004 rev - Repair a very bad accidental QELR of some cells on this page.)

(3-4Nov2004 rev - Update 'probability.')

(12Nov2004 rev - Add anchor under 'probability' to monism~pluralism graphics and text.)

(18Nov2004 rev - Add 'Quantum Probability' anchor under 'probability.')

(27Nob2004 rev - Changed 'pluralism' to 'quantum~coherent~pluralism' under 'probability.')

(13-15Dec2004 rev - Extend classical table column content under 'probability.' Add more questions there. Add 'positive.')

(4,17,18May2005 rev - Adjust for an altered GIF under 'probability.' Add another update to 'phase,' and 'probability.')

(17Jun2005 rev - Reset red text.)

(27Mar2006 rev - Reset legacy red text.)

(25Aug2006 rev - Update our QLOs graphic with exemplars.)

(12Dec2007 rev - Reformat slightly.)

(30Oct2008 rev - Replace wingdings and symbol fonts with gifs. Reset legacy markups.)

(14Dec2008 rev - Add 'If some pattern only appears once' link to 'What Values Cannot Be Probable' in our

(9Oct2009 rev - Make page current. Add links to newer QELRs.)

(6May2011 rev - Add 'chance' link under 'chancings.')

(7,27Jun2011 rev - Add Plumpton quote and Doug's commentary. Repair date-year typo from latest update.)

(27Aug2012 rev - Update 'phenomena' list.)

(21Mar2014 rev - Add 'quantum relativity' under short list of phenomena.)